Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color
Bookworm on Sep 15 2009 at 11:40 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Race
Whenever I read the news, I’m being told that those who disagree with Obama do so based on his color. Ordinary Americans simply can’t handle a black man in a power position and reflexively disagree with him and wish him ill. It’s not even personal, we’re told. It’s just that we’re bone-deep racists.
When Joe Wilson called Obama a liar for asserting in his big speech that no illegal aliens would be covered under the Democrats’ proposed health care plan, liberals were undeterred by the fact that Obama had just gotten through calling all of his opponents liars; by the fact that Obama was, to put it politely, misstating things when he made his claim about coverage for illegal aliens; and that Democrats had treated Bush just as rudely. Nope, what mattered to liberals was the (to them) obvious fact that, because he is a Southerner, Joe Wilson’s sole reason for shouting out was Obama’s skin color. Here’s Maureen Dowd to explain:
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
[snip]
The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
[snip]
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
Dowd is not the only person accusing Americans of being racists for calling out the president for policy disagreements. In connection with the Tea Party Tax protests, the always charming Jeanine Garafalo has been open in expressing her concerns about the racism that permeates American society:
You know, there’s nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they’re not quite certain what he’s saying. It sounds right and then it doesn’t make sense. Which, let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.
Not to be left behind, Joan Walsh, writing at Salon, chimed in with a whole column devoted to just how racist ordinary Americans are.
You don’t have to look only to the celebrated liberal doyennes of New York and Hollywood to get the loud-and-clear message that the only reason one could possibly dislike Obama is because of his color. Nor, as these gals show, do you need any actual, explicit racism to make that inflammatory charge. An unknown L.A. Weekly blogger was equally strident when he discussed the implications of the now famous “Obama as the Joker” poster:
The poster, which bears a very superficial resemblance to Shepard Fairey’s famous Obama Hope illustration, has been pasted on freeway supports and other public surfaces. It has a bit of everything to appeal to the drunk tank of California conservatism: Obama is in white face, his mouth (like Ledger’s Joker’s) has been grotesquely slit wide open and the word “Socialism” appears below his face. The only thing missing is a noose.
When called on that last sentence, the blogger doubled-down:
The truth, again, is that the fears of the art lovers who champion the Obama Socialism poster are all about race – about losing their skin privileges, about the possible airing of old crimes and grievances committed against blacks. How else can you explain the mad surge to buy guns, to deny Obama’s American birth, the teary prediction that the White House is ordering up concentration camps, and the rock-solid belief that Obama’s lab-coated bureaucrats are coming to kill our grandmas? Who’s the real Joker here? And whose deck is that race card being played from?
The most recent development is that politicians are getting into the act:
“As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. “And we think it’s very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.”
[snip]
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, agreed with his colleague that elements of the opposition can’t accept the reality of a black president.
“There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency,” Honda said, adding: “With some, I think it is [about race].
Said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) about the race factor: “There are some issues that have been swept under the rug and we’re not witnessing them come out.”
Just today, Howard Kurtz assured his Washington Post audience that conservatives, independents and even some Democrats who keep questioning the unconstitutionality of Obama’s proposed health care plans are just using that ragged old document as code to hide their racism:
I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about “the Constitution” and “taking our country back.” Maybe Obama’s health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there’s a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.
It seems that Kurtz has never heard of the 10th Amendment. Let me remind him:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In plain English, the federal government has only enumerated powers. The power to turn our entire health care system into a government operation is not one of those powers.
Things have gotten so bad when it comes to charges of racism concerning our post-racial president that we’re now told that even our lily-white American babies are racists.
Well, I have a confession to make. Here it is. All of the liberal pundits are correct. I do have a big problem, a really big problem, with Obama’s color. But my problem isn’t the color of Obama’s skin, which is completely irrelevant to me. Instead, it’s with the color of his politics. With every passing day, Obama is proving to be an old-fashioned Red – a true, bone-deep socialist.
Obama’s relentless push to place place our economy in the government’s hands, whether directly or indirectly, shows that he is a socialist. Obama’s political advisors (Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, etc.), many of whom hew, not just to the Left, but to the far Left, show that he is a socialist. Obama’s disdain for free speech, demonstrated by his repeated statements that his opponents should shut up, and his support for people who want to destroy talk radio, show that he is a socialist. Obama’s affinity for and deference to dictators shows that he is a socialist. Obama’s manifest hostility to our traditional Democratic allies (most notably Israel and England) shows that he is a socialist. Obama’s non-religious support for totalitarian Islamic governments is a good hint that he is a socialist, since the Left has long been in bed with those entities, since they, like the Left, are hostile to America. Obama’s manifest disdain for America, bastion of capitalism and freedom, shows that he is a socialist. And Obama’s life-long mentors (Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright) all of whom are active Communists, socialists or America haters, shows that he is a socialist.
Probably because I’m a word person, I truly am color blind. When I read a blog report or a newspaper story, I have no physical image in my mind of either reporter or reportee. The only thing that matters in my completely verbal world is the content of the speaker’s or writer’s character. That Obama’s skin is darker than mine (and, honestly, everybody’s skin is darker than mine) is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the fact that everything I read about what Obama says, what Obama does, and who Obama chooses for his friends shows me that his real color, the color that transcends his skin and defines who he is, is RED, RED, RED. And I, as someone with a deep and abiding affection for America’s Constitutional freedoms, and her marketplace economy, cannot think of any worse color for an American President to be.
Email This Post To A Friend
68 Responses to “Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Room – Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color Sphere It Share and [...]
[...] called the VMA winner to apologize — and according to her reps, she has accepted his apology. Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color – bookwormroom.com 09/15/2009 Whenever I read the news, I’m being told that those who [...]
Well put and a good verbalization of thoughts I’ve come to recently. I do believe that all these bogus racism accusations just might kill the power of the term. It’s all a con, make an accusation that impacts the victim to get them to react as you wish. But if you make the accusation over everything, then it loses its power and your mark starts to see you for what you are.
Deeply Offended by Obama’s Color…
Maybe color matters after all.When Joe Wilson called Obama a liar for asserting in his big speech that no illegal aliens would be covered under the Democrats’ proposed health care……
Such a great post, Bookworm. Has anyone else noticed a problem with your Email sending link? I’ve been trying to send this one (and others) to like-minded “non-blog readers” and I get a message saying, ” cannot connect to Server”?? Just wondering – I don’t have that problem at other sites.
Cathy:
I’ll see what the problem is with sending emails. Meanwhile, most browsers, under the “File” menu, have an option for sending a link or a whole page to an email recipient.
In the section on the lovely and vivacious Jeanine Garafalo you unintentionally use the term “tea bag” rather than “tea party.” I know, this is a small point, but since changing the language in an Orwellian manner is one of the left’s chief weapons, I hate to see anyone adopt their terminology or definitions, even accidently.
They use the “you’re racist” insult because it’s all they have – and it’s unanswerable. It’s easier than actually answering the points raised…
Thanks, George. It was inadvertent — I actually had a nice cuppa near me — and I’ll fix it asap.
