President Bush has decided to address the NAACP during its annual convention in Washington, D.C. This change of heart, apparently, is the result of the NAACP's recent leadership change.

Washington Bleep story



Personally, I think he's making a mistake. I don't think he should address the NAACP anymore than he should address the KKK. Both are different species from the same genus. (For you scientifically challenged people...) definition of genus

Questions for debate:

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

1. Yes. You can't claim to be on the side of civil rights and not address the nation's oldest and most respected civil rights organization. With the change in leadership (Bruce Gordon replacing Kweisi Mfume) the NAACP has begun to recognize that a openly hostile relationship with the President is counter-productive. It may endear the group to the far-left, but it can't help fundraising and grants from corporate sponsors and private donors. A check from General Motors has more value than the praise of MoveOn.org.

What good can come from it? Well, Bruce Gordon gets his picture taken with the POTUS and the glad-handing gives Bush a chance to show his "compassionate conservative" side. Plus, it can only benefit the GOP's black candidates like Blackwell in Ohio, Swann in Pennsylvania and Steele in Maryland for the leader of the Republican Party to playing kissy-face with the NAACP. It effectively counters any lingering after effect of the Congressional hold-up by Southern conservatives of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization.

2. Ah, now here's a quintessential lord helmet loaded question. Whether or not Bush himself believes that "race" is "biologically obsolete," the vast majority of African-Americans (and probably a good portion of the rest of America) still believes race matters and we've yet to achieve a colorblind society.

With that thought in mind, the president can look both forgiving and magnanimous by addressing the NAACP. If Julian Bond or others should turn their backs or walk out on Bush, they'll be the ones who look rude and boorish. I don't see a down side for Dubya here.



Hey, good looking out on the biology lesson regarding "genus." I can honestly say I learned something today.

Howzabout a lesson in history?

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of a number of past and present fraternal organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Catholicism, and nativism. These organizations have often promoted the use of terrorism, violence and acts of intimidation such as cross burning to oppress African Americans and others. The Klan's first incarnation was in 1866. Founded by veterans of the Confederate Army, its main purpose was to resist Reconstruction, and it focused as much on intimidating "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" as on putting down the freed slaves. It quickly adopted violent methods. A rapid reaction set in, with the Klan's leadership disowning it, and Southern elites seeing the Klan as an excuse for federal troops to continue their activities in the South. The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).

Beginning in the 1950s, a large number of the individual Klan groups began to resist the civil rights movement. This resistance involved numerous acts of violence and intimidation. Among the more notorious events of this time period were:

The assassination of NAACP organizer Medgar Evers in Mississippi. In 1994, former Ku Klux Klansman Byron De La Beckwith was convicted of Evers' murder.

The 1966 firebombing death of NAACP leader Vernon Dahmer Sr., 58, also in Mississippi. In 1998 former Ku Klux Klan wizard Sam Bowers was convicted of Dahmer's murder. Two other Klan members were indicted with Bowers, but one died before trial, and the other's indictment was dismissed.

The 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Alabama, which killed four children. Four Klansmen were named as suspects in they were not prosecuted until years later. The Klan members were Robert Chambliss, convicted in 1977, Thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry, convicted of murder in 2001 and 2002. The fourth suspect, Herman Cash, died before he was indicted.

The murder of Willie Edwards, Jr., in 1957. Edwards was forced by Klansmen to jump to his death from a bridge into the Alabama River.

The 1964 murders of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in Mississippi. In June 2005, Klan member Edgar Ray Killen was convicted of manslaughter in the murders.

The 1965 murder of Viola Liuzzo, a Southern-raised white mother of five who was visiting the South from her home in Detroit to attend a civil rights march. At the time of her murder Liuzzo was transporting Civil Rights Marchers.

KKK

As opposed to the NAACP (which to my knowledge has never been accused of engaging in acts of racially motivated violence). "Genus" indeed...

Here's where you're missing the point and since you just today learned what the definition of "genus" is, I suppose I can forgive you.

Lets look at it another way, communism, socialism, "national socialism", and "democratic socialism" are part of the same "genus". The difference is the USSR, China, Yemen, Nazi Germany, Sweden, and French implementations (not to mention San Francisco, Berkely, and much of MA). However, as Hayek has pointed out in his classic work, "The Road to Serfdom", once the "core concept" of statism is accepted, transition from the more benign versions of socialism to the more harsh USSR or Nazi Germany implementations doesn't take much. Using the same logic, transition from a "race based" yet albeit "positive" organization like the NAACP to a "hate" based group like the KKK is also easily achieve since the same core concept, aka "race" as the defining characteristic for membership, is affirmed.

Oh, and if you want to use "crime" as the basis for argument, you may want to "not go there". Anyone who checks the recent FBI crime statistics with respect to the most dangerous cities in the US in which to live can't help but notice that they are the cities with the highest concentrations of "African Americans" and "Hispanics". And, the "safest" cities are almost "lilly white".

I don't attribute that to "race". I attribute that to the proliferation of failed subcultures which should be eradicated but that are enabled by rich liberals who should know better but who continue to support such self destructive behavior out of the misplaced emotion of "white guilt".

One cannot have it both ways. If one adopts the "race based" way of looking at the world, one has to accept the huge downside associated with it.

I, for one, think there is a FAR better way and a more progressive way that could lead us once and for all from the endless tit-for-tat of racial animosity to a better society where race doesn't exist.

To that end, both the KKK and the NAACP are obstacles to that vision.

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

I think this is a positive. The change in leadership and the visit are both positives.

Clearly, the President had a perfectly legitimate reason to distance himself from the "non-partisan" organization that ran hateful ads against him after he last attended their convention.

