One of my favorite blogs is Best Seat In the House. The blogger (Sandy Gholston) is one of the best when it comes to covering politics, race, the media, sports, etc. As of late, Sandy has been in a posting frenzy and I've been thoroughly enjoying it! He gave me the green light to use the post below. If you haven't already, I encourage you to visit Best Seat In the House. Even if you don't agree with Sandy, I think you'll find that he's fair and open to opposing viewpoints.The following, Fox News Uses Black Fringe Groups To Portray Blacks As Angry, Dangerous, Scary, was posted by Sandy on his blog on July 14, 2010:
Fox News has a history of portraying black people as angry, dangerous, hostile and racist in many of its broadcasts (news and commentary alike).
The most recent example of this has been this massively over-hyped and B.S. story about the New Black Panther Party and alleged voter intimidation. Fox News has been pushing this story hard to its largely white and conservative audience to push an image of scary black people threatening white people and being allowed to do so by a black president (Barack Obama) and a black attorney general (Eric Holder) in spite of the fact this happened during the George W. Bush Administration. Fox News also has a dubious history of using black people to attack black people. We have witnessed that over and over again with the likes of the pathetic Jesse Lee Peterson, Sean Hannity's boy (that's right, I said it that way).
Republicans have a history of this and used the tactic of the scary black man in the famous Willie Horton ad from the late 1980s used by George H.W. Bush against Michael Dukakis.
From Wikipedia:
Republicans picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches.[6] Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name."[6][7] Media consultant Roger Ailes remarked "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."[8]It's an effort by the far right to show scary black hoods coming to get you and Democrats will not protect you, but Republicans will take care of these dangerous black thugs.
Fox News frequently has used fringe black groups to attack black people. One of its favorite examples of this is the use of the New Black Panther Party and, most frequently, Malik Zulu Shabazz.
Media Matters for America has showcased the effort by Fox News to use fringe black groups to negatively showcase black people (rarely do they do it with, say a Ku Klux Klansman, and think of how they bend over backward to defend racist tea party morons).
For weeks, Fox News has been hyping J. Christian Adam's discredited allegations that the Department of Justice has "a hostility in the voting section and in the civil rights division to bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities." Predictably, right-wing media quickly used the phony controversy to race-bait, attempting to connect the Obama administration to the New Black Panther Party -- a designated hate group. Fox News' Glenn Beck, for example, said on his radio show that the New Black Panther Party represented "the kinds of people that our president aligns himself with," and Fox News' David Asman accused Obama of "defending racists" by "letting the Black Panthers off." More recently, Megyn Kelly, the biggest Adams cheerleader of them all, devoted airtime interviewing New Black Panther President Malik Shabazz. This episode follows a pattern of Fox highlighting this radical fringe group over the years.Research posted by Media Matters shows more than 50 instances of Fox News hosting someone from the New Black Panther Party:
Date Show
Guest
6/24/1998
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
8/31/1999
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
6/21/2000
The Edge with Paula Zahn
Quanell X
6/22/2000
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
6/23/2000
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
2/19/2001
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
3/19/2001
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
4/12/2001
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
5/3/2001
The O'Reilly Factor
Malik Shabazz
5/18/2001
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
7/30/2001
The O'Reilly Factor
Malik Shabazz
9/7/2001
Fox News Edge
Malik Shabazz
11/1/2001
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
1/16/2002
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
2/18/2002
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
7/7/2002
Fox Wire
Malik Shabazz
7/8/2002
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
7/18/2002
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
8/16/2002
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
10/24/2002
The O'Reilly Factor
Malik Shabazz
10/28/2002
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
7/9/2003
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
2/28/2004
Big Story Weekend Edition
Malik Shabazz
6/21/2004
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
5/3/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
5/5/2005
The O'Reilly Factor
Quanell X
5/25/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
9/19/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
9/27/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
10/13/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
10/17/2005
The O'Reilly Factor
Malik Shabazz
10/17/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
11/29/2005
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
2/9/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
3/10/2006
The O'Reilly Factor
Malik Shabazz
4/10/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
5/1/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
5/1/2006
On the Record with Greta Van Susteren
Malik Shabazz
6/7/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
8/11/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
11/16/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
11/30/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
12/5/2006
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
1/5/2007
The O'Reilly Factor
Malik Shabazz
2/26/2007
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
3/9/2007
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
4/13/2007
Hannity & Colmes
Hashim Nzinga
7/16/2007
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
10/19/2007
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
12/4/2007
Hannity & Colmes
Quanell X
3/19/2008
Hannity & Colmes
Malik Shabazz
Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007140028
41 comments:
I don't know what everyone else thinks, but a guy blowing the proverbial whistle, whether it's true or false, constitutes HUGE news!
Have we forgot that this is the Department of Justice in the United States of America and that someone is speculating from the inside that there's a racial conspiracy? Hello!!?
What planet is everyone else on?
Because the issue involves black people, what, news isn't supposed to run it? I don't understand the beef with this guy from the DOJ.
I don't know if he's telling the truth. It seems kinda off to me and I don't really buy it.
But I wouldn't know one way or the other if Fox wasn't around. It's cricketsville everywhere else...
If it were up to the other networks, the story would just get buried. Is that the better alternative?
Imagine it with Bush as president. My goodness gracious. It would take front-page billing for months and run A block on MSNBC, CNN, PBS, CBS, ABC, on and on.