A link from a link from a link… from the Front Page article on Valerie Jarrett points out that her father-in-law,Vernon Jarrett, served in the 1940s with Frank Marshall Davis on the Publicity Committee of the red-dominated Citizens Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. Frank Marshall Davis moved to Hawaii and was later a “mentor” for Barack Obama when he was a teenager.
Small world. Makes one’s head spin.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-file-84-why-was-obamas-brain.html
Gringo, don’t worry, Bush will still be the most nepotistic in America’s eyes.
Y: learning that about the Jarrett/Davis connection made me wonder if perhaps the Manchurian candidate folks had a point. Really strange coincidence. It made me wonder if Davis had corresponded to Jarrett about a potential young find. I wonder if somewhere there are any copies of Jarrett/Davis correspondence post 1970- or if they corresponded at all post 1970 ( i.e., after Davis met young Barack Obama.)
But presumably there are five or six degrees of connection between any two people in the world. When I was working in Venezuela I met by coincidence a Venezuelan who knew an acquaintance from my high school days in the US. So that Jarrett/Davis/Obama connection may have just been one of those strange coincidences. Moreover, Valerie may have been divorced from her husband by the time she met Obama, making the Jarrett/Davis/Obama connection even more coincidental.
“As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. “And we think it’s very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.”
The Sunnis also thought of Americans as foreign infidels and invaders that needed to be fought off and killed to make them go away. They also thought we came there for their oil and to replace Saddam.
As far as the Sunnis of 2004 were concerned, we weren’t their friends or anywhere close to being allies.
Now they are stronger allies of ours than the Shia, though not as strong as the Kurds.
Things people. People change. If only because bombs blow up some people but not others.
Things change.
I am glad you don’t oppose Obama for his skin color. Of course just because you don’t oppose him for that reason doesn’t mean there aren’t those out there who do, and that is unfortunate.
I suppose for me there are two things that make me question the motives of some conservatives. One is the fierce hatred and fear – as opposed to simple disagreement. The second is the lack of rational reasons for the hatred and fear. In all seriousness, Obama is not Hitler. And to me, anyone who jumps to that comparison, whether using it to discredit someone on the Right, such as George W. Bush, or someone on the Left, such as Barack Obama, immediately loses credibility in my eyes.
Yes, Obama is a leftist. You are not, and so you disagree with his policies. Totally fair. You have every right to oppose his policies and to hold protests, just as I did against George W. Bush. Unfortunately, however, because this IS a democracy and NOT a fascist state, you may not get your way. I learned that myself, the hard way, when the Iraq War was rolled out against the will of millions of us who protested against it. It sucked, and it continues to suck – but thats the way the cookie crumbles when you have a democracy, and I am pretty sure the founding fathers were fully aware of this risk when they wrote the Constitution. In fact, I think that was the whole point.
Left and Right. There have always been opposing viewpoints in the United States political system, before and after July 4, 1776. It isn’t one particular set of political or economic opinions that defines what our country is all about. In fact it is just the opposite. What makes our system great (in theory) is the fact that there are so many differences between us, and yet we co-exist, cooperate with one another, and tolerate one another, all the while fighting like hell to see our own personal visions, ideas and beliefs come out on top.
So, I am sorry that you are unhappy with who was elected president and are opposed to the policies he is putting in place. For me, he is doing exactly what I elected him to do. Sucks for you, but then again, its not like I haven’t put in my time either. Work harder, and maybe one day you’ll be back on top again. But in my opinion, it won’t do you much good to throw around “leftist” like its a curse word, because there are many who have no problem with that label, and there clearly were more than enough to vote him into office. But leftists aren’t all blood-sucking perverts any more than right-wingers are all ignorant racists.
And I’m sorry to say it, but shouting “RED, RED, RED” just makes you sound like a throwback to the McCarthy era, and helps your case little more than putting a little black mustache on a portrait of Obama, as if “that says it all.”
Opposed to Obama’s policies because you feel they represent bad economics? Fine. Work on educating the people. Time will show who is right. But turning Obama into a scapegoat ignores the fact that he merely represents the pulse of the majority of the Americans who voted for him.
And cheer up… as of now, its only four years. You’ll probably live. Take it from me… I just got through with eight!
Aaron Lozier
Lafayette, LA
I am truly fed up with this bogus B.S.
There was some MTV award show and it seems that a Kanye West (Black) grabbed the microphone from the winner, Taylor Swift (White) and made a statement that the best video was from another singer, Beyonce (Black).
Not so oddly enough, no mention of racism.
Would I be considered a racist, if I said, I just couldn’t stand the human race lately.
ajlozier
So, I am sorry that you are unhappy with who was elected president and are opposed to the policies he is putting in place. For me, he is doing exactly what I elected him to do.
So you elected him to pass an $800 billion 647 page “stimulus bill” which just HAD to get passed as soon as possible, even though the bulk of the spending was two years hence, which very few Congressmen had even read a page worth.
So you elected him to effectively nationalize two of the big three auto companies, and keep the outrageously high union wages and benefits which dwarf what most of us receive from OUR employers, and which were a primary reason for the auto companies’ financial problems in the first place.
So you elected him to push the deficit through the roof. ( I disagreed with Bush’s deficit spending.)
So you elected him to push a thousand page Health Care bill.
1) Which very few Congressmen have bothered to read, judging by the responses at the Town Hall meetings;
2) Which increases government control, when the President himself admits that the Post Office does not compare well to private FedEx and UPS;
3) Which is so good that Congress has exempted itself from the bill’s provisos. What does that tell you?
4) You elected Obama to push a health care bill for which the President claims will not increase costs, when the Budget Office says it will. What does that tell you?
And I’m sorry to say it, but shouting “RED, RED, RED” just makes you sound like a throwback to the McCarthy era, and helps your case little more than putting a little black mustache on a portrait of Obama, as if “that says it all.
I have no idea what experience you have with refugees from Communism and Nazism. I am from a small town, with an eighth grade class of 27, and knew many refugees from Communism and Nazism. I would suggest that you read some Solzhenitsyn. Really.
When I find out that Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago at the home of Billy Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn, two of the four co-authors of Prairie Fire, I get concerned. From the book:
The book is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, the assasin of Robert Kennedy, and a host of other “political prisoners.” That doesn’t concern you? You don’t care that Obama was buddies with someone who dedicated a book to, among others, the assasin of Robert Kennedy?
Perhaps to you, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a meaningless statement. I knew people who had fled the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and it was apparent to me that these people had been traumatized by their experience of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Perhaps you can cavalierly dismiss “red red red,” but I cannot. I am reminded of Faulkner’s statement: “The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.”
And as regards Van Jones, while I can see why someone might have become a Communist/communist in the 1930s, when little information was readily available about what was occurring in the Soviet Union, when someone chooses to become one in the 1990, when such information was readily available, one has to question the judgment of such a person.
Aaron Lozier: Not being an American, perhaps you can discount some of my opinion. But I can tell you some stuff about the Left and the Right, and perhaps open your eyes (and maybe your mind) a little to what I can see from the outside.