The change in leadership was the signal that the NAACP has perhaps changed. Bond was bad for that organization. The NAACP, despite being the "oldest civil rights group in the nation", is not the only game in town and it knows it. It needs to "make itself relevant" as Bruce Gordon put it. They can't expect the President's appearance or non-appearance to make it so.

The President owes the NAACP nothing, just as they owe him nothing. If the NAACP wants to be relevant, they must take constructive stances that work to solve difference, not exacerbate them. The President is taking the high road here, as he should: ignore those that insult you, forgive those that mend their ways.

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

I think there are very few people who don't think the race debate is still relevant today. We should certainly be moving towards a color blind society by removing race as a factor (pro or con), but it is still an issue. The NAACP (and other racial rights groups) certainly raise valid issues and deserve to be addressed if they can act civilly towards their guest.

Its quite a jump to associate liberal thought with the violence one can associate with poverty stricken areas in our country. Thus the giant battle you have over class warfare and the right calling the left communists and the left calling the right nazis.

To take on a historical aspect of it I think a large percentage of the modern day African American was brought here via slavery, at that point knowledge in general was denied to them, after slavery was abolished and the more socially rooted bias against African Americans came to be the next battle what culture do you suppose they have. Rastafarian religion is a slaves religion, it just gives a simple insight into how bad power was abused in regards to humanity in our not so distant pass as to not qualify anymore, you still have ww2 vets that probably despise Japanese people.

If anything the naacp should receive praise on simply trying to get some form of organization thus voice going in the aspect that our culture seems like others to label groups of people, even today with hip hop becoming more of a cultural reality you can simply see that impact that has on personality of people regardless of race, I guess to end these problems anything can generate we should all just accept to live in an authoritarian society that only accepts certain moral practices and standards, though i do not know if that is what you are really trying to say.

To put it more plainly maybe extreme positions would never come to life if such was never needed, like why did women ever have to fight to be able to vote and work as equal, the same could be said of people that had to fight to end slavery, I guess if it were not for people that desired change from these issues we would still be living like that.

The older I get ... the more I worry about the spots on my stainless steel grill rather than political banter, but I'd have to venture to argue the notion that you believe that "very few people" see race debate as a non-issue.

I'd argue the other side of the coin, or moreover state that race debate is nearly completely a function of your respective demographic.
Check this page out.
It basically shows the polarity among whites vs non-whites, most specifically blacks (hispanic stats aren't as skewed)
I didn't check the validity or method of this poll, but kinda figure as a "finger in the air" barometer that it's probably a good judge.

Basically, black people believe, both in my experience as well as according to the poll, that their lives carry a certain pre-dispostion to racial inequality. White people, particularly in their late-20's and early-30's (Gen X stallworths) believe that racism is a political tool/ploy and/or something perpetuated by those most guilty. I personally really don't care for GW or the NAACP, but for very different reasons. However, I don't see the gap being bridged and race relations being moved to the background of our society unless leaders of the black community begin to move away from victimization whilst the leaders of our government don't take steps to fix the poverty gap and the welfare generation.

That being said, if I were a politician and attempting to sell my "wares" or those of my company (party), I'd probably say pandering to those most jaded in any case would probably be beneficial. Considering it seems to me that blacks have the largest anti-Republican constituency statistically, maybe the NAACP isn't a bad idea.

Maybe it's a step in the direction of bridging the perception gap of minorities. I believe the largest flaw in our political system is the lack of understanding, and the consistent voting based upon demographic/familial ties/racial divisions/etc. The very fact that most avg Americans (regardless of affiliation or demographic) don't really know what the party they support stands for is an impediment to the notion of democracy in its truest form.

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

It shows he has some small amount of spine after all- he is pretty much a wimp when it comes to anyone opposed to his ideas- it will be interesting if anyone is allowed to address him or ask him a question- they have pretty much insulated hiim from anyone that might put him on the spot with a tough question or really have him have to answer for his behavior. I would like a straight up answer to his behavior regarding Rove's use of race in the McCain race in SC-and the Willie Horton adds of his father- is he able to repudiate that? If he is so magnanamous towards race- his very recent use of anti-black sentiments in the south should be addressed if he is to be actually believed as to be reaching out to someone other that uber-rich CEOs and the Right wing christians? However- when he ventures outside the 30% or less of the US that still support him- he takes the risk of actually having to face tough questions about his incompetence on well, everything. I mean, will he have the guts to face the music? That is the real telling question- or, is he going to give some stupid speech, and then high tail it out of there before anyone can put him on the spot?




2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

IT is only not a "differentiator"- if it happens not to effect you personally. Since discrimination, predjudice, bigotry, being arrested for "driving while black" , having housing denied to you because you are black etc still happens, it appears it is only not a "differentiator" if you happen to be Lord Helmet LOL-

Whether it is YOUR reality or not LH- it is a straight up fact that this country still treats it's minorities badly, and often- and if GW doesn't address this FACT- well then, his little attempt at healing old wounds won't do much for him, now would it?

If it is not a "differentiator" LH- then why did Rove use it to great effect in South Carolina against McCain? The very insinuation that McCain had a "brown baby" out of wedlock in South Carolina was enough to doom his shot at the presidency- sounds like there is a fair number of white poeple that still consider it a "differentiator" to this day, right here in good ol' LH's "merica" . Willie Horton anyone? Used by Bush's daddy as well- seems those white poeple that were afraid of the black man are probably still voting and alive?

So it seems even GW is not so dense as to think that racial issues in this country are "obsolete"- to bad some other folks still can't see that fact.