How do I know? Because even lesser stories of infighting, firings and off-the-wall Cheney-puppet theories were ran like that.
About the New Black Panthers:
What's the implication here on the poster's end? That portraying a negative fringe group with black members portrays all black people in that light?
And even assuming that a small percentage of whites see the NBP and think "they're all the same," it seems you're indirectly saying that it shouldn't be aired AT ALL because of the hypothetical consequence. Wow.
If that's the attitude Holder has, too, then I might listen to this whistle-blower more closely.
Equality means black fringe morons can be called out just like white fringe morons.
Put a white hood on that guy in front of the polling place and tell me it's not news.
Part of the implication is that whites haven't changed. So I know what to expect had it been a KKK member.
Radicals are radicals. It shouldn't matter what their race is.
Fox rips into that moronic Westboro group consistently as well.
How dare they portray all white Christians as lunatics.
(Unrelated: I'd like to see a deathmatch between the NBP and those Westboro loons.)
@ Joanna, if people use "code words" to express their racism, doesn't that suggest that racism is not socially-acceptable, that people--including, of course, white people like myself, abhor racism and think it an abomination?
I have no idea who all these people are who clutch their purses when they see a black person (presumably thinking they'll have it snatched?), but I do know that it's pretty stupid to go walking in certain neighborhoods after dark (ditto riding the T late at night). Newsflash: crime, particularly violent crime, takes place in those neighborhoods far more often and far more openly than in upper-class white neighborhoods. That's not racism, that's simple statistical fact. And it's probably worth considering WHY that is. Why are black and minorities relegated to the poorest neighborhoods, the worst schools (again, this is statistical fact)? Why does anyone who is not white who wants to go to a better school, get a decent college education, LEAVE the poverty and oppression that is institutionalized in this country by 1960's throw backs who want black people "kept in their place," get vilified for "acting white" or being an "Uncle Tom"? Pursuing the American Dream is (or should be) open to ALL Americans, not just white ones. But the black community and its leaders who love the down-trodden, economically-beaten, educationally-subdued black population just where it is instead choose to attack anyone who seeks to escape it. That, to me, is far more racist than someone having the good sense not to go shambling through areas known for drug shootings and gang violence (newsflash: there ARE gangs, they do exist, and some are even white! ooooh! My guess is that anyone worried about violent crime probably shuns poor white neighborhoods, too. Actually, what upper or middle class person of either race goes to any these neighborhoods unless they're a preacher or a first responder or have family there?). And while I'm on the subject of 1960's throw backs . . . you know who thinks it's a good idea to kill babies because they're white? That's right a 1960's throw back, anti-white group. You know who "leads" much of the racist black movement? That's right, 1960's throw backs. You know who advocated a racial war in the U. S. from the white "side"? Charles freaking Manson. Crazy person extraordinaire throw back to the 1960's. Maybe it's time to stop living like it's 1960 (or 1830)? Just a thought.
@ Fuzzy Slippers: The use of code words is nothing new. It's an old trick that, like Jason from the old Friday the 13th movies, just can't seem to die. You do raise an interesting question about whether or not racism is socially acceptable. In a broad sense, it is not considered acceptable. But, in a more subtle sense, and particularly in large pockets still of this country, it is acceptable subtly and overtly.
There are fears that certain people have about crime. As someone who grew up in a large inner city, there are stereotypes about blacks and crime. That is one of the reasons why George H.W. Bush's campaign used the Willie Horton ad (to show blacks as dangerous) and to show that Democrats are out to take care of blacks while Republicans are out to keep people "safe" from such criminals and such a criminal element. The late Sen. Jesse Helms used affirmative action ads to portray lazy and undeserving blacks as taking jobs from more qualified whites who were being discriminated against. This is not overt racism or overt use of racial politics, but it is subtle and played upon fears that many people have of blacks.
Long ramble .. I know.
@ Joanna, if people use "code words" to express their racism, doesn't that suggest that racism is not socially-acceptable, that people--including, of course, white people like myself, abhor racism and think it an abomination?
Frankly, I try to avoid broad blanket statements of that magnitude. I certainly do not think America or Americans are racist as a people. That doesn't, in my opinion, make much sense. I am not so much focused on the supremacist groups that have been around for a long time and will be around long after all of us are in the ground or has our ashes scattered somewhere. I don't disagree that such hate groups are bad. I don't think very many people would disagree with that statement.
As for Willie Horton, we will agree to disagree on that one. I think you're using the surface argument that was used by people close to George H.W. Bush's camp. That's what they want you to think (that it was just about crime and punishment). It was not. You have to look a little deeper and do more than just scratch the surface. The underlying message there was unmistakable. No disrespect intended, but it's pretty naive not to see the racial motive in this ad. I really believe part of the success of racism is the denial of people who turn a blind eye to the sometimes subtle nature of racism when it is not overt and blatantly obvious. This is true of the other isms as well.
I will leave the other stuff after that alone about blacks on welfare and everything else. It's kind of off topic and I don't really buy into that stuff anyway.
I think this conversation is drifting too far from the main points of the original blog post. The use of fringe black groups and other scary black people to scare whites. Fox News has mastered this art.
