This was posted by Teresa on her blog on January 12, 2010:
As the Harry Reid racism controversy has been looming the past couple of days I have been pondering the issue of racism with regards to the Democratic Party. Here are some of my thoughts:
It seems to me that the Democrats have forced African-Americans and other minorities to be reliant on the government and thus beholden to the Democratic Party and their policies as well. The Democrats have forced minorities into the mindset that they are weak, have little opportunity, deserve and need more help, and thus need the Demoratic Party to survive. The Democratic Party have impressed upon minorities and drilled it into their minds that they are inferior and as a result I believe that minorities suffer from an inferiority complex. "Inferiority complex is a term used to describe people who compensate for feelings of inferiority (feeling like they're less than other people, not as good as others, worthless, etc.) by acting ways that make them appear superior. They do this because controlling others may help them feel less personally inadequate."
I believe that the Democratic Party wants to keep minorities poor so that they stay dependent on the government social programs which the Democrats have expanded over the years, thus keeping minorities beholden to them and therefore shoring up their base. I believe that over the last 50-75 years the the Democratic Party has created its own "Democratic Plantation." Why hasn't the income desparity between minorities and caucasians decreased substantially over the past 50 years? Why hasn't the economic situations of minorities improved? If the Democrats were actually helping minorities than why are there still so many problems within minority communities today? Is it because the Democrats are taking advantage of minorities and taking their votes for granted?
Martin Luther King Jr. did not want African-Americans to be treated as if they were "special" or "different", but rather as EQUAL human beings and EQUAL Americans. He wanted African-Americans to be freed from the bondage of the chains. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted people of all races to join hands right next to each other as sisters and brothers. But, are African-Americans really free in a more sociological sense today? It seems to me that the Democrats are keeping African Americans bound by "chains", the chains of pverty. Is the Democratic Party aiding African-Americans so that they can thrive and achieve their maximum potential? I don't think so. Or, we would see far less poverty and violence within minority communities.
Conservatives/Republicans do help minorities and want to continue helping minorities but we also want to help them succeed in life instead of being dependent on the government for money. We want to help everyone achieve a sustainable income so that every family can support themselves and not rely on the government for funds. This gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment. But, maybe conservatives need to be a little bit more proactive in courting the African-American vote? Maybe, we should help them understand history, help them to understand that we really do want to help them, and that we don't want to keep them beholden to us for funds but rather in believing in our ideals and in our common sense conservative ideology. We are ALL Americans and don't ascribe to a color.
Here is a great article called Racist Democrats Vs. Colorblind Republicans.
Here is a video of Democrats racist statements
Here is Martin Luther King Jr's, I Have A Dream Speech
36 comments:
First of all, thanks to Teresa for her post.
Secondly, I'll start with a few brief comments. My initial reaction was that there was a lot of power assigned to the two major political parties in this post without an acknowledgement of the disparities in other institutions, if you will, and how they affect all our lives. A good example would be Wall Street and what we've witnessed over our recent past.
This post is similar to arguments of decades past and the quotes of many decades past. We learn from history so as not to repeat it.
Judi,
I appreciate your thoughts.
I know it used to be that Republicans were beholden to Wall Street and corporations or it seemed that way because the GOP gave breaks to those most able to give others employment. But, in the past 30 years or so the Democrats have embraced the role of favoring Wall Street and corporations also. IMHO, it all comes down to which corporations support which political party.
Yes, I referenced it as the "two major political parties". The institutional disparities I was referencing were the criminal justice system, jobs, education, income, destructive drug policies, etc. And, despite all this, people still continue to succeed.
I am not clear on the "inferiority complex" and the tendency to act superior to overcompensate. Are you suggesting people are "acting" as they navigate their way in the world? If President Obama is acting, I want some of that! I thought an educated, compassionate, spiritual person involved in one's family and community would be everyone's goal. Aren't President Obama and others in similar situations living Dr. King's dream?
Please explain how Democrats running on ending unpopular wars, improving our broken health care system, restoring our status on the global stage, and bringing back a sense of optimism benefits one race/ethnicity over another. I can't speak for why people are drawn to this party; I don't see myself reflected in the GOP.
Judi,
First, with regards to education, how come the democrats are not for school vouchers? The republicans have supported school vouchers and still do in Washington D.C. but the democrats are stopping that program. The students in D.C. were improving their skills and excelling but since the democrats are cutting off funding the students will be forced to return to public schools which have a horrible graduation rate and falls below educational standards. Is it because Democrats are beholden to unions?
Many people support jobs for minorities, both republicans and democrats alike.
Many neighborborhoods with minorities living in them have major problems with violence, drugs and poverty. It seems to me like the Democrats are keeping people reliant on government and thus reliant on Democrats since Democrat politicians believe government is the answer to poverty, etc. But, over the years the problem with poverty, violence and drugs has gotten worse. It just seems like Democrats haven't helped the problem, but made it worse and keep people on welfare and other social programs so that they keep on voting for Democrats. By inferior I mean that Democrats make minorities feel that they have to rely on them and the government and they can't improve their lives without the Democrats and the government.
Just because a war is unpopular or its length is longer than expected doesn't mean it wasn't a necessity to go to war to defend our nation and stop terrorists as to make sure to the best of our ability that there is not another 9/11 type of attack on our soil again. But, before that Clinton sent troops or helicopters into Mogadishu, Somalia (Black Hawk Down), Kosovo, and Operation Desert Fox. I am sure that all those military operaations were needed for our safety as are the wars in Afghnaistan and Iraq are today.
Again, thanks Teresa for agreeing to let me use this as a guest post.
