It might be worth noting that Thurmond supported Republican Eisenhower over Democrat Stevenson as far back as 1952 and in 1964 found his true spiritual home in the Republican Party in 1964.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

I hate to use Wiki, since it seems the White House may have been manipulating it, but the information in this case is as I remember it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7081701172.html

In which case, you would agree that most people are wage slaves, correct?

I think portraying Snoop Dogg as any kind of "slave" is a stretch. If all the non-check writers are wage slaves, there are few free men in this country.

If your questioning the extent of success a non-white person can have, then one only has to look at the richest man in the world, Carlos Slim Helú

I definitely want to see that guys crib.

Obviously, people dislike being seen as bigots. But its a little bit more complicated than that.

The definition for murderer is nice and simple. If you murder someone, your a murderer. I suppose the description implies a certain type of killing, but the probability that it could be misconstrued as to characterize a non-murderer is unlikely.

Contrast this with a racist, or racism in general were all sorts of wonky definitions can apply. Attempting to distinguish what qualifies and what doesn't is a fools errand. To demonstrate:

This sort of example driven definition is problem laden because of its inexactness. It reminds me of a political pundit who decided to define evil as "what they did to us on 9/11."

A more popular example would be Potter Stewart, who claimed hard-core pornography was hard to define and later said "I know it when I see it."

In any case, these quasi-definitions run into trouble and are often narrowed or stretched to fit certain situations. Saying a "culturist" is necessarily a racist, for example, is perhaps a bit of a stretch.

As such, one most work extremely hard not only to avoid anything that is definitely racist, but anything that might be construed to be racist. This is were the hard work part of the avoidance comes in. Given a broad enough definition, it is relatively hard to make decisions involving race that cannot also somehow be construed as racist.

Letting the truth shine. Ah, if only it were that simple.

As these are accusations about a persons soul, meaning tangible evidence is impossible to come by, we derive most of our judgments based on speculation anyway.

One defends against charges of racism the same way they defend charges of avarice or pride: by demonstrating as many opposing qualities as possible.

It's funny how quickly personal responsibility is done away with when it becomes the least bit inconvenient.

There is nothing "wonky" about the definition of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other kinds of bigotry.

The only trouble comes is when one's cognitive dissonance leaves said bigot with the need to mask his or her bigotry in semantics and the ever-popular denial.

Racism need not be deliberate or even intentional, that idea relies on a thoroughly inaccurate view of the human thought process.

To think that most people rationally, carefully form their preconceptions and generalizations makes the tooth-fairy sound plausible.

Let's get real, cracks about certain people's "seventh child" or how Miami is a third-world country and Spanish the language of the ghetto.

That sound like rational and careful thought to you?

Charges of racism are easily avoided, think before you act.

If you don't and your hood start's showing, to use a colorful metaphor, don't blame political correctness for your own behavior.

Really, think before you act is the answer? But racism can be unintentional (although nobody has demonstrated how). I can be a racist without intending to be a racist, apparently so I'd better scrutinize every decision I make in life that impact a black person.

A black guy owns a store a few blocks down the street. But he charges 50 cents more per gallon of milk. Is it racist not to buy from him?

An advertising agency is putting together an ad. Are they racist for using black actors/models or are they more racist for NOT using them? Or are they only not racist if they use the models in the correct way?

Alltel has an ad with a black woman wanting to change phone plans. Is it racist because it portrays a black woman as not knowing what decision to make? I certainly don't think so, but buy the ill-defined definitions thrown about here I could see that it could be viewed as racist. After all, the cell phone companies are all represented by geeky white guys and they are victimizing her.

What about the Cialis commercial with the black guy with an ED problem. Is that racist? Is it REALLY showing that black guys can't "perform". Of course not. But if you wanted to, you could see racism in that ad as well.

I wonder if those ad agencies "thought before they acted"? If you overanalyze every situation, I'm sure you could find a racial angle.

We cannot debate a subject that has an amorphous definition. If racism is the belief that one race is superior to another than we can debate. Beliefs are intentional. If racism is any act that negatively impacts an individual (rather than a race as a whole or a group), then the definition is way too broad.

It has been demonstrated how. You simply disagree with the demonstrations. That does not invalidate them.

And besides trivializing racism (leading me to believe my statement that you lack a good understanding of what racism is and is not), you are trying to force a extremely emotional and often irrational belief system and thought process into a tidy definition. Racism is a part of the human psyche and humans can be incredibly untidy and resist easy categorization.



Says who? Racism is far more complex than merely a out-of-control superiority complex. Beliefs may be intentional, but they are also formed. No one is "born" a racist. You have to learn to become a racist.

We can absolutely debate a subject that has an amorphous definiton because racism has morphed like a virus over time and history. Slavery was a racist institution until it was ended. But that didn't end racism. The Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were another manifestation of racism. But rescinding and overturning those laws didn't end racism. Movie theaters, drinking fountains and lunch counters are no longer segregated with "Whites Only" and "Colored" signs, but racism didn't disappear with those signs. The KKK was once a powerful institution, but the crumbling of the Klan hasn't ended racism.