What we have is an attempt to "right wash" MLK and put those nasty practices of the Republicans to use the fear of the black man to win elections, now that minorities in general are becoming an electoral force to be reckoned with- remember, MLK was FOR affirmative action and all those social programs that you don't like LH- so how do they reconcile that now? Maybe a pretty speech and then a hasty exit at the NAACP?

It's a "straight up fact"?? lol... not sideways? Ugh...

I'd like to see the facts that show that the US treats minorities poorly, backed by less than biased sources and then we might be able to discuss this as a fact. There are many cases in which being a black person (or minority) is beneficial in general.

Are there still biggots? Sure. In every walk of life. I find that in Dallas, when going into the beer stores that the middle eastern owners watch Mexicans like Hawks. I also find that my black co-workers talk about the Vietnamese as if they came literally out of the gutter, etc.



HUH?
Bush speaking to the NAACP is right washing MLK? Good Lord...

Of course MLK was FOR affirmative action and social equality, as when MLK was alive social conditions were 100% different. There weren't 2 generations of his race embedded in welfare generated apathy, and college students weren't getting admitted to college at all as opposed to being admitted even in the face of inferior records. Black people didn't get jobs, much less get promoted for being black (i.e. gov't quotas still in place). Heck- MLK couldn't sit at a lunch counter and order a whopper much less worry about the post office or the USMC promoting someone regardless of their record based upon their skin tone.

Facts you want. Facts we got.

CHICAGO - Special prosecutors investigating allegations that police tortured nearly 150 black suspects in the 1970s and ’80s said Wednesday they found evidence of abuse, but any crimes are now too old to prosecute.

In three of the cases, the prosecutors said the evidence was strong enough to have warranted indictments and convictions.

“It is our judgment that the evidence in those cases would be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Robert D. Boyle and Edward J. Egan wrote.

The four-year investigation focused on allegations that 148 black men were tortured in Chicago police interrogation rooms in the 1970s and ’80s. The men claimed detectives under the command of Lt. Jon Burge beat them, used electric shocks, played mock Russian roulette and started to smother at least one to elicit confessions.

Police Brutality

You should be pleased Aevans176---these acts of racism occurred in the North.

Now tell me more about these many cases where being black is so beneficial. This case being an obvious exception.

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

He should not address such an organization. Certainly one could object that we're not yet a color-blind society, but we're not going to become one either as long as the President of the United States continues to confer respectability on an explicitly race-based organization.



There's nothing wrong with addressing that fact, to the extent that it's true. That doesn't mean he needs to go before the NAACP in order to do it.

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

He's out trying to get votes. Too bad he's not very good at it, other than calling out the old guard. He might push some of those who approve of him over to the Demos, which is positive in a certain light.

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

Race is now a social and economic differentiator. Thankfully, the biological and Biblical arguments have long been abandoned.

So, what is the percentage of African-American heritage required for NAACP membership? Or is it open to anyone? Before making such an assumption as included in the question, a scrap of reality needs to be put forward.

Anyway, President Bush would be denying reality by pushing the message in Q2. Nothing new here, but I wouldn't do it. He might.

A few points.

1. The crime in the "poverty stricken" areas of this country is what causes the poverty. The underlying culture in those areas is the root cause of BOTH the crime and the resulting poverty. You take a poor person practicing a positive culture and making smarter personal decisions and they'll rise out of poverty in this country; quickly. On the other hand, you can create an entire government social bureaucracy to "help" those who routinely make poor personal decisions (like a 70%+ out of wedlock birth rate, drug use, rejection of formal education, disdain for the rule of law and the police), and you can provide all the "help" in the world and it'll remain stuck in a morass of crime, joblessness, and other social pathologies. That's what the NAACP refuses to address since their single and sole focus is the bogus racial identity group membership.

2. I'm aware of the history of this country. But a few facts remain. There is not one single slave owner alive in this country today. There are no former slaves alive in this country today. The VAST MAJORITY of people in this country were born after most of the severe forms of bigotry had been eradicated. Finally, modern science has taught us that eugenic beliefs commonly held by our ancestors with respect to "race" were wrong. Racism and racist attitudes certainly exist in this country today. But, unfortunately, the most common practitioners of such mentalities are the former "victims" of it. Is that progress? I don't think so.

3. The inherent problem with the NAACP is the same inherent problem that ANY race-based organization has. It's core reason for existence is to further the "cause" of a certain appearance of people. But, this basic mission collides with the anthropological reality of today's society. What IS a "black" person, after all? What about a person who's dad is "black" and mom is "white" or "hispanic" or "asian"? Is Tiger Woods "black" or is he "asian"? Should Tiger Woods be given the benefit of "affirmative action" during this week's British Open and be allowed to tee off from the ladies tees? Should "black" members of the NBA be given hoops that are only 9 ft. tall? My point (which has been totally missed by some in here who's closed minds remain focused on the past and totally closed to the future possibilities) is that the basic core fundamental orientation of race based...... is ultimately BAD. I don't care how positive, progressive, and/or uplifting these groups are. If their reason for existence is the obsolete notion of "race", then we should have no problem with "white" race based organizations which are currently the target of federal monitoring and infiltration on a continuous basis.

4. At some point, how we got to a certain point in history has to be accepted and not used as an excuse for failure to move in a positive direction. As I've pointed out, the problems currently experienced in the "black" community are NOT the result of racism, bigotry, or discrimination but the result of terrible personal choices and a subculture that accepts, encourages, and allows those choices to take place on a frequent basis. And, that subculture is enabled by those who don't practice those behaviors out of some sort of misguided "guilt" or desire to "help". And why? It goes back to that obsolete focus on "race" and the obsession with the past and the rejection of a better future. Progress requires us all to accept different realities and move out of the comfort zones of the past. The comfort zone of race based (racist) organizations like the NAACP is to obsess on "race" as the most important distinguishing characteristic of the individual and then continue to perpetuate the obsession on past racism as an excuse for current bad behaviors.

