"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again..."
Discuss.
Straight from the Candidate's Mouth
Posted May 9th, 2008 at 07:48 AM by xian
Could you post the link, please?
That is a quote from Hillary. I heard it played several times on Morning Joe today.
Please refer back to Obama's speech in Philadelphia. These things need to be taken in context. If you understood the anger and frustration of white americans, you would better understand what she was trying to get across. It is amazing to me that anyone would want to make an issue of this statement. It just shows how far some people have to go in terms of understanding the pain this country is experiencing in race relations. It's time to move on from this. People like Xian, who bring up this type of stuff, are just trying to stir the racial pot instead of focusing on things that will unite this country rather than divide it. Isn't it far more important for us to start talking about how we are going to bring jobs to America than to parse these words of Hillary?
Here is the original USA Today story. I'm still waiting for the inevitable photoshop of Hillary, head bowed and with her fist in the air in a White Power salute, ala the Mexico City Olympics.
"Please refer back to Obama's speech in Philadelphia. These things need to be taken in context. If you understood the anger and frustration of white americans, you would better understand what she was trying to get across. It is amazing to me that anyone would want to make an issue of this statement. It just shows how far some people have to go in terms of understanding the pain this country is experiencing in race relations. It's time to move on from this. People like Xian, who bring up this type of stuff, are just trying to stir the racial pot instead of focusing on things that will unite this country rather than divide it. Isn't it far more important for us to start talking about how we are going to bring jobs to America than to parse these words of Hillary?"
Heh.
"Isn't it far more important for us to start talking about how we are going to bring jobs to America than to parse these words of Hillary?"
Of course it is. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to rephrase what was obviously an unfortunate sentence structure, she chose instead to reaffirm her statement and repeat her argument that superdelegates should vote for her because she's white and he is black. She gave this story legs, and now we have to suffer through another couple of news cycles about how the Clintons are racists.
I don't think they're racist. Clumsy, out-of-touch, way off their game, and arrogant to the point of delusional, yes, but not racist.
well stated, anon. (wink, wink; nudge, nudge)
Yesterday morning on the news Clinton was already pushing this talking point.
Basically her strategy right now is to claim that she's the one candidate who can appeal to the so-called "Reagan Democrats," and so therefore she plans to tailor her campaign to the right, to appeal to those people. She said, quite frankly, that black people always vote Democratic anyway so she feels free to ignore them and go after this other group.
That's the problem I have - I don't want an agenda tailored there. I've long thought Clinton (both of them) were pretty much "Republican Lite" and lacking all semblance of balls, but now we'll get more of the same, more fear of doing anything against the status quo, out of fear that this same fickle constituency will bail?
I say let 'em go. If they want to be Republicans, there's already a party for that.
So the odious equation of white Americans with hard-working Americans, and the constant repitition of the "white voters = REGULAR voters" meme ASIDE (and yeah, it's pretty odious), the actual substance of her comments this week, namely that the superdelegates should choose her because she'll reliably bow her head, move to the right, and stop making noise so she can get more points and get the name elected even if it means sacrificing any actual substance only makes me like her even less.
And that has zip-all to do with her English.
Hillary needs to give a speech in Philadelphia calling for a national conversation on race in which anybody else talking about race is a distraction.
Hillary: "I can no more disown these words than I can disown my first-black-President husband."
If Hillary were willing to have a serious conversation on such things, it would be welcome. But the problem is, the minute anyone suggests she might be too radical on any issues, might be too "liberal," she'll cave, oh, I'm sorry, I'm not THAT unreasonable, no, no, I'm the NICE candidate. So you should all pick me, pick me, because I'm nice and uncontroversial. I won't make waves. I won't disturb the easy nests.
I'm not so sure she would like to have such a forum, quite frankly.
For once I'd like a candidate who when called radical or liberal or accused of hating the troops or all those time-worn memes, stands UP and says "yeah, and? Why don't we actually discuss this?" No backing down. No internalizing of the idea that they should feel somehow guilty for daring to take a position that's different, no getting super apologetic and back-pedaling the moment the dreaded "socialist" word is mentioned.
...and more from Peggy Noonan in today's WSJ (link to full text):
"Who can save the situation? The superdelegates.
You know them. They're the ones hiding under the rock, behind the boulder, and at the bar.
They are terrified, most of them. They want the problem to go away. They want it handled, but they don't want to do it. They don't want to tell Hillary to stop, because they would likely pay a price for it, and not just with her.
They are afraid of looking as if they're jumping on a train that's speeding down the tracks and is about to roll over the damsel in distress.
Which is how Hillary -- and her supporters -- will paint it. Even though she's no damsel, and she causes distress.
Some insight from a superdelegate I spoke to Thursday:
It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will."