You say:
In all seriousness, Obama is not Hitler. And to me, anyone who jumps to that comparison, whether using it to discredit someone on the Right, such as George W. Bush, or someone on the Left, such as Barack Obama, immediately loses credibility in my eyes.
Glad to hear it. Therefore, we can take this as an affirmation that the following persons have little to no credibility in your eyes;
MoveOn
Congressman Keith Ellison
Pat Buchanan
the Los Angeles Times
Naomi Wolf
Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley, who goes one better and compares Bush to OBL.
Ward Churchill
as well as the various people who infest the Daily KOS and the Huffington Post. Much appreciate your candour on the matter.
I do agree with you, by the way. Obama is not Hitler. However, he is a socialist. And a fascist. And all in all, the perfect mascot for the left wing movement.
You deplore the fact that there are those on the right who disdain Obama because he’s black. Never mind the fact that he’s about as black as my purely Chinese behind. So, I guess you also deplore the fact that there are many people out there who disdain Thomas Sowell and Alfonzo Rachel and Ward Connerly for being Uncle Toms. Funny enough, they seem to be Democrats mostly. I further suppose that you deplore the fact that there are many blacks and Hispanics who pretty much hate the White Man and the gringo. Also, again appreciating your candour.
You say,
Opposed to Obama’s policies because you feel they represent bad economics? Fine. Work on educating the people. Time will show who is right. But turning Obama into a scapegoat ignores the fact that he merely represents the pulse of the majority of the Americans who voted for him.
Heh, well, when the MSM is openly in the tank with the left wing, what do you think the blogosphere is all about? Educating the people is hard when the left has control over education, and is actively working to degrade literacy and numeracy into Ebonics and New Math.
Let’s see whether you are correct about President Obama having the majority of America’s votes. Lifted directly from Wikipedia, which is hardly a hotbed of conservatism, we can see that 63% of the eligible public turned out to vote. Let’s assume for the moment that there were no illegals imported by ACORN voting. It still means that more than 1/3 of the American voting public were so apathetic or disgusted by BOTH candidates they did not bother showing up.
The popular vote had Obama win by 69,457,000 to McCain’s 59,934,814. The margin is ~ 10 million votes, which is less than 3% of the total American population.
In other words, more than 2/3 of the American public did NOT vote for Obama, either by voting for McCain, or by not voting at all. Further, If only McCain could have fired up the apathetic ones another 5% more, he would have won and it would have been called a landslide.
Gee, I wonder which issue got them all fired up enough to march on DC?
Book said:
But my problem isn’t the color of Obama’s skin, which is completely irrelevant to me. Instead, it’s with the color of his politics. With every passing day, Obama is proving to be an old-fashioned Red – a true, bone-deep socialist.
I know we try to avoid using the word “socialist” here; we prefer Statist, because it describes our American experience better with that form of politics and government control over the people.
But if you move outside the boundaries of our country, you experience ‘Socialism’ in its purer forms far more often. We have defenses built up against it here, which is why African socialism, European socialism, and Asian/Chinese socialism have such a difficult time building up steam here in America. Most of us aren’t exposed to it; but look at Obama’s history. He *has* been widely exposed to it. Throughout his childhood he grew up immersed in it; and his parents were quite radicalized as well. Children tend to follow in the path of their parents/parenting, and Obama is no exception to that general rule.
Then, after his drifting and alienated teenage years, he enters hotbeds of university radicalism and becomes radicalized himself.
Therefore, I think in Obama’s case it is correct to move from ‘Statist’ to ‘Socialist’, due to his formative years outside the usual American experience, his parenting, and his University radicalization. He’s no typical American Statist. He is a World Socialist.
ajlozier #15:
I have to say I really appreciated ajlozier’s commentary in #15. I thought it was a very fair and calm representation of the liberal viewpoint, from someone who is decently thoughtful about his (or her) positions. Wasn’t mean, didn’t attack, didn’t engage in all the usual putdowns and slights and expletive-laden crowing you see on other websites. Job well done!
ajlozier’s viewpoints and tone match the way my liberal friends discuss things with me; which is why we remain friendly. I thought he or she did a very good job, and I see nothing to object to (except the politics of course!)
He (or she) is right in the sense that 53% of voting Americans elected Obama, and that *is* the way the cookie crumbles. (And, yes, ahem, crumbling is a vey good metaphor in this case, aj!)
So I for one would like to welcome ajlozier! Thoughtful and reflective and aware of the year-to-year changing nature of politics, I think those kinds of comments from our liberal compatriots are welcome.
ajlozier did say:
I suppose for me there are two things that make me question the motives of some conservatives. One is the fierce hatred and fear – as opposed to simple disagreement. The second is the lack of rational reasons for the hatred and fear.
and I find it interesting that he did not quite come out and admit that the “hatred and fear” towards George Bush was even more vitriolic. That which was directed at Bush was not based on race, and so there is absolutely no reason to claim that any hatred or fear expressed towards Obama is based on race either.
I have a complete disdain and disgust for Obama’s cultural upbringing and background. This is primarily based on the radical politics of his parents and their entire circle of acquaintances. I should pity Obama, because it’s not his fault that he grew up immersed in such a miasma of failure-based viewpoints. However, as an adult he like all of us has had the chance to investigate alternatives, and he’s consistently moved even further into radical policies and outlooks, so my pity never gets very far.
I have a similar complete disdain and disgust for the rap culture within the black community. Note again that my “hatred” is for the culture, and where in Obama’s case its nature is political, in the case of rap my “hatred” is for the fact that everything about it is civilization-destroying. It promotes anarchy, barbarism and chaos. There is nothing life-affirming about it at all. It promotes all the worst in human nature.
Liberals tend to be unable to understand this difference between disgust for a specific culture – or subculture – and racism. There remain many positive aspects to black culture and there are a lot of black people out there who hold to the values of those positive cultural influences. But there are some incredibly corrosive aspects to some parts of black culture – as Bill Cosby has fearlessly pointed out, for example.
So we have seen the race card being played with great frequency lately. Race-baiting. It appears to be a coordinated effort right now. I actually find that encouraging because it means they’ve got nothing else to stand on; and I find it encouraging because I think they’re missing the pulse of the American people. I get the sense that all this race-card-playing and race-baiting is actually turning off people. Not to the extent that Hitler comparisons are turning off people, and not to the extent that the mainstream media is, more and more, beginning to be tuned out due to their rampant bias. But the resistance to race-baiting *has* finally begun to grow in recent years. It’s a start.
I can see that several of you are flabbergasted that I voted for and continue to support a man whose politics are so drastically different from you own. But thats the thing, my politics are also different from your own. I imagine several of you voted for and supported George W. Bush. I too could draft up my own long list of “WHY’s” but that is not my intention here.
@gkong3 – You raise a fair point, but yes I stand by my words. I consider careless comparisons to Hitler or Stalin highly disrespectful of those who suffered under those historical realities. It seems to me that those who employ this tactic are in a sense trying to rhetorically cash in on that suffering to make their point stronger.