Hey Sandy, thanks for sinking into personal attacks, I really appreciate your balanced response. We can disagree, of course, this is America! :)
I guess I wonder why racism is so prevalent and such a huge problem that people who engage it must do so in "code" and via layers of meaning (one thing on the surface and some deeply racist thing underneath). I think there's a danger here in that anything, and anyone, can suddenly be called a racist not because they are but because someone else, somewhere else, says so . . . based on some code they've broken or some hidden agenda beneath the surface. That does imply that racism is rampant and in turn suggests that America and her people are closet racists, if you don't believe that, good. But it might be worth considering that Bush (41) was actually attacking his opponent in an election, that opponent's record and policies. I don't know, that just seems more probable to me than that he and his team were sitting around wondering how they can attack Dukakis' failed policies while simultaneously creating racist fear in Americans . . . who probably aren't all racist to begin with. That just seems a little far-fetched and illogical, not to mention attributing layers of thought and intention to people that we cannot possibly know.
Likewise, how on earth can you know the intention of the Fox News producers is to create fear of black people in their audience? And I have to tell you, as a Fox viewer, they have failed abysmally. It's possible that they have them on because the NBPP is an actual political party that has recently broken the law intimidating American voters. And then that case was dropped by the current United States Department of Justice. And then a whistle blower has come out and said that this case is the reason that a BO appointee told the DOJ that they were to never prosecute black criminals engaged in crime against white people. But yeah, no story there, it must be to scare to people.
Really, you seem like a resonable human being, don't you think that the accusation from an insider that the United Stated Department of Justice has a policy against protecting the rights of white people--based on the race of the perpetrator is a bit of a problem? Or did you secretly support racist voting laws of the Old South? Or do you think it's okay as long as you aren't affected? In which case, that's about RACE and racism, not about liberty and equality. That's the real debate right now. Where is your moral ground? Is it okay . . . as long as the victims are white? Or is it wrong on principle? If it's not wrong on principle, then who is really the racist here? That's something we can all decide for ourselves, and that's what is really going on in this country right now. And it's not nothing.
ack! thanks for NOT sinking into personal attacks. Sorry, I really really need to proofread before typing in that silly code and clicking "publish".
Coded racism is an oxymoron.
There have undoubtedly been "code" words and behaviors used. They're not code now. They're added to the canon of known racist words.
Why is it that American racism has went from in-your-face to some type of Roswell cover-up, and the people who don't see racism and use the logical explanation are somehow the ones with tunnel vision and no true knowledge?
I have to quote Dave Mustaine here: "Peace sells. But who's buying?"
The conspiracy, in any instance, always gets more play.
@Fuzzy Slippers: I guess I am kind of debating how to respond because this can go down a long road if I am to try and explain the incredible depth and breadth of racism (both overt and subtle) to answer some of the questions you offered or to reply to some of the points you raised.
You question about why racism is so prevalent that people resort to code words is interesting. If you figure that question out and write it as a book you will could make a lot of money.
I don't buy into the argument that anyone or anything can be called racist these days. That is the mentality that leads some to run from racism rather than to confront it head on in the overt and subtle ways it used. This is why "race card" was invented (at the risk of being dragged into another lane of this discussion). Rather than confront racism head on we blame the accuser.
Back to the central discussion: Can we truly know what the true motives of Fox News is in overhyping the NBPP case? No, I doubt anyone can truly know the motives, but judging Fox by its track record on race I do not think it is the least bit farfetched. It's an old story being brought up because a right-wing so-called whistle blower has come out to make wild accusations with virtually no evidence. Like ACORN, the NBPP case is less about voter intimidation and more about making President Obama (black) and Attorney General Holder (black) look like they're protecting black thugs who are supposedly intimidating voters. And, this is again coming to surface in an election year. This happened, by the way, when George W. Bush was president.
I don't recall Fox News being this concerned about minority voters in poor districts being disenfranchised in 2000, 2004 and 2008 as they have been about these two thugs in predominantly black district.
Fuzzy Slippers, the use of "coded" words to express racist ideas IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM means that racism is dead, or that most people consider it abhorrent. It simply means that racist ideals are being made more "palatable" to the general public. It is called the "refinement" stage of white supremacy. And if you actually read my comment, you would see that I was talking about people being afraid of walking through a "middle class, low crime neighborhood, claiming it is a "bad neighborhood" simply because the majority of residents are Black." (direct quote)
And by the way, the idea that educated Black people are ALWAYS accused of being "Uncle Toms" is a fallacy CREATED by white people to explain away the REAL reasons for lower educational attainment in the Black community (Lack of access to good schools, biased admissions criteria, etc) Almost ALL of my friends (who are virtually all Black) consider a college education a high priority for themselves and their children. While their may be SOME who mock educational acheivement, the same can be said of ANY race... how many white children are called "nerds" and "geeks" by their peers for high educational achievement.
hmmmm.... interesting observation... I have heard countless people assert (online and in real life) that "racism is dead" or that "most people hate racism" or "racism doesn't happen in my town/city/state" or "racism ended in the 60s/70s" or "it has nothing to do with race".... and EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM IS WHITE! Can ANY white person REALLY know the true depth of what IS or ISN'T racism??
Sandy, thanks again for allowing me to use this as a guest post here.
Some white conservatives had already expressed fears about what would happen to whites if Obama was elected. For example, a McCain supporter was interviewed saying she was afraid if Obama wins, "the blacks will take over". Fox News' hyping of the NBPP story is tailor made to play into these fears.