Racism is adaptive and it evolves. As long as one group convinces theimselves their skin color, height, IQ, athletic ability, economic acumen or genital size makes them "better" than others not part of the group, racism will always be a cancer of the soul. But it's a cancer that doesn't just stop at killing the host; it kills the possibility of human beings ever moving beyond what divides them taking precedence over what unites them.

I hear you NT on the history of racism. I understand that you think it's a powerful force in the US today. We don't agree, but of course that's ok too.

My question is, what do you think the "barometer" of equality and the end of racism will be?
How will it be measured? At what point do we decide- YEP- racism as an institution in the US is over....

It has been demonstrated? Where??



Your examples are not examples of "unintentional" racism. They are overt, active choices. If you say I don't want a black doctor to touch me, that is a racist behavior. If you tell a black joke, it's a choice. It is certainly not unintentional.

If I choose not to hire you and I hire an inferior white candidate, that's potentially racist behavior. Either way, I've made a choice. It isn't involuntary.

The only way I could possibly agree is if you have a racist behavior that is rationalized with other justifications. But in order for the act to be racist, race must be a component and it must be an intentional factor. If I don't hire a more qualified black guy because he was 15 minutes late for the interview, that isn't racist. If I choose not to hire him because I rationalize that he lives in a poorer neighborhood and might have trouble getting to work (without evidence) then that is racist behavior.

Either way, it is a choice. And remember that choice, not chance, determines destiny.

Honestly, AMLord, I know what you are saying. here is a current example. In the clubs around where i live they have implemented dress codes. But strange about these dress codes is it is based on brand names. For instance, you can wear Polo, but not sean john, you can wear Ambercrombie, but not FUBU or Phatfarm.

So yeah I called the bouncers racists... lol But it's not their fault the policies exist. And they'll stop a White guy with FUBU from coming in just as soon as they will stop a Black guy. So how racist can they be, right??

This is an example of unintetional racism on a very small scale.

Why, I ask, did management implace such regulation. Why would management set dress codes that seemingly restricted clothing popular to minorities. You want a certain look in a club that's fine. You want everyone to have at least collared shirt or dress slacks that is fine. But when you start weening out brand type what else are you do but targeting out certain people??

So this club has mainly white bouncers, but I've seen a Black guy there before. And they are willing to kick out white people that put on a Rocawear shirt, just doing their job supporting policy

They are supporting a policy meant to hamper minorities from coming to the club. The fact that they can find one or two Black people willing to support the enforcement doesn't change the fact the policy is racist. The fact that they would kick out a white person for the same thing doesn't change the fact the policy's purpose is to target minorities.

So am I wrong to call those bouncers at the door racists or bigots?? They are an extension of policy, enforcers of it, and back the people who would perpetuate it.

Thus is the minority view of many conservative, and in fact republicans in general.

You are saying "look iand many conservatives like me, don't think minorities are inferior so how can I be a bigot" butthose are you words... but look at Aevans words as well.


Aevans




So what is it's purpose. I know more Black people are selling. Are Black people making laws to incarcerate for selling. Are Black people making laws to make it a felony?? Are black people making three strike laws or trying to "crack" down on drug dealers?? Yoiu take a drug dealer off the street you'll have another in that corner in a hour. You know this, I know this, Cops know this, and politicians know this....

So what is the purpose of a "War on Drugs"?? I don't know a simple man might say... whatever it is accomplishing is it's purpose.



I know you believe this... you've stated it several times. But WE are not. We don't even view AA like that.

Imagine I and my freinds dug out 20 foot hole smoothed all the edges then stuck you in it. Imagine one day one of us threw down a ladder. Would you be insulted to use it? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but one thing is for sure, you'd be a fool not to.

That is AA. AA doesn't help you if you are inferior at your job, it helps you if you have inferior qualifications, due to the fact that likely you had inferior wealth to attain it. I never heard of a teacher having to give an B to a D student. have you?? I never heard of a minority officer who didn't have to pass a Physical Fitness Test, because he was a minority, have you. I never heard of a doctor who could kill patients and get a pass because he was Black, have you?? I never heard of a CEO who could get to the position of CEO because he was Black, have you??

If AA is "career welfare" what do you call a society that bases the type of education you can receive on wealth??

QUOTE

Yeah, Aevans and some Black people sold Black slaves to White people and some Black people work in clubs that actively target minorities to keep them out. but notice the key word is some

Personal responsibility?

In any case, I maintain the wonkiness of the definition.

Take Don Imus for example, some considered "nappy-headed hoes" a racist remark, others a comedic routine.

And if that is a cut and dry case for you, how about Carlos Mencia. I think he's gotten away with a lot more than "nappy headed hoes." (From the little I've seen him). Perhaps he's racist as well?

We just flip open our dictionary and... uh oh. It seems a lot more difficult, to some, than simply going to wikipedia.

But if theres an all- encompassing definition that is also precise enough to exclude none racists, I'm all ears.

For your consideration:

I will spare my own anecdotes, but just consider how many people are called racists, or reverse-racists on AD! Are these charges made with a reasonable amount of doubt? I think you will often find many charges without such consideration.