The only thing I wanted to attempt to debate here was whether it is necessary to respond to Obama and his policies as though we were in the midst of a fascist takeover. To me this dishonors the political process that led us to this point. I can understand why so many of you are upset, and disagree with his policies, but why must you take it beyond that? Why take it to the point where you actually argue that our country is in danger of proletarian revolution and/or extermination camps? To me, it is unsettling, because it lends itself to ideas of stopping Obama “by any means necessary,” democratic or not.
I am sure it is difficult, but I think that it is important to acknowledge that radicalism is also a part of our history. It wouldn’t be difficult to find some pretty incendiary writings by any number of 20-somethings, not only in the 1960′s, but any period really. And that goes for the Left and the Right. Do you honestly believe you do not have your own skeletons in your political closet?
So I suppose you could look at it a couple of different ways. I suppose it is possible that the Right is simply right, composed of moral and intelligent people, and by contrast the Left is wrong, composed of immoral and ignorant people – and thats just the way things are. Or, like me, you could say that there are moral and intelligent and immoral and ignorant individuals in both camps, no one possesses the answers–only theories, and that the democratic process will, in time, help us as a people to find what works, and what doesn’t.
Most of what I see in the comments above are a criticism of Obama’s actions, not for the results they have had, but the result you expect or imagine they will have in the future. In the end, Obama’s stimulus packages or health care reform bills may turn out to be as big, or even bigger disasters than the Iraq War. Or – they may not. I am hoping not, just as I am sure many of you believed the justifcations behind the invasion of Iraq at the time. Only time will tell. But the point is this – those on the Left are just as “American” as all of you, and have just as much right to make decisions about this country as you do. Honor the process. That is all I am saying.
Sorry, one more thing. I want to acknowledge that many of my criticisms of the Right, in their scapegoating of Barack Obama, comparisons with Hitler, irrational hatred, etc., could also be applied to the Left during the previous administration. I will even take it a step further and admit that I did not do enough personally to reject this attitude. My recent experience has taught me a lot, and reminded me of a simple principle that goes beyond any politics – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I could go through the entire experience of the Bush administration again, I would do it differently. I probably would have worked even harder to oppose him, but I would have been more respectful. In the end, I think respectful opposition is more effective anyway.
Of course, if Obama were *really* a Stalinist fascist, then I would be the first to join you at the barricades. But, well, I think that is not the case and is actually a rather ridiculous thing to say.
ajlozier
The second is the lack of rational reasons for the hatred and fear.
Rational: Congressmen who support and vote for thousand page bills they haven’t read.
Irrational: Constituents who are angry at Congressmen who support thousand page bills they haven’t read.
Most of what I see in the comments above are a criticism of Obama’s actions, not for the results they have had, but the result you expect or imagine they will have in the future.
Perhaps you should reread my section where I replied to your statement that he is doing exactly what I elected him to do. This is the way you want things done? You approve of Congressmen voting for bills that are hundreds of pages long that they haven’t read? (Obama’s trying to rush things through, such as what he did with the Stimulus Package, will only encourage that Congressmen will not read what they vote on.)
One point about “the results they have had.” : Obama claimed that the Stimulus Package would reduce unemployment. Given that unemployment is currently well above what it was when the Stimulus Package was passed, that is a very dubious claim.
Honor the process. That is all I am saying.
See my comments about Congress and my problems with the process by which Congress goes about affairs.
I am glad you see that you acknowledge that the left was also very uncivil towards Bush.
Tigerhawk expresses it well.
While the left is NOW wanting civility, demonizing the right continues:
1)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “evil-mongers”…. “I hope you go out of business”
2)Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “astroturfers” “swastikas” “un-American” etc. Do you not find more than a little ironic Nancy Peolosi’s benign reaction to Iraq War protesters when they interrupted her several years ago, compared to her reaction to the Tea Parties?
3) Numerous spurious labeling of “racist.”
We have a long way to go to become civil towards each other. I agree that civility is preferred, but I also find it rather hypocritical for the House to censure Joe Wilson, for two reasons: 1) In his speech to Congress, Obama accused his opponents of lying; 2) There are numerous examples of incivility on the part of Democratic members of Congress towards President Bush- not censured.
A very substantial number of the commenters here , myself included, here were once on the left, as was Bookworm.
“Of course, if Obama were *really* a Stalinist fascist, then I would be the first to join you at the barricades.”
So no matter how many Stalinists and fascists he chose as mentors, no matter how many people he appoints who espouse paranoid hate and seek to curb liberty, no matter what he does you will claim that you cannot see what Obama really is.
It still seems hypocritical to say “oh NOW you want civility because the shoe is on the other foot, well TOO LATE.” That might sound tough, but where is the integrity? Do you believe in civility or not? If you do, then you should be civil regardless of what your opponents do. If not, well, don’t criticize your opponent for being uncivil. As for me, I see hypocrisy everywhere. It is not an invention of the Right or Left, it is simply an unfortunate aspect of human nature. As I said, I have learned from this experience. But you have your own path to walk.
So it’s uncivil to point out Obama’s communist/fascist leanings? For the sake of “civility” we must pretend that he’s some sort of centrist?
ajlozier: No comment on Pelosi and Reid?
No comment on how playing the race card with abandon, how demonizing your opponents with the “racist” label, especially when done by white liberals, is not a very civil way to act?
No comment on the ironies of the House censure of Joe Wilson? No comment that given previous Democratic Party behavior, that this appeared more to be a power play than an attempt at instilling courtesy?
As for me, I see hypocrisy everywhere. It is not an invention of the Right or Left, it is simply an unfortunate aspect of human nature.
So start commenting on the above.
If you don’t like Tigerhawk’s statement, then go to his site and state your opinion.
@Gringo I didn’t come here to defend every action of every Democrat, so that is why I am not responding. If I wanted I could start a laundry list of every hypocritical, distasteful act committed by conservatives, but that is not my point either. I’ve made the point I set out to make. I disagree with you, I think Obama is neither fascist nor Stalinist nor Nazi, but I don’t feel its worth the energy writing volumes of arguments to try and convince you. To me, its an irrational belief and so rational arguments won’t make a difference.
AJLozier, you strike me as someone who is thoughtful about their positions and the civility of your discourse is much appreciated.
Comparisons to a budding “Lenin”, Stalin” or “Hitler” may sound overblown(my own comparison would be to “Mussolini, a fascist much admired by the Progressive /Left in America beginning in the 1920s and leading up to WWII. Fascism is a political philosophy that envisages a centrally engineered society whereby the economy, corporations, education, media, social values, body politic, and church are planned and controlled by a central authority. This was a vision and ideology promoted by many Western intellectuals and leaders, beginning in the 19th Century and culminating with the fascist states of the mid-20th Century (and 21st Century, if we include Iraq-under-Saddam and North Korea, as one example). Several scholars would include Wilson and FDR in the coterie of fascist visionaries, although fascism in America was relatively benign when compared to its Russian and European versions, obviously. The American Progressive movement, nurtured at the University of Wisconsin (my alma mater), was essentially a fascist movement and Jonah Goldberg has documented how the eugenic theories developed by American progressives helped lay the groundwork for Hitler’s race and genocide policies (Hitler openly acknowledged his debt to American progressives, here).
