Obama calls ordinary Americans racists
Bookworm on Jun 21 2008 at 5:39 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama
I’ve reminded you to be proud of your new age racism — a racism firmly based, not on Obama’s skin color, but on his political views, scary associates, corruption and incompetence. It’s becoming more and more clear that we all need to hang onto the fact that our Year 2008 racism problem is grounded in Obama’s policies, not his race at all. Why? Because Obama himself (as opposed to his various spokespeople) is coming out from under cover and being very blatant about calling average Americans really bad names:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid,” Obama said at the fundraiser. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Maybe it’s just me, but I fail to see the hope and unity in an American presidential candidate who doesn’t bother to attack his political opponent (that would be McCain), but instead launches a particularly nasty name-calling political attack against ordinary American voters.
Hat tip: LGF
Email This Post To A Friend
164 Responses to “Obama calls ordinary Americans racists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In short, the Republicans will do what Senator Clinton already did.
There’s this notion we all learned in school: “If I’ve got the name, I might as well play the game.”
I’m going to watch the race. The NASCAR race this afternoon. So I won’t be typing about this all day.
But the more posts I see about how bad (scary, socialist, you fill it in) that Obama is the more I am convinced I was right in the first place. Racism is alive and well in the US.
There are two kinds of racism: individual and systemic. Many people have left individual racism behind with out understanding that systemic racism hides behind PC language and racial profiling, that we silently condone.
If we do not speak out against the triple evils: racism, poverty and war, we are racist (not because of what we do to the black guy at wok) but because we do not really care if the playing field is level.
Too many people want to put the cart before the horse. First we must level the playing field, then we can compete. As long as we continue to compete on a field that is slanted, white people (as a group, not necessarily individuals) will always win.
Republicans scream “socialist” many times a day. And yet, they never come up with a better way to level the field (and thus, fight racism). Republicans want to talk “policy.” And yet all they do is try to blemish a good man’s character. This is “trying to make people afraid.” How is it “nasty” to say what blacks have been saying since the times of slavery?
How many times have I heard someone say they are “afraid” of Obama? Fighting racism, poverty and war is great way to establish peace. The US is a nation that was conceived in racism and needs to purge racism from her being. Voting for Obama is a perfect opportunity.
Now, as I said, I’m going to be busy. So don’t bother on my account to nitpick this statement. But nitpick, you will. So nitpick on.
I think Luntz is absolutely correct:
It’s not ideology that will decide the election but who can get things done.
“Obama and McCain may have captured their respective party nominations on the parallel themes of hope and heroism, but for floating voters, hope isn’t going to reduce the country’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and heroism will not fix the housing collapse or put struggling middle-class voters back to work. Pocketbook issues are as important as character concerns for these voters, and they will be watching closely over the next four months to see who can deliver. Period. History suggests that in times of anxiety and cynicism, Americans turn to a leader they trust to get things done.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-luntz22-2008jun22,0,6466236.story
I’m not going to nitpick anything, Helen. But reading your post I get the sense that I am reading a latter-day testimonial from a religious zealot of an earlier century. We are born in sin and Satan’s snares are everywhere, etc. I get the feeling that there is no emetic strong enough to purge racism from the nation and thus we will always be doing our penance and confessing our sins and reciting the dogma over and over again and twisting ourselves and society in all kinds of knots. What did Thomas Sowell write about the vision of the annointed, or Eric Hoffer about the true believer? Skip NASCAR, dear and read their books.
>>First we must level the playing field, then we can compete.>>
Not in this lifetime. We are not born equal, we will not die equal. There is no way to “level” the playing field in this life. That is not racism, that is life. Even Darwin recognized that some were “fitter” than others!
>>The US is a nation that was conceived in racism and needs to purge racism from her being. Voting for Obama is a perfect opportunity.>>
Helen this is such tripe.
Now I remember what Helen’s “belief” system reminds me of:
BFSkinner’s behavioral conditioning. We are what we are because of our nurture, and we cannot be other. If you deny it, and claim that you have free will, then that’s just because you’ve been conditioned to believe that. Perfectly circular thinking. No matter what you think, it’s because you’ve been conditioned to think that. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter – it’s all a matter of conditioning.
The US is a nation that was conceived in racism and needs to purge racism from her being.
Helen, are you so naïve to believe that bigotry/ethnocentrism/racism is unique to the United States? For example, I was called a “white m* f* c*” in Trinidad for the sin of wearing Bermuda shorts, in a country where shorts are very common among the locals. So it wasn’t as if I were violating the local customs. I was twice invited into houses in South America that featured prominent portrait of Adolf Hitler in the living room. I have never seen a house in the US that featured a portrait of Hitler. Do you think Obama would stand a ghost of a chance of being elected in Great Britain or in France? Would France or Great Britain have two black cabinet members? Sorry, Helen, when it comes to bigotry/ethnocentrism/racism, the US comes off pretty well. We are far from being the great sinner.
Regarding institutional racism. The schools in DC have been gross failures for years. By contrast, the schools in lily white North Dakota are fairly successful. Institutional racism? Research the money spent per student: as I recall, DC spends about twice per student as does North Dakota, and gets much worse results. Institutional racism? It ain’t that easy.
Voting for Obama is a perfect opportunity. ( to purge racism..)
Which reminds me of the old practice of buying papal indulgences. Pay the church some ducats, be purged of one’s sins and go to heaven. Vote for Obama, be purged of the sin of racism. Sorry folks, it ain’t that easy. Again, Helen, are you that naïve?
More about Obama. The guy’s just another politician.
http://130.80.29.3/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5808894.html
I have previously commented on the idea that racism can be purged. Love those blue links. Much more visible.
>>Now, as I said, I’m going to be busy. So don’t bother on my account to nitpick this statement. But nitpick, you will. So nitpick on.>>
Otherwise known as ” I can’t HEAAAARRR youuuu”…..
Is there an emoticon out there with fingers in the ears????
But we in America are “racist”….
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2008/06/out-damnd-spot-chinas-potemkin-village.html
Helen,
Thank you for sharing your opinions; thank goodness that you aren’t entitled to your own facts.
Your posts remind me of a quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan that the problem with leftist thinking is that it claims to divine intentions at a distance, and tries to turn every statement of fact into a question of motive.
If your are interested in some possible structural causes of “systemic racism”, you might want to read my comments #22 and #23 (if I may be so immodest) found in Bookworm’s post “say-it-loud-say-it-proud-i-am-a-racist”, before you hijacked that thread into a public examination of the state of your own immortal soul.
Nonetheless, I commend you on the jargon-free clarity of your prose — you are admirably clear on what you stand for.
Good comebacks, all of you. Helen is a socialist who sees the world through racism-colored glasses, and there’s no getting around that.
Helen said, “Republicans scream “socialist” many times a day. And yet, they never come up with a better way to level the field (and thus, fight racism).”
It’s all about leveling the field, i.e. equality of results. No wonder she likes Obama. The fact that he’s black – wow, like winning the daily double.
Any person who can call you a racist for arguing against the evils of socialism loses all credibility. She’s off on her own planet. Let her watch NASCAR. People going round and round in circles and never getting anywhere. Perfect.
We can’t win this argument with Helen. Reason doesn’t penetrate. But if you, like I, sometimes find that you can’t just sit there and read something like Helen’s comment without taking to your keyboards, then I surely understand that!
Judy –
I read your NASCAR comment and snorted I laughed so hard! How apropos.
Have a good week!
Deana
>>if you, like I, sometimes find that you can’t just sit there and read something like Helen’s comment without taking to your keyboards, then I surely understand that!>>
I agree with you 100%. The problem I see is that statements such as Helen make should not go unanswered. Not for Helen’s sake, but because you just never know who’s reading. Leaving statements such as she makes unanswered can leave the impression that there _is_ no answer – that she’s correct. I’d really hate for some impressionable soul to leave with that idea!
Hat tip LGF?
The loudest mouths at LGF will go capo when things get hot.
Helen –
Americans are not afraid of Obama the man, the individual. They are afraid of the policies he says he supports. It is not racist to listen to what a person says he believes, realize that you do not agree with that person’s ideas and beliefs, and then discuss your concerns with others.
You also just confirmed what I have suspected for a long time: many of Obama supporters are voting for him in part or entirely because they believe their vote for him will purify them of guilt they feel. It will make these people feel good about themselves.
That is one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives do not care whether a candidate makes them “feel good.” They don’t care. They just want to know what the candidates’ positions are, what they believe, what they want to see happen if they are granted the presidency. That’s kind of the point, you know?
Deana
suek, you’re right about not wanting to leave Helen’s comments go unchallenged. That’s why I do it too. But expecting Helen herself to acknowledge the validity of our arguments is futile.
Deana, glad I made you laugh. Sorry you haven’t figured out, though, that wanting to know Obama’s positions and what he’s going to do if he gets in office is racist. Baaaaaaad girl, Deana!
The C S Lewis essay dangers of national repentance is relevant to this discussion.
Deana,
RE: “You also just confirmed what I have suspected for a long time: many of Obama supporters are voting for him in part or entirely because they believe their vote for him will purify them of guilt they feel. It will make these people feel good about themselves.”
Not so. I got over the guilt long ago. I want to level the playing field. I want a black man to lead us. But it is true, I agree with his policies. I would have voted for any Democrat and supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. Actually John Edwards was my first choice.
But Obama makes it possible for me to vote for a Democrat and a black man simultaneously. If, on the other hand, the Republicans had nominated Condoleezza Rice, her race alone would not have convinced me to vote for her. Race alone is not my deciding factor.
Judy,
RE: ” . . . Helen herself to acknowledge the validity of our arguments is futile.”
Not so. See comments to Deanna.
If you truly believe that MCCain’s policies are better for the country than Obama’s, then it is obvious to me that you should vote for him. But what I’m saying is, a vote for McCain will do nothing to combat racism. A vote for Obama will. If fighting racism is important, a vote for Obama is the way to go.
And all who commented on my NASCAR watching,
I do serious work much of the time. But on weekends I watch NASCAR, which is a total break from reality for me. Note: I think it’s a way of life and a profession for those in it. But like other sports, to me, the outcome really matters little. Watching NASCAR is taking a break.
But FYI, Kyle Busch won.
Helen says, “Race alone is not my deciding factor.” If race is any factor at all, in your decision to vote for or against anyone, you are a racist.
But that’s about the definition of “racism,” DQ. I’m not going there.
“But what I’m saying is, a vote for McCain will do nothing to combat racism.”
Racism is so far down on the list of what worries me this election as to have virtually no importance at all. I don’t like McCain. I think he would do many things wrong. I like Obama even less. I think he would do more things wrong. What a pity we’re left with such poor choices!
I don’t care if we never have a black president. And I don’t care if every president we have from now on (after Obama loses) is black. I care what’s on the inside.
By the way, there’s nothing wrong with NASCAR. (Don’t tell anyone, but I’m occasionally drawn to watch “Deal or No Deal.”)
They’re
He means McCain supporters, of course.
I want to level the playing field.
You’d be a supporter of American Empire and demanding that Kurdistan and all the other American occupied and nations with American bases be able to apply for State hood, if you really wanted to level the playing field for humanity. But you don’t. You don’t because you only care to “level the playing field” here in America, for Americans.
Why else would you wish that except that you feel guilty about America or what Americans have done?
Alternatively, you could be isolatonist, but that would still contradict “progressive ideology”. At least, the superficial tenets of progressive ideology.
Race alone is not my deciding factor.
it is correct that concerning black politics, race isn’t really the deciding factor. Money, wealth, and influence are. If you are white and willing to kow tow to black politics, then you are golden. If you are black and aren’t willing to toe the line, then you’re bad. It is as simple as that, and it has little to do with race, except when it is convenient to make it so.
But what I’m saying is, a vote for McCain will do nothing to combat racism.
The same is true for Obama. Obama as President will do nothing to cure racism or make people more tolerant. An Obama as President will be the same as Arafat as leader of the Palestinians. There will always be another excuse for another race war and riot produced because ending race conflicts decreases the power of the autocrats.
But that’s about the definition of “racism,” DQ. I’m not going there.
Cause that usually just ends the argument right then and there, once we have defined racism to be different than your views, Helen. For how could, then, we be wrong for not voting in Obama if we wanted to eradicate racism, when your view of how to eradicate racism is exactly the racism we seek to get rid of?
First we must level the playing field, then we can compete.
Since Obama will never level the playing field, even assuming it can be leveled past a certain efficiency point, what we have is an autocratic class of elites and aristocrats that use their wealth and power to ensure that their autocracy maintains power. If in order to level the playing field, we have to vote Obama in, and then we can compete on “equal terms”, then this means all kinds of special treatment is justified on the part of Obama for his cronies and “friends” in order to “level” the playing field. Of course, the playing field will only get more skewed, and that just brings in more justification for why Obama needs to have more special privileges.
It’s a never ending cycle that is far more pernicious than any kind of “cycle of violence”.
And yet all they do is try to blemish a good man’s character.
Part of what makes good character in court is character witnesses. We have plenty of character witnesses on Obama’s character.
How is it “nasty” to say what blacks have been saying since the times of slavery?
Cause what makes slave revolts possible should not be the path people who are interested in real human progress should go on.
Fighting racism, poverty and war is great way to establish peace.
An Obama administration will send fear into the hearts of those who have established peace, ended war on the side of good, replaced poverty with capitalism, and replaced racism with national unity and patriotism.
The US is a nation that was conceived in racism and needs to purge racism from her being.
You may justify yourself by saying that you have purged your personal guilt, but all you have done is displaced it upon America. Erroneously, for that matter.
Nonetheless, I commend you on the jargon-free clarity of your prose — you are admirably clear on what you stand for.=gpc31
I think the commenters of Bookworm room have made it clear to helen that we would prefer clear statements of belief, rather than justifications which we will argue endlessly over.
It saves much more time now a days than what might have happened before.
Y., Precisely what I said, nit picking!
Helen, if Y’s response line by line to your comment is nit picking, then obviously all your original comment contains is a pile of nits. Is that what you meant?