(POST 600!)

I agree with this statement. I think there is an advantage that is invisible in the sense many whites are unaware it even exists. But demographics are changing.



It's not a good feeling. And I would never want to knowingly create that effect on another person.



That is how I feel, too. The first step in finding understanding with each other is to communicate in an honest way and put the weapons of preconception down. We are all trying to survive the best we know how. That's the common thread of the human race.

Ahh... now we're getting somewhere.

What does wealth have to do with education? I got student loans and scholarships that had nothing to do with my skin color or parents money (and lack there of!). Sallie Mae and I are still friends, as I send her a check monthly.

Education is readily available to whoever would prefer to sacrifice what it's worth to get the education. Point blank. In the US, a black person is less likely to even have to resort to loans, as there are grants and scholarships specifically designed for them.

When it comes to a doctor, CEO, or military officer- the point your missing is that regardless of the position, hiring someone inferior often times has a detrimental effect on the organization, at least in opportunity cost. It also sends a clear message to certain 'types' of people, that the same effort and performance are not required.

Affirmative Action, and racially based preferences in general have not proven to change the lot of Black America. They have proven to be racially divisive and cause doubt in certain sectors of society.

Droop, I don't know your educational background. However- I personally know 2 guys, one Indian and the other of Pakistani decent that graduated from LSU Medical school 100% on loans. One guy's family doesn't have a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of. Don't even act like being middle eastern in Louisiana was easy. Neither took any AA based aid, and if there are stereotypes about Indian doctors, so be it.

The point is if my friend Hershey (Srisharsha) can do it, why can't anyone else? The fact is that people in the United States CHOOSE not to do so. Getting a Sallie Mae loan for a student is very easy. Grants and scholarships for minorities are plentiful.

Sure- maybe you can't go to Harvard on a student loan, but what about someone that goes to a state school undergrad, and does well... to get his MBA at somewhere like SMU? Maybe it takes longer, but the end result it the same.

Hard work, dedication, and ambition can't be replaced by a government program Droop.

I could be mistaken, but I think droop may be referring to compulsory education and not higher/post-secondary education. In that regard, wealth plays a big role (typically) in the quality of one's education. Better neighborhoods almost always have MUCH better schools (from more accurate/recent texts to better technology to more qualified teachers who don't leave after one year in search of better pay and/or resources). I was lucky to attend wonderful elementary schools (despite the fact that we didn't have much money thanks to my mom's health conditions and my father not paying any child support) because my grandfather purchased a house for us in a good neighborhood so that we could attend the best schools. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing the "best" neighborhoods for educational purposes.

I'll leave the whole AA thing alone since it's been argued and explained time and time again in various threads here at No sense re-hashing it all here.

Upon examination it was both.

This discussion is forever at risk of drifting into Martian orbit.

In practical matters, yes mistakes can happen concerning any accusation "wonky" or otherwise. UJ dealt with it simply and practically, set the record straight, problem solved.

Racism is not just about blanket racial superiority. It's about preconceptions and unfair generalizations against members of a race or ethnic group.

I don't have to think Jews are inferior to think they are sneaky cheats conspiring to rule the world...

I do, however, need to be a racist to come to that conclusion.

Of course this can be unintentional. Just because you're driving doesn't mean you're paying attention.

We are all responsible for our actions, even the accidents but sometime the accidents reveal something about us. If you hit that mailbox enough, maybe it's time for an eye exam.

Was Newt Gingrich being an intentional racist for calling Spanish a language of the ghetto?

I doubt it, I don't think he's quite that stupid.

How's that for an example?

Tom Tancredo and "third-world" Miami?

Actually, he was making a factual point about the importance of learning English. Excluding yourself from mainstream American culture is a pretty sure-fire way to the ghetto or poorhouse or whatever euphemism you want to use.

Again, emphasizing some conforming to the mainstream is not racist.

Even if Gingrich's comment were racist (it's possible it was and I'm unaware. Apparently I am both trivializing racism and don't understand it at the same time), it was intentional.

Droop's example of specific clothing labels being banned is racist in my eyes, even it it affect FUBU-wearing whites. It is targeted at blacks. I can understand the mentality if fights tend to break out there, a dress code should be "proper attire" or "no gang colors" and not something so specific.

He made the point in reference to bilingual education, exclusion had nothing to do with it.

In any case are you now acknowledging the existance of unintentional racism?

No, as I don't think the comment was racist. It was an observation. It was also intentional (even if it was "insensitive" and he later retracted it somewhat).

If A then B. If you don't speak English, you will be poor in America.

Gringrich's quote:


His point was the one I am making. Bilingual education does not mean education in both English or Spanish. English is a given. Bilingual (in this case) means education in Spanish as an alternative to English. A recipe for poverty in America.

This sentiment is not racist, by the way, as the language you speak is a choice not a inborn characteristic. You can't change your race, but you can change the language you choose to speak in.