The quote is, imo, a non-issue. Who cares? As we saw in Indiana and North Carolina, Hillary can't really hang with Obama on the issues. She pushes a silly, pandering gas tax "holiday" and he takes the high road. She loses NC and almost drops the ball in IN.
So you can't make hay on the issues, you go for the low road. This is news?
As for her dropping out or not dropping out, I am hoping she is staying in it because she wants to smooth the transition for her support group. She needs to be at the end of the line for her support to logically and smoothly transfer to Obama. Since she actually won Indiana, it doesn't appear to be the end of the line, even if it is. She'll probably win in KY and WV next week, and will hold on til the end when it becomes clear that Obama has actually won it. This will be the psychological transition that her voters need, imo.
So she needs to play nicer, for sure, but she also needs to help her voters make the transition to Obama. This comment doesn't help, but it is just more stupidity trumped up as news.
"The quote is, imo, a non-issue. Who cares? "
Just a guess here, but I think Xian does, since he started the post on it.
D. Boon dismissing a racial comment made a Democrat? I'm shocked...shocked I tell you!!
Oh, come on now. The point I have been making all along is that these kinds of issues are distractions. John McCain will most likely never slip up and say something racist one way or the other. He might, but I doubt it.
But what he will do is appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will overturn landmark civil rights advances. He will cut "earmarks" that will probably include a lot of money for jobs and other services in our inner-cities. He will probably re-up NCLB, which will allow the continued dismantling of our inner-city schools with little to replace the loss. He'll continue the War on Iraq for years to come, costing us more billions of dollars and more lives, many of whom will be minorities.
If you really want to know what racism looks like, just vote for McCain in November. We'll have another four years to learn our lessons well.
"If you really want to know what racism looks like, just vote for McCain in November."
Can't you feel the New Politics of Hope, Unity and Change?
John McCain will most likely never slip up and say something racist one way or the other.
Yeah, except for calling people "gooks".
Can't you feel the New Politics of Hope, Unity and Change?
Hey, we are leading the league in aversive racist threads this month. Congrats to all involved.
Can't you feel the New Politics of Hope, Unity and Change?
Perhaps the most ironic part of this new effort on the part of conservatives to label the Democrats "racists" who are "manipulating race for political gain" is the way conservatives refuse to acknowledge that anything they do is even slightly racist. No black men or women in your entire congressional delegation? Definitely not a sign of inherent racism! Implementing policies that adversely affect minorities? Definitely not racist! Burning "illegal immigrants" at the political stake to make points with the base? Not a sign of a racist contingent in the party.
The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. It is more than appropriate to blast Obama or Clinton for saying "racist" things, but once the discussion about Republican racism begins then it is time to cry "foul!".
Kind of humorous, I guess.
"Perhaps the most ironic part of this new effort on the part of conservatives to label the Democrats "racists" who are "manipulating race for political gain" is the way conservatives refuse to acknowledge that anything they do is even slightly racist."
The only Democrats I've ever labeled racist are the ones who told exit pollsters they cast their vote based primarily on the race of the candidate. Which is pretty much the definition of racism.
But nice strawman. You can go back to name-calling now.
D.Boon, are you saying that if a conservative is against illegal immigration, he's a racist? Can't you even admit there's another point of view on this topic, or is that racist too? How about the fact that in North Carolina about 90% of black voters voted for Obama--does that make them racist? What if I think that Obama has too little experience to be President, and is Marxist as well? Does that make me a racist? It's going to be a long election cycle if every time there's a disagreement, the race card is played.
The only Democrats I've ever labeled racist are the ones who told exit pollsters they cast their vote based primarily on the race of the candidate.
Not even close to the point. Anytime anyone points out Republican policies that are racist you cry "not uniting!" or "are you calling everyone a racist?", effectively shutting down discussion. You are actually one of the most blatant "manipulators of race for political purposes" I have ever come across. Nothing Republicans ever do could be racist, and if someone says it is they are just wrong, not a uniter, or some other such nonsense. Nothing left to talk about, no chance for discussion. Using the word "race" in the same sentence as "Republican" is the best way to get you to either change the subject or stop writing altogether.
It's going to be a long election cycle if every time there's a disagreement, the race card is played.
It's going to be an even longer cycle if every time the race card is played no one from the Republican side is even willing to admit it, or discuss it, much less call their party on it. If we are to be mocked as lacking hope for even daring to discuss the effects of Republican policies on minorities then we'd might as well go home now and forget about the whole thing.
If 3 million unskilled, white, French-speaking, Canadians were coming over the border every year, you don't think we conservatives would have the same problem with illegal aliens?
"...appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will overturn landmark civil rights advances."
- which specific landmark civil rights advances are you referring?
"No black men or women in your entire congressional delegation?"