Clarity of review and vision requires that you allow yourself to see what you are responding to. Given that you have never allowed yourself to see the true state of American and world history, helen, you are unable to manufacture the correction solutions to real problems.
The personal guilt aspect will never go away, regardless of how much you wish it to, so long as your personal motivations for race balancing remains in your displacement of personal vices unto the nation as national vices.
How can the nation be responsible for your or your race’s crimes?
Helen:
You’re just the kind of guilt ridden white person Obama wants to vote for him, because you seem to think that you can “level the playing field” and guarantee outcome, rather than opportunity. People like you are naive in the extreme and I really wish you didn’t have a voter registration card because you really are not bright enough to elect the leader of the free world and useful idiots like you shouldn’t be allowed to vote because you don’t understand the issues, and I bet, like most libs, you’ve never read a history book in your whole insular life.
Guess what? Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a socialist. Mussolini was a socialist. Russia was socialist until just recently. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are socialists…care to move to Venezuela? Do you want to wait years to live in a 1 room apartment and share a bathroom with all your neighbors? Is this the sort of government you want? You’d probably be the president of your local committe of snitches, spying on your neighbors and turning them in for ideological impurity….
What’s gonna happen when all the guys like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Congressional Black Caucus start wanting their piece of the Obama pie? Do you really want every black person in America to get a check for “reparations?” Given your previous posts, the answer is probably yes….but, did you know that there was an entire COMMUNITY of free blacks in New Orleans who were NEVER slaves? You gonna pay them? And what about black people who came to this country as indentured servants and were freed upon completion of their indenture? They were never slaves in the technical sense of the word either….you gonna pay their decendents too?
The last time I checked, it is against the law to deny housing and employment to anyone based on their religion, ethnicity and/or sexual orientation. How much more level does your field need to be? Do you feel so guilty that you’re willing to move to the ‘hood?
You really need to turn off the boob toob and pick up a history book. You might start with The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and learn a little about what socialism really is before you cast your vote for it. People like you disgust me. You haven’t a clue what you’re actually voting for because you are too lazy to pick up an actual book and find out what you’re voting for…sorry but there’s no Cliff Notes version of life and you’re taking short cuts with MY future too, and I don’t like it one bit.
Rock on, useful idiot.
Judy, LOL
I really meant, do you ever get the whole or just see the pieces?
**
Y., I went to grad school to see the “true state of American and world history.” And I did.
As for not ever losing “the personal guilt aspect will never go away,” you are wrong. Racism is sin: sin can be forgiven. Mine is. Jesus, remember?
There is personal racism (sin), and there is national racism (systemic racism, national sin). You did not parse the line that said that.
“There are two kinds of racism: individual and systemic. Many people have left individual racism behind without understanding that systemic racism hides behind PC language and racial profiling, that we silently condone.” From comment 3#. Pretend they’re bold.
A person can be forgiven for personal racism (maybe you have. I don’t know. OR, not ever feel guilty for it in the first place.) and continue to live in a country where systemic racism is present. An individual is responsible personally only for personal racism.
Neither you nor I ever held slaves nor did our grandparents. And if we treat blacks equally we hold no personal guilt. We didn’t personally write the constitution nor approve of slave and free states, etc. BUT we do get to vote now. Thus, we can use our vote to correct national systemic errors (sins), including racism.
You are so busy looking for some detail I might have gotten wrong that you fail to look for any grain of truth I might write. That’s silly. You are depriving yourself of information due to your own brilliant self.
We all know something worth telling. Talk to any two year old to prove this.
**
Duchess (that’s a mighty high opinion of yourself) Honey,
A level playing field is equality of opportunity. DUH.
AND DON”T CALL ME AN IDIOT!!! Attack ideas. Not character. I think that was part of my original point. People who think differently from you are not idiots. I’m not an idiot and neither are you.
People who want Obama to be president, regardless of reason, should have the right to vote. Some people sweat blood fro that right. Remember Fannie Lou Hamer? Or have you been too busy studying socialists?
Of course, every black person in American doesn’t need a check for reparations. Some of them have more money that I do (and maybe you, too. I have no idea how much money you have.) What black people want is an apology and money for the poor blacks.
I keep putting together the triple evils: Racism, poverty, and war. The must be fought together. See Martin Luther King Jr., “Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community” (1964)
As for picking up books. Honey, I have a MALS, mostly in African American history. My thesis on Martin Luther King Jr. is available through Wake Forest University. Try inter-library loan. That’s Helen Losse, “Making All Things New: The Value of Unmerited Suffering in the Life and Works of Martin Luther King Jr.” (2000) And yes, I own and have read most of the books in the bibliography.
Rock on, YOU NAME CALLING SELF-NAMED ROYALTY. You may think you’re a duchess but I think you’re a regular gal (a common Republican who hasn’t seen the underside and doesn’t want to).
History books don’t really do anything for you if you are unwilling to take a critical look at your assumptions in order to change them in the face of new and unknown factors.
I went to grad school to see the “true state of American and world history.” And I did.
Education is a life long advocation. It is not something one goes to school, acquires, and then no longer have to worry about.
Higher education these days is notoriously lacking in completeness and context. Especially if you chose a Liberal Arts college and vocation, which you did.
Racism is sin: sin can be forgiven. Mine is. Jesus, remember?
So Jesus gives a pass on sin for individuals, but not for America as a whole? Then how come for America to be redeemed, individual Americans must pay the price? This some kind of con game being run on technicalities or something.
An individual is responsible personally only for personal racism.
Yet it is the individual in America that pays taxes and gives the American government the power to do things. Unless you have forgotten where the power and wealth the US government has, comes from. There’s no way you can hold the American government or nation responsible without also holding individual Americans responsible for things they never individually did.
Thus, we can use our vote to correct national systemic errors (sins), including racism.
You can’t use the vote to correct things. The system either corrects itself or people elect people that will correct things and kick out people that don’t. Since Obama wasn’t born in slavery days and his ancestry came from Africa, who was part of the slave trade getting rich off Europeans, why would such an individual be able to “correct national systemic errors” that you assume to have originated centuries ago?
Duchess, just a friendly reminder that Helen is right — at my blog, we challenge ideas, not people. As it happens, I don’t agree with Helen’s ideas either, but she knows that she can come here to air them and defend them in an intellectually challenging, but not hostile, environment.
Helen knows, since I’ve been saying it for a long time, that once government puts down its heavy hand to create equality of outcome, things do become worse and worse for the citizens of that state. Since Helen is a very literary person, I recommend that she read Kurt Vonnegut’s wonderful short story, Harrison Bergeron (here’s a spoiler link), which envisions the efforts of a government committed to ensuring that no citizen feels bad because another citizen is better in any way than any other citizen.
The story is a good reminder that, as in math, socialist governments function in a lowest common denominator world. There is no doubt that I cannot be as fast as a famous athlete, as creative as a famous artist, and as successful, innovative and risk-taking as a famous entrepreneur. It is impossible to bring me up to them. It is entirely possible, however, using the massive weight of the government, to bring them down to me — to deny the athlete the right to practice (that would be Title IX, already in effect), to deny the artist a true outlet (look at the Soviet Union for Communist controlled art), or to allow the entrepreneur to use the market, creating wealth for himself and others (look at every socialist country that’s tried to manage the economy).
The only government that truly allows its people to freely be what they are is one that ensures a fair game and then gets out of the way.
But, Helen, you go there all the time, calling every white in America either a racist or a recovering racist, using your (in my humble opinion warped) definition of racism. If you can call people racists using your definition, surely I can call people racists using mine.
Duchess, I want to reinforce what BW said. Helen shows a lot of courage to post here knowing that the ideas in her posts will not usually be well received. Please respect her person, and attack only her ideas. Granted, we tend to use labels to describe groups of people (as when Helen attacks all white American as racist or recovering racist, or when I use “liberal” as a shorthand for a whole lot of ideas I think are wrong-headed). But personal attacks, like calling Helen an idiot, do not advance the dialogue and are not appropriate here.
Helen,
One thing I appreciate about you is your honesty. Many liberals cloak their intentions with a well-honed doublespeak.
I’m curious, Helen, what is your definition of racism. What is it that you are trying to atone for?
I noticed in a previous post you didn’t want to go down this road, but if we are not talking about the same thing, we’ll just be talking past each other and our blog voices will rise as we shout past each other.
The classic definition of racism is:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
The new definition of a racist, according to the University of Delaware is a white person.
Yes, DQ,
You can use your definition of racism. But it does nothing to advance the dialog, because I think Obama’s definition is closer to mine. And it is Obama’s ideas (not yours or mine) that should affect how we will vote in November, (not that I don’t think we bring ourselves and our experience to the table).
**
Y.,
My education is far from over. But liberal studies refers to history, art, literature, etc. as opposed to math and science (rather than liberal v. conservative). Would majoring in math give you a better sense of history? LOL
The concept of personal and national sin is Biblical (old and new testaments). And yes, Jesus died for personal sins. Nations will be judged differently.
And yes, the government’s power comes from individuals.
BrainE,
Racism is prejudice against people of another race (or color) and the power to keep people of that race as an underclass.
That’s why I keep emphasizing systemic racism. Many of us have little power to keep anyone anywhere. But the government (system) does have that power.
In the US, because of history (slavery, Jim Crow, etc), white people are the racists. Of course, black people can be racist under different circumstances. Racism exist first, then slavery and Jim Crow laws came, as a result of it (racism).
Helen…
How do you see the election of Obama “erasing” the national “sin”? Would _just_ his election accomplish this? or would more be required? In other words, if Obama were to be elected and sworn in, and the next day he dies – from whatever cause – would this still satisfy the requirement? or are you making the assumption that the policies he would be likely to enact be the determinant?
Suek, What you ask is logical. No, Obama’s swearing in wouldn’t be the end. Laws must be enacted that take us in this direction. Actually, I think – like the Holocaust – if we don’t keep the idea of “never again” in our midst, we’ll drift backwards. Racism is not anyone’s only sin. Never was, and never will be.
All you want is the playing field leveled – it’s time to grow up, y’know? Can’t do it any younger. Are any playing fields anywhere ever level in life? Is everyone’s IQ the same? Is the desert as capable of growing food as the Ohio River valley? Has your pal Jesus ever concerned himself at any time with a level playing field? (If so, the report didn’t make it into the bible.)
All ANYBODY – black, white, red or yellow – ever wants is an apology and some money. (And the freedom to eat whatever they want and never gain weight.) I never wandered in the desert for forty years; I was never buggered in a Turkish prison; I never owned a slave; I never was a slave – and neither were you. I don’t feel guilty about things that happened before I was born, and quite frankly probably wouldn’t have felt particularly guilty about it even had I been there: it was the way the world was, and most people – including Jesus – evidence little guilt over the normal. You cannot fairly apply a 21st century “enlightened” (if that’s what it is) consciousness to previous generations, and, rightly or wrongly: slavery goes back to the beginning of humanity. (Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad among others, found nothing wrong with it.)
They can feel guilty if they wish, or you can: I don’t. I didn’t do it, and don’t see much point in apologizing for things I didn’t do.
And reparations? Well hell: I’m Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Get your wallet out, England! Branches of my family have been getting oppressed, stepped on and killed by those Limey b******s for 900 years – this whole country’s only 232 years old. Whatever anybody plans to give in reparations here, I’ll take just three times that amount from the Queen for what I’m owed. What do you figure my chances are, Helen?
What do you figure my chances SHOULD be – as I am, after all, white. (So what’s really the issue: the oppression or the color of the oppressed?)
I don’t notice “correct racism” as an option on my ballot, either. If that’s code for “vote for Obama,” then no.
See, I am so free of racism I can look at him and mutter to myself: “there’s a stupid and dangerous man,” and not concern myself with anything else. Can you, I wonder? Are you such a great liberal that you’d vote for him if he were a white guy, and unable to think any better than he seems able to?
Or is it all about the fact that he’s a black guy, and no matter what comes out of his mouth you’re determined to atone (doubtless on my behalf) for some sin you never committed?
I think it’s all about that he’s a black guy. I think that precisely because I know you’re not stupid, Helen: I know you see the lies, contradicitons, etc., etc. he spews. And I just bet you wouldn’t ignore them if he were a white guy.
So is it fair to say that for you his color is the most important part? If so, then the racist in the room is you.
>>Laws must be enacted that take us in this direction.>>
What kind of laws do you see that would take us in the direction you think we should go?
Laws that redistribute wealth and make health care possible for all Americans. We might be surprised how well people could compete, if they had the same medical benefits as others. How about day care for mothers who work? As is. it cost almost as much as some people make to have care for their children. What’s the incentive to work harder, if you can’t get ahead. Help in buying reasonable housing. Everyone needs food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their children and a bit left over to be “American” with, that is “To keep up with the Jonses.” We have enough money, if we just learn to share.
Helen, I am curious: is “Losse” your real name? If so, it would suggest that you are white and of Germanic origin.
Frankly, Bookworm’s tribe has suffered greatly over the ages from the depredations by Germanic peoples. You should be ashamed!
I think that you should send her a nice fat check. What say you?
Once you do that…I am sure that Bookworm will forgive and bless you for it, perhaps putting a mark of proper atonement on your forehead.
As half-French, half-German in origin, I will send you a similar request for a check, but only for half the value, to atone for the German depredations against the French (and Jewish) sides of my family during WWII.
Naaaaah….tell you what…let’s just let bygones be bygones.
Peace!
>>Racism is prejudice against people of another race (or color) and the power to keep people of that race as an underclass.>>
How do you define an underclass? Poverty level?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov24.html
is an interesting table. It shows that from 1987 to present, percentage of blacks below the poverty level have decreased. Whites have increased.
The question is what can government do to enable blacks to raise themselves economically. What responsibility do blacks themselves have?
Of course, then you have that other problem – defining poverty. Unless everybody is absolutely equal in assets and income, someone has less than someone else. If those who have less are considered de facto as below the “poverty” level, then the result is effectively defining someone into poverty. If you look at the conditions defined as “poverty level” 50 years ago and compared them with “poverty level” at this time, my guess is that there would be those considered at poverty level or below today who would not have been at that time.