The motives of Fox News are suspect when one considers how they handled a similar case. In 2006, the DOJ did not pursue charges against members of The Minuteman Project for allegedly intimidating Hispanic voters in AZ -- with one member of the organization (Roy Warden) allegedly carrying a gun.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007010023
Why did Fox News ignore/downplay the case against the Minutemen while over-hyping the NBPP story?
Regarding Bartle Bull, in addition to supporting John McCain for president, he also served as a poll watcher for McCain on Election Day 2008. I find it interesting that these facts about Bull aren't being emphasized as heavily by Fox News as are other parts of his background (working in the South as a civil rights attorney, serving as campaign mgr for RFK, etc.).
Fuzzy: You've admitted that your disrespect for President Obama is the reason you call him "BO". However, going forward I ask that you refrain from using "BO" or any other negative term when referring to President Obama in the comments you leave at Diversity Ink.
Malcolm,
It took awhile to research this thoroughly between working and life. I concede that Fox News should have covered the Minuteman incident more throughly. But, I still don't think that it rises to the level of voter intimidation (if at all) as the New Black Panthers displayed in the 2008 election. I looked at several sites to determine this, many of the sites taking an opposing view to mine.
Many of the articles stated that the three accused of voter intimidation were keeping an eye out for illegal aliens or felons so that they would not try and vote illegally. Many articles also stated that one person was carrying a firearm. But, that statement is even deceptive since according to most newspaper articles the one who was "carrying the gun" actually had it in a hollster on his side. That is covered under the 2nd amendment. The others had a camera and a clipboard just taking pictures of possible illegal voting. That is covered under freedom of speech. Plus, at least one or two articles stated that the three were located further than the 75-feet away from the polling booth.
If the New Black Panthers were not directly in front of the polling place, with at least one person brandishing a stick with it looking like they could use it at any moment, while at the same time saying only Obama voters would be allowed to vote here, then I might think that this cae was handled justly by the DOJ but I think they dropped the ball in this case. If the New Black Panthers had been wearing the clubs/sticks on the side then I would have no problem with that either.
Plus, since this President claimed to be Post-racial, to bring the country together and he has done the opposite and IMO in fact stoked the flames of racism, has caused more racial divisiveness in this country, and that is one more reason why this case is significant.
"Plus, since this President claimed to be Post-racial, to bring the country together and he has done the opposite and IMO in fact stoked the flames of racism, has caused more racial divisiveness in this country, and that is one more reason why this case is significant."
HOW??? By admitting that YES, racism is a PROBLEM, and something needs to be done about it?? The only reasons Barack Obama has "caused more divisiveness" in this country is because he does not agree with the right winger's claims that "racism is a thing of the pass" and because he DARES to be PROUD to call himself a Black man. I have heard the same people who CLAIM Barack Obama is a "racist" claim that Oprah is a "racist". Why? Because they HAVE THE NERVE to actually CARE about Black people. But, apparently, the tactic of accusing President Obama of being a racist, simply for being a proud Black man is working, because he is now shying away from all issues of race, and throwing people of color under the bus in so doing!
Joanna,
You need to stop playing the race card and playing the victim. It seems like people like yourself thrive on playing the victim when there is no legitimate reason for that. Just because a person is of a certain ethnic background that doesn't automatically make that person a victim. The Tea Party movement and the opposition to the President HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS SKIN COLOR. STOP stoking the flames and having this infatuation with race. Minorities need to stop with this ideology of self-victimization attitude and trying to make every little thing about race. ITS NOT!!! You are the ones who are causing a race war. I couldn't give a crap about a person's race. But, I also won't allow for the rest of society to be used as scapegoats for others' problems, or expect one to make excuses for those who have done something wrong and give their race as an exuse as to why his/her actions were okay, when the weren't okay.
Theresa- I cannot help but laugh at your claim that I "need to stop playing the race card and playing the victim". Please, do tell me WHERE in my post I am saying that I am a VICTIM of anything or anyone?? Is recognizing that racism exits and is a huge problem in this country "playing the victim to you"?? Do you believe that the ONLY people who believe that racism is an issue people who are using their race as an excuse to not thrive?
If you really do believe that, then check out the little picture by my post (that is a picture of me) and check out my blog. As a matter of fact, I will make it REAL EASY for you.... just click THIS LINK so you can see how wrong you are about me. THEN come back and attempt to figure out a way to make your claims fit with the what you see there.
Maybe you could even attempt to answer my inquiry as to what President Obama has done to "stoke the flames of racism" instead of throwing the accusation of me "playing the race card" to avoid actually producing any (nonexistent) evidence of your assertion.
Oh, and then, you might want to check out THIS POST while you are at it.
Theresa...
Barack Obama HAS shied away from issues of race BECAUSE when he DOES address race (with truth and integrity) he gets bashed by the conservative for being "racist" and "divisive".
What has Barack Obama said about race that was inauthentic or untrue??
And as for him being proud of being a Black man, you only have to read either of his books or listen to any of a number of his speeches and it would be evident. But, wait, any and all attempts for him (or any other individual) to uplift and support Black people are seen by the right wing as "pulling the race card"
I find it so interesting that the people who want to DENY racism exists, and who think diversity is a bad thing feel the need to express their opinions (which they consider factual) on blogs, forums, and websites dedicated to race and ethnicity.