- Perhaps if Democrats would stop putting black Republicans in blackface and labeling them with racial slurs, it would help. Electing minority Republicans isn't a problem for Republicans (they win the vast majority of GOP votes when they are on the ballot), its a problem for Democrats.
D. Boon mentions the meme "Nothing Republicans ever do could be racist..."
That's because the ones saying that buy into the current Patriotically Correct myth that there is no racism in the United States of America, racism went away in the 60's right after MLK gave his one and only speech, "I have a dream," and Rosa Parks via her own individually noble spirit (who needs civil rights organizations or organizing? No, you just need a good HEART) decided she was too tired to stand and so sat in the front of the bus. Of course that playing field is level now! If we just ignore everything, it's all good! And rich people aren't allowed to sleep on park benches EITHER so what are you whinging about any benches policy for? It's fair!
The only time there's racism in 2008 is when someone is uncouth enough to actually mention race or majority priviledge[1] in public, at which point they are of course "playing the race card" or "engaging in class warfare" or "being unAmerican" or any of the other handy labels that get tossed around, and of course engaged in racism against the majority, the one true racism left. Why can't they just be like REGULAR people???
Yeah I'm cynical today.
[1] What, you thought it's a white thing?
Calling someone (or a group) racist pretty much shuts down all opportunity for discussion, Boon. Duh.
"It's going to be an even longer cycle if every time the race card is played no one from the Republican side is even willing to admit it, or discuss it, much less call their party on it."
Your requirement for "having a discussion on race" is for Republicans to start the discussion with an admission of racism.
Sigh.
are you saying that if a conservative is against illegal immigration, he's a racist?
No, but if the politician--conservative or not--focuses on the race or nationality of the immigrants in question, or plays on existing race based anti-immigration, that's racist.
Can't you even admit there's another point of view on this topic, or is that racist too?
Completely incoherent.
How about the fact that in North Carolina about 90% of black voters voted for Obama--does that make them racist?
No.
What if I think that Obama has too little experience to be President, and is Marxist as well?
What if you could fly and run over 5000 miles an hour while asking nonsensical, irrelevant questions?
Does that make me a racist?
No, but it's not going to get you a lot of props.
It's going to be a long election cycle if every time there's a disagreement, the race card is played.
Oh here we go. Watching a minority candidate get torn up on racial association and then calling the racial analysis that follows "playing the race card", that's beautifully "racist".
Help me out, will it be longer than the 2000 one, where the Republican party elected the worst president in most Americans' lifetimes based on extreme racism in his campaign to slur McCain? How about the late 19th century campaigns where blacks were killed for even trying to vote or serve?
Will it be longer than those?
Can't you even admit there's another point of view on this topic, or is that racist too?
Completely incoherent.
Actually, not completely incoherent. I understood his point exactly. So just incoherent to you. Which almost brings us back full circle. Are all things incoherent when YOU don't get them?
Oh fun! We're playing "Who's the real racist!" My favorite game!
I have to admit to having met some blatantly racist Republicans in my time.
I also have to say most of the white liberals I know flee the interracial schools with the rest of the "white flight."
Absolutely - this isn't a partisan thing.
There is a reason that Hill's statement sent out shockwaves. Let's not forget that.
First, she equated "working Americans" with "white Americans." Oops.
Second, she seemed to pander to that part of the Democrat party that won't vote for a black guy. (In Indiana, that % was as high as 16%).
Of course, it's all a sideshow, now. Hill's done; put a fork in her. She's apparently the last one to get it.
P.S. You're all bored. It is ridiculous to attempt to sort out all of the nuances of race in little snippets on this blog.
Your requirement for "having a discussion on race" is for Republicans to start the discussion with an admission of racism.
Sigh.
Not really. My requirement would be for you to acknowledge that the Republican Party is pursuing some policies and some policy changes that are against the best wishes of the minority groups in this country and most minorities.
You can call that racism, or not. I think the idea that Republicans believe they know what's best for minorities, who overwhelmingly disagree with that sentiment, is pretty racist. Oh, and I think the fact that Republicans seem to have such little interest in appealing to minorities in this country is also pretty racist. And the use of ads to appeal to racist sentiments is probably a pretty racist thing to do.
I think this is a partisan thing. Not that all racists are Republicans, but that the Republican Party (like Clinton, who seems to be adopting their strategies) has used racism for political purposes which has helped to perpetuate that racism. I could list a litany of policy and campaign choices that have been made by the GOP and the RNC that are just flat-out racist. From the "southern strategy" to "welfare mothers with cadillacs" to "macaca", it is a pattern that is hard to ignore.
Unless you don't want to talk about it. Then it is apparently easiest to ignore by attacking anyone who dares to bring it up. After all, we are just "playing the race card" if we dare to point out the obvious.
- which specific landmark civil rights advances are you referring?
I'd expect a conservative court to overrule almost all affirmative action programs, the voting rights act, and probably the civil rights act of 1964.