Playing the "which party is the most racist" game is futile, esp. when people go back and start pulling quotes from years ago to “prove” their point. A Democrat could likely do the same thing to "prove" that Republicans are more racist. As for the first video you posted, it seems contradictory for any conservative blogger to use a quote by Thomas Jefferson as evidence that Democrats are racists while also consistently writing about how we need to return to the values of our Founding Fathers. If you don’t think it’s contradictory, can you explain why it isn’t?
Although it’s vital to recognize history, what's more important is today and when I watch the actions of the Republican party/conservative movement, I don't see anything that makes me want to join them. For example, the disgusting manner in which some Republicans acted in regards to Sonya Sotomayor being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2009/06/attacks-on-sonia-sotomayor-by-right.html
I'm also disturbed by the anti-Obama rhetoric of some of the pundits at the forefront of the conservative movement. Within just the last few months, Rush Limbaugh has called President Obama “little boy” at least twice and compared the president’s 24-hour reaction in regards to the Haiti tragedy with the 3-day gap of him speaking about the failed underwear bomber attack. By the way, if people don’t see the racist connotations of calling a black man “little boy”, they need to do some studying of this nation’s history of race relations. Glenn Beck got into the act by saying (without a hint of irony) that Obama is dividing the nation by reacting quickly to the Haiti situation. There are others, but Limbaugh and Beck are among the worst because I don't think they have the best interests of this country at heart. Their main objectives seem to be garnering attention and making money off the people who blindly follow them no matter what they say and do.
What's even worse is that whenever these pundits say something controversial, many other conservatives/Republicans (those in the media and everyday normal bloggers) either remain silent or defend them. There are a few who have spoken out about some of the Obama/liberal criticism (Joe Scarborough, Bill O’Reilly, and Mike Gallagher come to mind), but they are among the exceptions. When conservatives don’t come out and condemn the inflammatory rhetoric from their side that becomes front page news, they give the implication that they approve.
Speaking of the conservative blogosphere, a lot of them follow the lead of conservative pundits and sometimes take it a step further in their attacks against Obama and liberals/Democrats in general. When I see bloggers calling the president every name in the book (including accusing him of being an illegal alien), taking cheap shots at Michelle Obama, and generalizing all liberals/Democrats as evil, that’s not a ringing endorsement for me to want to change sides. If the desire of the Republican party/conservative movement is to get more blacks to switch political ideologies, do you think this is the way to go?
Malcolm,
I'll think more on your question on Thomas Jefferson. What conservatives mean when we say we need to follow our Founding Fathers is that we should follow the constitution the way the Founders intended. They did not intend for government intrusion into our lives, taxation without representation, or a central government to be placed in this country. Those are reasons why they left Britain.
I think the vitriolic hate by the left towards President Bush by far surpassed anything that conservatives have expressed against Obama. I am not saying that there isn't disagreement or any amount of hate towards Obama but I haven't seen anything in comparison to the way the Left treated Bush.
I do believe that Sonia Sotomayor's statement was of a racist nature or of a racist tendency. I believe that if any white person had stated those same type of remarks the nominee would have been forced to resign. Plus, just take a look at the way her decision in the New Haven firefighter case was overturned by the Supreme Court. Even the justices who agreed with her decision said her premise used for denying the firefighters a promotion or an opportunity for a promotion was wrong.
First, I don't listen to Rush even close to everyday so if I ever don't comment on a controversial statement, more often than not that means I didn't listen to his program that day. But, with regards to rush saying "little boy" I don't see that as racist. I see it more as saying Obama is naive or immature.
Teresa:
Thank you for bringing this post to my attention. How the left has turned blacks into a monolithic voting bloc is a very big topic with many, many facets. You touch upon some in your post.
In a nutshell one could say the net effect has been to get blacks to view politics only through the prism of race. Where the left is painted as the hero and the right as the villain. By doing this, blacks are robbed of the opportunity to actually view both sides' polices as effective or ineffective.
Take education for example. The left have been promising to fix the pubic school system for decades. Even in areas where there is no Republican opposition to speak of, the public school system still sucks. The right offers an instant escape from the failing school system (vouchers). However because of the false racial prism placed before blacks, there is the shame/ fear/ guilt associated with voting for the Right (i.e. the villain). Thus blacks are only left to vote for the same failed policies of the left.
There is no easy way out of this dynamic. The left have long planted deep seeds of distrust. However, the recent statements by Reid and Clinton have raise the curtain, ever so tinily, on the hypocrisy of the left and race. Hope springs eternal.
One thing that I'm seeing on both sides here, including and expressed in the understandable tendency to excuse our own side and damn the other, is that there is enough blame to go around and that going back and forth pointing to this bad thing and that will not get us anywhere. If we are sincere in our efforts to bridge the racial and political divide in this country, the first thing to do is to recognize and welcome that sincerity of effort.
Judi, the "disparity in institution" are all the out-flow, some more direct than others, of political action and ideology. Most of the institutions you mention are directly funded and closely overseen by the government, and the ones that are "demonized" (i.e. Wall Street) are not solely to blame for anything (including the financial collapse). They played a part, yes, but so did the government and smaller banks / the real estate industry throughout the country. Government forced these institutions to take risks on borrowers, that's a problem. The premise of helping people who can't afford homes, for instance, may seem altruistic, but the fact is that you cannot give people things they cannot afford. As we saw, it collapses the system. Wall Street was also out of control in other ways, but to blame one thing without acknowledging the role of the other is myopic and foolish. History will indeed repeat if we don't understand exactly what happened and why. And accept that there were many players in that game, and that they weren't all "evil" bankers.