All this is not unlike the vision developed by the hard Left in this country, which has dedicated itself to the dismantling of capitalism and its replacement with a central political body dedicated to Progressive values. These are the values of the people with whom Obama was surrounded in his youth (e.g., Frank Marshall Davis) and with whom he voluntarily surrounded himself with in his adult life (Ayers, Dohrn, Jarrett, Jones, Browner). Obama’s advisors are former SDS and Weathermen with history of extolling a neo-fascist vision for America. If you have any doubts about the sociopathic natures of these people, consider this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ&feature=player_embedded
Plus, consider that we ask why Obama’s educational records while attending hyper-radical universities have been sealed…what do they hide? Ask also why the Obama Administration is trying to cozying up to fascist regimes around the world…Venezuela, Iran, Syria, etc.
So, AJLozier, given the bloody, disastrous history of fascism worldwide (naziism, communism, etc.) and given the people with whom the President has surrounded himself, would you really deny the validity of their comparisons and concerns?
The often missed irony is that if there is a racial element in the opposition to Obama, it can only come from leftists. Think about it. Someone who consistently opposed leftist policies from whites like Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, the other Clinton, Edwards, etc, is exhibiting no objective manifestation of bigotry if they continue to oppose the same leftist policies proposed by Obama. The only clear case to support the charge of racism is found in those who supported leftist policies proposed by the whites named above, but now oppose the same policies when they are advanced by a black. So, just about everyone on the right, save a few klansmen or neo-nazis, or others who have exhibited unambiguous racist behavior, are totally clear of the charge of racism. Now, let’s start looking at former leftists who have recently opposed leftist policy only since Obama was elected.
ajlozier:
That you would consider defending the above uncivil words of Pelosi, Reid, etc. and the assorted players of the race card shows the absurdity of your position. You were very quick to call people on the right hypocritical regarding the current issue of civility but were unwilling to acknowledge the specific instances I cited of Democrats who currently have with being civil themselves. This points to a problem.
Neither uncivil behavior nor uncivil words on the part of the Democrats stopped on January 20, 2009.
I am quite willing to denounce uncivil behavior on my side. When you are also willing to condemn the above post 1/20/2009 behavior on your side, I will stand with you.
That you are thus far unwilling to condemn the examples I cited of post 1/20/2009 uncivility on the part of the Democrats makes me suspect that you are more concerned with condemning uncvility on the part of the right than you are with a consistent standard of civility applied across the board.
ajlozier:
Since you didn’t answer my question from #17 regarding Prairie Fire, which numbers Billy Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn among its four co-authors, I will repeat it.
The book is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, the assasin of Robert Kennedy, and a host of other “political prisoners.” That doesn’t concern you? You don’t care that Obama was buddies with someone who dedicated a book to, among others, the assasin of Robert Kennedy?
>>That might sound tough, but where is the integrity? Do you believe in civility or not? If you do, then you should be civil regardless of what your opponents do. If not, well, don’t criticize your opponent for being uncivil.>>
And _that_ sounds like “Make them live up to their own rules…all of them, to the letter”
Alinsky was a cunning fox.
If you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail I suppose.
Good catch, Suek!
ajlozier: I appreciate the civility in your comment — and it’s certainly sparked a good discussion here, something I always like.
I only want to respond to one point regarding the “winner takes it” all point you make. You’re right, of course. We have a two party system and it’s always been winner takes it all. The problem for a lot of Americans — and I’m not talking about die-hard conservatives such as those you find here, but about independents and even moderate Democrats — is that they didn’t vote for the winner they seem to have gotten. Obama ran a very centrist campaign, and the media worked with him to sweep under the carpet anything that would indicate that he’s not a centrist. Likewise, Obama ran as a model of efficiency and intelligence, and, again, the media hid from view any contrary facts.
In the past few months, increasing numbers of voters have realized that they were on the receiving end of a con job. Instead of a moderate, post-partisan, post-racial, masterful executive, the curtain’s been swept away, and they realize that the man in office is a radical statist, who is highly partisan, extremely invested in racial politics and (as even his most devoted supporters realize) a completely inept executive. You can therefore pardon people from pushing back angrily at his policies — they were not as sold, and they were not what people voted for.
Of course just because you don’t oppose him for that reason doesn’t mean there aren’t those out there who do, and that is unfortunate.
This is a secret police form of argument that justifies the restriction and removal of civil liberties through emergency decrees, based upon the justification that there are dangerous people out that. That just because your neighbor isn’t dangerous, ‘doesn’t meant there aren’t those out there who’ are. An unfortunate state of affairs that requires the Iron Hand and the counter-revolutionary purge of dissdents and their families. Disappearances will be made to happen and that will be unfortunate but justified, obviously.
I suppose for me there are two things that make me question the motives of some conservatives.
The totalitarian regime is intensely interested in inculcating an interest amongst their serfs, peasants, and thug muscle in suspecting the motives of their neighbors or opposition opponents. This paves the way for public support of mass crackdowns and police brutality, as everybody can transpose their suspicions of specific people into rightous condemnation of an entire group of people once the propaganda justifications were dissimilated. It is truly a mass efficiency market in terms of democratic support for secret police tactics.
The second is the lack of rational reasons for the hatred and fear.
The Germans and Russians prided themselves on their rationality and scientific endeavours. The Germans made a science of extermination and the cleansing of those with ‘quality of life’ issues based purely on a rational and scientific perception of how much qualitative life a cripple or genetic inferior could derive from existence, as opposed a healthy and superior being. The French made the Committee of Public Safety and everything was well arranged, including the rather efficient design of the guillotine, given that there weren’t enough executioners in the entirety of France for the needed killings. Recognizing a problem, then solving it, is the height of rationality. Without faith in a higher power, however, there can never exist human rights, human dignity, or free will. I think therefore I am. Thus there are all kinds of hateful people who can be ruled as incapable of thought, real thought, thus they can be simply disappeared because they don’t exist. Thus are the fruits of rationality without the religious and humanist principles of the Enlightenment.
Unfortunately, however, because this IS a democracy and NOT a fascist state, you may not get your way.
Only oligarchs get their way in a democracy. In a constitutional republic and representative rule, which is what the US is, the government is not allowed the power to make laws disposing of inconvenient people nor are the citizens allowed to vote the government such power in return for power, influence, goodies, cars, or houses.
Your support for democracy is ostensibly support for greed. The taking of life from one person and giving it to another. Slavery, by owning the production of one person’s life and giving it to another at the point of the gun. Even the Communists understood that one must own the means of production. They just thought ideological elites should own the means of production, which meant themslves.
What makes our system great (in theory) is the fact that there are so many differences between us, and yet we co-exist, cooperate with one another, and tolerate one another, all the while fighting like hell to see our own personal visions, ideas and beliefs come out on top.