>>Laws that redistribute wealth and make health care possible for all Americans. >>
So you think it just to steal from those who have earned their wealth in order to give it to those who have not?
Helen,
You told DQ that your definition of racism is closer to Obama’s than his. How closely aligned is Obama’s definition with Wright’s?
Or are we to assume that by denouncing Wright’s views in this speech on March 18, Obama doesn’t or never held the view that being white in Armerica makes you a racist.
Obama’s speech is right– it certainly doesn’t advance the cause of unity in America to hold to Wright’s position.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords
“In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. “- Barack Obama
What I’m concerned about is that Obama’s view of racism is closer to Wright’s than he is willing to admit.
The campaign hasn’t even begun, and Senator Obama is accusing white folks of whispering “he’s a black man” as a code word that is more powerful than any disagreement with his policies ever could be.
If he’s not willing to accept that our objection to him as President is his Marxist leanings– why should I accept that he was sincere in objecting to Wright’s own racist views? Or can Wright’s views be considered racist since he’s not white?
As a Christian we are told that true religion is performed by “taking care of widows and orphans.” But as a Christian you are aware that the central purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross was personal redemption– not social redemption.
I make this point from the book of Philemon– where Paul tells the slave Onesimus to return to owner and asks Philemon to accept him back as a brother and to not treat him harshly.
Please do not misunderstand what I am saying– Slavery is an abomination, and Christians are not absolved from practicing ‘true religion’, but the good news that Christians proclaim is that our sins have been forgiven, that our relationship, severed by our rebellion against God can be restored.
Do you honestly think though, that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are looking for an apology? IMHO they are profiteers trading in misplaced guilt, always demanding more than is given.
I started this reply before I read your reply. I think that definition is too simplistic. The genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus was steeped in racism. The recent deaths of Kikyus and Luos in Kenya is seething racism. I think racism has its roots in tribalism, and it doesn’t take different colors or races to be racist.
Tiresias, I couldn’t help but laugh when you demanded reparations from the Brits, because it reminded me of my old line about the fact that my family, on both the Christian and non-Christian sides, has been kicked out of every country in which its ever lived, up until the family line hit Israel and America.
Going as far back as we know, on the Jewish side (my Dad and my Mom’s paternal grandparents), we’ve been kicked out of Spain, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Romania and Germany.
On the non-Jewish side, we were kicked out of France (the St. Bartholomew’s massacre), Germany (Napoleonic troops), Belgium (German troops both during WWI), and Holland (German troops during WWII).
And of course, my Mom was imprisoned by the Japanese — who never paid a penny in reparations.
My parents left Israel, where they were welcomed, on a voluntary basis to try to make it in America. We’re still here in America and, thank God, no one shows any signs of trying to kick us out.
So, by my reckoning, since the sins of the father apparently transcend many generations under the liberal standard of restitution, I am owned money and a home from the Spanish, Russians, Polish, Hungarians, Austrians, Romanians, Germans, French, Belgians and Dutch (with the last two responsible for failing to protect the goyish side of the family from the Germans). It would be nice if the Japanese would actually step up too, since it’s not a generational thing: they actually imprisoned my mother, starved and tortured her.
If all these culpable nations would just acknowledge their wrong-doing, I could be rich beyond my wildest dreams of avarice. But frankly, I’m simply grateful to live in America and have the opportunities I have.
Here’s a report with info on poverty level and health coverage. It looks to me like blacks aren’t doing as badly there are Hispanics. Of course, then you get into the legal and illegal thing. I suppose you think people shouldn’t have to pay to buy a ticket?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
Pages 27 to about 34 are most relevant, I think. It only covers 2005 and 2006.
It’s amazing what Asians have managed. How do you account for that?
It also looks like the worst category is the household with a single female with children. If you look at the per individual level, hispanics are the lowest – probably because they are usually two parent, one income families, I’m guessing.
BrianE,
I can’t tell you what Obama thinks. But he distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright for political reasons. That is, to appeal to a larger group of voters. Jeremiah Wright said that. He said Obama does what he has to do as a politician, and I do what I do as a minister of God. Obama has no problem with Wright, except maybe annoyance. (That’s opinion. I haven’t spoken to either of them.) Jeremiah Wright is right on. he tells it like it is. And like many black preachers do. Wright is a prophet. God doesn’t have to damn America. It’s not too late. But we must act. And yes, I do think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are looking for an apology and a change of direction that show the apology is real. This is what I think Obama thinks. I cannot speak for him, but I am doing my best to see what he is saying.
**
Danny,
Losse is my married name. His family came from Germany. My background is English. My Dad, an American soldier, married my mother in England during WWII. My mother is a naturalized citizen.
Do I still owe money?
**
Suek,
If you call paying taxes “stealing,” then yes.
Racism, poverty, and war fought together. Yes, poverty crosses racial lines. Hungry=hungry= need food. Solution: Food, regardless of race. In war, Dead=dead=war bad. Solution: Don’t shoot, regardless of race. Fight war and poverty along with racism. Or it won’t work. RACISM IS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM ON EARTH!!!
**
Helen: “Laws that redistribute wealth …”
I don’t have figures, and I don’t know if anyone has ever calculated this, but I think I read somewhere if all the money owned by the “rich” were redistributed so that every man, woman, and child in the U.S. had the same amount of money, then everybody would be poor.
That may or may not be true, but what is true is that all people would be robbed of incentive. Incentive to invent anything, incentive to build anything, and even incentive to give anything.
Where would the next generation of technological advances come from? Where would jobs come from, if nobody had reason to create businesses? Where does Helen think wealth comes from? (Helen, feel free to answer.) Yes, everybody would have the same amount of money, but nobody would have the incentive to produce any goods for them to buy. And soon, nobody would have jobs, and we’d all just be sitting around waiting for the government to print more money. And it would be good for nothing except to light crack pipes – which would be in good supply because there will always be a black market for things that dull the pain of boredom and lack of purpose.
And the people who refuse to live that way – they’d be long gone.
That’s what I see as the logical extension of redistributing the wealth.
How’s that for a fable?
Yes, Helen, paying taxes to redistribute income is stealing. Solutions to the issues of race, poverty, war:
Race — Get past it. Ignore it. Strive for a color-blind society.
War — Do just enough to preserve our freedoms against internal and external attack. No more. No less.
Poverty — Give everyone an opportunity to get out of poverty. Make sure that everyone who works hard and does their best does, in fact, get out of poverty. Prosperity is not a right.
By the way, how do you define poverty? The “poor” in America are rich by most standards. The vast majority of the “poor” in America have a roof over their head, clothes on their backs, food in their bellies, not to mention internal plumbing, cars, televisions and cell phones.
America has always been the land of opportunity because here, more than anywhere else in the world at any time in history, hard work was rewarded and the poor did not need to remain poor. And they did it without nationally financed health care, day care and all the other goodies you’re so eager to take people’s money to hand out to everyone, whether they work hard or not.
I’m quite willing to help out those who work hard and try to achieve. I reject without qualification the “right” of anyone to use the power of government to steal the money I worked hard to earn and give it (in cash, health care or any other services) to someone who works less hard than I do.
>>If you call paying taxes “stealing,” then yes.>>
How do you justify this theft?
>>How about day care for mothers who work?>>
How about we offer a stipend for mothers who will stay home and care for their own children until the child enters school, while also offering them a continuation of their education (with child care during the time they are in classes) ? (offer to include mandatory birth control implants so that no more children are conceived during the period between when the first child is born and same child goes to school)
Oh yeah…also want to include in that equation mandatory classes for Mom on child development, nutrition and health information.
Helen,
Tell me how I could support a politician that distances himself from a position he believes– that all white folks are racist, to ‘appeal to a large group of voters’?
Isn’t that dishonest? I know, I know– that’s part of the definition of politician. But isn’t Senator Obama supposed to be a new kind of politician?
I gathered from the post that you believe he still holds the positions of Reverend Wright, even though he condemned those sentiments. What, did he have his fingers crossed?
I believe that you’re naive to think Sharpton and Jackson are anything but racial panderers.
Here is McCain’s stand on slavery:
“Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Wednesday the Senate should apologize for slavery and segregation, calling them “dark chapters in our history.” This is from an article last fall. I will add that he hasn’t signed on as a sponsor of a senate bill proposed by Senator Brownback, though.
I think we should apologize for the “Great Society” that trapped inner city African-Americans in a cycle of poverty and dependence and has compounded the problems facing this country while transferring hundreds of millions of dollars from the ‘wealthy’ to the poor– for what affect?
Maybe if we had transferred hundreds of trillions of dollars it would have worked.
In reality, we only appreciate what we have sacrificed for and we all need the pride that only comes from achievement– none of which was included in the massive welfare giveaway that has been going on for the last 40 years.
I do believe in helping people. But help that endures won’t be found in a welfare line. As a Christian you are probably aware of II Thess. 3:10: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat…”
I think too many liberals want to help people they pity.
The world has real problems of racism that I believe are more important than perceived injustices in America.
Rwanda– 500,000 to 1 million massacred, more displaced.
Sudan– millions displaced, estimates 200,000 killed.
Kenya– 1,000 killed, 250,000 driven from their homes just this year.
Zimbabwe– A country on the brink of extinction
Uganda– A country of children as AIDS has decimated the adult population
Liberia– 200,000 killed in two civil wars spanning two decades
Somalia– 500,000 casualties.
Congo civil war- 800,000 dead.
These are conflicts in the last two decades.
These are the relatives of African-Americans.
Helen,
And another thing we can disagree on!
As a former circle track driver, I moved on to cars the also turn right.
Check out the ALMS (American Lemans Series) on Speed TV. These are cars that you can actually buy. At least the GT1 and GT2 cars.
I lost interest in NASCAR when they went to restrictor plates and templates that basically made all cars similar– except when they wanted to “equalize” the different manufactures aerodynamics.
Come to think of it– that’s probably why you like NASCAR– an organization trying to make every car equal!
Brian
Brian…
Do you know what the handicapper’s job is on the race track(equestrian type)? His job is to evaluate each horse’s racing record including the weight they’ve carried and then assign a weight for the horse to carry for the particular race he’s handicapping. His goal is a race where all the horses cross the finish line in a dead heat.
You probably know how successful handicappers are!
So…what Helen wants is for the government to become the ultimate handicapper. Since it would probably be equally successful, the government just makes all right by taking away the extra goodies that some people have managed to acquire! There. All done. Everybody equal.
Yeah,
I think the story Bookworm was referencing by Vonnegut was “The Handicapper General”.
New cabinet post coming under an Obama administration.
And Helen, I admire your perseverance! It must feel like everyone is ganging up on you.
So Helen:
You’re all for “redistributing wealth?” Exactly whose wealth are you proposing to steal? That’s the problem with socialism of your kind…it’s actually REgressive. You propose to take the result of somebody’s productivity and redistribute it to somebody who is less productive….uhm, do you expect the producer of the wealth to continue to be productive so that the government can steal his excess and give it to his slacker neighbor? I think not…the producer would have no incentive to produce any more than meets his needs because he doesn’t want the excess confiscated, I mean redistributed, by the government.
As for racism in this country….institutional racism is gone. Laws HAVE been passed to counter it and it is no longer legal to deny housing or employment to someone just because they are black, gay or female
Sure, there are probably people still alive who don’t like blacks, and there are plenty of blacks who see all white folks as the enemy too, but of course, blacks can’t be racists, right? *eyeroll*
Perhaps you don’t understand that what you are doing is practicing the soft racism of low expectations. It’s you who feels that blacks are not whatever enough to be able to succeed in today’s world and feel like they shouldn’t be held to the same standards as the rest of us. YOU are the racist. Affirmative action is nothing more, in this day and age, than soft racism….blacks CAN’T compete with the rest of us, so we have to give ‘em a head start. Hogwash.
Barak Obama is a fraud. He’s a con-man, a flim flam artist and snake oil salesman par exellence, and he’s using the brickbat of white guilt to bludgeon the white liberals among us into voting for him based on nothing more than his skin tone. I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough for me. America is more than ready for a black president, a female president, or a gay president, but only if that person reflects American values. Obama is anything but. He’s a dyed in the wool Marxist student of Saul Alinsky who will push our country further into socialism than it’s ever been, and I will not vote for him under any circumstances, let alone to assuage my white guilt. Sorry but atoning for the sins of my father’s father is no reason to vote for anybody.
“It must feel like everyone is ganging up on you.”
Actually, I went out to run some errands, BrianE.
If I actually thought it were my job to convince everyone of my views, I’d be really down. But I don’t.
Would majoring in math give you a better sense of history?
Given that liberal arts history is about 2 plus 2 equals whatever I want it to equal, yes it would.
But the government (system) does have that power.
So your solution is to give that self-same government more power, and to the party that has historically fought to continue black slavery?
Not very logical of you.
Laws must be enacted that take us in this direction.
Not sure what more Jim Crow laws are going to do on that vein.
Laws that redistribute wealth and make health care possible for all Americans.
Putting blacks and whites into a cage and then calling it government health care is not anti-slavery.
We might be surprised how well people could compete, if they had the same medical benefits as others.
So a person will compete more for Job A using government healthcare than Job A using private healthcare?
So when everyone has Job A, what happens to the competition? There is no competition. Indeed, people will be surprised by how few people could compete after such an event.
If nobody suffers the disadvantages of having less money, meaning paying for day care, why would they want to compete harder to earn more money? This isn’t about competition, since the government cannot be competed with. That’s a monopoly you are creating there, helen.
So Duchess, You call me names. Bookworm and DQ call you on it. But then you say “Barak Obama is a fraud. He’s a con-man, a flim flam artist and snake oil salesman par exellence, . . . ”
Be like that.
Seems you don’t know how to discuss without name calling. I give up on you.
Y.,
“So a person will compete more for Job A using government healthcare than Job A using private healthcare?”
No, having health care period, And therefore seeomg a doctor when necessary, rather than self-medicating.
And does no one create for sheer joy? Does no one try to bake a more perfect apple pie than last time, just so one’s family can eat it? Does no one plant flowers for their beauty?