One of the other posters on AD telephoned me to have me look at this ad. I had no clue before I looked at it that it was anything other than what appears. My first reaction was that of course the advertisers would choose black athletes, because there just aren't that many great looking anglo athletes to choose from. On the other hand if I were the ad ex who came up with the ad, hopefully, I would have thought the matter through well enough to know the ad would appear to be racist! Regarding the anglo guy, my first reaction was "Gee, why can't they pick somebody more in shape, and less of a geek !"

AMLord


Ahhhhh... I must say I am surprised to hear this. But here is the rub of that whole thing. Even though you see it as racist.... they don't. Not the bouncers, and likely not the owners.

You see I too understand what you are saying.

How can racism be unintentional. How can you be a bigot, if you are not intentionally being a bigot.

Quick joke:

White man, Black man, Chinese man. They all go to Hell where the devil proposes a test.
"if any of you can stand in my hand for longer than 1 minute I shall set your soul free to go to heaven"
They all agree. The whiteman stands in the devils hand for 10 seconds before burning up. The Chinese man last 30 then screams and perishes. The Black man stays in the hand for a minute without even breaking a sweat. The devil, being the devil doesn't honor his word but instead makes the Blackman stand longer in his hand. 5 minutes go by, the 10, 20 and after 30 minutes the Devil concedes but before releasing the man he asks.
"How did you do it, how did you stand in my hand so long"
The Black man replies.. "Milk Chocolate, baby!! Melts in you mouth, not in you hands"

Now I could tell this joke no problem at work or aywhere, yet Whites may fearsaying the exact same Joke. Not because they are racist but the chance some "super sensetive Black" might take it as such... and now perception takes a greater part in the scenario.

So instead of unintentional racism.. maybe we can call it actions that can be perceived as racism. Like the advertisement the NT showed us.

No what is the solution to this... as I read your list the answer can be quite perplexing. Should Intel have ruled out leting a Black man do the Ad??? Or should the IT guy be Black and not even interviewed whites??


Truthfully they could have used the concept with a better depiction. But maybe some one would see something wrong.... but there is the rub...

The set up of the picture... no one could see the racial undertones in it. No one said whoa... If I had seen it it would have crossed my mind. I think it did cross people's mind but in the end, like I said, today's racism is apathy.

I wouldn't consider Don Imus a racist because he said "nappy headed hoes." Other people do.

This sort of mistake is without immediate, contrary evidence. If she would have screamed "killer!" UJ could have scanned the ground for corpses.

Because racism is a crime of character, proof is almost always speculative.

For instance: "Language of the ghetto?" It could be racist, or perhaps its a comment of a large Spanish-speaking community in poverty, and that their inability to speak English which leads to said poverty.

Anyhow, I feel calling Newt a racist based on this evidence would be speculative.

As you can probably tell then, I feel most accusations calling others racist are mistakes because of their speculative nature. The only way to truly decide if someone is racist is to have the ability to stare into their soul. Everything else tends to leave a reasonable doubt, except perhaps in the most extreme circumstances.

Thus, while opinions can and should be widely held, charges of racism should be rare.

Edit:Grammar

There is no bilingual education program in the US that excludes English. Yes English is a given that's why he can't have been decrying English's exclusion.

Does this mean Newt is, characteristically racist?

No. He was simply involved in one incident of racist speech.

Shall I assume Tancredo's "third-world" comment will be subject to similar reality-defying defenses?

Unavoidable, denial is always an option. Politicians say things for effect it is always more realistic to evaluate their words based on how it supposedly benefits them or their political ambitions.


This is true of all accusations of bigotry, yet bigotry is easily observed in present-day and historical behavior and it would be foolish to ignore it because their is no fool-proof test of motivation.

As I said, we can always choose denial. Wallace or Faubus weren't necessarily racists, just segregationist.

Hear no evil, See no evil...

Have no perspective.

You know, we all have those friends who we tell our dirty, off-color, politically incorrect jokes to. I guess it is a question of not wanting to take a chance on offending someone who may believe your risque sense of humor is something worse than mere crudeness.



After viewing the ad again I can see how it could be taken as racially risky. But I would guess that if they were to put a black man or woman, or a white woman in as the computer geek it wouldn't sell. And if they made the athletes white men, or women of any color it also wouldn't ring "true" to the viewer who needs to be hand-fed general "rules". When most people think of computer whizes they think of white geeky guys. And when they think of super powerful athletes they think of black men. Is that so wrong? It's all in how you take it, I guess. In other words, they cast the ad that will appeal to the brain dead masses.

When it comes to advertising, stereotypes seem to permeate the industry.




I don't know. It would be interesting to see who gave the final nod on this ad. What if it was a black man or woman? Would that make it more tolerable?




So what is your solution, Turnea? How do we jump over this hurdle of humanity? I wish I had the answer. I will say this, you cannot judge people but on an individual basis. Yet most people make blanket judgments based on exterior details, such as skin color. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have rarely judged someone correctly on the first impression. It's not until you get to know someone that you see what they are really about. That's a lesson for all. Stop making preconceived judgments of others.

Perceiving people's motivations is a critical part of life.

Becoming an able judge of character is something every child has to learn to avoid a lot of painful experience in the future.