IF someone believes that racism DOES NOT exist, and is NOT an issue, why do they insist on running around screaming about "the race card" every time they are presented with EVIDENCE of racism? You would think after a while, people would begin to think "Well, since it is mentioned so often and in so many different contexts, by so many different individuals, maybe racism really IS an issue!?
Joanna,
First, ones pic or your picture doesn't prove whether you do or don't play the victim or whether you promote the attitude of self-victimization due to ones race or ethnic background or not.
The things that you think don't affect others, like homosexual marriage, actually do affect others. That's the problem with code words like "fairness" or "fair" and "diversity", and "discrimination"-- they end being the most discriminatory ideas of all.
"I find it so interesting that the people who want to DENY racism exists, and who think diversity is a bad thing feel the need to express their opinions (which they consider factual) on blogs, forums, and websites dedicated to race and ethnicity."
Who denied that racism exists? I admitted it.
Obama is the one that promotes the misinformation on the race issues and not "right-wingers". Conservatives care about fiscal issues, pieces of legislation and we accept any person of any racial makeup that wants to promote conservative beliefs/principles and respect others who have different beliefs as well.
Can you point to a speech where he says he is proud of being a black man?
"What has Barack Obama said about race that was inauthentic or untrue??"
The whole Cambridge police officer incident comes to mind. Obama admitted that he didn't have the facts but then defends Professor Gates when the Officer was doing his job and responding to a call.
I mean come on, a robber could pretend to be a homeowner or watching the house and refuse to give his license. And, the call was regarding a perceived break-in. The police officer needed to determine whether Professor Gates was the owner or not and the professor didn't give him the means to do so. But, with saying that, I think they both could have handled the situation better than they did.
Teresa LOL... now are you going to try to tell me that when you said I was "playing the race card" you were not making the (false) assumption that I am a member of a minority group??
How about when you said "Minorities need to stop with this ideology of self-victimization attitude and trying to make every little thing about race. ITS NOT!!! You are the ones who are causing a race war."??
And please tell me HOW homosexual marriage affects you? Tell me HOW pay equity between whites and minority group members would be a bad thing. Tell me please, HOW equitable sentencing laws is a bad thing?? Oh, wait... I know... white people think that somehow another group having equality somehow takes away from them. Somehow and even playing field disadvantages white folks, right??
Let me put this in story form for you... say there is a 10 mile race going on between 3 individuals. One person stole all of the devices of locomotion from the other two. Then, he used the bicycle he had stolen from one of them to run the race. And, he force the others to run the race on foot. From the very beginning of the race, the people who were forced to run on their feet told the person on the bicycle he was being unfair. They asked him to either get off the bike, or allow them to use a bicycle as well. He refused. Halfway through the race, the people who were on foot were given bicycles by their friends. Is that being prejudicial towards the one who stole their bicycles in the first place?? Or is it simply creating conditions under which ALL THREE PEOPLE have an equal chance of thriving??
Saying that efforts to promote equality and diversity produce discrimination is basically saying that allowing all three competitors in the face to ride bicycles is unfair to the one who stole the bikes, because he loses an advantage he took unjustly to begin with. No one is saying to knock the cyclist off his bike. They simply want to be able to use one as well.
Teresa, he does not need to use the exact words "I am proud of being a Black man" in order to convey the idea. When he talks of racial equality and racial uplift, he is conveying his pride. When he writes of working within the Black community as an organizer, he is conveying his pride. When he checks the box on his census saying that he is a Black man, he is showing his pride.
And how was the police man doing his job by arresting a man who HAD A KEY and had ALREADY ENTERED his own home? How is he doing his job by arresting a man who had ALREADY SHOWN ID proving who he was? He was INSIDE his home. He was UPSET at the police officer, he had EVERY RIGHT TO BE. When the police officer SAW that his key OPENED THE DOOR, and SAW HIS ID, that should have been the end of the story. There was no reason to arrest a man for entering his own home.
Okay, so there is no possibility of a person stealing someone else's key? Ok.. Whatever... You would rather the police officer blow it off instead of being 100% sure that the man actually did own the home. Ok.. Whatever....
Obama hasn't displayed being proud of his being black heritage in any way, shape, or form. Working within a certain community doesn't automatically mean that that person has pride for that community. Their is a thing called taking advantage of people. And, that is exactly what he did so he could get elected President. If you think he and Michelle care about poor people your highly misinformed. When Michelle was working at a hospital in a top position she and the hospital made the decision to turn away poor people.
Sorry to dissapoint but I don't think in terms of race. For all you know I could have been assuming (and correctly) that you are stricken with liberal white guilt syndrome.
"Halfway through the race, the people who were on foot were given bicycles by their friends."
Being given something should be applauded but that is not what liberals and democrats promote. They promote thievery and excessive taxation all in the name of "fairness". This could be because certain people have a problem with taking responsibility for their actions and want to place the blame on the "rich". The liberals are taking away the person's choice to give to whom or which charity he/she chooses. Oh but, that's okay... the government can handout the money "fairly". Or not.
First of all Teresa... The professor SHOWED THE POLICE OFFICER TWO PIECES OF ID and was STILL arrested.
Am I thrilled with the job Barack Obama has done?? No, I am not. BUT, I recognize that 9 times out of 10 people who are criticizing him ARE NOT basing their critique on his policies. They are simply displaying a knee jerk reaction to him being a Black man in a position of power.