I am so glad I am me.
“If nobody suffers the disadvantages of having less money, meaning paying for day care, why would they want to compete harder to earn more money?”
television sets, CD players, DVD players, clothes, shoes (if a woman, more shoes), new carpet, paint the house, eat out more often, piano lessons, . . .
And does no one create for sheer joy?
That may be nice for individuals but it doesn’t work for national policy.
television sets, CD players, DVD players, clothes, shoes (if a woman, more shoes), new carpet, paint the house, eat out more often, piano lessons, . . .
And what will stop your government that you voted into to redistribute wealth from redistributing those things as well?
You don’t have any say at all once you elect an Obama administration.
It amazes me how the jump goes: Obama to socialism to communism to Oh my God Russia as though there could be no other path.
Redistribution of wealth goes: From insanely rich/poor to everyone poor. No in between. No insanely rich with four mansions to just one mid-sized mansion and 463 other families in small duplexes on same amount of money.
Redistribution doesn’t mean making everyone equal. It means giving everyone a chance. It might not affect you at all, Mike. Just people who are stupid-rich and those who don’t have enough to compete. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “It is cruel to tell a man to pull himself up by his bootstraps, if he has no boots.”
Time to make home-made pizza.
Helen, what would you do about all the people who would decide they just don’t want to work? If all wealth is distributed so that everyone gets an equal share, why work at all? Would you create a requirement that all able bodied people have to work? (Sounds like slavery to me!) Would you jail them if they refused? Would you cut off their government paychecks and let their children go hungry (or go without their i-Phones – which, by the way, Steve Jobs would have no reason to make any more)? Or would you be content to just let everybody sit around, if that’s what they chose to do, watching NASCAR?
And by the way, I might be inclined to make a better apple pie as a treat for my family, but I sure as hell am not going to spend my life in a hot kitchen making apple pies for everybody without the incentive of making a profit (and by that I mean more of a profit than I’d make curled up on the couch watching Deal or No Deal).
“No insanely rich with four mansions to just one mid-sized mansion and 463 other families in small duplexes on same amount of money.”
And here are the questions you never answer: Who decides? Who decides how big that mid-sized mansion should be? And who bothers to create something that earns him enough money to build four mansions if he’s only going to get one mansion in a size to be determined by somebody else? And if you take 4/5 or 9/10 of what somebody earns, why isn’t that slavery?
These are the important questions, Helen.
Helen:
Barak Obama has put himself in the public crosshairs, running for the highest public office in the land, and if I want to refer to him as a con, that is STILL my right. The last time I checked, it’s ok for me to say what I please, as long as I don’t yell “fire” in a crowded public venue. It’s the liberals that are all about punishing hate speech (which, BTW is anything they don’t agree with), and because he is a public figure, he can’t even sue me for saying that he’s a fraud.
Suck it up, honey and in the words of the Messiah Obama to the women of his party…”get over it.”
You and your socialist fellow travelers and useful idiots are blindly following this…this…FRAUD down the merry rose strewn path to hell and you want the rest of us to go too. No thanks. If you want to go the way of the Third Reich, be my guest, but I’m no liberal lemming to throw myself off the cliff of socialism. Fortunately for the socialists among us, I believe that there are still enough sane adults who actually READ history books and have critical thinking skills enough to understand the wolf ticket this man is trying to sell the American public.
This is so not about race. It’s about class and about the pervasive sense of entitlement among the lower classes without the work ethic to match. Instead of shielding our children from reality, we need to teach them MORE about reality, history, mathematics and how to freaking THINK for themselves instead of just believing everything they see on video as the gospel truth. Of course, the Marxist playbook states that the dumber the population is, the more easily they are satisfied with the 21st century equivalent of the Roman “bread and circuses.” Just in case you don’t know what that is, the Romans would give a ration of free bread, and stage the games in the Circus Maximus to keep the “head count” (that would be the poor and unwashed masses) happy with their lot in life while the upper classes pretty much ran their lives. Sounds alot like what you’re advocating.
If you want to live in the land of butterflies and birds where everybody links arms and sings Kumbayah before they go to bed at night, go right ahead, but I, for one, still have my critical thinking skills that were developed before the liberals got a death grip on our schools and reduced education to indoctrination. I had a conversation with a 27 year old woman the other day who didn’t have a clue that Hitler was a socialist! She didn’t even understand what socialism means until I explained it to her and then she’s like “oh, well I don’t want THAT.” THIS is what passes for a public education these days? It’s no small wonder that the golden tongued liar that Obama is can fool these folk. They haven’t got a clue….
John McCain would do well to hammer the fact that Obama is a socialist, then tell the world exactly what socialism is, not the warmed over post cold war pap that the kids learn in what passes for our public educational system these days.
Helen, how would you respond to this example of “structural racism that pervades this institution [Columbia]“?
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/06/columbia-fires-noose-professor.html
**************************
From the blog site:
“You may recall the very suspect noose hanging incident at Columbia University last fall revolving around Professor Madonna Constantine. From the very beginning the incident smelled incredibly fishy and the university stonewalled any real investigation from the outset, although that didn’t stop the PC mob from issuing demands before any real investigation could commence.
Though lo and behold, once the incident and other matters pertaining to Constantine were examined more thoroughly it became evident that Constantine herself was under suspicion, and one of the main reasons is she was enveloped in a very real plagiarism scandal.
Well, in what I must admit comes as a shocker, Constantine has been fired by Columbia, pending an appeal, naturally.”
….
“It bears noting her dismissal comes after an 18-month probe into the plagiarism charge, meaning they were ten months into the investigation when the noose incident conveniently occurred.
The letter, obtained by The New York Sun from a source at Teachers College, said the faculty advisory committee upheld an 18-month investigation by a Manhattan law firm, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, which found that Ms. Constantine had plagiarized two dozen times works of two former doctoral students and a former colleague.
“During the months since the College levied sanctions against her,” the letter said, “Professor Constantine continued to make accusations of plagiarism, including in at least one instance to the press, against those whose works she had plagiarized.”
When news of the plagiarism investigation became known in February, Ms. Constantine strenuously denied the charges. In addition to saying that it was she who the victim of plagiarism, Ms. Constantine said the school targeted her because of the “structural racism that pervades this institution.”
***********************
Charges of racism should not be flung lightly. Calling racism “structural” makes it impossible to remove and absolves individuals of the need to change their own behavior when warranted. All it does is breed paranoia and resentment. Playing the race card backfires on those it purports to help.
Duchess, I don’t think it’s a class thing anymore. I live in a richer than rich — and bluer than blue — community. It’s bizarre to me to see Obama bumperstickers on the back of Mercedes, Hummers and Beemers. These people are not voting their class interest. They’re all precisely like Obama — people who, through their education and social networking, have bought hook, line and sinker into socialist ideology without having any idea of the impact it will quickly have on them.
Believe me, these are not nascent martyrs. They love their privileged lifestyle. They also are generous enough to want to see more Americans enjoy the same lifestyle. Through America’s educational system, however, they’ve been sufficiently brainwashed that they believe that only the government can provide this life. They don’t see that they got as rich as they did because the government wasn’t in the way and that, once they give the government a head of steam, no one will be rich, privileged or even happy anymore.
All of this is old hat, rephrased in new terms. In the old Soviet Union when you went against the plan you were a “wrecker.” Now you’re a racist.
Lenin and Mao publicly decried the cult of personality, while pursuing it. Obama is above all that.
Redistribution doesn’t mean making everyone equal.
Given that you recognize, it actually makes things worse. For if redistribution was not meant to make everyone equal, how could you justify, then, making people still more different and unequal.
It’s one thing to change America’s current status from imperfect but good to perfect utopia. It’s quite another thing to change the hard work of generations solely because your personal whims have said that things will be better, but still not perfect, once the people you put into power has made a few changes to things.
Duchess, I don’t think it’s a class thing anymore.
It never was a class thing for if you look at historical revolutions and rebellions, they were almost always funded, instigated by, and manipulated by the rich for their own goals.
Revolutions and rebellions take money and you can’t get money from dirt poor farmers.
That’s jst a law of economics, and also the law of warfare.
Helen says, “Redistribution doesn’t mean making everyone equal. It means giving everyone a chance. It might not affect you at all, Mike. Just people who are stupid-rich and those who don’t have enough to compete.”
Well, there’s the problem right there. This is America. Everyone here has enough to compete already. America still rewards hard work and gives every person (okay, every able-bodied and able-minded person) a chance. Helen is trying to give people what they already have.
By the way, regarding day care, bearing children is not a right. If you can’t afford children, don’t have children.
DQ,
“Helen is trying to give people what they already have.”
How I wish that were so. Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out that “it is cruel to ask a man to pull himself up by his bootstraps, is he has no boots.” Comparing American poverty to the gut-wrenching deeper poverty of third world countries may give poor Americans a reason to be thankful for what do have, but it does not give them the necessary tools to compete in the market place in America. So it’s really a moot point.
“. . . regarding day care, bearing children is not a right. If you can’t afford children, don’t have children. ”
No, it’s a commandment given by God.
And one of the biggest arguments used (by some, not you) against gay marriage.
Poor people do not think like middle-class people, who feel one should be financially ready to have children. Poor people don’t have many material “blessings,” and now they can’t have sex either? How ’bout that “pursuit of happiness.” It sure doesn’t apply to poor people.
Poor people can have all the sex they want.
But who says that a 16 year old girl, who hasn’t even completed her education is ready to be a mother just because her womb and ovaries are ready? These are the people who remain in poverty because of their life choices early on. If a woman has 2 or 3 kids by the time she’s 20, her chances of raising herself out of poverty are severely reduced….if she completes her own education first and gets her life started properly, not only does she have a better chance of getting out of poverty, so too, do her children.
Also, what about the fathers? These days, young women are not concerned overmuch about having babies by men they would not consider marriage with under ordinary circumstances, because the Great Society of the 60s effectively removed lower class men as the de facto providers for their progeny and replaced them with a check, thus making these bad decisions possible…even probable.
But of course, Socialism isn’t about the poor. It’s about control.
Hi Helen:
Had to step out of this thread for a while, so I need to catch up.
Thank you for sharing your English origins with us. Instead of sending the reparations check to Bookworm (on behalf of your husband), I would instead like to recommend that you send it to all the “African” Americans (i.e., the real ones) who migrated here from former British colonial Africa, the West Indian blacks who migrated here (descendants of sugar plantation slaves), Irish Americans, and Indian Americans (both those from India and so-called “native” Americans). I think that you will find them quite a forgiving lot…especially if you send them a BIG check.
I, of course, being a man with a big heart, have forgiven anyone with English ancestry for any past wrongs, real or perceived, that they may have inflicted on my French, Jewish, German and Dutch family members. In fact, I openly acknowledge my debt to the Brits for the gifts the English have bestowed on my civilization and my country.
So, thank you, Helen…for what your English ancestors bestowed upon us. All else is forgiven.
Bookworm – I understand what you posted about the upper-income Lefties in Marin Countyr voting against their “class” interests. For what its worth, I view it as “cheap grace”. They only vote that way because they believe that they are immune. Raise taxes? Trust funds (Google “Kennedy” and “Fiji trust funds”). Raise gas emissions standards? Buy a Prius (never mind the farm worker who must unload his only vehicle). It only makes them feel better because they truly do not believe they will pay a price.
‘Systemic Racism’– I think the racial panderers have struck gold with this one. No facts necessary– just the fault of the ‘system’.
I don’t consider myself a racist, but given the definition that seems to be creeping into society by Leftists, I’m a racist because I’m white and practice ‘systemic racism’ by merely living in a society whose dominant feature is characterized by light skin.
The final solution to ‘systemic racism’ can only occur when all power is turned over to dark skinned people.
I don’t know how many folks know the history of the African nation of Liberia. It was settled in the early 1800′s by a former slaves and free blacks, promoted by whites for various reasons.
Various ‘colonization societies’ settled the country, ‘bought’ land from the natives and in 1847 declared its independence. The indigenous people (the members of the 14 tribes of the land the new black ‘immigrants’ settled) were not given voting rights until 1947.
The ruling class, descendents of the original black immigrants, controlled the country until 1980, even though they were always a minority of the population, when a military coup toppled the government which led to two civil wars caused the deaths of several hundred thousand people and the complete collapse of the social order as tribalism became a dominant force.
So freed American slaves instituted the same hierarchical society including slavery once they had the ‘power’.
I’m not exactly sure how this fits into the topic of Senator Obama’s snide inference that racism will motivate his opponents, but it does demonstrate that confining the discussion to black-white is missing the real issues and preventing progress toward helping people that deserve a hand up.
Comparing American poverty to the gut-wrenching deeper poverty of third world countries may give poor Americans a reason to be thankful for what do have, but it does not give them the necessary tools to compete in the market place in America. So it’s really a moot point.
It’s only a moot point if you think people in Africa are poor because they have no tools to compete but people in America without tools to compete are just naturally doing better.
The underlying little detail is that people wouldn’t do better in one country as opposed to another, if they both lacked the “tools to compete”, unless either the rich was giving them natural advantages they hadn’t earned or they had been given more tools to compete than the ones in Africa.
So freed American slaves instituted the same hierarchical society including slavery once they had the ‘power’.
That is the usual historical record of any slave rebellion that won their freedom through violence. African Americans were saved from this fate because it was not they who predominantly killed the Southerners and won their freedom. It was by the orders of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, otherwise known as the Union, who through his generals, Sherman and Grant, killed a lot of Southerners and freed the slaves.
How much of the percentage of the gross life time earnings of freed slaves and their descendents should go into paying a gratitude tax unto the descendents or family members of Lincoln, Sherman, Grant, etc?
If you ask Helen, it’s zero, because Helen never studied the history of slave rebellions and uprisings. She never studied the actual history of how power is manipulated through violence. She never studied the real history of slavery in human history, just a little slice out of America’s past, and not very indepth at that. Thus it is very easy for her to see Obama and believe someone like him is going to make things right now.