Electing minority Republicans isn't a problem for Republicans (they win the vast majority of GOP votes when they are on the ballot), its a problem for Democrats.
Ah, so it is the Democrat's fault that the Republicans never run minority candidates. Got it.
Ok, D. Boon, I'll take the bait.
Wikipedia: "Racism, perhaps by its simplest definition, is prejudice and discrimination based on race."
You stated: "I think the idea that Republicans believe they know what's best for minorities, who overwhelmingly disagree with that sentiment, is pretty racist. Oh, and I think the fact that Republicans seem to have such little interest in appealing to minorities in this country is also pretty racist."
Look, racsim is predicated on an action that is motivated by the color of a person's skin. Simply pursuing policies that are not supported by a majority of the members of a particular race is not racist at all, unless the MOTIVATION of the person pursuing the policies involves race.
In other words, if a majority of beggars are from a particular racial or ethnic group, and I choose not to put a dime in the cup because (a) I don't like beggars generally, or (b) I just don't have much money, that act is not racist. If I have loads of cash but don't put in the cup just because the beggar has a certain skin color or ancestry, THAT would be racist.
pretty clear that Obama is a racist then, since he's puruing policies that a majority of white people oppose. nothing like a liberal to question the motives of others. Obama's been doing it the entire campaign.
But why are the beggars majority one group out of proportion of the population? You never stop and wonder?
It's not anything that any one person can solve. That's the rub. That's also the subversive part.
The Republicans never run minority candidates, humm.
Racism is alive and well at many levels of society, from the individual, to the family, to the team, to the job, to the party. Racism has become a catch all meaning that has little merit in todays political race, because nothing these poiliticians say can be construed as truth. Yes racism is still alive, and will always be that way, as man is the measure (have you paid any attention to your fellow man lately). The ultimate question for you, is it alive in your heart? All the time? Occasionally? Never? I like my coffee black and my bread white, but not always, blackened white fish is good too, so is Sushi. Do yall think I am a redneck, a racist, a gun toting bible carrying racist. Not entirely, just your every day realist who would like to see all men and women respect each other and give an example for the kids that might help stop the insanity before it gets engrained in another generation. But of course I am a realist, I would like to see it done the smart way, the Republican way.
I am afraid the only way we will see black and white racism die, will be when Nationalism unites this country in the war on Islamofacism. But thats just displacement, but that could be the uniting factor to eliminate our historical racism as we enter the new racism based on religion and that ethnicity that often goes with it. Todays politically incorrect racism may give way to socially accepted racism at some point. and unite the masses of Americans who love this country, no matter the skin tone, less its middle Easterners. Perhaps the Jihad will be the tie that binds the races in America. Camel Jockeys, seems harmless. But we know better, some would be offended and call for your death.
Oh yah, as the borders remain open and the illegal Mexicans continue to invade this country, racism on account of this will be brewing in a major way and will show its face soon enough, coming to a town near you. Just being real. Racism is the way of the world, notice how all the communities in metopolitan areas are usually segregated by race/nationality????? Exactly why it is imperative for all Americans to speak English. Now that is a relevant political topic...or is it just old news.
*boggle*
The fact that people can't even agree on a definition for racism speaks volumes.
No wonder people have been able to exploit that theme for years, with no signs of letting up.
The only point I have attempted to make in this thread is that racist remarks coming from Democrats is, imo, negated by the positive legislation and policies that come from Democrats to minority candidates. That, in fact, racist remarks are probably not a big surprise in a tense campaign with two people of different ethnicities. That doesn't excuse those remarks, but I am arguing we need to have some perspective.
A McCain Presidency would be disasterous for America's minority groups. From African-Americans, to Latino/as, to the gay and lesbian community, four more years of a REPUBLICAN President will mean four more years moving backwards on civil rights. I don't see any way around that analysis, and to me that is the real racial threat here. Not some words spoken by a candidate in May of an election year.
But I again applaud the powers-that-be here at IlliniPundit.com for sidetracking this fairly legitimate conversation into a "you said Republicans are racist, what is wrong with you?" conversation where policies are no longer discussed, consensus is not obtained, and everyone loses interest very quickly. It is becoming a very noticeable pattern. Attack the messenger, attack the wording of the message, claim to be outraged or shocked that anyone would dare say anything in the message - basically do anything except explain why the message is wrong. Look long and hard through this thread. You'll not find a single sentence or argument that starts with "These Republican policies are not racist because _________". Instead you'll just find distrations.
I'm off to the Champaign County Jail to visit a friend. I know that most of the people in that jail this morning will be black. But I'll make sure to leave my brain at the door and not think that maybe, just maybe, some of the drug laws that put these people here are even the tiniest bit racist.
Have a great day.