I agree with Clifton, too, that until the left (not the politicians, they have too much to gain by supporting the status quo) decides that it's time to stop viewing everything through the prism of race. It's not the be all and end, and it shouldn't be at the forefront of our country's policies. If you treat everyone equally, there is a far better chance of achieving equality than if you treat certain populations differently based on their race and demonize people who have good ideas about bridging economic, social, and cultural divides simply because they are conservatives or Republicans. A good idea is a good idea no matter who has it.
Clifton,
Thank You for stopping by and commenting. You make some great points in relation to race and politics. You are absolutely correct about education. I guess Detroit would be a good example of how the left has failed minorities in the school system.
Fuzzi Slippers,
You make some great points. I do believe that we need to stop blaming others and work together to help all people. But, sometimes that is hard when one party paints the other as against a particular race, when that isn't true. We should view people as Americans instead of judging people by their skin color. Both parties have made mistakes and we just need to move on and work together for all people. Every person regardless of race deserves to be treated equally, and that means viewing people as if you were colorblind.
LOL, Teresa, it's hard for me, too. MUCH harder now that the country is so divided along racial and political lines--it's not been like this in my adult lifetime, and I find it very uncomfortable and not a little sad.
And I think you get to the crux of the matter: for equality to happen, blacks have to demand to be treated equally and not allow themselves to be tricked into thinking that everything is about race. It's not. Or it shouldn't be. That was Dr. King's dream, not that there is any superior race (he said that a black ruling class would be just as bad as a white one). What the libs are doing hasn't worked--indeed, black people haven't made much progress in this country since the 60's, and I see that as a problem--maybe it's time to at least consider some free market and American individualism-based solutions? They can't make things worse than they are and may just open the doors to better education opportunities, better job opportunities, and better over all quality of life. Seems worth a shot to me.
In terms of the Democrat and Republican political parties, I see scant contrast in ways which both oblige and placate brainwashed voters for the sake of seizing power.
Typically, I deride the uber-liberal culture, simply because it's the majority in the mainstream without being the majority in the country. It's a paradox. More correctly, it's false. It's a class by the elite, for the elite.
The differences I see aren't in the parties but in the rest of the American folks. And in my estimation, a great many Democrat voter becomes willingly subservient upon advocating for blue.
One of the main differences I see in all people, race be damned, is that the right-wing, by and large, is a self-reliant group, wholly willing to reform and rebuild by strength of person and merit of character. We want less interference and more members with shovels.
With the left-wing, however, I see an actual eagerness and an arrant expectation for the government--someone else--to do the heavy lifting.
And it's no doubt that way because it was promised. But people aren't naive enough to believe it, in my opinion. They're just not brave enough or are too complacent to change after the hoax shone through.
I don't really disagree with your post, but I also don't think it's only some black folk buying into the idea of a Democrat nanny. It's a lot of people, from various races, religions, classes, etc.
But I would say to everyone, then, to take a look around at what Democrats have done with their power. Liberal progressive policy has been implemented all over this country of ours. Much of Michigan and California can attest to the ineptitude of elite "social" policy.
Republican politicians aren't much better if any when it comes their brand of repairs. So how about we boot these bums out and stop pretending he or she's going to do right by you because they're this or that.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And to quote Rocky Balboa: "Absolutely."
I'm more peeved at the mainstream's twisting of a by-the-people headwind into a hate-filled reversal to the days of slavery than I am a politician's proclivity for promising enough food to keep mouths salivating.
I understand lying from a career-minded crook. But I can't forgive it from a free press. But that's a whole other topic...
Hi Josh, you're so right. It's not just black people who buy into the dem BS, it's other minorities and white people, too. Heck, women still buy into it and are used and manipulated and held down by the exact same methods used on the black population. The reason, probably, that Teresa didn't talk about all that is that it's not "about race" and this blog is. Just a guess, but you're right. It makes me steaming mad to see how women are treated by the dems; they hammer gender just as hard as they hammer race, and do just as little about equality. Women are still making in the area of 74 cents on the (white) male dollar, and we are still treated like sex objects, idiots, and second class citizens (the dems didn't really care at all about the Palin Newsweek cover, did they? That was as sexist and exploitative as it gets, and they laughed and cheered; sick).
But yeah, same tactics used on all. It's no wonder is it that the welfare rolls are BURGEONING, while the middle class shrinks (people slip down and out of it), and the upper class remains static. But does anyone ask about it? Heck no, because the dems CARE. Ugh. Whatever.
Just read a really interesting piece that is relevant to this discussion. It's Francis Rice's Why Martin Luther King Was Republican Why Martin Luther King Was a Republican.
Josh,
I would say about half in the GOP are power hungry individuals. Some who had lost their way are finding their way back and standing up for the principles of conservatism. And, some need to be booted out come next election. As much as there are power hungry GOP members, NONE of them want to take over 1/6 of our economy using the cloak of health care "reform", none are for this cap and trade bill which will hurt our economy by putting businesses out of work and causing shyrocketing energy costs so we must remember the BIG differences between our two parties. I am not saying that the GOP doesn't need to change, because they do. They need to follow the Constitution and listen to citizens and represent the citizens properly.
I agree with your analysis of differences between the Democrat and Republican voters.
I do agree with you that my post doesn't only apply to minorities. I believe that it applies to most of the poor.
I do think the mainstream media needs to actually start reporting on topics instead of trying to spin it in favor of the Left.