The underlying little detail is that people wouldn’t do better in one country as opposed to another, if they both lacked the “tools to compete”, unless either the rich was giving them natural advantages they hadn’t earned or they had been given more tools to compete than the ones in Africa.
Inevitably, helen’s path ends up with a double standard. One standard says that America’s market requires one standard for “tools of competition” while Africa, composed of blacks, has a different, lower, standard. You just don’t expect Africa’s economy to be as good, thus their people don’t need as many tools as Americans, you see.
This kind of social, racial, gender based, and political identity strife and conflict is common to Leftist revolutionaries and branch offs of such an ideology as Saul Alinsky and Marxism.
It’s a commandment to have kids, is it? Based, I suppose, on “go forth and multiply.”
Yeah, well. It’s also a commandment from God to go forth and kill your kid, your kid’s spouse, your kid’s kids, your kid’s animals, and raze your kid’s town if said kid dares to decide to worship in a manner other than the one prescribed. (Deut. chaps. 13, 14, 15.) It’s OT, but it got left in the Christian version, so I assume it’s to be taken as seriously as anything else.
Forgive me for not taking such “commandments” terribly seriously.
Even poor people are bright enough to figure out how the condom dispenser in the bus station men’s room works. And they’re a long way from excessively pricey. (You can, in fact, get them for free [while you're getting your free meal] at the shelter.)
Adding a new citizen is a public, not a private act, because that new citizen, under normal circumstances, is going to be around annoying the neighbors long after you’ve shuffled off. Bearing children is less and less a “right,” and one of these day’s it’s going to require specific permission – because the one thing this planet is not running out of is people.
Very few women are capable of being good mothers; and very few men of being good fathers. Parenthood is a gift, as most parents find out too late and most children find out right away. Dogs, cats, pigs, birds, and mice know how to do it instinctively: people do not.
But it’s easy to separate reproduction from sex. And it doesn’t require any massive input from the inside of the skull, either. Are you saying that the poor can’t manage that fairly simple mental exercise?
If that’s truly the case, then “poverty” is far from the biggest problem.
We have a Liberia in America…can anybody say…Detroit?
Detroit’s AA mayor, one Kwame Kilpatrick, is now under indictment for public corruption, and most folks from Detroit will tell you he ran the place into the ground, giving as much public money away to his friends and cronies before he got caught.
Sounds rather like Zimbabwe on Lake Superior to me.
Ymarsakr,
What is remarkable is the parallels between the settlement of Liberia and America.
Liberia was settled and became an independant nation long before our Civil War.
The American Colonization Society sent settlers to the African Coast of Sierra Leone around 1820. The ACS was funded by whites for various motives- some racist, some noble.
Some of the immigrants were free blacks, some were freed slaves, and some were slaves whose freedom came at the cost of returning to Africa.
The black immigrants settled these lands by ‘buying’ the land– sometimes at the end of a gun, sometimes through legitimate negotiations.
But given the chance to establish an ‘ideal’ society free from bigotry and racism, the black immigrants adopted the same form of society they had left.
After the Civil war, some blacks immigrated to Liberia, but most chose to remain in the US.
Y.,
RE: “Helen never studied the history of slave rebellions and uprisings. She never studied the actual history of how power is manipulated through violence. She never studied the real history of slavery in human history, just a little slice out of America’s past, and not very indepth at that. Thus it is very easy for her to see Obama and believe someone like him is going to make things right now.”
Excuse me. But you are completely wrong.
I had a graduate level course in the history of slavery worldwide (Africa, Europe, North and South America, and Asia) in addition to a separate course in American slavery from black point of view. Both courses dealt with slave rebellion and violence. We read Frantz Fanon and primary sources by Toussaint L”Ouvertour, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vessey, Nat Turner, and John Brown.
I do know how violence has been used throughout history. I also know the history of nonviolent civil disobedience and the role it played in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, as well as Gandhi’s use of it in India.
The point I was making about Liberia is the parallels to American society, one white, one black.
They had the power to establish a society more in keeping with Helen’s ideals. They chose to perpetuate slavery, only with them as the Masters.
Racism and cruelty transcend skin color.
These are really matters to speak to the heart of mankind.
And Helen,
I liked some of your poetry.
“My ancestors are from England, yes, and my skin is light, hair straight. But I gave up beinng “white.” It’s far too great a burden to bear.”
So you and Bill Clinton are soul brothers?
I’m curious. Would you stipulate that blacks are just as culpable as whites for the stain of slavery– looking at it from a ‘we are all people of one world’ point of view?
BrianE,
I’m cool with Bill Clinton.
“Would you stipulate that blacks are just as culpable as whites for the stain of slavery– looking at it from a ‘we are all people of one world’ point of view?”
Please explain further. Not sure what you mean.
Slavery was not unique to the United States, was common in Africa and in fact is still practiced today. The source of slaves was black people (in a sense, blacks were the wholesalers and white shipowners were the retailers).
I think that’s what I mean.
I am nor more responsible for slavery than are descendents of Africans that enslaved other blacks. There remains no connection to make any apology meaningful other than in some sort of theoretical sense.
I am sorry for the way many black people were treated after slavery ended. But systemic racism? I need an example.
I also understand that you are sympathetic with the black liberation theology movement. Sorry, but this is slavery by other means, forever imprisoning its patrons in victimhood.
It’s marxism, not religion, and it will only lead to further alienation and ultimately disintegration of our society.
Helen,
I’m curious. Have you been around poor people? There is something very top down about your discussions, as if all the poor are the same and a one-size-fits-all government program can solve all their problems. That hasn’t been my experience, and I’ve known both black and white poor people. I have known very poor black women who have inspired me. Others have just drifted without trying to take responsibility for their own lives. Lumping people into victim groups just doesn’t cut it with me.
I had a graduate level course in the history of slavery worldwide
I’m completely wrong that you did not study the history of slavery and thus are more susceptible to believing that oppression can cure slavery in the form of Obama?
What you “studied” was white oppression, otherwise known as politically correct indoctrination, which is not the same thing as a history of slavery in any real sense of the term.
I do know how violence has been used throughout history.
No, you do not. For you still cling to this concept that it is right for you to use the power of the government to make an entire nation responsible for fabricated sins that you say individuals have been forgiven of, but not nations composed of many individuals.
If you do know what you claim to know, then you are simply a collaborator in the plan of people to use intimidation and violence to change the face of America so that they and their cronies can derive unequal benefit compared to the weaker groups and individuals in America without the benefit of the tools of intimidation or violence.
The source of slaves was black people (in a sense, blacks were the wholesalers and white shipowners were the retailers).
Islam played a greater part in the slave trade, as it was they who introduced Islam, and the taking of slaves for profit, into Africa.
Native African cultures such as from the Axumites, were so inland and isolated that they really didn’t have much to do with international slave trafficking.
Timbuktu was a hub of slave trading, I recall, and it was also the hub of the spread of Islam as well.
But systemic racism? I need an example.
White grandmothers feel fear at blacks walking on the street. That’s an example of systemic racism that Obama would give you.
The “system” of course, that they are refering to, is the system of self-survival, self-interest, and common sense. The more blacks hold to African culture and a Ebonics and gang land culture separate from the majority American anglo-saxon or Caucasian culture, the more distrust and fear is produced since human beings don’t particularly like the foreign when it is threatening to wash over their own culture in negative ways.
Thanks Ymarsakar,
I was aware of the Islamic slave trade but not to the extent that it occurred. Here’s a link to an interesting article on it.
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm
“The embarrassing fact of history, is that the Europeans did not have to use any force to obtain these slaves. The slaves were “sold” by their black owners. There was no need for the slave raiders to risk their lives or venture into the jungles of Africa, they simply purchased the people from African chiefs and Muslim slave traders at the coast.”
According to this article, 11 million Africans were enslaved and shipped westward– 95% to European colonies in South and Central America. It estimates 28 million Africans were enslaved and sent to Islamic countries.
Y.,
RE:”What you “studied” was white oppression, otherwise known as politically correct indoctrination, which is not the same thing as a history of slavery in any real sense of the term.”
I guess you saw the syllabus? And the professor. Why, of course, you know him. You silly man. You are trying to tell me what I did and didn’t study. Howe do you know?
RE: “What you “studied” was white oppression, . . . ” Especially in the part about the Japanese sex salves, right?
You either want to nit pick or declare what you have no proof of. You don’t know how to discuss something without telling people you know their minds better than they do.
You do not know my experience. Period. Go sit with Deanna. Both of you need time out.
Helen –
What in heaven’s name are you talking about? I haven’t commented on this thread for the past two days!
Deana
Okay. My bad, Deana. Please accept my apology.
By way of explanation (not excuse), having people call me names and think for me gets old fast. And that’s what’s happened in this thread.
Let’s say you’re a reformed name-caller and Y. is doing his telling-me-what-know presently.
HINT TO ALL: How about this:
Am I understanding you to say ___?
Did I hear you say ____?
Or,
Did you mean ____?
That is so less obnoxious than telling someone what he/she thinks.
Dear Helen:
Thank you for your moving account of your graduate course in “slavery”. I recognize how you were traumatized by it and I applaud you for your humanity.
Could you share with us what you are doing to help end chattel slavery in Africa today, as practiced in Sierra Leone, Mauritania and other West African Countries? Or, as it is practiced by Muslims against Christians in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf States. Or the child slavery that occurs in South and Southeast Asia, whereby young children are purchased or kidnapped to serve the pedophile trade…oh, heck…even in Mexico and other Latin American countries, where a thriving pedophile “ranch” trade occurs (hush, hush, wink, wink). Or, the sex slave trade whereby young women from Southern and Eastern Europe are coerced into sex slavery under the threat of violence.
Please, Helen, share with us the accounts of your activities. I commend you for them. No cheap grace there…”by their acts ye shall know them!”
Danny,
LOL.
I wasn’t traumatized but I did learn a lot.
As for the slaves in many countries, I am doing absolutely nothing.
I have enough to do here in the US. All I ever hope to do is live one life well.
And the professor. Why, of course, you know him.
I know you and how you argue and on what topics you have chosen to argue over these past months and what not.
Do I need to know what the school curriculum was in order to see that you have not learned the basic four of human history?
Individual actions, events, wars, and the consequences of all there of.
Nobody who has actually acquired some of these basic fours would refuse to argue them, especially against someone with a different take on history or politics. And yet whenever I speak of history, you gloss over it. It is not a matter of time nor is it a matter of whim, for there are far harder subjects people have brought to your attention here and you have addressed, but yet you have never addressed the actual history of slavery or racism, either in America or in the rest of the world. Yet you say you “know” of such things because of so and so.
I don’t think that argument is able to stand the light of day given current considerations.
I was aware of the Islamic slave trade but not to the extent that it occurred.
The schools that taught Helen and others have a very good reason not to tell people about actual historical events, meaning actual events that actually occurred as opposed to fake events that didn’t occur as they would like you to believe. Fake events can either be manufactured entirely, or they can be manufactured by taking a real event, slicing off half of it (your choice as to which half), and then providing what is left as the entirety of the truth or record.
Propaganda and the manipulation of truth for power, after all, did not become advent just because of the Iraq War.
If you will search Nexus, you might be able to find various newsreports of Middle Easterns, Saudis namely, coming to the US and also bringing their slaves. Once US authorities found that out, they could not in good conscience allow the Saudis to keep slaves here, regardless of how much money or influence or diplomatic immunity they claimed they had.
All I ever hope to do is live one life well.
You must have forgotten the fact that you want to make other people’s lives equivalent to your whims and standards of conduct. Let’s not pretend that all you ever hope to do concerned only your life.
Especially in the part about the Japanese sex salves, right?
In case you hadn’t noticed, helen, once you believe in white supremacy, and you do, it doesn’t really matter what you read, what you learn is white oppression. There’s only two basic reactions to this. If you think white supremacy is good, then you’re going to try to maintain it. If you think white supremacy is bad, you’re going to try to destroy it.
Systemic racism just means that no matter how hard blacks try via merit, the system is against them. What is the system though, except a culture run by whites? And if white culture can prevent blacks from succeeding if they refuse to become part of that white culture or because of their skin color, this is just another way of stating white supremacy.
People that recognize individual merit and a system that advocates and promotes individual work ethics and the consequences thereof, do not see the problem of systemic racism because the system cannot be racist since white supremacy does not exist on skin color, Thus it cannot be “white” supremacy, just American supremacy. Which is another bad thing, of course.
declare what you have no proof of.
Since you have no proof of systemic racism other than a false positive (meaning blacks are not as successful because of whites, white Democrats that is:meaning that’s not American nor systemic racism, just Democrat racism), and because you can never have a proof of what has never existed, why does it really matter to you in the end whether proof exists or not so long as the power is shifted in your favor?
You are trying to tell me what I did and didn’t study. Howe do you know?
I’m sorry to tell you this, but I’m talking about you and your beliefs. If your professor is responsible for your beliefs, and thus if I know his curriculum and teaching positions I will then know yours, is one thing. But I doubt it is that. Thus your professor and your curriculum are irrelevant.
I do not speak of history as facts to be memorized ir recited. That’s not why it is important to me or to my comment on your beliefs.
To quote the standard of reality, those who have learned or sought to learn about real world events such as world wide slavery, would have conducted research into Islamic slavery, as someone else did here, or at least commented on it in part or in whole.
You did not, helen, and you have never done such a thing, in fact, for all the time that I have seen you comment here, which is not, noticeably, a short amount of time if you recall.
Let’s say you’re a reformed name-caller and Y. is doing his telling-me-what-know presently.
The Duchess was the one that called you names, Helen, not Deana. You haven’t confused people’s identities, have you?
Btw, for clarification, I’m telling you what I know, not what you know. If I just told you what you knew and thought, helen, it would not be very interesting or clear to such folks as Deana. And that would be a sad thing.
Helen –
I love the whole “I’m sorry I called you a name-caller but . . . you USED TO BE one!!!” apology! I’m serious, Helen – you made me laugh first thing this morning. I owe you.