The RNC needs to focus on the split in the Democratic Party, capitalizing on states such as PA, OH, MI, and even California where huge numbers of Clinton supporters have been disenfranchised.
Clinton won the popular vote in more congressional districts than Obama. Leaving dozens of DNC Superdelegates who are now supporting Obama although their own constituents voted for Clinton.
This is the ideal election not only to stand up to and end the far-left hijacking of the executive branch, but also an unrealized opportunity to regain seats in the house.
All RNC supporters need to visit the site below and get the info into the hands of their Dem. friends.
Why hasn't the media mentioned that Hillary has won the pop. vot in more congression districts that Obama.
Read these articles The Obama Strikes Back and The New American Disnfranchisement at
www.politicallydrunk.blogspot.com
Oh fun! We're playing "Who's the real racist!" My favorite game!
I have to admit to having met some blatantly racist Republicans in my time.
I also have to say most of the white liberals I know flee the interracial schools with the rest of the "white flight."
I would say this is a good place to start a discussion on race. I would add to it, that "Yes indeed, some people on the left (and sometimes right) are uninterested in racial reconciliation and seek to assauge their hurt or greed by playing destructive racial politics. Once we do that, sure we can have a better discussion if we choose to. But then someone will come along and I will have to listen to the non-functional dictionary definition of "racism" for the hundredth time. Please don't take this as disrespect, but white people looking up racism in the dictionary to ignore problems causes by racial inequities is as bad as Asian Americans eating rice. It's a stereotype of the white perspective:"The house is burning down!""Hold on a minute...let me check my Webster's...""But....""That's not a house, it's a DUPLEX!"*buries head in hands*
Some interesting perspectives from Derrick Z. Jackson, writing in the Boston Globe today:
The problem for Clinton is that this is another case in which her math does not add up. Yes, every voter the Democrats can get their hands on is critical. But all this talk about Obama not connecting with salt of the earth white folks cynically forgets that white leaders in the Democratic Party have not solved this problem since Jimmy Carter's 48 percent of the white vote in 1976, yet want to make Obama the poster child for it despite his multi-racial crowds and record turnouts of voters. In the late throes of her insurgency, to borrow from Dick Cheney, Clinton is playing "divide and doubt" about Obama getting "only" 37 percent of the white vote in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and 40 percent in Indiana.
But in a year in which Republican enthusiasm is in doubt with a bad war and a bummer economy, it must be remembered that Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 in three-way races with a grand total of 39 percent of the white vote and 83 percent of the black vote and 61 percent of the Hispanic vote and besting the first President Bush and Ross Perot among all age groups.
Some interesting parallels in this campaign to when Harold Washington ran for mayor of Chicago. I am sure the Clintons are well aware of how Vrdolyak and the rest almost got the Republican elected. There are racists everywhere but to imply that the Democrat party establishment stuff don't stink is just unconscionable.
Just tell me this was intentional irony, right? In this thread of all places. Seriously, it's gotta be. Right?
Just like the young voter thread, this could be another real productive discussion; but instead it ends up being the blame game and name calling.
We will continue to have racism in this country and the "gap" between the races and voluntary segregation until we stop using our laws to favor one group or oppress another.
We see people overcome the oppression of racism and other discrimination (religious for instance,) in the absense of laws that focus on group rights rather than individual rights. "We gotta keep them down" and "we gotta level the playing field" are two sides of the same coin of government-supported racism, division and hatred.
How do you intend to address the individual problems without acknowledging the group dynamic of the discriminatory institutions in the first place?
I mean, unequal education, disproportionate incarceration, real estate steering, or workplace hiring discrimination are all non-individual processes. It's not as if the guilty parties are merely coincidentally saying, "I deny this black individual, now this one, and this one too!"
Color-blindness does not equal color ignorance. We can ignore race once we understand how our society pathologically clings to it.
xian, Are you ever going to post the link asked for by wayward in the first comment?
LV... Kevin posted the link a couple comments later.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Xian,
One of the reasons that this discussion is endless is that most people in the majority do not think of themselves as racist at all. When they get stopped by a cop at 1:00 a.m. for no good reason, they think the cop involved is an idiot or overzealous. When minorities get stopped for no good reason, all they see is race.
Both sides have a point. If you explain the world in terms of race, a lot of unfortunate things that happen to you are racially animated. If you don't focus so much on race, you go through life thinking that "stuff happens," and "into each life some rain must fall."
Most people in the majority are past the point of thinking or acting in overtly racist ways. They see race used sometimes as an excuse for underachievement and justification for preferential treatment. They genuinely believe in this country as a meritocracy, where those who try are usually rewarded. They see themselves as doing it "the right way," and believe that if everyone else just followed the model, they would improve their lives.
Contrary to your assertion, it's ALL individual action in this life. Job applicants are hired or denied one person at a time; not en masse. To assert otherwise is to presume the very racism that is the subject of our inquiry here.