Who did he take advantage of to become president? As far as I can see MOST of the people who voted for President Obama are not displeased with what he has done. It is the right wingers and the Tea Partiers who are complaining about him. If you really believe that it is simply a coincidence that people cry about "taking back their country" as soon as a Black man is elected president, you are totally deluded.
Who are the Tea Partiers to claim that this is THEIR country anyway?? Do I not live in this country? Does Barack Obama not live in this country? Do millions of Obama supporters not live in this country??
And just WHO do they want to take their country back FROM?? It is scary for the Tea Partiers to see a Black man in the White House. Why, because for the hundreds of years that white men have been in charge, they have done everything in their power to keep down everyone who was not white. They are terrified of retribution.
Liberal White Guilt Syndrome... LOL... how do conservatives come up with this junk anyway?? Anything to explain away the fact that there are people who RECOGNIZE racism and unjustice, and will fight tooth and nail to combat it!
I guess you do not realize that right now our tax rate is FAR LOWER than it has been in the past. I guess you also do not recognize that the rich individuals and corporations get more tax breaks than anyone else. I also like how you conveniently turned this from an argument about race and racism to an issue of taxation and class. And, the funny thing to me is that while conservatives complain vociferously about "taxpayer" money being used to help the poor, the second they feel that they are in need, they turn to the government for assistance.
And by the way, I am not a liberal OR a Democrat. I am a radical progressive.
"Sorry to dissapoint but I don't think in terms of race. For all you know I could have been assuming (and correctly) that you are stricken with liberal white guilt syndrome."
Oh, and this one makes me laugh.... especially coming after a post where you said I was "playing the race card", "playing the victim" THEN you spoke of minorities, and then followed it up with "You are the ones who are causing a race war.", but NO, you DIDN'T make a FALSE assumption about my race, now did you, cuz obviously... YOU DON'T SEE RACE, right??? Ah yes, the old "I can make blanket assumptions about people and then CLAIM to be color blind" argument... LOL....
A radical progressive is the same as a liberal democrat. Look it up on google.
"If you really believe that it is simply a coincidence that people cry about "taking back their country" as soon as a Black man is elected president, you are totally deluded."
If you believe in this ideology of race victimization and in race-baiting or because Obama happens to be black and we hate his policies just cause he's black then you are deluded and the government schools have sufficiently indoctrinated and corrupted your mind into believing progressive lies.
The Tea Party movement started forming under Bush because of his spending and the bailouts. Then it came to fruition as frustations mounted when Obama continued and exacerbated the huge spending spree with the Stimulus and more bailouts.
White liberals with white guilt syndrome can play right into the race card also. It is self-evident that you have bought into this.
Believe it or not corporations create jobs and penalizing them for being successful only hurts the little guy. While low-income people may create their own home businesses, it is impossible for them to create multiple jobs with the money stolen (excessive taxation) from them by the government.
Sure, first you make the false complaint about us and my focusing on race instead of issues and then when the facts stand in the way of your misconceptions- that I don't focus on race but rather on fiscal issues- that debunks your false accusations so you get a little huffy. That has be LOL!!!!!!
Have fun living in the world where you think race is the main issue and all others surround that issue and I'll continue living in the real world focusing on the real and more important issues facing the country.
Teresa... a Democrat is a member of a political party WHICH I AM NOT. Progressive and liberal are not synonyms, though many believe they are.
From wikipedia: The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." "Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy"
Oh, and by the way, American schools are FAR from Progressive institutions. If they were, they would not continue telling the LIE that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America. And they certainly would stop promoting the false idea that the US was created with the idea of "liberty and equality for all".
Oh, and Teresa, if you look back, I didn't bring up the Tea Party movement at all until you mentioned it. I was discussing racism as it pertains to the responses to this post. You made the claim that President Obama has cause racial divisiveness. You still have not shown me how, but that is neither here nor there. But, YOU brought the Tea Party to the table, not me....
Joanna,
In doing a search this is how google defined the term progressive:
favoring or promoting progress; "progressive schools"
favoring or promoting reform (often by government action)
(of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount of income increases
gradually advancing in extent
a tense of verbs used in describing action that is on-going
(of a card game or a dance) involving a series of sections for which the participants successively change place or relative position; "progressive euchre"; "progressive tournaments"
liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
advancing in severity; "progressive paralysis"
BTW- I loved your story! That was good creativity.
Progressives and liberals share SOME ideology. But, I have yet to meet a RADICAL progressive who considers him/herself a "Democrat". Radicalism is outside of the realm of the two party system this country favors.
"Plus, since this President claimed to be Post-racial, to bring the country together and he has done the opposite and IMO in fact stoked the flames of racism, has caused more racial divisiveness in this country, and that is one more reason why this case is significant."
Just curious ... When did President Obama claim to be post-racial? I am not saying he didn't say it for definite, but I can't recall him saying that. I know a lot of people were hoping for a post-racial society, but my opinion is that many of those were on the right who were of the mistaken and foolish belief that racism ended because a black man was elected president. Post-racial is a very ambitious goal and nowhere near an accomplishment.
I am not sure how he has hurt race relations as alleged in this excerpt. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. I'd love to hear some proof to back up such a statement that to me sounds erroneous. People said the same thing about Dr. King in the 1960s. They said the same thing about the three civil rights activists that were murdered. These men were said to be stirring up racial tensions. We now know that, at a minimum, these things were said about people to smash meaningful dialogue about race issues and the push for equality.