The US Constitution allows that way of life. By seeking to overturn and bypass the US Constitution and provide the government with illegal powers, you won’t have that way of life for long. Regardless of which party is in power. The system cannot hold when corrupt men and women are given the power to TRANSFORM the system of American politics and life.
Sucks for you, but then again, its not like I haven’t put in my time either.
The old politics said that there was one pie of power and that one could redistribute it according to one’s politics if one controlled it by winning elections. The new politics says that you can create more pies of power by utilizing terrorism, ACORn organized mafioso money laundering and corruption (vice and white collar), and then give these pies out to people that never could or have won elections.
You’ll be sucking on the fumes of this new dynamic for a long while. Because you haven’t guessed where they are making these ‘pies’ from. Think Green Soylent.
because there are many who have no problem with that label
On that logic, there are many who don’t mind being called fascists, pedophines, Obama lovers, mass murderer groupies, slave owners, owners of production, socialites, millionaires, or billionaires. Does that then justify you and your side in calling racists racists when some racists are proud of their white supremacy and white culture and white women? If it does, you ain’t got a pedestal to stand on talking about the “Left”. Don’t be a hypocrite like Obama and outlaw smoking in the military while you’re still taking a toke.
Work on educating the people. Time will show who is right.
The Democrats supported a war to preserve slavery and kill off both Southerners and Northerners. The Democrats supported the KKK in suppressing the votes of freed blacks after the Civil war. Democrats have been shown by time, and on time, that they are on the wrong side of history. Roosevelt had Stalin. Truman had Korea. Where’s our exit plan from there, btw? How do you justify propping up the corrupt South Korean government when the SK government has more GDP than NK and have had plenty of time to maintain the DMZ with their own military forces?
The people have already been educated. That’s why you will keep them educated and prevent them from seeing another point of view, whether it regards the true history of the Democrat party, the true history of racism, the true history of economics, the true history of communism, or the true history of America. These are the things you will vote for, and have voted for Obama, by your own self-declarations. He is doing exactly what you wish him to do.
The Republicans in WWII recognized that it would be treasonous to the United States, their home, to undermine and sabotage Truman and Roosevelt’s war policies, even though they disagreed mightily politically. The Democrats have never given this nation the same consideration. They created a War of SUccession by stoking up hate amongst Southerners simply because they didn’t like LIncoln, a Republican, being elected President. The patriots of America sorted this out, at Gettysburg and Antietam, with many patriotic and honorable Southerners, Northerners, black regiments, being annihilated and crippled because somebody disliked how an election resulted in a Republican President.
You folks are still doing the same thing, as recently as George W. Bush. Trying to create strife, stoke up hate and rage against the system, the political figure of the 2 minute hate, rather than against America’s true enemies or problems.
The only thing protecting you from war and devastation is the very Constitution and system of law you are promoting the erosion of. It is incredibly irrational to seek one’s self-destruction with such verve. And for what. Money? Power? The pride of saying you elected an Afrikan?
You’ll probably live. Take it from me… I just got through with eight!
Bush is a better man than you. His wife would be a better woman than you also, if you decided for a gender change. You see, he protected all Americans from a terrorist attack, regardless of what your politics were. Then again, Bush was a believer in the US Constitution, that when it was written it was right, that the principles were right, that it was not inherently flawed.
Your lackluster remark that your guy, Obama, will do the same for us is too ridiculous to consider as anything but the result of Leftist indoctrination. Obama is going to order the formation of the execution squad for those with ‘quality of life’ issues. Take a pill, no surgery for you. And that is the man that is supposed to ensure that ‘we’ get to live? Don’t beclown yourself. Let Obama do it for you. There’s still 3 or 7 years to go. Don’t make predictions about the future like Bush and his advisers made about WMDs and Iraq. It’ll set you up for a fall if they are perceived as untrue later.
@Gringo I didn’t come here to defend every action of every Democrat, so that is why I am not responding. If I wanted I could start a laundry list of every hypocritical, distasteful act committed by conservatives, but that is not my point either.
So your idea of defending every action of every Democrat is to start a laundry list of conservatives and your issues with them. This is not ‘defense’, this is ‘offense’. If you had been educated in anything but Leftist mannerisms, elitism, and ideology, you would know this very simple tactucak difference.
I am quite willing to denounce uncivil behavior on my side. When you are also willing to condemn the above post 1/20/2009 behavior on your side, I will stand with you.
The Dems are very quick to disarm America of nukes first, in a unilateral bid, rather than make it so that Russia and America disarm at the same time.
Why aren’t Dems just as quick to admit fault on the part of Dems? Obama is very quick to admit America’s faults and crimes and history of repression, so… what’s the hesitation about.
And it’s also something they are incapable of understanding. Deals requires participation by both sides. It can’t be just be a unilateral declaration about the other side. I won’t disarm if you won’t disarm. You won’t disarm if I won’t disarm. That’s human nature. The Dems can’t seem to utilize diplomacy even when they utilize the tactics of foreign policy arm twisting on Americans.
A slightly different take on the matter:
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-collectivists-are-going-nuts-about.html
That might sound tough, but where is the integrity? Do you believe in civility or not? If you do, then you should be civil regardless of what your opponents do. If not, well, don’t criticize your opponent for being uncivil
My integrity lies with the Code Duello.
In political affairs, the battlefield is very simple. If the Left truly believed that Bush was what they said he was, they should have tried for violent revolution, insurgency, overthrow, complete opposition politically, and so forth. Anything that would have gotten the job done, had they truly believed BUsh was destroying their Constitution and country. But they didn’t. THey didn’t risk their lives. They fired up the rhetoric, but that’s it.
Instead, the Dems went along to get along for power. They nibbled at the edges, talked about lack of uparmored vehicles and lack of armor, while seeking to cut military funding and funnel it to their pet projects and ACORN girls and boys.
That’s cowardice on your side. Dishonesty. Hypocrisy even.
We, however, are not you. We are not the Left. When we say the tree of liberty must be watered, whether with the blood of tyrants or patriots, we are not talking about some abstract and intellectual past or some political ‘gotcha game’. We are talking about our blood, their blood, our tree and our liberty.
To me, it is unsettling, because it lends itself to ideas of stopping Obama “by any means necessary,” democratic or not.
To those that don’t see a threat sufficient for them to kill or risk their own lives and the lives of their familiy, of course they would be unsettled. If Bush was what the Left and you said he was, I would have supported you in your resistance. But all your side did was play politics. Trying to hoard and steal power from Bush and the Republicans. You weren’t risking your life for anything. You weren’t willing to kill anybody, except the poor Iraqis as collateral damage in your war against Bush as he tried to fight AQ.
When we say we see a threat in the future that we would kill to defeat, die to defeat, we aren’t joking. We aren’t playing politics. We aren’t using it as rhetoric to cash in on victims or on the victimology of victims. We aren’t hypocrites like the Left.
Civility means nothing when you have no blood and skin in the game. If incivility gives you power and wealth while civility gets you defeated and treated as a weak party, what kind of a fool would choose the latter over the former. AN idealistic one, perhaps. A conservative, even.