It's time to move on, to coin a phrase. And that should be Bush's message when he addresses that group. It's time to be real progressive on this issue and end the reactionary focus on the past.

I have my Chicago Tribune in front of me (headline - Report: Cops Used Torture) and the inset photo is of Jon Burge in 1983. He looks pretty much like what I wouldn't want to see if I were a black man arrested on the West Side of Chicago - the thick neck and the brylcreem and all. The release of this study hopefully closes the book on one of the most shameful legacies of the race problem in the US. That of corrupt police departments and the tactics they used. Whether collaborating with the KKK in the South, or making their own laws in the north. Shameful.

2 pieces of food for thought. Apologies if it's borderline off-topic.

At least in Chicago, we have really fought against and almost over-compensated against activity like this. No racial profiling, black police chiefs, community outreach, etc. I don't feel it's a problem anymore, despite the persistence of black crime. We just don't stand for it. Yet, black mistrust of the police (understandably) persists. I find that there is somewhat of a victim mentality even when it's not warranted, but when widespread torture was used 20 years ago, it's almost understandable to me. This is what frustrates the idealist in me. There is a class of black politicians that play this stuff up to hold power, when we should all be focused on the future. Crying racism first, second, and third whenever anything happens will cause people like me to tune out, rather than letting me be part of the solution.

The Democratic Machine fostered and protected this. I actually brought it up recently when one of my friends said "Republicans are more likely to be racist." Statements like that are just ill-informed and dated. 3/4 of Republicans believe that Condi Rice would be an acceptable presidential nominee, for pete's sake. In my neighborhood, blacks commit most of the crimes, yes. But no one I live near could be considered anything close to a racist. The whites are more likely to be liberals, talk about 'root causes' etc. The whites I do know who are racists are all Democrats whose families left the city during the white flight of the 70s and 80s.

Facts you want? Now facts you get...(ok, that was a little sarcastic..). But one article? COME ON NT...

According to this document, in 2000 a quota was established that basically stated that the military had to commission minorities to the tune of the population percentage. Do that many minorities apply? Of course not. What does that mean? People slide through...

According to this article, the military does "employ goals".

This article talks about over-representation of blacks in the Post office.

A Google search for "scholarships for African Americans" lends itself to pages and pages of legitimate hits on scholarships specifically for black people. Not so much for white kids... heck, the first hit shows a site that boasts 200 NEW free scholarships for minorities.

The bottom line is that there might be isolated incidents that lend themselves to discussing where black people are blatently discriminated against in the past decade, but THOUSANDS of scenarios where being black can open a door specifically based upon your skin color.

This is where my ambivelance towards the NAACP starts. Sure, they served a greater purpose in 1966, but 4 decades later it seems like the piece of the pie is never big enough or sweet enough, or heck... never FREE enough.

I believe that the President's speaking to the NAACP, in my gut level opinion, was more for the party and in hopes for future votes as opposed to his true concern for the organization... but who knows.

I'm not sure what more proof you need NT, but I find it funny that the USMC can do it, but the USSC decided that Universities can't...*hmph*

You are quite right that "race" is an amorphous, arbitrary social construct like nationality or ethnicity, with effectively zero biological significance. But it does not follow from that that the NAACP is comparable to the KKK, or that the NAACP does not have a legitimate mission.

Groups of immigrants often form cooperative organizations to help each other out in their new country. Is this necessarily a BAD thing? By your logic, yes it is, because nationality has no biological basis. The same is true of ethnic or race-based groups or any other type of group (enviromentalists, short people, stamp collectors, etc). Groups come together to advance the interests of their members. Why should the fact that their distinguishing characteristics have no biological significance invalidate their reason for forming an interest group, lordhelmet?



If a group of Christians wish to come together to form a church based on the obsolete and nonsensical notion of Jesus' divinity, then we should have no problem with other religious-based groups like Al-Queda.





You are going to have to support the assertion "that the problems currently experienced in the "black" community are NOT the result of racism, bigotry, or discrimination".

Well, I'll consider your first paragraph to represent progress.

Are "black people" immigrants? Are you kidding? Black people have been in the USA longer than my family, my wife's family, and the majority of the US population.

Yes, I realize that groups of stamp collectors and environmentalists create groups based on common interests. But those interests are not "race based". The NAACP and the KKK do. My point (again) is that I don't care what the "intent" or "legitimate" mission is... the FACT that the group is "race based" puts it on a bogus foundation, a false premise, and a criteria that is ultimately meaningless, prone to massive abuse, and a legacy to a failed past.

It's like creating a "positive" group based on the premise that "bleeding" a person is an effective method of medical treatment. Modern science has robustly rejected that obsolete belief.

The focus on "race" is no less obsolete.

And until we see LEADERSHIP in this area, we'll be doomed to the same ole same ole from the usual suspects of race baiters, exploiters, and the continuation of a failed sub-culture of underachievement, crime, destroyed families, and self destructive behavior that will survive and increase the drain on the rest of productive society.

The key to "immigrants" in this country has been "assimilation". The groups of immigrants who have thrived have all managed to do this. Blacks, to a large degree have not. They insist on parallel forms of language, social norms, and accepted behaviors. Many hold attitudes that are obstacles to successful social integration. Yet, do we knock down those bad behaviors like we broke down the accepted white racism, common use of the "n" word and backward attitudes toward "inter-racial" marriage and dating? Nope. The so-called "racists" in this country have progressed miles in the past 4 decades. The so-called victims haven't progressed much.