It doesn't stop being important on the political stage as an adult.

The benefit of the doubt is important, Newt after placing foot firmly in mouth apologized, in Spanish.

That's great, all is forgiven, just not forgotten.

Be fair, absolutely, sometimes we speak without thinking and our words don't reflect our true perspective.

But don't be a sucker either. If it talks like a racist, votes like a racist and rallies around the Confederate flag singing "Dixie"

...you know, maybe it's a racist.

Nighttimer mentioned the "sweet old lady who bakes cookies for the neighborhood children who goes to the hospital for a procedure and insists that only a White doctor or nurse touch her." I've seen that sort of thing, from older folks who would be offended if you called them racist or bigoted! I think it's a generational thing. . . I haven't seen it in much in folks who came of age since the Civil Rights era.


Yes. If you don't think there's such a thing as unconscious racism, please check out the Implicit Association Test.

I don't think I'm racist. I'm anti-racist. But that doesn't mean my split-second snap judgments are free of all racial bias. Hardly anybody's are, as you'll see if you click the link.

You can hate racism and still be at least a little bit racist. Inconsistency is human. How many examples have we seen recently of people who hate homosexuality, but are still gay? (Please note that I'm not comparing homosexuality to racism -- just making a point about human inconsistency.)

To tag an "interesting stuff" notice on that last by Jobius I was reading a Washington Post story on that a while back. The "self-hating" phenomenon is a common thread and illustrates beautifully how both majority and minority groups soak up prejudices common in their culture.

Plenty of blacks reacting negatively to black faces for example. A prominent woman scientist who fought for more female inclusion still implicitly associating science with male names, etc.

I'm assuming most of us remember the infamous doll experiments in Brown v. Board....

Link
Concerning my upcoming topic on how this relates to politics, I believe a study has been done with the test that backs my point about racists clustering on the right side of the spectrum, but I'll need to find it.

All I found so far was Michelle Malkin complaining about it

I'd be very interested in seeing a study associating racism with conservative politics. I personally believe that to be an ignorant misconception placed upon the masses by Democratic Leadership and the Media.

It's a "white rich man's" party type mentality.

I did find this Washington Post Article that addresses it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2900642_pf.html

However- oddly enough, we can't find the study on the web. The Washington Post article makes a pretty staunch claim without directly talking about who did the study, etc... hmmm...


Something I'd mention to add... how many "real" conservatives actually still support President Bush?
Anyway- read the article. It's interesting that it never says "study ___ from ____ said". I can't even find the study.



This article was from January... still no published results? Makes me wonder why.



This is the kind of rhetoric that sincerely makes me laugh. Why can't anyone find this kind of information on Google? We're all pretty good researchers, Turnea especially. No evidence? Probably.

Another note- 50 years ago, Republicans were big supporters of Civil Liberties too. Which President passed more civil rights legislation than any other? A Republican.

I think the problem with this perception Turnea, is predominantly that it's something perpetuated in reference "southern white men". I call it the George Wallace syndrome. The reaction people give to a man with a Southern Accent and a pair of cowboy boots is automatically associated with years gone by.

In my opinion, it's a largely flawed philosophy. It's based upon mostly what the media and the DNC wants black people (and other minorities) to think... regardless of the truth.

I didn't say it was appropriate to ignore it. Perhaps fighting for it through generalized equality policies would suffice.

But the debate question was:

Accusations that people are racists usually have a reasonable amount of doubt (Fired because of lack of experience, bump was an accident). As such, I believe they should rarely be made.

Before making an accusation, one always should give the benefit of the doubt (I feel).

Because it is highly relevant to this discussion, and because not everyone here will be allowed to follow a link, I reproduce here verbatim the text of today's NY Times Column by Paul Krugman.

Well, I suppose after 4 pages of responses thus far, it would be cricket for me to respond myself.

1} Why would they [liberals in the MainStream Media, hereinafter referred to as "the media" for this post] work so hard to avoid the accusation?

1. Being cast as a bigot garbs one in a Big Red B.
2. Big Red B, assuming its not the correct shade of red, restricts one from participating in the "in crowd".
3. Both liberals AND the media generally consider bigotry to be a huge problem
4. Both liberals AND the media generally consider THEMSELVES to be key agents in effecting a solution.
5. Got a Big Red B? You've just flipped to the Other Side of the Problem/Solution matrix, definitely not the high ground. Bad for your self-esteem, social networking, and career.
6. Big Red B can be awarded regardless of the reality, and just like a lawsuit, fighting unfounded charges can be just as expensive as fighting true charges. Thus, avoiding even the hint of a sembleance of a suggestion of a whif of bigotry (with, of course, certain S-P Approved Exceptions) is understandable.
7. Attempting to slap a Big Red B on someone is a very low risk proposition.

2} How can a person respond to accusations of racism or bigotry, especially when the accused believes the accusation to be false?
In most cases, there is little point is responding unless the charge of racism is made by someone to whom the Good Lord has been especially niggardly in providing common sense and intelligence, rendering the charge itself founded on nothing but penumbras and emanations, perchance with a healthy case of the vapors thrown in for good measure. Hopefully, y'all will get the point via the inherent allusions, cause I'm just so darned overcome with my own cleverness that I don't have the energy to explicate further.