I have come to understand some of the issues related to race relations and the poor in general, since my niece who is 18 has a child of mixed-race and hasn't graduated from high school yet. She is working on her high school education and I hope she finishes high school soon. I believe that we need to help single mothers graduate from high schools, or at least obtain their GED. I also believe that we must afford single pregnant women better options. There are many empty buildings that could be converted into pregnant and single mother's homes. I believe that would be one step in the right dircection.
I read the article "Why Martin Luther King Was A Republican" and it's basically a bunch of right-wing propaganda. The author provides zero evidence that MLK Jr. was a Republican. I did some research and found conflicting accounts: One of his nieces (Alveda C. King) says he was a Republican, while his son (MLK III) says there is no evidence that his father ever voted Republican.
Whether he was or wasn't doesn't matter. The question is would MLK Jr. be a Republican today?
Here is the link to an article titled "Whoa! MLK was a what?":
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/6520438.html
Malcolm,
The article stated “He absolutely deplored the Republican Party of Goldwater and Reagan,” but the part pertaining to Ronald Reagan could not have been possible since Reagan was a Democrat until 1962, so Martin Luther King Jr. would have not been able to experience the Republican presidency of Ronald Reagan or the full effect of Reagan being a Republican. But, since Martin Luther King Jr. strived for America to be a place that is colorblind and not relying on race for extra benefits or using race to pin one Party against one another than I do believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would be a Republican today.
What makes this right-wing propaganda? Just because your skeptical that Martin Luther King was a Republican?
Regardless of whether Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican or a Democrat his mindset was far different than of African Americans today. He would not have wanted the government to be a crutch for blacks today. He would have wanted blacks to rise up and stand up on their own instead of being reliant on government. Plus, he wouldn't have wanted to be considered special because he's black but rather a man, an American man with no benefits other than being treated equally like every other American.
Teresa: It certainly is possible that MLK deplored the Republican Party of Reagan. Since Reagan became a Republican in 1962 and MLK died in 1968, the latter had 6 yrs to experience Reagan's brand of Republicanism during that period and thus form an opinion.
I say the article is right-wing propaganda because it's one-sided and it cherry picks facts in an effort to sway opinion.
Although I couldn't care less whether or not MLK was a Republican, some of you on the right seem to think it's awfully important that he was one. If the Republican strategy to win black voters is to say that a man who's been dead since 1968 was a Republican and would likely be one today, that's pretty desperate and misleading.
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that blacks today want preferential treatment and that we mainly vote Democratic because we are looking for handouts. All we want is equal treatment.
No desperation here, Malcolm, thank you. I think that we're all (not just in this thread but across the country) thinking about MLK because it's so close to his day. But from what I understand, his dream did not include social and domestic policies that reinforce racial division and oppress minorities, and that's what we have.
What policies have dems pushed that foster racial equality . . . or even allow it? It seems to me that they are the ones who always vote against equality (vouchers, for instance). But maybe there are some that I'm missing?
Welcome Teresa, Thanks for providing a well written and thought-provoking piece. Unfortunately I do take offense to the inferiority complex statement because I consider that to be just pigeon holing an entire group of people. Some white people and some Republicans have inferiority complexes. I don't have an inferiority complex, nor have I ever and I am as black and as Democrat as they come. I know that Dr. King was a Republican, but certainly not the George W. Bush type. In fact most blacks were Republicans prior to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration. This was due in a major part because Abraham Lincoln was the Republican president who freed the slaves.
My problem is that some people (notice how I did not lump all people into one category) tend to take Dr. King's message totally out of context. While he did strive for equality, he was realistic enough to know that the equality he envisioned was nowhere in the foreseeable future. Having this particular discussion today proves that not much has changed.
I know that blacks (African Americans) have come a long way and still have a long way to go, but when you look at historic factors, we are right on target. We are less than 150 years from being enslaved and being socially, educationally, economically second class citizens. I know people say that is in the past, but what about Jim Crow, the KKK and many factors that have impeded the progress of blacks over the last century and a half. Blacks and other minorities endure obstacles on a daily basis that white people cannot even imagine, much less experience.
Democrats did not have black children attending school in one room shacks without electricity and current books, while white children had the best accommodations. Nor did Democrats snatch up black men, women, and children at will, hang them from trees, and set them on fire. You see the Democrats have not given minorities an inferiority complex; it is those who hide behind rhetoric claiming that there is not a race problem in America.
The inferiority complex comes from being transported from the motherland to the slave block and forced to forget the beauty and grace of where we came from. We are always reminded that we are not wanted here (although this country was built on our ancestors backs), whether it be on the steps of the University of Alabama or dragging from the back of a truck in Jasper, Texas.
Dr. King did not want us to be treated special and believe me, we have not been. Most of us have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps despite the adversity that has been thrown our way. By the way, you don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis to know he is a racist. I have caught his act very rarely over the years, but I have his number.
In closing let me say that I appreciate and respect your opinion and your bravery Teresa (lol). I hope that you will come and voice your opinion again here at Diversity Ink because that is what it is all about, conversing in an adult manner, without the belittling and name calling that I have seen on other blogs :-)
pyjazzypar,
How many African Americans that are living today actually experienced slavery? I am not saying that you should forget your past. But, maybe remember slavery in a way that doesn't hold you back in thriving in your daily lives today. Sometimes you need to break away from what happened in the past in order to move on and be free of it. But, it seems as though many African Americans use slavery as a crutch instead of allowing themselves to move on in a healthy manner.
First, Limbaugh is not a racist. And, the fact that you don't listen to him and believe the left who puts his statements out of context, but judge him is not being open in thought or fair.