Let's not pretend that racism doesn't exist; it always has and it always will. But if I'm an individual member of a minority group, I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about it; that will get me nowhere.
Contrary to your assertion, it's ALL individual action in this life. Job applicants are hired or denied one person at a time; not en masse. To assert otherwise is to presume the very racism that is the subject of our inquiry here.
Let's not pretend that racism doesn't exist; it always has and it always will. But if I'm an individual member of a minority group, I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about it; that will get me nowhere.
That's why we study society. Are you an individual member of a minority? Have you studied history?
To assert otherwise is to simply look at data and respond to it. If 90% of randomly sampled realtors have practiced some form of racial steering, then it's not because there's a bunch of evil racists in the realty profession. It's a larger problem.
Finally, are you an individual member of a minority group? "Don't worry about it" is something that most of us eagerly embrace early on. However, eventually when it's clear that THAT is what will "get us nowhere", we attempt to serve society by addressing its problems. Being successful for yourself is a lot easier than working for the greater good.
There seem to be two competing ideas here. Either racism exists and it plays an important part in the development (or lack thereof) of an egalitarian society, or it exists but it is a negligible concept. It have very little power and should therefore not be used as part of a political discussion.
I know the story line behind the first idea. Comparing black and white schools in the Deep South during segregation was a pretty easy way to see how systematic racism negatively impacted the lives of American citizens. But we could go to Austin High School today and have a look around, and then drive for twenty minutes and look at New Trier. Austin is about 99% black, and they spend an average of about $8000 on each student. It is not a pretty school. New Trier is about 98% white and they spend about $16,000 a year on their students. It is probably one of the finest high schools in the world.
So, how do we dismiss this as something besides racism? Moreover, how do we compare at the educational opportunities that are presented to young, poor black children in this country and the education opportunities presented to young, wealthy white children in this country and then conclude that everyone is equal? That black people just need to stop bitching and go out there and take the American dream?
If you are white you have probably been given an incredibly comprehensive and valuable early education, which will serve you for the rest of your life. You can't become a good writer (the most important aspect of being successful in school) if you haven't been taught how create basic sentences. You cannot become a great engineer if your science classes are being taught without labs. You'll have a hard time getting far with basic mathematics if your family can't afford to buy a $100 graphing calculator.
There are many ways our systems segregate people. Much is by income, but race is also a factor. The fact that we don't do anything about says less about the power of income than it does about racism. If it is just the poor black kids who are being screwed by a bad education system then there is very little "traction" in the political arena (and when something is done then conservatives complain anyway). But if it becomes white children who are suffering in this manner, you can bet your ass that someone will do something. That is systematic racism, whether you want to call it that or not.
So, how do we dismiss this as something besides racism?
Well, your example compares apples to oranges. On the one hand, we have a predominantly white school in a wealthy area that spends a lot of money on its students. On the other hand, we have a predominantly black school in a poor area that spends significantly less money on its students. You're focusing on the racial makeup of the students as the primary difference, then concluding that racism is the core difference.
Let's make the comparison a little closer. We'll look at Unity High School (U) and Austin Community High School (A).
Percentage of Students Meeting/Exceeding Standards (2005/2006)
U: 64/58
A: 8/12
Racial Makeup
U: 95.1% White
A: 98.8% Black
Instructional Expenditure per Pupil
U: $4,335
A: $6,255
OK, so maybe Unity's teachers are just better. Let's see:
Average salary
U: $44,315
A: $66,043
Experience (years)
U: 13
A: 13
Percentage with bachelors/masters
U: 62/38
A: 45/55
So, Unity spends less money per pupil, has fewer teachers with masters degrees, pays their teachers less, yet gets about 60% meet/exceed test scores.
I fail to see evidence of racism.
If you are white you have probably been given an incredibly comprehensive and valuable early education, which will serve you for the rest of your life.
That's true if you grew up in a nice area (and if you did, it doesn't matter if you're a well off white or black) - believe it or not, some white people are poor. Moreover, a large portion of poor white people live in areas that lack the infrastructure/support/opportunities that exist in inner-cities. Ever been to Appalachia?
Still looking for the AP link.
Didnt Obama call his grandmother a "typical white woman" someone wanna explain what he meant by that?
How do you intend to address the individual problems without acknowledging the group dynamic of the discriminatory institutions in the first place?
I mean, unequal education, disproportionate incarceration, real estate steering, or workplace hiring discrimination are all non-individual processes. It's not as if the guilty parties are merely coincidentally saying, "I deny this black individual, now this one, and this one too!"
Color-blindness does not equal color ignorance. We can ignore race once we understand how our society pathologically clings to it.
The LAW should be colorblind. Making it favor those it used to "deny" or rather oppress simply perpetuates the very thing we claim to hate.