1} Why would they work so hard to avoid the accusation?

One might ask why anyone would not work hard to avoid such an accusation. It is a foul thing to have one's good reputation besmirched.


(Othello, Act III, Scene 3)

Therefore one is naturally eager to avoid being accused of that vice which she most abhors. Accuse me of being lazy and selfish and cowardly, and I'll probably agree with you; say that I am cruel, and I will bend over backwards to deny it. Thus, since one of the hallmarks of liberalism is a loathing of racism and sexism (which, at times, I admit can result in the relatively minor vice of "political correctness"), it is only to be expected that liberals would rush to avoid accusations of such things, just as conservatives would only naturally rush to avoid accusations of being unpatriotic (which leads to the relatively minor vice of "flag-waving.")

2} How can a person respond to accusations of racism or bigotry, especially when the accused believes the accusation to be false?

With an honest statement of the facts; with good, hard evidence to the contrary; with absolute clarity that one despises the vice in question.

Well now, that's hardly fair. How is someone who goes out of their way to use slurs supposed to indicate that they despise bigotry? How are people whose strongly held beliefs cause them to support treating people as second class citizens while they ignore those same strongly held beliefs whenever it would be inconvenient for them* supposed to indicate their opposition to bigotry? How can someone indicate their opposition to bigotry while cheering Ann Coulter calling people faggots? It's just not fair.




*Has any conservative who whines about "activist judges" ever had a negative word to say about the Supreme Court appointing the president?

1} Why would they work so hard to avoid the accusation?

Because we live in a country that is far too politically correct, and anyone can very well lose their job, in some cases for saying things that are blown way out of proportion. In the end Its all about the ratings and the money that those ratings bring. If a news anchor for MSNBC, or FOX news for example gets labeled racist, I think in some cases that person would get fired whether or not the network actually believed that person was racist or not.

I think its a shame, personally I'll say whatever I think, and if that gets me labeled as a racist, ohh well because I know who I am and what I am, and thats all thats important.

Its like the Imus/Sharpton case. Here you have a crass individual who says something rather rude, and instead of a slap on the wrist for saying something that was in fact rude, he gets fired and labeled as a racist, but It's racist like Al Sharpton who vent there own racial tendencies by attacking practically anyone who is in the opposite race, that help contribute to this kind of problem. People like
him are still stuck in the 1960's as if this country has made no progress. In other words he is fighting a fight that was won a long time ago, and as long as people like that exist whether they be black or white, you will always have cooperations out to save their neck from the exploitation of these people. Afterall they wouldn't want to be known as the network that defends racist, its just no good for business.

By law at this point we are all pretty much equal with the exception of a couple things like gay marriage laws, progress from this point is going to have to be made primarily by the public, by letting bygones be bygones, looking forward, and looking at each other with open mindedness.

The weirdest thing I find is how segregated our schools and churches remain despite the fact that in almost every aspect of the law we are equal, if not every aspect. I'm don't have a great deal of study in the field of law, but at this point is seems to me the thing that keeps us in many ways divided, is in fact us, not our laws.

I believe in free speech, I don't believe we should demonize those who make a foolish comment, unless those comments are very obviously racist and intended specifically to discriminate.


2} How can a person respond to accusations of racism or bigotry, especially when the accused believes the accusation to be false?

The race issue is particuarly interesting to me probably more than most, so I'll share a true story to give you my opinion on this. I've seen a lot of things growing up, I grew up in near New Orleans and went to public schools that had a very high mix of race. The schools I went to growing up if I had to guess were roughly 60% black 30% white and 10% other. Thats a rough estimate.

I learned how powerful words can be early on, in the 1'st grade I saw a fight between a white and a black, and as a little kid not knowing the true nature of racism, and what words might be particuarly offensive. I shouted out (fight fight a nigger and a white) because I had heard many other kids say it. I think when we are young sometimes we find out the hard way, what not to do, or what not to say. Heck I learned how to swim by nearly drowning.

Anyway, after I had said that, which happened at recess, I got jumped by about 4 black 3rd and 4th graders, only one of whom I actuality personaly knew , his name was Crissiner. But that was the day I realized how offensive that word was. However it also taught me something else.

That event lead me to be extremely over cautious of the things I said, in fear of being exploited and that was the case up until just before I started High School.

Given I had said that in the start of my youth and dint know why that word was offensive, over the years looking back on that day helped teach me that you cant live in fear over how how you are precieved by others. I said what I did in 1st grade because I didn't know any better, not because of racism.
Over half of my good friends growing up were black. So at some point I realized I shouldn't be afraid of being misunderstood with anything I may say or do, because it is only me who is the true judge of who I am, including matters of race.

Today I make it a point to try and speak my mind, if I'm misunderstood then so be it. I think the key in many cases for people that say things that are misunderstood for racism, is not to be apologetic for something you are not guilty of. Unless of course you said what you did because you are racist, in that case however the guilty probably wouldn't apologize anyway, as they should. Ive found that in many cases racist have no intention of changing their ways, but what I see even more of is people being misunderstood for being racist when often time it is not even the case.