Many blacks and other minorities may not thnk that they have an inferiority complex but the fact is in the world as I see it, many blacks use slavery as an excuse for staying on welfare, committing crimes, being in gangs, etc. And, I believe that the Democratic Party's motives are to keep blacks in an inferiority thinking mode, and perceive some of the Dems as superior or thinking that they have the answers to their issues and to keep blacks thinking that government is the answer to our problems. Governmeent is the problem. Government entititlement can hold a person back from fulfilling their potential. Now, I am not talking about people who really need help for 6-12 months, but the people who stay reliant on government programs forever. I am not even talking about people on Disability with an actual disability. I am talking about the ones using the system and who are not really sick. It seems to me that slavery has been drummed into blacks minds time and time again and that for some reason they perceive themselves as inferior and treated differently than others. For the most part, that isn't true. Currently, everyone has the same opportunity to succeed in this country. And, I see the Democratic Party as lowering standards for many blacks instead of challenging them in many areas and saying its okay or giving them justifications to do certain things because of what their grandparents experienced.
I like Bill Cosby and his message. He is challenging fathers to stay with the baby's mother or be fathers to their chidren. He is challenging African Americans to go to college and succeed.
The Democratic Party or Democrats have aided in the brokenness of families and that is where alot of the problems of today stem from with regards to single mothers etc., not only with regards to blacks but with all races. But, this has affected blacks and minorities much more extensively than whites.
There aren't many people on this earth who have NOT been enslaved at one time or another, and slavery always meant torn families, beatings, unfairness, rape, torture, etc. and etc. Indeed, I'm of Irish ancestry, and my people were said to be slaves (I've never researched this, it's family "legend"). I do know that when my people came to New England at some point near the end of Irish influx due to the potato famine, they couldn't find work anywhere. There were signs in the window that said "Irish Need Not Apply" and "NO Irish." This was for basic labor, cleaning, shoveling, etc. Look it up sometime.
As an aside, too, it seems to be forgotten that there were only a tiny minority (something like 1%) of slave holders in this country, and they were in the South. MOST white Americans living today are not descended from slave holders, but to hear it told, you'd think we were all culpable in some way simply because our skin is white. We are not your enemy; many of us have histories of oppression, too. Slavery wasn't just black people throughout history. Irish people enslaved Irish people, English people enslaved the Irish, and on and on all the way back to Ancient Greece and Rome.
Look what happened to MILLIONS of Jews during WWII. The reparations they were paid didn't help anything, and they aren't whinging on about how awful white Christians are and how they were wronged.
What can anyone POSSIBLY do to make amends for what happened to black people who were entrapped (by black tribal leaders, usually--watch Henry Louis Gates' documentary some time) and sent to the U. S.? Seriously, what do you want? You say it's to be treated equally, but is it?
(Sorry Malcolm, but this is getting silly. I mention MLK, and the response is that I shouldn't even though he's in everyone's mind as this is his day. There is no way to take his message out of context, the fact that so little has changed is not "proof" that his was a dream for some distant future. It can happen sooner, and it should. But it won't if this is the attitude of so many black people.
It's sad that so many people keep talking about what is wrong and not how to fix it, but it's also getting pretty old and not a little tiresome. Nothing will change as long as so very many black people have this "we were wronged" mentality. Imagine if the Kennedy family just sat around whinging on about how the Irish were treated in Boston? They'd still be sitting in Southie talking about they were wronged. And they'd be on welfare. Or if the rest of us of Irish ancestry did that, picking at scabs and ensuring the wounds never heal, instead of embracing our new freedom and working hard to get ahead and leave the past behind us. No one (apart from WASPS in places like the Hamptons) discriminates against the Irish now, wonder why? That prism of race that Clifton mentioned and that victim mentality that Shelby Steele talks about are the problem here, not white America or our nation's shameful past with regards to slavery. Change has to start in the black community, changing that mindset and being willing to move on.)
First of all I am not using slavery as a crutch and I noticed how my recent references of deplorable treatment were totally ignored. Teresa and Fuzzy Slippers talk like African Americans are the only ones who receive welfare, when nothing to could be further from the truth. You have plenty of white folks on welfare.
I was not complaining, but rather stating the facts, I have been followed around in stores simply because of my color because I have money in my pocketbook to pay for my purchases. All I am saying that African Americans and Latinos are racially profiled, harassed, etc. on a daily basis, which leads to complex that you speak of. You mentioned the Irish being discriminated against, but there is really no comparison because they are "white". You have no idea what nationality they are unless they inform you, that is what the difference is.
America is built on a foundation of hypocrisy, where the elitists are guilty of scapegoating, plain and simple. Rush is a racist. Any man who refers to an African American male as a "little boy", knowing the history of the word...
This is getting to be tit for tat and I know I am not going to say anything to change your mind and vice versa. No more futile attempts from me, I am done. As Fuzzy Slippers stated, "this is getting silly". It was good debating with you ladies, but I am going to get on with my celebration of Dr. King's birthday ;-)
pjazzypar,
Your knowledge of history in the first half of your previous post is to be commended. But, the second half is way off base. First, the KKK primarily consisted of Democrats. Actually, Democrats are the ones that snatched up black men, women and children from trees. You admitted MLK was a Republican so that doesn't even make sense. It seems that is probably liberals revisionist history finagling in school textbooks today and how people have come to believe such an outright falsehood.
Little boy is in no way, shape, or form racist. Rush was calling Obama this to show how naive and how much he thinks of things in terms that a small boy would. That is not racist. It seems that you are looking for racism where it doesn't exist. If you call any person of any race a little boy it is not racist.