Furthermore, we continue to reinforce these group inequalities with group policies.
Will the government really be able to make people stop being racist? Is this approach bringing equality? I certainly could be wrong, and I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems to me that progress toward racial equality and unity peaked and began to decline once we got what we wanted- the government to step in and force us to stop being racist. We stopped working for unity as a personal responsibility, at the grassroots level.
When we are dealing with outspoken racists, we fight against that, we unite with our allies across boundaries and it makes us stronger. We overcome.
Now that the government has taken care of this problem for us, people simply hide their racism, and we have a new kind of racism which is just as oppressive as the first. Racism, or should I say bigotry, is alive and well. We now have the bigot that says certain groups aren't as able as others, so they need special helps. This type of bigot is so insidious and what they are saying sounds so compassionate that we might start to believe them. We can't do anything without help.
And then we have the bigot that insists that they don't discriminate and they want to help those groups, but they don't want to live next door to them! They happily give their money (or someone else's) but to actually DO SOMETHING themselves to help solve these social problems is just asking too much. They would never say anything racist- outloud, at least not where anyone of that other race could hear. Perhaps we react by becoming bigotted too, and we don't want to live near those "other" folks either, or we create a social condition where doing anything that might make "us" become more like "them" unacceptable. Perhaps this bigotry is the thing that holds people back the most.
"Still looking for the AP link."
You misunderstood. The quote isn't from an AP story. It's a direct quote from Hillary Clinton, who was supposedly talking about the AP story during an interview with USA Today. The quote in the OP is from the USA Today interview, and has been much discussed in the media all weekend. The link I provided also had full audio, I think.
And xian, you brought up a whole lot of issues. Do you believe that racism is the predominant cause of all of these problems?
Racism is one of the causes of those problems which plague our society. In Boon's example, it's not just race, but class as well as a host of other factors. But certainly race plays a central role.
I agree with your ideas that racism has gone underground and has bred a new racism that is more insidious. I don't know that I agree that legislation and government systems to counter systems of racism are unnecessary, but I do agree that grassroots mobilization is the most powerful move necessary.
Of course, this is what I do on a daily basis. And look how welcome that is--I've had a crazy abusive stalker going nuts on me endlessly with gibberish grade school insults. That should let you know how welcome grassroots organizing is...
xian needed to give H.C. credit for the quote on this post. Thank you for the claification kevin.
I'd expect a conservative court to overrule almost all affirmative action programs, the voting rights act, and probably the civil rights act of 1964.
- Affirmative action where race is the only factor has already been struck down, and changing affirmative action from being genearally based on race to be being generally based on economics is already supported by the public. So, if that's what you mean, then yes, a conservative court probably would agree with public opinion and strike down the liberal version of a racial quota affirmative action. Your assetion of overruling the voting rights act and the civil rights act is based on total nonsense, though I'm sure that idea is being echoed on Daily Kooks.
Ah, so it is the Democrat's fault that the Republicans never run minority candidates.
- No, its the Democrats' fault that when black Republicans do run they face unabased racial attacks from Democrats, Michael Steele being the most recent example. Got it now? Good.
I've said my piece. Comparing lilly-white, downstate, super-nice Unity to an inner-city school is simply absurd. $5000 a year in the Unity community buys about three times the $8000 spent in Chicago.
And this idea that the Republicans would have legions of Black leaders if only the Democrats wouldn't attack them when they ran for office is not only silly, it is insulting. Fannie Lou Hamer is turning over in her grave. Black people afraid of white racist TV ads? Come on.
Let us know when you folks decide to re-visit planet Earth. We'll leave the light on for you.
Interesting and nuanced essay here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/12/the_myth_of_the_black_racist_v/ about the myth of the black racist voter. To boil it down, he says blacks have no problem voting for whites, they have done it for many years, and have done it even when black candidates were running for whites, for example the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson presidential candidates. But there are white people who will not vote for black candidates, solely because of their race. The essay also points out that the whole picture is complex -- why did Obama carry the white vote in Virginia, but not Pennsylvania and Ohio? Probably has a lot to do with Rev. Wright and the Clintons skill in exploiting racial animosity.
Anyone else notice that, over the weekend, the meme changed from "the Clintons are racist" to "the Clinton's supporters are racist"?
Some of the things being written about West Virginia (and Clinton supporters in general) are just breathtaking.
I've said my piece.
- Actually, you've said almost nothing in response to the specific Democrat launched racial attacks targeting black Republicans.
And this idea that the Republicans would have legions of Black leaders if only the Democrats wouldn't attack them when they ran for office is not only silly, it is insulting.
- There would be more socially conservative black Republicans running for office if they weren't the target of racial attacks and labeled as race traitors by Democrats and liberals. What's truly insulting is that you either condone or deny that such tactics are used by your party. Just ask Michael Steele.