This doesn't add up, net2007. Don Imus apologized from hell to breakfast in an apparent attempt to save his career. Would he have apologized just because he thought he was wrong. I tend to doubt it.

It occurs to me that public apologies -from the classic Jimmy Swaggart on - are made, not because someone is sorry for what they've said done, but because they got caught. The consequences for not apologizing might outweigh those of offering an apology.

By what measure are we too PC?

The Anti-PC crusade is classic victimization complex thinking. What will we do when we are no longer free to call women "nappy-headed hoes" without damaging our credibility?!

"Oh for the days when stupidity was an asset"!!

I think this whole discussion indicates quite nicely that false victimhood plays out over all sides of the divide on race issues.

Of course all accusations involving motivation are subject to the unique risk of our not being mind readers ...

...but here in the real world it helps to at least get some idea of what's going on in the other guys head and sometimes it's not even hard to do.

When it comes down to systematically and deliberately attempting to disenfranchise Black voters it is the Republicans who lead the way.

For example, are you familiar with the phrase, "vote caging?"

Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war). The Republican National Committee reportedly stopped the practice following a consent decree in a 1986 case. Google the term and you'll quickly arrive at the Wizard of Oz of caging, Greg Palast, investigative reporter and author of the wickedly funny Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans—Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. Palast started reporting allegations of Republican vote caging for the BBC's Newsnight in 2004. He's been almost alone on the story since then. Palast contends, both in Armed Madhouse and widely through the liberal blogosphere, that vote caging, an illegal voter-suppression scheme, happened in Florida in 2004 this way:

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and—you got to love this—American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation—and the soldiers were overseas. link

After SLATE's May 31st article, syndicated columnist Robyn Blumner of the St. Petersburg Times ran a story dated August 26 about GOP vote caging:

In 2000 the successful tactic was the padded felons list. George Bush was essentially handed the presidency by brother Jeb thanks to a felons list of ineligible voters that included the names of thousands of people who were valid voters. The felons list was never fully vetted for accuracy, and conveniently, those mistakenly barred from the polls were disproportionately black and Democratic-leaning. In a presidential election that turned on 537 votes, this could have been the margin of victory.

In 2004, with the felons list trick discredited, the Republicans had to look elsewhere to try to tamp down black voting. They dusted off an oldie but a goodie: vote caging.

Have you ever received a piece of first-class mail from a political party? Not likely; campaign literature typically comes bulk rate. But in its vote caging effort, the Republican Party sent out registered and first-class mail with "do not forward" instructions to thousands of new voters in certain districts in key states. Then the party waited for some of that mail to come back as undeliverable. Those voters were then placed on a list and subject to challenge on Election Day due to their invalid address.

This is a disgraceful tactic no matter who is the target - there are plenty of legitimate reasons for mail getting returned, typos on addresses for one, or Democratic voters not wanting to sign for mail from Republicans. But when the tactic is to single out black voters, it's illegal. Yet that is what appears to have happened in Florida and Ohio - two battleground states - in the lead-up to the 2004 election. link2

A few years ago I posted several examples of Republican attempts to disenfranchise Black voters. I haven't had time to find that original post, but some of the material I referenced can be found in a joint study conducted by People For the American Way and the NAACP entitled, "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today." The following is excerpted from the PDF. file

As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression is not a problem limited to the southern United States. It takes place from California to New York, Texas to Illinois. It is not the province of a single political party, although patterns of intimidation have changed as the party allegiances of minority communities have changed over the years.

In recent years, many minority communities have tended to align with the Democratic Party. Over the past two decades, the Republican Party has launched a series of “ballot security” and “voter integrity” initiatives which have targeted minority communities. At least three times, these initiatives were successfully challenged in federal courts as illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on race.

The first was a 1981 case in New Jersey which protested the use of armed guards to challenge Hispanic and African-American voters, and exposed a scheme to disqualify voters using mass mailings of outdated voter lists. The case resulted in a consent decree prohibiting efforts to target voters by race.

Six years later, similar “ballot security” efforts were launched against minority voters in Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. Republican National Committee documents said the Louisiana program alone would “eliminate at least 60- 80,000 folks from the rolls,” again drawing a court settlement.

And just three years later in North Carolina, the state Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97 percent of whom were African American, giving them false information about voter eligibility and warning of criminal penalties for voter fraud – again resulting in a decree against the use of race to target voters.

I can provide more cases of the Republican Party actively attempting to suppress minority voting when time permits. Are the Republicans the preferred party of contemporary racists? Not necessarily. It is clear however that when Blacks voted predominantly Republican, it was the Democrats that threw up roadblocks. Now that it's the other way around it's the Republicans that are the obstructionists.

He apologized to help save his career, in a case like that the steaks are obviously higher. I dont know if he had said what he did out of racism, but that comment wasn't even particularly racist to begin with. It was seen that way by some because the basketball team was composed of black females, instead of white females.