Have a great Martin Luther King Jr. day!!:)
Hi Teresa,
I don't know what political party the Ku Klux Klan was affiliated with, nor do I care. It becomes about humanity at point. My point is that these are the obstacles that minorities deal with regularly which are difficult to overcome. Some things transcend politics. On the very long list of things that I am or consider myself, being a Democrat is pretty close to the bottom.
My biggest problem with this "it happened so just get over it" attitude is that African Americans, Latinos and other people of color can't just get over it because they are faced with it often. The Klan still exist, as well as white supremacy groups, and just your basic haters, that are bound and determined that people of color will not be equal to white people, period.
I am very passionate about this issue because I don't like people (not you, just in general) telling me how I should feel because they have not walked in my shoes and seen what I have seen. In my lifetime I remember traveling south and not being allowed access to the facilities or restaurant food, so I don't take this lightly. I might not have ever been a slave, but I have been subjected to slave like conditions, mentality, and attitude on more than one occasions.
I am not blaming today's white people for the past. I do blame those who continually perpetuate the myth that all inner city African Americans are on welfare, with women raising children alone and no man in sight. I am not saying that it doesn't happen, I am just saying that the same things happen in white communities.
No race or nationality is exempt from poverty or deadbeat dads and I don't believe that Democrats are solely responsible for the ills of society. If that were the case Obama would not have inherited a presidency thwart with problems created by the former administration. I know many a black man who is taking the job of fatherhood very seriously. Cosby is not the only good black father in America. Whites and Republicans loved Cosby's comment because it feeds in the stigmatization of a race of people, lumping all of us into one category and not considering the notion that there is more diversity within a race than between the races. The same thing goes for political parties :-)
I hope you enjoyed your holiday Teresa. I had a good meal and watched a little basketball. Best wishes.
Thanks to all who joined in on the discussion. In addition to being quite lively, the discussion was very educational for me. I hope it was for you too.
Note to Fuzzy Slippers: In regards to me saying it's pretty desperate and misleading to claim that MLK was a Republican, I was mainly referring to billboards that were put up by the NBRA during the summer of 2008.
One last thing to anyone who reads this. Racism in this country isn't a black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or Native-American problem. It's an American problem. Until all Americans are willing to do their share of the heavy lifting in solving race issues, it will remain a problem.
"Racism in this country isn't a black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or Native-American problem. It's an American problem. Until all Americans are willing to do their share of the heavy lifting in solving race issues, it will remain a problem."
Racism is a problem of mankind. In a world context, America is incredibly balanced and fair-minded. In an evolutionary context, we've made incredible strides that, looking back into the past, seem improbable.
I mean, we have to be honest about racism to start.
There's nothing special about racism. It's just a form of hatred. It's intolerance. It's poison that's taught and passed down and comfortable because of the past of all people -- and certainly far from the only form of hate to be.
Hating someone due to their being a different race, in the context of hate, is absolutely no different than hating due to religion, sex, looks or any other thing you could possibly hate about a person or a people.
If the problem is to be addressed, it must be addressed accurately.
Teaching people to be tolerant of a race or a lifestyle or a religion is still damaging. There's no logic in it. You can't exemplify and magnify difference and, in the same breath, preach equality.
And this, I firmly believe, is where the entire world fails at healing hate.
As we live together, without martyrs, without scapegoats, without special treatment, without differences pointed out, we begin to realize just how similar we all are.
Remember, to fight intolerance, you're not only fighting warped ideology passed down, but also hundreds of thousands of years of predispositon to your own race, your own familiar surroundings, your own pack.
You get past this by not reminding folks of difference but by letting them, at their own pace, adjust to integration of life.
Human beings are incredible creatues, able to adapt to an outstanding array of conditions. But we're also herd creatures, predisposed to follow our own.
The "American" banner can--and will, I predict--heal this, but not so long as we have "types" of Americans. We need to be one, big tribe.
I don't think racism is still a problem because Americans aren't doing enough heavy lifting, but because they're doing too much lifting on the wrong construction site.
At some point, the fight for equality becomes--or maybe already has become--a separatist movement.
Josh: I think it goes w/o saying that racism is a problem of mankind. I limited my focus to just America because everyone in this thread lives in the U.S. and we were talking about racism in this country.
I wish putting an end to racism was a simple as all Americans referring to ourselves as simply Americans. Unfortunately, the "Moose" Lewises of the world will probably never consider U.S. minorities true Americans... even if we draped ourselves in the American flag and sang "Yankee Doodle".
Obviously the banner of America isn't some miracle cure.
My point is more about a multi-cultural nation of equals, by and large, for the first time in human evolution. It's a milestone of all history, not simply America's.
Our togetherness will heal ignorance and redesign genetic disposition. And it won't be a quick process, certainly, but it is in the process of happening right now.
The way some people, well intentioned as they may be, choose to attack the race problem by citing our differences is, in my opionion, working to set us back.
And the polarization of political ideology blended with race is also a deterrent to togetherness these days. Case in point: You can't call arrogance arrogance without being branded a racist. You can't drive a pickup truck according to some in the mainstream lest you're a racist.
Our collective differences are driven home most regularly by those pretending to stand for equality.
That crap has got to stop.
Okay, Malcolm... you invited me here, and I've read one of your comments I'd like to take issue with, so here we are. I specifically am raising these issues with you because you seem to have a problem with my ability and / or desire to defend statements made by the most right of political pundits, specifically Limbaugh and Beck.
So - Limbaugh's commentary on President Obama's lapse in response to the underwear bomber as compared to his instantaneous remarks about Haiti should be obvious to anyone. The underwear bomber situation was an attempted attack on our homeland, and regardless of the fact that Obama was on a "no media" vacation, he should have comer forward immediately and made a remark - something to the effect of "bring them to justice." Not three days later, though... at that point, it gives the appearance that you as Commander-in-Chief don't care about the security of America.