In all seriousness, I don’t like name-calling either. I don’t like it when people are called names. But there is a difference between (for example) calling a person ignorant or what have you, versus stating that something they say they believe is ignorant or not well thought out. I know it is a fine line but if that is not perserved, we are reduced to simply listening to others say things and not responding. It is imperative that each of us have the ability to say, “This would be a ridiculous policy and this is why.”
One other comment. I find it fascinating that you believe that you can cause more good to exist in the world by focusing your efforts against racism here in America where, 150 years after the end of slavery, human rights are protected and laws are firmly in place that promote equality of opportunity. We aren’t perfect but we are pretty far down the road to where we want to be.
Meanwhile, millions of people around the world have no human rights and there isn’t even any discussion of instituting laws to help protect them. These people’s lives TODAY, RIGHT NOW, are very similar to the lives that black people stopped having to live en masse 150 years ago. And yet you think you are more effective doing things you think will help with racism in America.
I just don’t understand that, Helen. I mean, it just seems to me that it would be really important to work toward ending slavery first. Besides, black people in America are quite self-sufficient. At least the ones I know are.
I guess I just wonder how black Americans would feel knowing that you think they need your help more than some enslaved soul in Africa or Asia who has no rights and no hope of ever having the law on their side.
Deana
Cheap grace, Helen. Cheap grace and moral vanity.
Denana,
Y is 100% right about this.
“The Duchess was the one that called you names, Helen, not Deana. You haven’t confused people’s identities, have you?
Btw, for clarification, I’m telling you what I know, not what you know. If I just told you what you knew and thought, helen, it would not be very interesting or clear to such folks as Deana. And that would be a sad thing.’”
I ‘m glad you can laugh. I owe you an apology but not for what you said, for confusing you with someone else.
I am so sorry.
RE: “I find it fascinating that you believe that you can cause more good to exist in the world by focusing your efforts against racism here in America where, . . ”
I live in the US, am a citizen here, and vote here. I speak the language. I think we fix problems at home first, then go abraod. Not vice versa.
RE: “I just don’t understand that, Helen. I mean, it just seems to me that it would be really important to work toward ending slavery first.”
It is. Different people have different jobs. That isn’t my emphasis.
I think Y nailed it.
Helen acknowledged that Senator Obama was moving away from his church in an effort to pick up votes– even she doesn’t think it represents a change of heart. One of those ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’ kind of moments.
So here we have it– the candidate of hope and change, the candidate who he says can reach across the aisle, the candidate promising to set a more civil tone accuses all Republicans– and by extension of his beliefs every white person in America as being racist.
Go figure.
Helen,
Christ said ‘Go into all the world’, so as a Christian we have a mandate to reach out to the world.
By the way, you never did respond to me. Are you willing to acknowledge that black Africans are as responsible for slavery as white Europeans?
Okay, BrianE, where shall we for this “reach the world” tour we’ll be taking together? You are going, right?
No. I’m not willing to admit what isn’t true.
Black Africans sold other black Africans into slavery, yes. From the slave castles of the Ivory Coast, those slaves went to America. That’s fact.
But the Africans who did the selling thought slavery meant what it had always meant (until America change that definition).
Slaves had been the booty of war or the captives of another tribe. But slavery had an end in those days. Slavery was more like we think of as an indentured servant. Slaves were not a permanent underclass. They were free to marry who they pleased. And the offspring of slaves were free.
The problem came to a head in America, when Europe began to stop the import of slaves. Under pressure, Congress also stopped that trade. But southern plantations could not survive without free (slave) labor.
So, slave reproduction began, many masters even raping their own female slaves. The offspring follow the condition of the mother became southern law.
So how are the black Africans who sold slaves the same as the white masters?
**
Good books on African American history:
“Before the Mayflower” by Lerone Bennett
“From Slavery to Freedom” by John Hope Franklin
Paul said, “Study to show thyself approved. . . “
>> Are you willing to acknowledge that black Africans are as responsible for slavery as white Europeans?>>
And, while we’re at it, that Obama’s forefathers may have been among those responsible for some of that enslavement? And, if it could be demonstrated that in fact Obama’s forefathers _were_ responsible for enslaving some of those blacks whose descendants are in the US today, should we hold him as responsible as he’s holding whites today who are descended from slave owners of that period?
Helen,
I can get you in touch with several agencies in Liberia if you’re interested.
My daughter has been there twice as a short term medical missionary (two to three weeks). The first time, in 2003, she spent several days in a particularly remote area. The agency had sent word they were coming to offer general medical assistance. When the team arrived there, the line of people waiting reached into the distance, and never shortened the two days they were there. At the end of the second day, it broke her heart when they announced to all the people still waiting they would not be able to see them.
This was also during the time the second civil war was still raging.
My wife has been twice to an orphanage and school we support. The school offers free education and could certainly use your support.
She was attracted to a young boy, who we adopted last year.
Poor kid– having to live with a white racist family! Our hope is that he will take a skill back to his country to help build his society.
Right now, the Chinese are helping the country rebuild its infrastructure.
I will say I haven’t been there. I may go someday when I can use my skills.
I would suggest that even if you can’t go, support a child or two through Worldvision.
My hat is off to you and your family, BrianE. You walk the walk.
From your profile…let me guess, now…you must be Conservatives, right?
Helen?
Some people may not realize the role the US played in ending the second civil war. President Bush landed a small contingent of Marines to facilitate the end of the war.
Charles Taylor fled to Nigeria, and was later captured and is awaiting trial for war crimes.
My wife and daughter (who is now married) deverse the credit in following the example of Jesus.
I didn’t want to take the Malaria medicine!
You guys know that you’re whistling in the wind as far as Helen is concerned, right? She’s got her metaphorical fingers in her ears and is singing the text equivalent of ‘LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” Which is pretty much what libs do when they’re on the losing end of a logical debate.
Don’t mess up her pretty little world of butterflies and flowers with the facts. It’s all about how she “feels,” and she feels that blacks are not capable of competing in the same world as the rest of us, and she excuses, like libs and aplogists do, toxic life choices and their inevitable results, as systemic racism. Poppycock.
I have to confess though, it’s so much fun to watch the sane, educated folks on this site shred her lame arguments and present her with the actual historical facts and then watch her verbal twisting and turning. To be a liberal in America these days means you have to twist yourself into an intellectual pretzel to justify that which should have no justification. My lib friends do it all the time and it’s really very amusing, because it’s all gonna come back to bite them in the end, an eventually, no amount of pretzel twisting will work and they’ll have to either face the ugly reality or go insane.
Idealism is all well and good, in small doses, but I don’t want an idealist or a texbook narcissist of Obama’s stripe in the Oval Office, period. I want a man who has principles, stands behind them, and will not put his finger to the feckless wind of popular opinion in order to make a decision that could affect not only the rest of MY life, but those of my children and my children’s children as well.
Trouble is, the libs are so eager and desperate to have any power at all that they will sacrifice the lifestyles of the next 2 generations by putting a spineless, leftist fraud in the position of ultimate power in the US and HOPE he doesn’t CHANGE our world for the worse. He will. Guaranteed.
Parallel discussion on my blog. See http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/voting-for-obama-is-fighting-racism/#comment-52247
and http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/just-try-to-tell-me-this-isnt-racism/#comment-52248
if anyone is interested.
No. I’m not willing to admit what isn’t true.
Since history is about figuring out the truth, your refusal to consider an argument based upon merits between the two of us, instead opting for an argument that holds to appeal to authority, meaning universities and college degree programs, has distinctly closed the gates on any possibility of acquiring truth for yourself, helen.
I live in the US, am a citizen here, and vote here. I speak the language. I think we fix problems at home first, then go abraod. Not vice versa.
But the thing is, the people “fixing” these problems came from the fracked up world outside, people like Obama’s father and his progressive mother who bought into international progressivism, otherwise known as transnational progressivism which holds the ultimate ideal of human government as being rule by 1% of humanity. If fixing America’s problems is so all important, why is the focus so much on “international” influences, solutions, ideas, ideological roots, rather than American influences, solutions, ideas, and ideological roots?
The logic does not parse because it cannot parse. If you recognize that the world is messed up and thus we must fix America first, then what is your justification for using the very solutions that made the world so messed up in the first place, like black liberation theology and socialism, to “fix” America’s problems? America has a tradition of solving things, the rest of the world has a tradition of making up problems and killing people to prolong those problems.
If you were advocating an American first policy based upon the philosophy that America is the best and thus America should ignore the rest of the world until later, your views would then have a certain internal consistency, even though they would still be ultimately flawed. But as they are currently, it is not “flawed”, it is totally cracked.
Helen said:
Please offer a solution, if at the core the problem is Western thought.
>>it’s all gonna come back to bite them in the end>>
The problem is that it’s all gonna come back and bite _all_ of us in the end.
Book…I have a comment that I think got stuck in moderation due to multiple links. Could you unstick it? If it got lost instead, let me know…I saved the links for a change!
>>there is also systemic racism. The group is guilty; we belong to the group; we are, therefore, guilty of racism.>>
Except you have not proven that there is systemic racism. Multiple repetitions – despite Goering – does not make it a fact. Many blacks are in the financial straits they’re in due to bad decisions.
>>Poor people do not think like middle-class people, who feel one should be financially ready to have children.>> (75)
a) maybe _that’s_ why they’re poor – not because of any systemic racism. What you’re saying is that poverty is an individual problem
b)How _do_ they think? Why do they think differently? What can a society do to change how they think?
I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but my recollection of societies that are ‘all about the group’ are some the most racist in history.
Let’s think Imperial Japan, for example.
BrianE – think “the collective”, whether it is Aryans, proletarians, tribes or whatever – they ultimately descend into a need to eliminate or diminish the “other”. The famous Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, wrote a book that addressed the tribal nature of socialism (in all its forms, including Naziism), called “The Fatal Conceit”. Of course, Hayek had experienced the rise of both Communism and Naziism first-hand so he could write about it with authority.
This is why minorities who fall off the Liberal Plantation get tagged with names such as “Oreos” or “Apples”. They must be publically destroyed and their influences forever banished from the tribe if the tribe’s enforced harmony is to be preserved (Pol Pot’s killing fields and Mao’s Cultural Revolution were a good example of this process). For that matter, this is how religious cults operate.
Others on the outside, meanwhile, pine to be members of the tribe, perhaps being driven by a need to identify with “the group”. Some are more-than willing to undergo painful inductions, designed to destroy their former identities and remake them in the image of the tribe.
Remember, poor dear Helen is a member of the socialist tribe.
More on the topic:
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2008/06/steve-diamond-guest-blogs-at-pundita.html
My comments are not showing up…have we reached a ceiling of some sort?
Slavery was more like we think of as an indentured servant. Slaves were not a permanent underclass.
It is an extreme irony and the ultimate proof of the power of indoctrination and psychological manipulation techniques that you harshly criticize and accuse the United States of having a system based upon discrimination rather than advancement through merit and competency, while you freely and eagerly defend forms of slavery you deem politically correct by saying that they provide upward social mobility.
America’s meritocracy system is a lie to you and needs to be replaced with “change”, yet slavery is “not as bad as other slavery” if the former includes “social mobility”.
Who do you think you are kidding here? There are people in this world that need something stronger than that, stronger in terms of manipulation by far, for such things to work in convincing people of the “truth”.
Discrimination on sexual bases by having a woman work 90% more time and get 50% less pay is, I believe, now not as bad as discrimination by race where blacks get 0% in pay and work until they die? Is this the kind of morally relativistic world we can expect Barry Obama to produce for us once he is elected President of the United States of America? Some of forms of slavery just weren’t as bad as the others, while America’s lack of social mobility is just, you now, not up to snuff.
So how are the black Africans who sold slaves the same as the white masters?
Because of something called philosophical and political principles that I don’t expect you to be a believer of.
For you to have written what you have concerning the “differences” between black and white slavery, and then to have you claim in the past that you know the real truth about world wide history of slavery is just a bit too much. Even for me.
Slavery was more like we think of as an indentured servant. Slaves were not a permanent underclass.
It is an extreme irony and the ultimate proof of the power of indoctrination and psychological manipulation techniques that you harshly criticize and accuse the United States of having a system based upon discrimination rather than advancement through merit and competency, while you freely and eagerly defend forms of slavery you deem politically correct by saying that they provide upward social mobility.
America’s meritocracy system is a lie to you and needs to be replaced with “change”, yet slavery is “not as bad as other slavery” if the former includes “social mobility”.
Who do you think you are kidding here? There are people in this world that need something stronger than that, stronger in terms of manipulation by far, for such things to work in convincing people of the “truth”.
Discrimination on sexual bases by having a woman work 90% more time and get 50% less pay is, I believe, now not as bad as discrimination by race where blacks get 0% in pay and work until they die? Is this the kind of morally relativistic world we can expect Barry Obama to produce for us once he is elected President of the United States of America? Some of forms of slavery just weren’t as bad as the others, while America’s lack of social mobility is just, you now, not up to snuff.
So how are the black Africans who sold slaves the same as the white masters?
Because of something called philosophical and political principles that I don’t expect you to be a believer of.
For you to have written what you have concerning the “differences” between black and white slavery, and then to have you claim in the past that you know the real truth about world wide history of slavery is just a bit too much. Even for me.
TODAY, RIGHT NOW, are very similar to the lives that black people stopped having to live en masse 150 years ago. And yet you think you are more effective doing things you think will help with racism in America.<-Deana
The fake liberal mind has an interesting system of prioritization and compartamentalization. If you have read, in detail, the passages I have quoted and commented on concerning certain factors of helen’s assertions, you will see various examples of this phenomenon.
I ‘m glad you can laugh. I owe you an apology but not for what you said, for confusing you with someone else.-helen to deana
It is ironic in a sense that a person who thinks I don’t know what they are thinking has found that I knew better what they were thinking than they themselves.
Helen,
I’m glad you’re still here. I was serious though. If you accept that systemic racism is a product of Western thought, how would you change that?
Would I need to go to a re-education camp?
As I see it, you’ve created a box from which there is no escape.