When a person in the ghetto goes to the ATM, does he really look over his shoulder and look for "white racists"?

Please.

There are two comments by friends of mine made after I showed them this thread :

1) It isn't like either party really does all that much for minorities other than pander and then forget- but at least the democrats aren't actively seeking to erode the steps we have made

2) It is not that being republican makes you a racist- it is rather, every racist we have ever known personally has been a republican, and then you have the recent Karl Rove tactics in South Carolina, and Jesse Helms etc- it is the place were all the racists went to after the 1968 democratic convention basically threw them out.

You have housing discrimination as stated in this article- http://colorblind.typepad.com/the_colorbli...housing_di.html

and another:

http://www.liherald.com/site/news.cfm?news...79861&rfi=6

Where the sting operation basically found that the landlord was discriminating against blacks.

"We conducted several tests during this past year and every test came up where there was blatant discrimination on the part of the Todd Village personnel, which clearly discouraged African-Americans from living in the Todd Village," Coffey said.

So now, the lawsuit alleges violations of the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

"When the black person went in, they were told every time that nothing was available, regarding either a trailer or a slab to put the trailer on. On every occasion that a white person went in and (was) to ask for the same availability of properties, they were given some listing of properties and more or less encouraged to apply," Coffey said.

and then:

Sinclair has been in the headlines this week for allegedly attempting to violate federal election laws to help President George W. Bush's re-election campaign.

More?


Study inspects discrimination in names
(CHICAGO, Jan. 27, 2003) -- It's a game we've all played. When there's a name without a face, we try to fill in the blank. And in a society burdened by racial assumptions, we stereotype. Suzy? White. Clarence? Black.
The exercise seems harmless. But the results of a study released last week signified more than a parlor game. Professors at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent out about 5,000 resumes in response to want ads.
They found that resumes with "white-sounding" names elicited about 50 percent more callbacks than those with "black-sounding" names. And the quality of the credentials made no difference

Darn- our society even discriminates against you if you have a "black" sounding name?

Some colorblind society we live in!

Court hears housing discrimination case
(WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2003) -- A Supreme Court debate about racial discrimination in a predominantly white Ohio town turned into a broader discussion about another subject Tuesday: referendums and whether cities and states can be sued for putting all kinds of matters to a public vote.
Cuyahoga Falls, a suburb of Akron, is fighting a $3 million lawsuit that accuses it of holding a racially motivated referendum in 1996 to keep the town from integrating.
Plans for a low-income housing project known as Pleasant Meadows to be built by the nonprofit Buckeye Community Hope Foundation were put on the ballot after residents submitted petitions demanding a referendum. The town's mayor was among opponents to the complex.

Oops- we need more!

Court hears housing discrimination case
(WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2003) -- A Supreme Court debate about racial discrimination in a predominantly white Ohio town turned into a broader discussion about another subject Tuesday: referendums and whether cities and states can be sued for putting all kinds of matters to a public vote.
Cuyahoga Falls, a suburb of Akron, is fighting a $3 million lawsuit that accuses it of holding a racially motivated referendum in 1996 to keep the town from integrating.
Plans for a low-income housing project known as Pleasant Meadows to be built by the nonprofit Buckeye Community Hope Foundation were put on the ballot after residents submitted petitions demanding a referendum. The town's mayor was among opponents to the complex.

We have Ohioans trying to keep black poeple out by referendum as above!

Snub spurs legal beagle's housing bias claim
(QUEENS, N.Y., Jan. 21, 2003) -- Marcus Succes was skeptical when a Queens landlady refused his $2,100 and told him an apartment he looked at hours earlier had just been rented.
The 26-year-old CUNY law student, who is black, feared his skin color might be behind the supposed unavailability of the studio apartment near the school in Kew Gardens Hills.
His hunch apparently proved right.
Working with law school staffers, Succes last June set up a sting operation to test whether the $700-a-month studio in a house on 59th Ave. was still on the market for a white person

OOooo- how about "talking while black"- can't even have a BLACK VOICE in our society and not run the risk of discrimination:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/linguistic_profiling.html

So Baugh h went about trying to prove what he had suspected. Having grown up in the inner city, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, Baugh was exposed to a variety of ethnic dialects and considers himself "linguistically dexterous." He began telephoning renters and would say, "Hello, I'm calling about the apartment you have advertised in the paper." He would make some calls using his professional voice. Other times he would modify his voice, repeating the same sentence with the same grammar but with an intonation that was unmistakably Black. He made more than 100 calls and found that his "Black" voice got half as many calls back as his "White" voice. It did not matter that when Baugh used his Black voice he was speaking perfect, standard English.

Apparently if a speaker on the telephone sounds African-American, he is subject to the same kind of racial discrimination as he might be in a face-to-face encounter.


This list is so long I could fill up the whole dang server just in 2003 alone !



This is not an unusual occurance, happens all the time- doesn't take much of a google search or a local newspaper search to find this blantant and overt racism in the society the clueless think is somehow colorblind, and if it isn't - it is the minorities fault, after all society has done all it can for "those poeple".

Racism in our society doesn't exist because the NAACP perpetuates it- it exists because folks want to deny it exists, or that the victims are the ones perpetuating it- just like the comments on this very thread suggest.

I think the military, yes, has done an outstanding job of trying to rid thier ranks of this taint, to thier credit- the military has become a way to get yourself out of poverty for poeple of any color- and they should be commended for that.