Sandy - Good luck getting an answer on that one. So far NOT ONE person who has made that allegation has been able to give me a single concrete legitimate example!
Sandy,
Here is an article with a list of how race-relations have worsened since President Obama has been in office: http://www.gazette.com/opinion/obama-101812-race-white.html
This is an interesting article that actually refers to Obama's view of a post-racial America: http://www.indypendent.org/2008/10/02/illusion-post-racial-america/
But, this idea of post-racial America may have been more a notion of everyday African-Americans rather than Obama. Here is another interesting article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/06/the_myth_of_post-racial_americ.html
I've read the articles you cite as evidence.
I will start with the one you cited about Obama and post-racial America.
There is nothing in this article that shows that this is President Obama's view that we are in or we were entering a post-racial America. I saw nothing in there that is any different than what a lot of people would want: a color-blind America. That is the ideal for many Americans. Nothing specific in there about Obama and his stated views on post-racial American. As I read that article, I was struck by the fact that people were reading his body language and trying to attach meaning to what they are seeing from him. Some people may have interpreted his election as a gateway to a so-called post-racial America. But I did not see anywhere in this article where Obama claimed to be post-racial as you said in one of your responses. If I missed it in the article then please point it out to me and I will recognize it.
I read the Colorado Springs editorial that seems to have been written by a right-wing activist. I am not going to waste time with those partisan political issues. I do not see where a few isolated cases cited by that editorial really have anything to do with real race relations in this country. I think it's ludicrous to assert that race relations have gotten worse due to anything related to President Obama. Did race relations get worse under the administration of George W. Bush because of how he handled Hurricane Katrina, because some feel he won the election due to many black voters feeling like they were disenfranchised in 2000. I would remind you that the New Black Panther case happened during Bush's presidency.
The Washington Post article is interesting, but I am not sure what it proves as far as the discussion we're having here. Obviously there are problems this president faces. There are problems all presidents face. I don't see what this article has to do with post-racial Obama. I am sure there were some people who were hoping he would snap his fingers like on the old TV show Bewitched and eight years of problems during the Bush Administration would simply disappear. It doesn't work so simply.
Teresa: You commented that one of the NBPs said only Obama voters would be allowed to vote at that polling place. Can you provide a link to a news story stating this?
You said you concede Fox should have covered the Minuteman incident more thoroughly. The question I originally posed was why didn't they? Here's my theory: Fox' failure to report the Minutemen case is in line with their tendency to downplay stories where conservative whites are involved in race-related incidents or that portray conservatives in general in a negative light. What's your answer? Fox’ lack of coverage of the Minutemen case is even worse when you consider that Fox constantly criticizes other news outlets for not reporting stories.
Two more questions about the NBPP case: Has Fox made it clear to its viewers that the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office? Does this decision by the Bush DOJ bother you? One would think that those outraged at the DOJ under the Obama administration over its handling of the NBPP case would be just as angry at the Bush DOJ for downgrading the case from criminal to civil.
In answer to Joanna’s question in which she asked "What has Barack Obama said about race that was inauthentic or untrue??", you pointed to the Cambridge police incident. However, your response to Joanna’s question doesn’t hold up to what President Obama actually said.
I urge you to go back and objectively watch President Obama’s comments on the Prof. Gates/Cambridge incident here:
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-weighs-in-on-henry.html
* Although President Obama admitted he didn’t know all the facts, what he commented on was what we all knew up to that point. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
* President Obama was clear to point out he didn’t know what role race played in the incident.
* The comments President Obama made about racial profiling in this country were not in relation to the Prof. Gates/Cambridge incident. Do you believe that what he said about Blacks and Latinos being stopped disproportionately by law enforcement officials in this country is untrue? If so, hit me with some facts to back that up.
In Sandy’s response, he asked you how President Obama has hurt race relations in this country. However, you provided a link to a story of how race relations have worsened since Obama was elected. Those are two different things. Furthermore, anyone can go back to any former president’s tenure and find race-related issues. The following happened under President George W. Bush’s watch:
* The Don Imus “nappy headed hos” controversy
* Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman’s suspension because she jokingly commented that Tiger Woods’ competition should “Lynch him in a back alley"
* Duane “Dog” Chapman’s profanity-laced call, in which he used the N-word repeatedly to describe his son's black girlfriend
* The “Jena 6” case
I could keep going, but I think you get the idea. Would it be fair to look at these incidents and say, “These prove that President Bush has caused racial divisiveness in this country”?
The bottom line is that I believe people expect too much from President Obama when it comes to healing racial wounds. Why should the fact that he’s the first African American president make him any more responsible for healing those wounds than any of his predecessors?
Sandy,
You only like partisan Leftist issues of "equality" "fairness" and "diversity" while those agendas are the most discriminatory of all.
Martin Luther King would be ashamed of every liberal hack that takes advantage of the issue of race and pushes race-based politics all the time when he called for a color-blind society. You are enslaving yourselves to liberals, liberal corporate America, socialists and communists.