>>I also know the history of nonviolent civil disobedience and the role it played in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, as well as Gandhi’s use of it in India.>>
In both cases, successful only due to the culture of those against whom they were protesting. Had they done the same thing with the chinese, they would never have been heard of again.
>>Black Africans sold other black Africans into slavery, yes. From the slave castles of the Ivory Coast, those slaves went to America. That’s fact.
But the Africans who did the selling thought slavery meant what it had always meant (until America change that definition).>>
Links:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009139.php
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm
http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2001/04/05/segal/index.html
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm
Lots of info that contradicts a good bit of what you have said. Including the fact that mostly males were sent to the US. The last link has some interesting numbers on those shipments, btw.
Females went to the muslims.
BrianE,
RE: “As I see it, you’ve created a box from which there is no escape.”
I am describing what’s going on not “creating” anything. This thread began with Obama. He calls for a change. He speaks of hope.
Come to think of it, “re-educations camp” is good idea.
We already have them. They’re called ‘sensitivity training classes’.
I am describing what’s going on not “creating” anything.
To illuminate a problem in one fashion is to set the limitations on the possible solutions to the problem. Do you not realize that you control the solution to a puzzle by changing how the puzzle is perceived and how it functions?
How then, can you say that you are just describing what’s going on, which has nothing to do with creating the fake solutions or ills or never ending cycles that we have described?
Btw Brian, you might be interested in the comments at Helen’s two links.
Below is the comment i wrote there.
I ask this last double question, because if I’m required to do something in the name of equality, and yet I am to leave them to make their own decisions. That the burden shall lie on my shoulders until they decide I have paid my debt off for a white society that wronged a black society prior to any of the invlved parties being alive?
Given that whites are superior in helen’s eyes, that is the right way to change things.
The fact that a white recognizes and benefits from their superiority, yet isn’t willing to pay the noblesse oblige price of the white man’s burden, really is an excuse to maintain power on an unequal basis. Since all power and wealth comes from whites, it is the whites that must provide it to the blacks.
This is all very logical and to be expected of socialism when applied to blacks or black liberation theology.
PS.
Danny, I get the sense that you don’t particularly respect helen’s tribe somehow ; )
YM, I think you’re on to something, here. Would that make me a socialism-ist?
Danny – I think that makes you a socialistophobe.
I’m with you.
>>Given that whites are superior in helen’s eyes, that is the right way to change things.>>
Hah. So you’re saying Helen still thinks whites are superior. Maybe she’s not as “recovering” as she thinks she is. In fact, maybe we “regressives” value blacks more ?
Living in the hinterlands, I’m still struggling with the fact that I’m a racist! Prejudiced– maybe, Bigot– probably, but racist– No, No, NO!
OK, I had noticed that Senator Obama was black, but I don’t think I had told anyone else. I certainly had pointed out that he had questionable relationships with shady characters, and that he has almost no legislative record, but no– I’m fairly certain I never mentioned his skin color. Oh, Oh, I did mention once that his cousin Raila had forged a political alliance with Kenyan Muslims to institute Sharia law in parts of that country, and that Raila was partly responsible for the violence early this year that left 1,000 dead and drove hundreds of thousands of Kikyu and Luos from their homes and that Senator Obama had spoken on Raila’s behalf. But no, skin color never came up.
Most of you folks are so much farther along in understanding the implications of an Obama presidency, but I did come across this article about a movement that Helen might embrace.
It’s called Transnational Progressivism.
Here’s one of its tenets:
And another:
Here’s a gem:
The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the “dominant” culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.
Helen, are you in?
Here’s a link to the article.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html
Kind of makes your skin crawl.
I get the sense that we have reached a tipping point in this country, and this may be the most pivotal election of the last 148 years.
Whether the issue is race, or the environment, or national security we seem to be confused, unable even to establish a base from which to begin a dialogue.
I’ve taken for granted that everyone, or at least a majority, shared the values of individualism and work ethic and that the institutions that promote these values were insoluble. But there is a fragileness to democracy that may have been ignored and is being tested.
These conditions and tensions have probably always existed since the beginning and the vastness of the country always acted as an escape valve. Didn’t like your life– head west and find a place where you weren’t chained to group think. That place no longer exists.
BrainE,
Without reading the entire book – I did follow the link – I would NOT be willing to endorse this system.
RE: “Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness.” Transnational progressivism assumes that “victim” groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of “underrepresentation.”
This sounds reasonable but, in actual practice, quotas have proven impossible to implement and detrimental to quality. So, if that’s what you thought I believed either you haven’t been listening, I’ve been writing unclearly, or both.
**
Oh, and I just figured out why I hate nit-picking.
If I respond, which I have done in the past, I’m answering someone else’s questions, not mine. I’m not writing what I think; I’m writing as a reaction to what others want said.
Enough of that.
see fuller explanation at http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/epiphany/#comment-52264
>>If I respond, which I have done in the past, I’m answering someone else’s questions, not mine. I’m not writing what I think; I’m writing as a reaction to what others want said.>>
Well yes, Helen, that’s what conversation or a dialogue _is_.
>>Enough of that.>>
So you prefer a monologue or to lecture to people without any input from them. I guess that’s the definition of elitist.
By the way – about all those people without health care:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/06/who-are-47-million-uninsureds.html
Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness.” Transnational progressivism assumes that “victim” groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of “underrepresentation.”
They are not so much concerned with underrepresentation as they are concerned with holding and acquiring political power. In order to form a coalition of the vengeful against a powerful construct and nation like the United States, you must be able to both undermine the US and also form a counter-alternative to the US. People in this world value security, order, wealth, prosperity, and military might. So long as the US holds a monopoly or a huge market share in such aspects, the transnational progressives will never be able to get what they want. They will never be able to transcend national loyalty in favor of group identity, political identity, or ideological identity.
They see nations as exhibiting and maintaining core loyalty oaths to what divides human beings. They would rather we unite under a common banner, their common banner. We, however, respect free will and part of free will is disagreement and the divisions that result from people’s disagreements. We are not against people having different national loyalties or what not. We in fact have laws that specifically cater to participants of opposing nations in war. Those laws, however, only exist so long as patriots exist and are able to enforce those laws on both sides. When one side shuns nationalism and patriotism and prefers to annihilate their nation in the cause of vengeance and spite, as the Palestinians are, and another faction is on the other side, the ACLU, who wish to see the Palestinians and the Americans go down in mutual flames, then you are never going to have any enforceable law governing the behavior of those fighting for nations or any other reason.
Proportional representation, thus, is just the tranzies’ cop out in order to form a strong enough coalition for long enough to oppose and destabilize America and various other nations that get in their way.
The United Nations is the perfect example of how being ruled by tranzies would taste. And it doesn’t taste like the candy UN peacekeepers give out, either.
Whether the issue is race, or the environment, or national security we seem to be confused, unable even to establish a base from which to begin a dialogue.
The key to divide and conquer is to sow dissension within the enemy’s ranks. If you wish to topple the mightiest nation in the history of the earth, then you need to destabilize that nation and sunder its foundations. The foundation on which the people of America place their faith, their love, and their devotion. Once people are unable to trust their traditions, the foundations of their beliefs, and their ancestors, then you can invade the vacuum of people’s doubts and fill it with your own particular brand of “change”.
This is a comment I left at helen’s blog after her response.
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/just-try-to-tell-me-this-isnt-racism/#comment-52255
Now, as to whites being superior to blacks, that’s the position of racism: the exact opposite of what I believe
Since you have mentioned systemic racism and how blacks are being kept downtrodden by the system, which is run by whites, how then would you explain why blacks are not favored but whites are? You do, after all, believe in white privilege, which is part of systemic racism in your view, which is why you wish to end systemic racism because you don’t believe whites are inherently superior, they just got more wealth and status by stealing it from blacks or what not.
So, if in your view, blacks and whites are equal, you have to provide a reasonable explanation of how whites got power in the first place over blacks. And you also have to provide a justification for, if whites and blacks are equal, why blacks need the help of whites to tilt the system in favor of blacks by turning government intimidation and power on other whites and blacks.
In all your descriptions and support of Obama, you believe that it is the system, the government, or white Democrats that can equalize things. True equality only comes about if whites and blacks are equal and neither are given an advantage. Yet you see equality has been achievable by taking from whites and distributing to blacks. If blacks were really as equal as whites, they wouldn’t need such a “handicap”. The idea of a handicap is one is superior to the other and thus needs to be brought down a bit to make things equal.
So when you say that you don’t believe in racism, the inherent superiority or inferiority of a person or nation based upon color, your actions directly contradict this belief of yours.
The reason I fight racism (which I do because I am a committed Christian) is that I believe that the position of blacks is morally stronger than that of the white majority, when blacks fight with the tools of non-violence.
You think the machinations of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the race baiters and black overseers of this generation, to be “non-violent”? Violence takes many more forms than just the physical.
I believe equality will come, but how it comes is very much up to the white majority (because they are the majority).
The idea that numbers provide superiority or power is a thing of majority rule, which is just another way of saying rule by the 1%. As for the majority having the power to vote in change here in America, that is due not to numbers but to the system. The system that you believe was conceived in sin in America. The very system which provides a way for blacks to be “morally superior” without being “submersed in the ground” is also the system you seek to change if not destroy. A rather extreme bit of irony.
If it comes to violence, which it may do, that will be the fought of whites who waited to long to act.
When the responsibility for individual or group actions comes from whites, this means whites have the morally superior position, for it is they who are responsible for actions, bad or good.
When blacks are not responsible for actions, yet have some kind of “moral superiority”, this just means they are protected and given power and privilege by the whites, who are responsible people, for good or ill.
Main Point: Creating equality through cooperation is morally stronger than creating an underclass through unfair competition.
Once fake liberals find a way to repeat Johnson’s Great Society without creating an underclass of blacks through unfair competition, then maybe you can speak about having this “main point” of yours. But until then, you do not have it. It is a fiction, cause it doesn’t exist and it has never existed in Democrat history in their dealings with blacks.
Besides, you answer “unfair competition” with “we’re going to redistribute white wealth and be even more unfair”. That’s not really a solution people should get, since it starts the cycle of oppression and once it is started, it doesn’t end unless with a war. Like the Civil War.
Lets’ end racism non-violently.
That’s like saying let’s end hate non-violently. Let’s also end love non-violently. Let’s even end jealously and arrogance non-violently. You cannot remake human nature in your own image, especially when your own image, your values and your basic human nature, is not modifiable anyways.
Racism will end when everyone is of the same race and there will be no outward signs that they might be perceived to be a difference race. Racism will end, thus, when everyone has the same features, same hair color, same tone of skin, same tone of tan, same height, and so forth.
If you want to end racism, you should be realistic about your goals and your chances of accomplishing it. Otherwise it becomes a perpetual justification for injustice and redistribution of wealth. For if ending racism will take forever, then obviously the fight to create equality will also take forever, no? A never ending cycle of power and intimidation based upon a never ending cycle of justification and excuses, is not what humanity should build for their children.
Creating an even playing field (where all can compete) demands a re-distribution of wealth.
Conservatives, Republicans, or classical liberals don’t really choose to live in a world where there is a zero sum policy. We would rather create wealth and create an even playing field by allowing people to take personal risks to create wealth for themselves and everyone else, than to live in a world where the only way to get rich and powerful quickly is to steal power and wealth from others.
Obviously if there is only one pie in existence and that pie is the only food that will ever exist, I’m going to have to kill the people competing with me and cheat, cause I can win in no other way. Now if there is a way to bake more pies and to perpetually create the ingredients for the baking of pies, then I no longer have to cheat and exploit to win, I can specialize and use hard work, in cooperation with others, to get my slice of the pie. In fact, I’ll probably get more than just a slice, but many many pies. This is far better than a world that says “you have one pie and that will be it, until eternity ends”.
So no, creating an even playing field where all can compete doesn’t demand a re-dstribution of wealth. Re-distribution of wealth from those that have it to those that don’t inevitably creates crime, chaos, death, violence, oppression, and misery. The poor will cheat the rich and the rich will cheat the poor, for they then become eternal threats to the other via the class warfare engendered by Marxism.
It’s one thing to say you don’t want to convert America to socialism, it is quite another thing to think that after pitting rich against poor, white against black, that you can stop the march of socialism. Socialism is inevitable once class warfare begins, once it is fueled by redistribution of wealth.
Yes. But it’s our money.
So you’re going to redistribute your own money and that’s it? You won’t use the power of government to redistribute other people’s money, because it won’t really be their money now will it.
You have got to be a bit more serious here.
Taxes become public monies.
So it’s not the money of America going to pay UN peacekeepers to rape children in Africa? It’s just UN money and Americans can say “nothing off my skin”? An amazing way to treat humanity, helen.
It is funny that while these taxes are “public monies”, the public aren’t the ones that decide where it goes. Congress does that and only a few people vote for Congressmen and only for their own. So can the Congressmen of a district in one state refuse to provide tax money for the other districts or can anyone use tax money for their own enrichment simply because it is the public trough from which anyone, with power and connections, and make use of it?
This is not a very equal or fairly competitive system you have imagined.
And we don’t even know what we got for it.
Why would an individual want to keep track of other people’s bank accounts and money trails? So why would individual Americans wish to keep track of public monies when it ain’t their own? Logic is not your forte, it seems.
As to the n- word, white people need to use it NEVER, and black people need to police it themselves. I am not so much concerned with black people’s actions as I am white people’s actions.
Most Republicans and all classical liberals will never accept double standards, a “separate but equal” political or philosophical policy. Not and think it will create equality at the same time. We accept double standards if we either can’t change them or if changing them would be counter-productive. We will not accept a separate but equal policy as national policy to create “an even playing field”, for it will not create an even playing field and is thus counter-productive.
P.S.
By way of explanation, I had every intention of replying to Mike’s comment today. We’d been commenting back and forth for almost two hours and also the previous day (here and on another thread), and I thought it was time for a break.
This doesn’t really concern me either way, and was not a subject I gave much care to.
So you’re saying Helen still thinks whites are superior. Maybe she’s not as “recovering” as she thinks she is. In fact, maybe we “regressives” value blacks more ?