Regarding Beck's statement - Beck wasn't saying that Obama was intentionally trying to divide Americans. He was saying that inadvertently, that is the result of not reacting quickly to the Detroit scenario, followed by less than one month later a very quick response to something that happened off our shores.
The only response in both situations should have been quick and absolute. If there's one thing this administration has not done well, it is learn from the mistakes of its predecessor. Bush has been chastised by the left, and sometimes rightfully so, yet we are now witnessing many of the very same mistakes being made by Obama's team and the man himself.
And again, regarding the "little boy" comments by Rush - context, my friend, context. What you get from snippets does not tell the whole story, which explains why Media Matters is so sadly successful.
Soloman: I'm not sure why you started off your comment to me by saying, "Okay, Malcolm... you invited me here..." but OK, lol.
Criticizing President Obama for not speaking sooner on the underwear bomber incident is a reach to me. By all accounts, Obama was very active in working with Homeland Security, his counter-terrorism advisers, etc. before he made his public statement 3 days later.
Since you are using a calendar to judge a President's leadership skills, did you lambaste President Bush for waiting 6 days before publicly commenting on Richard Reid (aka The Shoe Bomber)? Not only that, but when Bush did give a response, it was only in passing! Do you think President Bush was being a strong leader by waiting 6 days before saying anything about The Shoe Bomber?
Glenn Beck’s assertion that Obama was inadvertently dividing the country by reacting quickly to Haiti is faulty to say the least. For one thing, comparing the Haiti earthquake with terrorist attacks is apples and oranges. Aiding a foreign country suffering from a natural disaster such as an earthquake doesn’t require the amount of investigating, briefing, etc. that an act of terrorism on U.S. soil does. Secondly, Beck provides no evidence that the country is divided over Obama’s reactions. According to a CNN poll, 57% approved of the way the president reacted to the failed underwear bomber attack, vs. only 39% disapproval. Also, according to a CBS News poll, 80% of Americans approved of Obama’s response to the Haiti tragedy. Only 8% disapproved. Even Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham gave Obama thumbs up for the way he handled the Haiti situation.
The bottom line is that President Obama will never satisfy some of you on the right no matter what he does. There were even some of you who criticized him for not wearing a tie when he spoke about the underwear bomber incident! It’s just silly and laughable to nitpick over something as trivial as that. Even if he had come out and said something about the underwear bomber immediately and worn a tie, some of you still would have found something to complain about (why is Obama being so rash? Why isn’t he wearing a red, white, and blue tie?).
As for Rush calling President Obama “little boy”, context nothing! I’ve listened to entire segments of Rush’s show, read transcripts, etc. so I understand what Rush is trying to do. Speaking of context, I can give you several examples of Fox cropping clips, taking quotes out of context in order to portray liberals/Democrats in a negative light. Of course, these cheap tactics don’t matter to most (if not all) of Fox’s loyal supporters because they are just being spoon fed what they want to hear.
Malcolm,
Obama was on vacation in Hawaii when the underwear bomber incident happened. Bush was on a working retreat when the shoe bomber incident happened. There lies the main difference. But, I do think that Bush should have responded quicker, too.
Fox does clips but in context. It is by far the liberal media--MSNBC, CNN, and NBC who alters the clips or show conservatives out of context rather than Fox misrepresenting liberals/Democrats. Fox asks the hard-hitting questions of the Obama presidency and exposes the truth about the radicals such as Van Jones who are/were in his administration, unlike the liberal news agencies who more often than not kiss up to Obama and aid him in his presidency instead of reporting the facts or news stories. The liberal news agencies might as well be state sponsored by Obama.
I could care less whether Obama wears a tie or not when doing an interview with media while on vacation. That's his perogative.
Glenn Beck is a person who is serious sometimes, and at other times just uses humor to rip on people. I mean, heck, he even makes fun of his callers, and people love that. Saying "little boy" without any reference to the N-word or any other racial slur cannot possibly be perceived as racist. Rush was referring to Obama being naive. That is a pretty far stretch at best to think Rush was making a racist statement. That may occur because of the preconceived notions that liberalism and victimization has put in many African Americans heads when in actuality some things just are not racist at all.
Malcolm,
You're misinterpreting my statements.
I have no problem with the way President Obama handled the Haiti situation. I bring this up because you seem very determined to prove that Americans were happy with his handling of it. Again, I have no problems there.
I was not writing a blog when the Richard Reid shoe bomber event took place, but I was upset by the amount of time it took for Bush to speak out about it. I was also somewhat upset about his slow response to Katrina, although to be fair I pin the majority of the responsibility for that fiasco at the feet of Mayor Nagin and former Governor Blanco, who had school buses and Greyhound buses - and a full week of time to warn the people of New Orleans - available and did nothing to evacuate the people until two days before the storm hit land. I also felt he (Bush) was treated unfairly when he did his "fly-over." After all, what was he suppsed to do, make a disasterous situation worse with all the Secret Service and security concerns afforded a president? Hardly.
Anyway - back to the points at hand.. my issue is that we have heard nothing but complaints from Obama and the leftists about how poorly Bush did this, that, and the other thing - yet Obama is literally repeating Bush's mistakes one by one.
You said: "Glenn Beck’s assertion that Obama was inadvertently dividing the country by reacting quickly to Haiti is faulty to say the least. For one thing, comparing the Haiti earthquake with terrorist attacks is apples and oranges."