But there isn't any white men going without CEO jobs because of affirmative action- mmkay?

And LH's assertation that "a vast majority of poeple were born after ...." ad nauseaum is the usual poppycock that really stops any forward movement in a real colorblind society. Tell someone that has been a victim of racism that they should "just get over it" pretty much radicalizes them on the spot.

What- the NAACP should just roll over now that everything is well and good in America, and embrace the republican party?

Once again- very, very recent history:

Jesse Helms
Karl Rove in South Carolina
Willie Horton adds- etc.
Hurricane Katrina- say what you will white folks- but the vast majority of blacks believe that the lack of response by FEMA was a direct result of GW not really giving a flip about the folks that didn't vote for him.
Republican party resistance to MLK days in various states

So can GW smooth this over by going to the NAACP? of course not- it just shows how desperate he is for a little jump in some polls here- even his own base is eroding- but I think the damage has been done- the republican party's acceptance of the campaign tactics to scare white voters into voting for republican candidates based on thier fear of the black man is going to be a tough thing to fix!

And GW isn't exactly known for his competance in fixing, well, anything.

We're in 2006 nighttimer. Time to "move on" out of the radicalism of the 1960's.

The NAACP refuses to address the cultural issues associated with the "black underclass" that drives the high crime rates in our cities. Look at the FBI crime statistics on the "most dangerous" cities in the USA and then the "safest".

The demographic differences are stark. They are, to coin a phrase, black and white with respect to the differences.

The NAACP is a "race based" organization. They see being "black" as far more important than being "American". I have a big problem with that.

The cure to a racist past is not more racism. It's not "retribution" or "reparations".

The only way to really move forward is to change the rules. And that's what I'm proposing we do. When race doesn't matter anymore, you take a big issue off the table for good. And you start focusing on individual behavior which is the key to a successful civilization. You also stop the political games which enable and apologize for bad behavior if the culprits are "on our side" as a result of their skin pigmentation.

The 1960's may have been a fun time for all involved. We still see the John Kerry and Ted Kennedy generation trying like crazy to bring back the anti-Vietnam war protests in our current post-9/11 and Iraqi context. I guess they felt they "mattered" more back then and that motivates them. Whatever, I was just a baby then so I didn't get the whole "make love not war" thing.

I'm somewhat put off by your insistence on defining "genus" for "us illiterates". This seems rather condescending from someone some of us think lacks adequate intellectual tools to warrant such condescending words.

You cannot make a convincing comparison between the KKK and the NAACP. The NAACP has been and is a "visible empire," if you will.

I've never heard of NAACP members being so cowardly that they disguised themselves in sheets and hoods.

You're right. The racism of the NAACP is right out in the open and accepted by mainstream America.

I say there is a better way.

I'm sure you understood what "genus" means, given your background. But, I was just trying to be polite to those in here who don't understand science. I know they are in here since they chime in often on topics like "global warming".

I'm sticking to my guns on this one. The core principle that guides the KKK and the core principle that guides the NAACP is exactly the same. The "desired outcomes" might be different, but the foundations are not.

That's why the NAACP has evolved from King's vision where he had a dream that "one day" a child might be judged more by "the content of his character" rather than by "the color of his skin"..... to a group that lobbies actively for race-based government set-asides, hiring preferences, and most recently slave reparations for sins that occurred hundreds of years before anyone in this country now was even BORN.

Race based organizations tend to take on a life of their own and they revolve around their cultural values. Cultural values determine the success (or failure) of a group. When they adopt a "race based" value system, I think that history is not on their side. They are doomed to failure whether they are the KKK, Nazi Germany, or the NAACP. And cultural values that DO matter (family structure, teen pregnancy, crime, drugs, attitudes toward law enforcement, education, work ethic, etc) are ignored in favor of the mantle of "racial identity".

It's a shame if you ask me. And I know BoF is smart enough to know that.

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

I think Bush is doing a positive thing and scoring a political victory. In it's open hostility toward the presidency, the NAACP lost some credibility and has since changed leadership. Bush can now claim to have been partly responsible for regime change in the NAACP and can come out and start a relationship with the new leader to see if there are brighter days between the administration and the NAACP. It does not look good that his would be the first presidency to not speak to the NAACP since the one that invited the KKK to the White House (Harding). He can do the right thing as president in speaking to a credible, politically important, interest group while also sticking to his guns about the previous leadership.

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

Were this a biology discussion this could be solved by declaring race no longer a scientifically valid concept. But we can not dismiss culture, sociology, and history so easily. The NAACP is a proud American institution that helped launch the Civil Rights movement and has a long tradition of producing strong national leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois and Thurgood Marshall.

There are some Americans that reduce MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights Era down to one sentence from a speech by Dr. King in Washington about a dream. Yet this shouldn't be a do-over situation. Injustices have been done. Wrongs have been done that should at the very least be acknowledged and vigilantly watched over to make sure they do not get worse.

Associating the NAACP with the KKK or neo-nazis is slanderous association. It identifies a common element and forgets that the NAACP has been a proud law-abiding movement for democratic change in the face of violence and that the other groups have celebrated that violence against persons they defined as vermin or sub-human.

This is no more a definitive association than biology is the sole and determining factor about the issue of the POTUS speaking to the NAACP.

I think this is a tendency of almost any type organization. I have been a member of (to name a few) the Fort Worth Bicycling Association, the Fort Worth Camera Club, the local Democratic party, several churches and my local teacher's union. My observation is that organizations do "take on a life of their own." The problem is within, though and not without. There are people who work endless hours (in many cases withoujt selfishmotives) for a cause. That's fine, the people who do the work of organizations have that right. The problem starts when those dedicated people want others to bite into their agendas. I, like my father, am not a joiner. I've not done well as a member of groups. At this stage in life, I'm content to be a hell raiser on an individual basis.