When you say that things are unequal, obviously the counter-part to that is that some people are inferior and some people are superior. You may not say that directly, but it is the logical implication of “unfairness”, after all.
We, of course, can always have the saying that whites are superior because they stole money from so and so and are keeping blacks down in the mud, but the question becomes, if it is “whites” doing that, why can’t “blacks” do it too? Unless the skin color and word that we are using “white and black” is really what differentiates the superior and inferior relationships. And if that is the case, then how can it not be racism?
Racism which Helen said she is fighting and working to solve. The old classical liberal phrase of wisdom is always “how can you stop death with more death”.
>>Racism will end when everyone is of the same race and there will be no outward signs that they might be perceived to be a difference race.>>
Riiight. Like in South Africa – where all the people are black. They’re so peaceful in South Africa…! We should all be like them…total racial equality.
Riiight. Like in South Africa – where all the people are black. They’re so peaceful in South Africa…! We should all be like them…total racial equality.
I do not believe that racism is the only ills of man. Corruption, creed, fallibility, and foolishness won’t end just because racism has. Even if you make it so that people cannot create racial desegregation on physical features, that still leaves mental differences and ideological differences.
They’re so peaceful in South Africa…!
Peace has nothing to do with race. It has to do with culture.
We should all be like them…total racial equality.
Are you trying to presume that helen’s eternal goal of ending race would also end war or inequality?
>>Are you trying to presume that helen’s eternal goal of ending race would also end war or inequality?>>
I’m ridiculing the notion that ending racism would also end the war on inequality. No…I want to restate that. Eliminating race would not end racism as Helen understands it. She includes as “black” those people whose skin may be white as she is, but who have adopted her attitude of identification with the oppressed. So it isn’t really about race, it’s about oppressed. Race is just a diversion. An easy way to identify the larger number of those who she considers the oppressed.
People are people. Skin color doesn’t matter – culture does, and very often culture and skin color are connected, but it’s the culture that matters. Beneath the skin, we have the same flaws – those old seven deadly sins. They may manifest themselves in different ways due to the difference in culture, but they still go back to the basics being the same. Cain and Able. Adam and Eve. Whether you believe that the Bible is divinely inspired or not, it’s still a remarkable history of the character of man. Our technologies may have changed so that we look back at those early people and laugh at how primitive they were, but in fact, our characters aren’t any different – though our trappings may be.
If you could wave a magic wand and make us all one color, we’d still have most of the same problems. Those who are offended by whitey insulting or taking advantage of blackie would just find a different reason to be offended. It’s an attitude of the individual, not the facts that count.
Those who are offended by whitey insulting or taking advantage of blackie would just find a different reason to be offended.
I had already addressed that issue.
Eliminating race would not end racism as Helen understands it.
It does not particularly matter if it doesn’t end helen’s racism as helen understands it for such a thing is designed to be self-perpetuating.
Helen –
“Re-education camps?” Are you serious??
You must be joking, right? I mean, you do know how things have generally gone for people around the world who have had to go to re-education camps, right?
And as for your statement, “If I respond, which I have done in the past, I’m answering someone else’s questions, not mine. I’m not writing what I think; I’m writing as a reaction to what others want said. Enough of that.”
Helen – responding to other people’s questions is what dialogue and talking with people are all about. I thought you were the one who advocates talking to others.
What is the point of only answering your own questions? It sounds like that is all you are going to do from here on out. How does that lead to learning or understanding others?
There are times, Helen, when I think you say things because they are convenient for you at that time. It doesn’t always seem to matter to you that they contradict other things you have said. That’s just my observation. Others may disagree.
Deana
>>Others may disagree.>>
I would have, but now I’m not sure that I do. I thought we were actually having a discussion, but now it seems that we were talking to a parrot, mistaking the sounds of words for thoughts.
What is the point of only answering your own questions? It sounds like that is all you are going to do from here on out. How does that lead to learning or understanding others?
What helen means, Deana, is that if all helen is doing is answering your questions, then you, Deana, are the one that decides which philosophical premises are included in these questions and answers since you choose the questions. Look at Congress’s latest judicial committee circus for a good example of what I am refering to.
Nobody likes to have their answers loaded beforehand by their political opponents, and while I don’t think you load your questions Deana, certainly helen does.
Yes, I am doing it again. I’m reading helen’s mind and translating. She also doesn’t like that either, you know.
P.S. Helen advocates non-violence such as what King and Ghandi used. It requires talking but that’s not the primary component.
Since non-violence is about being morally superior than your violent opponents, this means that when you ask her questions, Deana, you are questioning her moral supremacy, at least indirectly.
There are times, Helen, when I think you say things because they are convenient for you at that time.
I think she says those things cause logic isn’t her forte.
Helen does not value consistency and thus she does not value logic. She sees it as nit picking or something totally irrelevant to solving real world problems.
I, however, on the other hand believe that you cannot solve problems if your thoughts, beliefs, descriptions of the problems that might exist, are simply produced based upon whim and not the iron cold rules of logic. If there are no rules to what people can believe in, if there are no rules as to what is right or wrong in science and philosophy, then who is to say whether one morally relative belief is more right than anyone else’s?
For those that have read my comment reply to helen on this blog, but haven’t read helen’s responses on her blog, I urge you to click on the link I provided. While I quote selected portions of helen’s response, you will never get the full “flavor” of helen’s views unless you read them for yourself.
After all, it was her post on “consistency” being “nitpicking” that allowed me to answer Deana’s contention that helen isn’t worried much about consistency in her comments.
That’s cause she doesn’t worry about consistency. There are higher truths to achieve, you know.
I came to present another argument from Bookworm room, the site which constantly probes your beliefs with logic and fact checking.
In no way fashion or form will we accept evil as the solution to evil. In no way or fashion of form will we accept separate but equal. In no way or path to hell and heaven will we accept racism as the solution to racism.-Ymar’s last comment to helen on her blog since helen has chosen to stop because like DQ, she can’t stand the force of my logic or arguments
Oops, that should be “because like with DQ, she can’t stand”.
I also think my third little modification in the rhetoric should have been “In no way or path to hell or heaven”. It just sounds better and more streamlined. I wanted to use and, though, since this racism to solve racism bit is like going to hell by using the road to heaven or vice a versa.
>>Helen does not value consistency and thus she does not value logic.
…
That’s cause she doesn’t worry about consistency. There are higher truths to achieve, you know.>>
Sounds like the Queen of Hearts…!
>>While I quote selected portions of helen’s response, you will never get the full “flavor” of helen’s views unless you read them for yourself.>>
I used her links that she left earlier. It’s like trying to run in quicksand…
Helen is a poet, and deals with imagery and emotions.
Even so, it is possible that the flaws in her logic come from the Liberal position, and as such is not unique to Helen.
I’m certainly relieved we’re on the same side of this issue.
She may not appreciate my defense of her though.
Helen takes challenges to her position as “gotchas”. I think the reason for this is that she “knows” she’s right, and can’t answer the challenges.
I agree with Y that many of the challenges are the result of her inconsistencies – which it seems to me, she doesn’t see, or just accepts. Her response at one point is that inconsistencies are inconsistencies. They exist in life. Brian is probably also right – that they’re unimportant to her because her primary focus is art and literature – imagination…where humans can fly, perhaps, because reality doesn’t matter. Still, once you enter the world of politics, reality _does_ matter…and we ignore that fact at our peril. Ghandi succeeded in changing the system because the British were decent moral people who didn’t slaughter him and his followers. If he had used the same non-violence method in a different society, the outcome might not have been particularly desireable. Likewise with King. In fact, it’s a tribute to the inherent decency of the American population that King and his non-violent followers were not slaughtered. The mantle of greatness, therefore, doesn’t fall upon Ghandi and King, it belongs to the people who didn’t kill them, saw the justice of their demands and adjusted the policies of the societies in which they lived.
She says she’s had an epiphany…I suspect she will no longer be answering “challenges”. Which of course, ends discussion. She will simply lecture us.
Many fake liberals don’t know any better since they are very young and inexperienced. Helen does not have those two excuses for why she tolerates illogic and changing her stances around on a whim.
Ultimately, there’s no connection between say, poverty, racism, war, and totalitarian governments in her view. If there are some connections, it ain’t the same connections as we see.
Thus her state of causality is completely different. When that is true, logic breaks down, because logic assumes that each person is using the same state of causality. Know, Event A goes to Event B. Helen says it’s somehow backwards and thus, the inconsistency is not proof of incorrectness, but proof that she can look past short sighted things like nit picking.
That’s not something I agree with, of course.
For example, we think her views on wealth redistribution and affirmative action is going to create more crime, violence, and racism. Her view is that her policies will cause less violence to whites, less crime, and less racism.
You see how the “state of causality” is completely different here? This isn’t about facts. this isn’t about correlating one factual encounter to another, this is about A leading to B.
Also poets aren’t used to having their poems line by line dissected for “inconsistency”. If we did that, every poem would be inconsistent as hecksola.
That’s cause poetry lines aren’t statements of fact so much as imagery. With imagery, the “consistency” is always dependent upon the author’s wishes and whims.
That is not true for political arguments and statements, however. We cannot judge pol args and statements based upon the whim of the person stating them.
Here’s a really relevant article on the societal problems of some blacks. I’d really like to know how Obama would solve them. Some of the solution is easy to see, but if the necessary actions were applied, there’d be holy hell to pay.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_shakir_cant_read.html
By now, I expect everyone’s “gone home”…but it really is applicable, so I thought I’d park it here! Just in case someone happens upon this thread sometime in the future and manages to wade through it to the end!
suek –
What a well-written piece. I will say, though, that I disagree with one thing.
The author says:
“Regrettably, in low income communities like Shakir’s, the external force compels kids away from educational achievement, in spite of the efforts of some to turn things around. ”
I would argue that the fact that Shakir lives in a low-income community is irrelevant. Why? Because since the beginning, this country has had millions of examples of people who grew in low-income circumstances and yet, their parent(s) still put a priority on education.
Once it is (erroneously) believed that low-income causes the type of situation Shakir is in, it allows people to believe that throwing more money at the problem will help. We already know that it doesn’t.
I suspect the author thinks the same – it’s just that that sentence could have been said differently.
Deana
Obama is not going to end the very thing that provides him power and status and prestige.
Just as Palestinian prestige and power comes from the Palestinian problems, so is the same for black power and prestige.
Would blacks have as much influence, prestige, and power if they did not have the problems that people like Arafat could exploit for their own purposes?
The answer is, they would have even more influence if their children hadn’t been aborted by white fake liberal ideologies and their families shattered by white fake liberal welfare. But the wrong black people will have more influence. It won’t be the elites, it won’t be people like Barry and MIchelle Obama.
Btw, Michelle is not a black Afrikan cultured name like Natoisha and so forth. So she has another reason to hate whitey cause her name came from whitey. And maybe she was able to use that name as an advantage, thus providing more guilt and disgust at herself and whitey.
>>Obama is not going to end the very thing that provides him power and status and prestige.>>
Ann Coulter has made this point – not about Obama, but Democrats generally. That is, that Dems contrive problems in order _not_ to solve them, but to have issues to campaign on. Republicans _solve_ problems, and as a result, have no issues to campaign on. I’m sure this isn’t 100% accurate, but I think she’s right – at least in general principle.
>>I would argue that the fact that Shakir lives in a low-income community is irrelevant.>>
I disagree – although I’d agree to this point…it _is_ possible for strong parents to negate the effect of a gang saturated neighborhood, but it’s very tough, needs two parents usually, and even then the children can be “lost”. Now if what you’re saying is that one can have a low-income neighborhood without having a gang saturated neighborhood, you’re probably right, but it’s becoming more and more difficult. It could change over the next 10 years or so, I think, as some of the Iraqi vets come back and move into positions of local leadership. I suspect that the methods they put into practice in dealing with the insurgents will be equally effective in gang neighborhoods. Unless they choose to move away from them – which is what I see as the basic problem – decent people move away from such neighborhoods, leaving them to the scumbags, who then take over. Nature hates a vacuum etc.
suek –
You are correct – I should have been more specific. I was thinking more along the terms of neighborhoods that are not completely overrun by gangs.
But in a situation where the neighborhood is saturated with gangs, a parent who cares about their kids would make it a priority to move from the neighborhood. I really hate hearing people say, “Well, they can’t. That takes money.” Yes, in part. But it also can be done with reliance on family. And that is the crux of the problem – for so many reasons, families are almost non-existent. We have created a situation where people don’t have to rely on family because the state has taken the place of the family.
So, when we are confronted with situations like Shakir, the first thing people demand is more money for social programs. Few ever say, “Wait a minute. Where are Shakir’s mother’s parents? What about the father and his parents?” There is no shame anymore so these people are let off the hook. Heck – they aren’t even considered as part of the equation in how these types of problems get solved.
Sorry for the length of the response but I just exhausted at the ever increasing demands that programs, schools, hospitals, and so on step up to the plate to fix problems that they were never designed to address when God/nature, whatever you want to call it, designed a BETTER mechanism for addressing these problems: the family and local community participation (through support and when all else fails, shame).
Deana
I suspect that the methods they put into practice in dealing with the insurgents will be equally effective in gang neighborhoods.
if the government outlaws gun ownership, there will be no effective COIN and militia building for neighborhoods.
If you want an example of anti-citizen proponents of gun control, go here.
Link
Search for Darth and my comments. Also Search for Laughing Wolf’s. Or you can scroll down and read what you like.
>>if the government outlaws gun ownership,>>
You don’t think that after this recent SCOTUS decision that that’s out of the loop for a while at least?
>>when God/nature, whatever you want to call it, designed a BETTER mechanism for addressing these problems: the family and local community participation>>
You probably know I agree with you. I rather think the long term outlook is more along the lines of anticipating the government at some time in the future metaphorically throwing its hands in the air and saying “we’ve tried _everything_ and it hasn’t worked – we’ll just have to take over raising your children ourselves. Universal – mandatory – child care. From birth on. ” And the socialist state is in effect.
Yes!!! That is exactly it!!
I sometimes feel we aren’t far from it right now.