You're correct.
Obama is our Commander-in-Chief. He should act like it. There is nothing in his job description more vital than the security of America and her people - especially not a vacation in Hawaii. Great, he was front and center quickly regarding Haiti - I expect him to be front and center more quickly regarding anything regarding our security. Even if it's just a simple "our people are on it" statement, I expect something. He is our Commander-in Chief, not our health-care adviser in chief.
Beck does not need to provide "statistics" to prove that the nation is being divided over Obama's handling the two issues differently. Here we are - we are all the proof needed. The simple fact is, had Obama been out there on day one quickly making a statwement about the situation, the only thing I'd then have to complain about regarding the fruit-of-kaboom bomber is the fact that we should be treating him as an enemy combatant, which he is - not a civilian criminal, like a kid who held up a drug store.
This all ties in to the idea of "man caused disasters" and overseas contingencies."
This administration was thorough in its criticisms of Bush's eight years - almost ad nauseum - Yet its own behaviors in some of the very same capacities leave little to be desired. This administration and its Congressional majority have been more partisan than any political system I've witnessed - and I'm old enough to remember all of Reagan and some of Carter's era.
You're correct in that some will never be satisfied, no matter what Obama does. You are incorrect in addressing me as one of those people.
While I am largely critical and dissatisfied thus far, I am open to the possibility that he may do things of which I approve. For example, if he were to cut corporate taxes, reduce the capital gains tax, and stop creating government largesse, I'd be impressed. Government jobs do not bring us out of recession - they make it worse.
If he were to accept the fact that Gitmo is our best option for holding enemy combatants and then start treating people as such rather than as common criminals, I'd be happy. And if he'd stop campaigning, I'd be thrilled - he was in New Hampshire today, and even Chris Matthews' graphic said "feels like a campaign."
Soloman: I'm not the type of person who needs the president to take a break from doing his job to tell me he's doing his job. If a simple "I'm on it" statement is needed by you, so be it ... but that isn't going to make me feel more secure.
The Iraqi War divided the nation. The O.J. trial divided the nation. This so-called division over how Obama reacted to the Haiti situation compared to terrorist-related incidents is at best a slight crack in the pavement.
Please note that I said "President Obama will never satisfy some of you on the right no matter what he does." How you interpreted that as me including you in the bunch has me baffled. One thing you will learn about me is that I make a conscious effort to use terms "some" because it's foolish to make sweeping generalizations about a group of people.
Teresa: It wasn't like Obama spent the entire time between the failed Christmas day attack and his public statement lounging on the beach. I wish you were writing a blog back when the shoe bomber incident happened because I would have loved to have read your post criticizing Bush for the 6-day wait.
I do love it when you and other Fox supporters come to its defense. It gives my stomach muscles a good workout. Since we are in off-topic territory, I won't bother including examples of Fox misleading viewers in the comments section of the post. However, I will back up my claims in an email to you. I'll also address your latest comments about the use of the term "little boy" via email as well.
"to take a break from doing his job to tell me he's doing his job."
How about standing in front of a microphone while he's on vacation to make a statement? Remember the left's isses with Bush taking so much time at his Crawford Ranch... which was a fully functional working facility as well as a retreat?
Again... if the left wishes to criticize Bush so much (still) for his mistakes, then the left needs to be fair in it's addressing Obama's behaviors. This is clearly something for which the left would chastize Bush were he still in office...
"This so-called division over how Obama reacted to the Haiti situation compared to terrorist-related incidents is at best a slight crack in the pavement."
Hardly... and again, it is not simply the difference in reaction time.
The issue is the overall behavior by Obama, Holder, and the entire leftist agenda regarding national security.
Again, Nappy's "man caused disasters" and overseas contingencies" (certainly statements approved by Obama) are part of the equation.
It is terrorism. Always was, always will be. Naming it otherwise will not change the agenda of some radical named Achmed, Abdul, or Muhommed from Yemen, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia - or even from Miami, Florida or Madison, Wisconsin for that matter. These people have been told that you and I are the "Great Satan" (Man, if I only were... they'd be toast!) and will do anything they are told to get their 72 virgins, so let's call it what it is, treat it like a war - because that's what it is - and when an event takes place in that arena, our leader (regardless of political party) should be out in front reassuring us that these radical enemy combatants will be brought to swift justice through military tribunals, not treated as common criminals in a jury trial with Miranda Rights.
So accuse me of rambling... but while it might not be just the difference in response time to the two events, the perception of team Obama overall makes the difference in response time between these two events a critical issue to some. Again.. one of these events took place on our homeland and involved the security of Americans, yet Obama responded more quickly to the other, and again... how would the left treat Bush (honestly) given the same circumstances.
Finally, the reason I interpret you to include me in your statement is your choice of words: "President Obama will never satisfy some of you on the right no matter what he does."
If you do not wish to include me, rephrase your statement to: "President Obama will never satisfy some on the right no matter what he does."
Fair enough?
Soloman: My comments regarding Limbaugh and Beck were made because Teresa seems to feel that racism only stems from the left/Democratic side. Now the discussion has drifted off into national security, terrorism, etc. and that is not the point of this post.
As for rephrasing my comments about Obama's critics, if you don't consider yourself a member of the right, I will be sure not to label you as such in the future. Since you yourself said in the comments section of your blog that you "align more often with the right than the left", I hope you can understand why I phrased my comment the way I did. Having said that, I hope you can refrain from lumping everyone on the left into the same basket.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on other topics discussed here at Diversity Ink. My wish is that the dialogue helps those with opposing viewpoints come to a better understanding of one another.
Post a Comment