This observation in no way diminishes the importance of any group including the NAACP.

It is not my intention to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of the excerpted posts I quoted, lord helmet. Your position on matters of race and how you as a White man interpret it is well-known and established. Covering the same old ground again would be tedious in the extreme.

I will say that I find your reasoning fascinating. Pernicious, uninformed, arrogant and presuming, but fascinating for the horrible audacity of your blissful ignorance about Black people. You know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be enlightened.

There isn't a White man in this country that I look to better the condition of Black men and women in America. Not George Bush. Not George Soros. And certainly not lord helmet. That job is left up to African-Americans themselves.

Still, I find myself curiously unmoved by the proclamation that race no longer matters in America and there are boundless opportunities available for Blacks. I am singularly unimpressed by the assertion that racism, bigotry and discrimination have nothing to do with dire straits too many Blacks find themselves facing. It's easy to blame "terrible personal choices" and a misguided culture for the problem. It's also waaay too generous in exempting White people for their past and present racial animus directed toward Black people. I find it laughable when White people say what happened in 1950, 1960 or 1970 has no bearing on what is happening now.

The Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., wrote this week of how the murders of young Black children is not just a crisis for the Black community, but all of America as well. He was surprised by the backlash his statement engendered.

We begin with the obvious: Florida is an American state. Miami is an American city. And Sherdavia Jenkins, who died in Miami, Florida, just over two weeks ago after being struck by random bullets, was an American child.

So I would have thought it uncontroversial to observe, as I recently did in this column, that her death and the indiscriminate slaughter of American children — in Miami or anywhere else — qualified as "an American problem." Apparently, I was wrong. That is, at least, the feeling of dozens of folks who've written in correction and rebuke.

Similarly, even those who live on the good side of town far from the grimy inner city where Sherdavia died are affected by conditions there, if only through higher police costs, the loss of businesses from the inner city, the disintegration of families, the decimation of the tax base, the failure of schools and the resultant proliferation upon our streets of undereducated, poorly socialized young women and men who have known little but privation and violence all their lives.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm not mad at Bill Cosby.

Not only do I support much of what he has said in recent years about the need for blacks to take ownership of their own problems, but I was saying it publicly before he was. It is painfully obvious to me that many black folk have failed to pick up the gauntlet of the civil rights movement, failed to confront the myriad dysfunctions of our communities.

But here's the thing: As culpable as we are for failing to confront those dysfunctions, we did not create them. They were created for us by our white countrymen. For criminy sake, read a history book! I'm sorry, but black poverty didn't just happen. Black unemployment didn't just happen. Black self-loathing didn't just happen. Black urban misery didn't just happen. The murder of Sherdavia Jenkins didn't just happen.

Leonard Pitts

It's easy to think Blacks are more prone to commit crime, bring children into the world they will quickly abandon to the social welfare system, take drugs, work dead-end jobs, drop out of school, aspire to be rappers and b-ball stars instead of doctors and lawyers. It's tempting to say Blacks are less intelligent, lazy, overly sexual and unwilling or incapable of "assimilating" into the larger (White) culture.

It's also flat-out wrong.

I absolutely agree with lord helmet that Blacks have to do more to help themselves. I agree that Whites for the most part, have a secondary role. I disagree completely that the problems of Black people don't impact upon White people. The problems of Whites certainly impact upon Blacks.

The percentage of black men graduating from college has nearly quadrupled since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and yet more black men earn their high school equivalency diplomas in prison each year than graduate from college. Black families where men are in the home earn median incomes that approach those of white families. Yet more than half of the nation's 5.6 million black boys live in fatherless households, 40 percent of which are impoverished. The ranks of professional black men have exploded over four decades -- there were 78,000 black male engineers in 2004, a 33 percent increase in 10 years. And yet 840,000 black men are incarcerated, and the chances of a black boy serving time has nearly tripled in three decades, Justice Department projections show.

link

It's tempting to say so much progress has been made, but so much more still needs to be. Whose problem is race in America? It's OUR problem and closing one eyes to the problem doesn't resolve it. Neither does shifting all the weight on the shoulders of one race while saying the other race now has clean hands and a blank slate on the matter.

And it will continue to be that way as long as race-based organizations are legitimized. We need to move beyond those if we're to make further progress.



That one sentence was hardly a throwaway line. It's arguably the biggest reason why there's a Martin Luther King holiday at all. It's a restatement of the Golden Rule, expressed in the context of what are supposed to be our country's principles. It absolutely needs to be the cornerstone of our efforts to put this whole mess behind us for good. Otherwise, our efforts are for naught.

Genus is a taxonomic term used in-between family and specie, if it were to be applied in this scenario modern biology would have to basically call it homo africanus and I guess homo eruapenis, that is to take into account that both are separate specie which obviously they are not. People in the sense individually can very greatly genetically one person of a skin color to the same skin color, and people of different skin colors from a genetic point of view can be found to be more close in resemblance then always found of people in teh same skin color. Moreover there is no evidence that can support any claims to make the current homo sapiens on earth to become separate specie under a genus homo.

Besides that I have no real clue.

As to the evolution of modern race relations, why is the current situation in America different then in other cultures, or why do we have a difference in race relations then in other cultures, not to say any particular side of the battle is right but it could lend a hand to understanding.