Bush actually offered or asked the governor if she needed guard troops and she REFUSED HELP. Bush suggested to Mayor Nagan that he should use school busses to get people away from the storm but, no, the mayor refused to do that also. With all the blatant tsunami of incompetence that flowed from the democratic politicians prior to Katrina, and there misallocation of funds that were supposed to fix the levee beforehand, I think Bush did quite well for the hand he was dealt. I mean if your "messiah" president can't even get a natural disaster under control without having to transport any people anyhere then how hard do you think that it would be to transport thousands of people away from a hurricane and after people refused to heed prior warnings, after a sudden collapse of the levees?
That is a perfect example as to why no person should be reliant on government. Is it really the government's responsibility to bus people who didn't have cars out of New Orleans? No. The Democrats have created an agenda which promotes dependency on our government. That is just one example of why you can't be dependent on the government for anything. People must be self-sufficient and not be reliant on others (government, taxpayers)to take the responsibility that they should have in the first place. Its all about personal responsibility which the democratic party refuses to make a principle of their party.
The Black Panthers were prosecuted under Bush, received a default judgement, and when the Holder DOJ came in they handed sweet victory to their black buddies the New Black Panthers when Bush DOJ had already won the case and was simply waiting on the punishment to be handed out. This was a case of blatant reverse racism.
Its obvious that you and others on this blog would refuse to recognize the truth even if it smacked you right in the face just because Obama is President and happens to be black. So I may or may not return to this blog. Because its obvious that you can't let facts get in the way of your politically, ideological, liberal opinions. Have a great life being self-absorbed with race-based politics and causing racial divisiveness in our country. Have fun living in Never Never Land because I will continue to live in reality, spread truth, and focus on the important issues of the day, like saving our country from the enemy within.
Why do conservatives insist on hijacking the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.?? Look a little deeper into the life of the man Teresa... he stood for a lot more that conservatives like to sweep under the rug.... a lot of issues close to his heart are the same things conservative rip liberals apart for supporting.
Teresa: Your last paragraph about Sandy and others on this blog sounds like a classic case of projection. Since I've known you, you've shown time and again that you have practically zero objectivity when it comes to politics. You're like Rush Limbaugh in drag. With the exception of those you consider a "RINO", one has to twist your arm to get you to admit the faults of any Republican/conservative.
In regards to your comments about people here denying facts to uphold their liberal beliefs, be careful of the stones you throw. Case in point: Last year, you posted on your blog two videos providing "persuasive evidence" that President Obama is a Muslim. The 1st one was so heavily edited it was laughable. The 2nd video was pure propaganda. When I pointed out to you that the non-partisan site factcheck.org had debunked that nonsensical "Obama is a Muslim" video montage, you still weren't convinced. If that isn't letting facts get in the way of your blind ideology, I don't know what is.
As for your belief that people on this blog support Obama simply because he's black, that's a reach too. Speaking for myself, I have no problem criticizing Obama when I think it's warranted. However, I'm not going to be like you and others of your ilk and slam him for everything. Based on your faulty logic, you must be against Obama because he IS black.
It can be a bitch to come out of the conservative blogosphere bubble and realize there are those who don't see the world as you do. Over on your blog and the other conservative ones you visit, your ideas (regardless of how outlandish they might be) aren't going to get much (if any) pushback. Personally, I hope you do return to this blog because I enjoy hearing from people with opposing viewpoints. However, be prepared to state your case with facts and logic. Half-baked "proof" just isn’t going to fly over here.
Teresa: I hope you will be willing to return to this blog. I think of myself as a pretty fair-minded person. I try to objectively listen to both sides of an issue and hear things through. I challenged you to substantiate your claims about Barack Obama and post-racial. I don't feel that was in any way unreasonable.
As far as Katrina and Bush, the success of his efforts can be debated. However, the point of that example not was to critique Bush's handling of Katrina, but only to show that it was an issue that racially divided America (to counter an article you cited about how Obama has supposedly divided America racially). When your house is burning down to you say I need to be self sufficient and put it out all by myself or do you call the fire department? When someone breaks in your house do you say I have to be self sufficient and deal with it on my own or do you call the police? We pay taxes to the government for a reason. I am pretty sure the people of New Orleans pay taxes. We don't pay money to our car insurance company just because we like giving up $100 a month (or whatever you pay). We pay that so when we need them they will be there to help us - the same with life insurance.
As far as Holder handing sweet victory to black buddies, I think you are way off. It was the Bush DOJ that decided not to pursue criminal charges. It was also the Bush DOJ that did the same with Minutemen who were accused of intimidating Hispanic voters. So, in a sense, I guess that was racially fair (in a twisted sort of way). No reverse racism (as you put it) at all.
I think you should research Dr. King and many of his speeches and writings to truly understand the depth and breadth of the man.
Joanna: My feelings exactly. I always shake my head when conservatives quote or otherwise invoke Dr. King (whether it's Glenn Beck or whoever else). You are so right about looking a little deeper. People should understand his protest of the Vietnam War, his fighting for poor people, his speaking out against injustice enabled by our government and more. I have long contended that if Dr. King were alive today, he would be considered anti-American, a race hustler and someone who plays the race card. If you want proof, look at the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Sandy- whenever someone tries to claim Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "Republican" or a "conservative" my first thought is the Poor People's Campaign. Then, his opposition to the Vietnam War comes to mind. Not exactly the stuff today's conservative movement is about. Another thing that cracks me up is when conservative proudly proclaim "Lincoln was a Republican", totally neglecting the fact that in Lincoln's Day the Republican party was progressive, NOT conservative!
Post a Comment