Let us know when you folks decide to re-visit planet Earth.
- I'm not sure what planet Earth you live on, but it's apparently one where minorities do not have the freedom of thought or action when it comes to politics.
- There would be more socially conservative black Republicans running for office if they weren't the target of racial attacks and labeled as race traitors by Democrats and liberals. What's truly insulting is that you either condone or deny that such tactics are used by your party. Just ask Michael Steele.
Who denies it? The only thing I'd say about Michael Steele is some of the criticism of him was right on point and the racist crap was completely unacceptable. The conservative fabrication of the scope of what happened to Michael Steele is also complete unacceptable.
Ultimately though, your thesis is groundless. You can't use a few isolated incidents of Democratic racists somewhere doing something to argue that there are legions of Black Republicans who are waiting for the end of racism to run for office. It fails every single imaginable test of logic. It's not a non-sequiter--it not only doesn't follow, it doesn't start, continue, follow or end. Obviously, Democratic, Green, and Libertarian African American face obstacles to office as well. But to ignore the simple reality--there's just not too much interest in mainstream Republican values among the vast majority of African Americans, and the treatment of Watts sure didn't help.
But hey, if there's a good counterpoint, why don't we ask the non-white Republicans in Congress:
...
I had to actually look up who Michael Steele was. I do vaguely remember someone discussing some sort of Oreo cookie incident and I'm assuming this is the same thing. But I also read at the all-knowing Wikipedia that it's not clear whether or not this incident actually occurred, and Steele never mentioned it until three years after the fact. So I'm curious. Is this the extent of the racial attacks against him? Who were the Democrats that labeled him a "race traitor?"
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think it was substantiated that one person did indeed throw an Oreo cookie at him.
One cookie toss against many of the main policies of the Republican party? It's not really too close.
I'm glad to see that there will not be any similar racist actions from Republicans in this race.
...to argue that there are legions of Black Republicans who are waiting for the end of racism to run for office.
I never said "there are legions", I just said there would be more, which to deny flies in the face of all rational and logical thought. Is it possible for you to argue against the points I actually make instead of lying about them? In this case, obviously not.
One cookie toss against...
Oh xian, keeping your head in the sand in regards to the left's treatment of minority Republicans doesn't advance freedom of thought and ideas for anyone.
Re the "head in the sand" link:
Michelle Malkin? Give me a break -- the self-labeled "conservative syndicated columnist," Fox News Channel contributor, and author in the infamous Regnery Publishing stable is who you think is exposing her face to the unforgiving light of rational thought?
Why does it matter who posts about the racial attacks against black Republicans? Answer: It doesn't. I understand though that since you can't attack the message, you must attack the messenger. Another head in the sand.
Oh xian, keeping your head in the sand in regards to the left's treatment of minority Republicans doesn't advance freedom of thought and ideas for anyone.
Are you kidding me? I just posted how I didn't like the Democrats racist attacks. I don't consider Democratic racism to be progressive in the same way that Gordy doesn't count big spending Republicans to be conservative.
Of course, if you are pushing the opinion of someone who advocates American concentration camps--regardless of their ethnic background--I don't see how you can say I have "my head in the sand".
Are you kidding me? I just posted how I didn't like the Democrats racist attacks.
Uh, I was referring to how you were ignorant of the fact that the racial attacks against Michael Steele went beyond one ridiculous Oreo incident. That was obvious since I referenced your specific comment on it. I appreciate that you don't like Democratic racism, now if you could only acknowledge it when it happens.
Of course, if you are pushing the opinion of someone who advocates American concentration camps...
Hahaha! Seriously? What was posted was factual, regardless of who posted it. What a pathetically weak debate tactic of ignoring the content of the specific message and instead attacking the messenger. I guess that when it comes to racism on the left, that's the easiest response you've got.
"Why does it matter who posts about the racial attacks against black Republicans? Answer: It doesn't."
"What was posted was factual, regardless of who posted it."
OK. Even though I already felt somewhat qualified to comment on Michelle Malkin as your source, I took some more time to thoroughly review the piece you linked to as well as some related links provided in that piece. My conclusion? While I think most all of us agree that the well-documented incidents involving Michael Steele and his 2005 campaign in Virginia evidenced some despicable behavior, I maintain that Michelle Malkin provided absolutely nothing in the way of enlightening observations or even additional facts. Consider that my attack of her message. There was plenty of useful coverage of these incidents at the time, and yes, I mean in more media outlets than the New York Times.
Sorry to the rest of you for this digression...back to our regular program, "My Party is Less Racist than Your Party."
Anybody else getting the feeling that ILVoter might have been playing "anonymous" for the last couple of months? This kind of vitriol sounds awfully familiar ...
Now back to "It's All The Democrats Fault!", already in progress.
Post new comment