As for the speech our president gave the naacp, well, I saw quite a few older folks in the audience, and I doubt for memories or experiences they had to die easy, or not pass on at all, its something that will take time. For people to be demanding against an issue which came from horrible humanity based aspects is silly to take, just as silly is it would be for someone to claim that race is longer an issue in America in regards to the fact its still accepted widely and used in most any social setting and of course bias still does exist, one does not have to go far in life to see this.

Not to say that you should always live in the past, that in itself in a mistake because you have to live in today even if you do not want to. I hold no guilt in as I don’t feel bad that I am a white male, but ti would be foolish of me to think that race in a historical sense is still not a sensitive issue to any particular person, and rightly so, just look at Jewish people, the suffered a holocaust, do you think everyone should just be well its in the past time to move on, I would never say that to a Jewish person.

In reflection of my personal opinion in terms of something like affirmative action, I can agree with it, not from the point that its based on race or sex which of course our major component of it, but ti will help those that are trying to escape poverty, and regardless of what anyone says you cant just come in off the street and be a black female and just get a job as a ceo, AA does not function like that, you still have to work hard, and moreover if AA either works or fails it will abolish the need for it within its own design. I was born into poverty myself, I have no criminal record and of course I can not only see but feel the impact that’s had on my life and options I can take. I don’t blame anyone but I do not share in the heritage that many African Americans have, and without a doubt I feel that race relations in this country has played a major role in many aspects of current African American culture.

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

The unpopular Iraq war, the increase in oil prices, a corrupt Republican Congress, scores of citizens losing health care, homes, and jobs, the declining housing market, and life in general as the Average American is pretty much depressing has the Republicans so desperate they are willing to get votes anywhere they can. The only good thing, depending on your political affiliation, that will come of this is the Republicans may pluck a few votes away from Democrats in the upcoming election. In the end, the country is far too displeased with Republicans to give them back the Congress.

Also, Blacks will not trust Republicans because of this speech. Republicans will not focus on issues that affect black people neither. This is a desperate political move which will bear no fruit.

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

A recent report was put out by the Labor Department on wages and wages by color and gender. Since race doesn't matter you can just skip over this section though.

1. White Male
2. Asian Male
3. Asian Female
4 White Female
5. Black Male
6. Latino Male
7. Black Female
8. Latino Female

Here's the Report
It compares wages of union members, non-union members, and separates them by race and gender. Across the board Blacks earn less than Whites even in the Unions.

Another survey done by a Harvard Professor found that companies that were eager to hire minority candidates still requested interviews from White candidates over Black candidates by more than 50%.
Bootstraps

Wow. I'm an arrogant idiot because I don't see thing YOUR way. How "enlightened" of you. I just don't see the world like you do, nighttimer. I understand how you do, though. White / Black. The eternal divide.




That is complete and utter bunk. Are you telling us that superficial biological evolutionary adaptations to climate impart wisdom?? That's where the logic of your statement leads us. What you are implying is that the "color of one's skin" determines the quality of one's ability to help mankind. That, sir, is a racist statement. It's no different than anything that might come out of the mouth of someone like David Duke when he makes broad characterizations about the nature of people based on "race". I reject your point of view completely.

If we run with your logic, then the challenges facing all dysfunctional subcultures are not the problem of the successful and integrated people in America, they can only be commented on by those in that classification, right? Biker gangs? Don't ask the cops or ATF what do do. Ask the meth-head on the bike how to "fix" his problem. Single mother in the trailer in rural America? She's the expert on how others like her shouldn't get into the fix she's in. Asian gang members? Corporate criminals? Nobody can comment on their "plight" except people just like them. I find the notion absurd .



Well, your straw man may be a convenient target (I'm sure it's a "white" straw man too). You're misquoting me and also twisting the meaning of my words. I didn't say that race no longer matters. I said that it SHOULD no longer matter. Such a CHANGE, such PROGRESS would require COURAGE. And change always encounters reaction from those who don't want to leave the status quo and who want to cling, like barnacles to the past. History always matters. But people move on. I've driven Japanese automobiles and have worked for a German company. And those two nations KILLED people in my family less than 70 years ago! Should I hold an eternal grudge against those "people"? How long ago was slavery again?



No kidding. Yet you cling to the race-based opinion that no white man can dare comment on it, suggest solutions, or even get involved in your problem.

Which way do you want to have it? The only solutions you accept are from people who look black. You already said that you reject any solutions from people who look white.

Isn't that an artificial limitation on brainpower based on an obsolete differentiator?



Well, good for you. Then, why do you continue to act as an apologist for race-based groups like the NAACP that refuse to fix those problems and instead "blame whitey", "republicans", President Bush" and everyone except themselves? The problem with the race-based groups is that they play the "victim" game. Oh, we had NOTHING to do with the problem we're in right now they cry. And, it's all YOUR fault from the beginning. So send federal cash our way but don't dare tell us how to spend it. It's OUR problem, after all. That sort of double standard is what irritates me, nighttimer. In one breath, you claim the problem is America's problem yet you don't insist that "black" people become Americans. My grandfather was right off the boat. My mother's side was too. My father's family didn't even speak English when they arrived in this country after the turn of the century (WAY after slavery was abolished by the way). They suffered poverty (real poverty during the depression, not the poverty of today's youth who have cars, expensive clothing, and free food compliments of the US taxpayers), they suffered discrimination, and all of that. Did they react by creating their own closed culture with its own language, dress codes, and accepted norms of behavior? NO. They assimilated into the larger culture and as a result enhanced the overall American culture. Every immigrant group has been managing to do that including recent Asian, Eastern European, and to a lesser extent, Hispanic immigrants. Yet, "black" people who have been here longer than those recent immigrants still have a core that refuses to do the same and predictably, get passed right by.