If there is no cost to a man or a woman’s words, intemperate or fighting it may be, then what you have is moral hazard. People take riskier actions than they would have had they known they would have had to pay a much higher price then they needed to. They don’t consider paying the price, because they are unaware of what could happen with housing or mortgages or banks or whatever. But when I call a Democrat a coward, I am not joking. If they are a coward, then it is perfectly acceptable for me to have them challenge me and I will choose the weapons. Because this is an important matter that I would put my life on the stake for, for the truth as I see it, that they are cowards. That is the ‘process’ by which truth is derived. It is the process by which the Constitution was written in context of. Checks and balances. Not just upon politicians, but upon their constituents as well.
If you anyone wishes a simple overview of the Code Duello, read this.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/about/bio/duel.htm
If you seem to think you have a superior perception of Book because you think she should know certain fundamental facts about a ‘difference of opinion’ here in the good old United States of America, that Book’s view of what the Left means does not correlate to what your view on the Left means, then you should be adequately situated to understand me when I say that you don’t understand what honor and honesty means to the conservatives or other non-Democrat agents of this country.
>>The second is the lack of rational reasons for the hatred and fear.>>
There’s a snake in my back yard. I’m sure he’s a nice snake, just doing whatever snakes do. As far as I know, he’s never bitten anybody…his colors are so pretty out there in the grass. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to hurt him. Now…if I _knew_ he’d already bitten somebody, I might consider killing him – although I’m sure it wouldn’t have been his fault…that’s just his nature.
Why should I fear him?
[...] Bookworm Room – Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color [...]
Don’t Worry, Be Whitey……
Don’t Worry, Be Whitey… By R.J. Godlewski © September 16, 2009, All Rights Reserved. (Right Truth Exclusive) Let me get this straight. Representative Joe Wilson speaks his mind off camera on national television and has to apologize in triplicate. Kayne…
Post #22 I imagine several of you voted for and supported George W. Bush.
Some weeks back, there was a fellow here, who led us into a lively discussion. If I recall BrianE engaged with him at length about the subject. Several others strayed into the give and take, citing numerous facts and references. At the time, I found the ‘tell’ in one of his posts, which was a ‘red flag’ as to his intent. In the end, he toddled off thinking that he had lured us into his bat cave and had taken the ear of his ‘enemies’.
I sense the same condescending ‘tell’ at the top of this post, there were others in the same #22 post (below)
I can see that several of you are flabbergasted that I voted for and continue to support a man whose politics are so drastically different from you own.
If one were trying to learn how to counter/counter attack an argument, the newly arrived visitor learned from the best of them. If the intent is a ‘term paper’ or a thesis on political discourse or mediation, then all of you deserve footnote credit.
If not, the poster will have to return with something more than, “it sucks for you”.
Some weeks back, there was a fellow here, who led us into a lively discussion.
Charles passed on nuking him and I arrived too late.
Ymarsakar
Just as well, too.
After I posted, I remembered it has to with some ‘insurance clause’. He turned out to be a Rebel without a Clause
I can see that several of you are flabbergasted that I voted for and continue to support a man whose politics are so drastically different from you own.
Actually, as many of us who comment here, Book included, used to be on the left, and still maintain social relationships with those on the left, we have no difficulty imagining how people support politics different from ours. That doesn’t mean we approve of their politics, but we can readily imagine some of the thought processes used to arrive at those positions.
The more appropriate word would not be “flabbergasted,” which implies a total lack of comprehension, but “saddened.”
When I think of my time on the left, I am reminded of this song: Won’t Get Fooled Again.
It appears to me that those who are playing the race card are the same people who were hyper aware of race during the entire campaign. Those who complain that it’s racist to oppose the President are simply stating the situation as they see it. They voted for him because of his race, are ecstatic that a Black man is President, while experience and qualifications and temperament don’t matter… the fact that BHO is an African-American is enough.
For the people… both black and white… making the charges that opposing Pelosi’s and Reid’s healthcare plans is racist, this whole Presidency is about Race. Why??? Liberal Guilt? Proving liberal bona fides? Or is it as crude as those thugs threatening folks on youtube with the taunt, “Howz it feel to be ruled by a black man?”
They have nothing else to debate with as the President’s Race is almost the entire extent of their reasoning for supporting him… that and the fact he’s a Democrat. Maureen Dowd… Jimmy Carter… pathetically shallow people who simply can’t fathom that anyone would criticize a Black man in public.
If you haven’t read this, you should. It’ll make your heart feel good…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
Two thoughts about the “racist!” thing…
It serves to change the subject. Indefinitely – as there’s no way to prove that you’re not racist except to accept the premise being put forward by your opponent. In other words, lose the argument. So the choice is that you’re either racist or wrong.
Second, this is going to kill the idea of anybody actually being racist. It will become an empty insult. Just as ‘nigger’ was once a normal(though not used in “polite” society) term to refer to a person of color, then it became an epithet, and then became a term of endearment (as long as used appropriately), racist will become something else – I have no idea what that something else will be. Maybe a name for someone who stands for the preservation of the Constitution…I don’t know. But as for what it presently means – it won’t.
You can change the subject as well. Simply call to light the fact that Democrats engineered the Civil War to hit both the South and the North with their arrogant concept of who should have had power.
The Dems bring up racism. We bring up slavery. In the history of things, racism was omni prevalent, but slavery was rather one sided.
suek, thanks for the link.
It did make my heart feel good.
He turned out to be a Rebel without a Clause
I think i hit a punade.
>>…we’re now told that even our lily-white American babies are racists.>>
http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1
Your link went to a short page that had a link to the article. Very interesting article. I wouldn’t say that it proclaims that our babies are racists – what it says is that our babies notice when a person has a different skin color. And as they grow up, children need a framework in which to place that difference, and many if not most of our social interactions don’t provide that framework. As a result, young people have to work out a framework on their own, and as in many situations where young people are left without any guidance, the framework they develop can be seriously flawed.
Considering that babies start life with a great big “ME!” as their focal point and gradually widen that to include their immediate family, and then their neighborhood, then their country…this shouldn’t be a big surprise. I think what _is_ surprising is the idea that we need to talk about race with children – what it is, why it is, what it isn’t – that sort of thing. I can’t say I ever gave it any thought with my children – but we were in the military – we were Army green. Period. So in my mind, it’s an “us” vs “them” problem, and we just need to make sure that “American” is _us_. In fact, I think that’s at the whole heart of the diversity problem – we need to be _us_ – not a whole bunch of “thems”.
RE “babies are racists.”
I would rephrase it. Ethnocentrism, or some sort of differentiation between group and not-group is embedded in our genes. Here is my tale.
Years ago I was at a small hotel in northern Argentina. When I was walking across the lobby, the toddler son of the caretaker started screaming when he saw me. I was walking, not running, and was around 30 feet away from the child. Similar scenes repeated themselves, but after several days of seeing that his mother accepted me, the child remained calm in my presence. (Had the child some sort of traumatic experience with someone of my appearance, I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that I would have been informed of that.)
My interpretation was that I looked very different from the other people the child had seen. I was light-skinned with light brown/dark blond hair, and blue eyes,in contrast to the brown-skinned black haired and dark brown eyed inhabitants of the hotel. I had eyeglasses and a mustache, which the others did not. The child was scared of me because I looked different from what he was accustomed to. Once the child saw that his mother accepted me, and he got accustomed to my appearance, he no longer got upset at my presence.
At the same time, once children see that an adult cares about them , they are indifferent to the ethnic makeup of the adult. IOW, the innate ethnocentrism is not difficult to overcome.
Aaron Lozier: I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you still have a continued interest in a civil debate between left-leaning and right-leaning people. Don’t let the verbiage scare you; it’s worth reading through and responding.
I hope by now you will concede that President Obama was not indeed voted in by a majority of eligible American voters, and that his administration so far has not been living up to the campaign hype.
I also hope that you concede those on the left are poisoning civil discourse by calling every single accusation we levy at President Obama a racist one. Every. Single. Accusation. Quite frankly, this beggars belief, and should arouse even your sensibilities.
It should be obvious by now that the health insurance debate is arousing a hige wave of feeling – mind you, from the same people who ostensibly ‘voted for the nigger’, as one Obama campaign anecdote colourfully put it. (source is apparently http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-road-western-pennsylvania.html, whose author is an Obama man, it would seem, and later on http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161392966, assuming of course that the Trinidad and Tobago Express is a good fact-checking newspaper) This in and of itself should clue you in to the fact that it is the bill – and Obama trying to ram it down America’s throat – that is arousing such amounts of indignation.
All in all, it is not racism that is the main trigger – otherwise you would have to concede that you are essentially calling most of the right-wingers racist, which you take pains to say you do not believe, right?
But let me concede this much. There are racists in the right wing. Just as there are racists in the left wing, and how! I myself am an incredible racist of the highest degree. I believe that the Chinese race is the superior race, and that next to us only the Jews, who are our cousins, can be considered equal. Well, maybe the Japanese and the Koreans and the Mongolians as well. Maybe. Insofar as they are part of the Chinese nation and/or were offshoots.
That, however, does not preclude me from holding positions that are in opposition to Obama’s that have nothing to do with his ancestry or skin colour.
gkong3
I believe that the Chinese race is the superior race, and that next to us only the Jews, who are our cousins, can be considered equal.
..which would explain
I myself am an incredible racist of the highest degree.
..but does not explain
How you came to the incorrect conclusion that Jews are a race
Sadie: Oh? Why is that an incorrect conclusion?
Genesis 12: YHWH to Abraham, “I will make of you a great nation, a father of many. Whomever you curse, I will curse. Whomever you bless, I will bless. And you shall be a blessing to many nations.”
Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> 12 sons -> 12 tribes of Israel -> … -> the nation of Israel -> a split in the nation into the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah, after the tribe of Judah).
Northern Kingdom invaded, colonised, intermarried -> Samaritans
Southern Kingdom invaded, ultimately maintained racial purity -> Jews
Therefore, the Jews are a race. QED. Of course, Judaism is a religion as well, and Paul does allude to the fact that circumcision alone does not make someone a Jew, just as Jesus says that G-d is able to raise sons of Abraham from the very stones. But that does not mean the Jews are not a race in and of their own right.
But please, I am always happy to learn new facts and discoveries as they come to light. Your assertion that the Jews are not a race is a novel idea to me.
Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits.
I would define the Jewish communities of the world as a nation of many faces. The word nation in Hebrew means people, so that you can insert the word ‘people’ where you have read ‘nation’. Judaism is a religion, but being Jewish is also a shared culture and ethic identity bound together in a common history, a separate language for prayer and prescribed rituals.
Jewish communities exist throughout the world. The Jews of Ethiopia do not genetically look like the Jews of Kai Feng nor does either community look like Eastern European Jews or those from Yemen. The thread that brings all of them together as a people/a nation is that they share the same roots/history and of course, Torah.
Nothing ‘novel’ at all. Jews have never perceived themselves as a race, have never defined themselves as race -only hitler did, in his attempt to erase them.
Sadie: Argh. Okay, fine.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/is-there-a-jewish-race–13670
Insofar as you are referring to the people who embrace Judaism, as in the terminology Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Jews, then yes, there is no such thing as the Jewish race.
However, I am referring to those physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Hebrew people. I am applying the term ‘race’ in that sense. Like someone would describe himself as a secular Jew, or an atheistic Jew.
The problem is, as anyone can tell you, is that even up to the 1st century AD and then some, despite the diasporas, the term Jew still referred to the people descended from the tribe of Judah, as well as their religion. If you were a convert, you were known as a God-fearer, or a Jewish proselyte. Hence our assertion that Jesus was a Jew. http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20041009.htm The term does get conflated, and I’m not responsible for that conflation.
But tell you what. There’s no such thing as a black race, or a white race, or a hispanic race either. So why don’t I modify my comment and say that I am an ethnic supremacist, and I believe people of Chinese descent and extraction blah blah blah, with only those Jewish people of Hebrew descent as our equals blah blah blah.
However, I do agree that the term ‘race’ is ill-defined, and that the word ‘people group’ suits better. For that matter, there are Chinese born awfully close to the Indian border who look pretty much like Indians (and probably won’t be distinguishable from a DNA test) and are still Chinese. Strictly speaking, Chinese isn’t a race either (more a hodgepodge of Hans, Manchureans, Mongols, etc etc etc), but I’m not gonna bellyache over this.
I do think there is a genetic Jew, although Jews are too diverse, historically and in the present day, to yield to that simple classification. That’s what makes us interesting.
[...] First place with 2 points! – Bookworm Room – Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color [...]
Council speak 09/18/09…
The council has spoken, again. This week’s winning entry was Bookworm Room’s Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color, but it’s his political color. This week’s runners up were Mrs. Rhymes With Right’s A Reflection On The…
Watcher’s Council results…
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obamas color. First place in the non-Council category was Big Government with Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN. Full results……
Watcher’s Council Results — September 18, 2009…
Here are the current results from the Council. There’s some really good stuff in here, and I encourage you to read it. Winning Council Submissions First place with 2 points! Bookworm Room – Liberals are correct: I have a……
[...] the Watcher’s Council winners for two weeks ago. The winner in the Council post category was Bookworm Room’s “Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color”. Tied for second place [...]
[...] Council: Bookworm Room – Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color [...]
[...] So, if I understand this correctly, Beck is a foul excuse for a journalist because he goes after Administration officials who say stupid things. (Apparently this was a good tactic during the Bush years, but is an unfair tactic during the Obama years.) Except that, actually, they really did say certain things and the administration should have known that they were hiring people who would make the American public see red, both in anger terms and political terms. [...]
[...] so far, of the 21st Century — bigger even than the election of a vaguely black, completely red, man into the White House. The one thing I suggest is that you don’t use the “I told [...]