If anything it was more sexist than it was racist, and it was rude. I believed he apoligised for the comment being rude, which it was. Now I could be wrong and that could have been said out of racism, but what I find even more interesting on this one is he said, like you mentioned BOF that he was sorry, multiple times. Rev. Al Sharpton is in the business of forgiveness yet couldn't let it go. That was exposed in the debate between Sean Hannity and Al Sharpton a couple months back.

Its individuals like that, who help probably more than anyone to contribute to the political correctness problem we see today, people who want to point out every act of possible racism in those in another race, in Sharptons case amongst whites, yet very rarely are willing to point out the same degree of racism or sexism amongst there own. Its that kind of selective outrage that convinces me people like that are some of the most racist amongst us.

Personally I don't care if your white or black, if all you can do is attack those in the opposite race, then that probably says something about the character of the person throwing out these accusations, and as long as the media for example, are willing to bow to this kind of hypocrisy in fear of being labeled, this problem wont go away.

turnea



Something like that will damage your credibility, and the more an individual blurts things like that out the easier it becomes for others to judge for themselves what that persons character is. Then in turn they can decide for themselves if he is worth listening to. Personally I didn't even know who he was until this whole ordeal started.

It was a stupid comment, however stupidity to some extent has to be an asset because human beings are imperfect. Unless we want to turn this county into Germany where a few simple words not only threaten your career but threaten your life, we should be very careful how far we take things. If I live to see the day where a dumb blond joke gets you locked up, what a boring nation this will in fact be, I'll move to the land down under because our comedies will no longer be anything to brag about either, and people will start referring to Hollywood as Dullwood, know what I mean?

Well many people did and the important ones, the sponsors who paid his salary decided quickly.

The man's job was to get people to listen to commercials, his own foolish behavior made that more difficult. PC, a thoroughly meaningless term, had nothing to do with it.


No, I don't think racial stereotyping and other boorish behavior are necessary for an entertainment industry to succeed.

In any case no one is calling the gestapo on every jerk that decides to make a bigoted comment, it doesn't mean we have to pat them on the back either.

Turnea



Well you know, thats a fair point Turnea. There should be no pat on the back for making racist or sexist comments. In few cases, regarding whites is there ever a pat on the back for racist behavior, at least not today. Perhaps once upon a time when the KKK was hanging blacks, or white politicians were preventing blacks from having the rights they have now, yes things were highly uneven, and whites were not punished for racial behavior.

Things have changed however, you have some like Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson who look at today as if it were the 1960's. As if we are not on an equal playing field. The only progress we can make from here is within our society, segregation in many ways continues despite our equal laws. I think thats rather Ironic, but I guess the biggest point I can make with this is that today you have just as many whites, if not more, being discriminated against as you have blacks.

I have heard the word Cracker every bit as much as Ive heard nigger said publicly. Yet never do I see anyone get fired over a derogatory comment against whites, I mean never. If we are ever to move on from the ways of the past, it is going to take cooperation from both whites and blacks. If people like Al Sharpton actually pursued individuals like those in the rap industry who degrade the women in this country as being objects to manipulate, than yes maybe id take them seriously, but they don't, only every white person they can take advantage of. Unfortunately I cant use the same kind of language rap artist do here, to represent their behavior because that bad.

That's just wishful thinking. By any measure more blacks face discrmination that whites, hate crime stats, law suits won, take your pick.

The law protects whites from discrmination as evenly as blacks, blacks just need it more.

..and of course Sharpton criticizes rappers all the time.

Why do blacks need it more?

In the court of law as of today a white has every bit as much chance of having the color of their skin become a determining factor in the outcome of a trial as a black. Its a fact, not wishful thinking. For example in a scenario where a black child is raped and brutally murdered, and say you have the main suspect being white, but in this case the man happens to be innocent. If the evidence was inconclusive but the case gained enough popularity you would have every Al Sharpton wanna be from Washington state to Florida doing everything they could to make sure that man was locked up. Now I'm not saying that sort of Bias is one sided to blacks, I'm saying today you have as many racist blacks as you have whites. I know this from personal experience.

If Al Sharpton is at all fair, as you suggest toward the end of your last post, I want you to name one rap artist, or for that matter one black man who was fired largely because of the influence of his own ambitions. Just name one, thats all I ask. Good luck with that one is all I can say. That man is as racist as they come and he is also a hypocrite, because he channels his own racism though his role as a supposed reverend, and bringer of equality to America.

He has a deep down loathing of white Americans, its as simple as that, which is basically left over from his youth. Whether it be Him, Malcolm X, or the grand wizard of the KKK, none of these men will ever get my respect, Martin Luther did what he had to do both legally and logically to bring an equal playing field to this country at a time when things were far from equal. He makes sense to me. Its almost like Al Sharpton took a time machine to the present and has no knowledge of what has happened in the last 40 years.

Is their still racism on the part of whites? Absolutely, but all races in this nation are equal by law and therefore racism is restricted mostly to the public. The public whether your talking about whites blacks or Mexicans, all have their share of racist and I'm tired of whites being demonised largely on account of the actions of our ancestors in the past whom most of us never even knew. Those days are gone, their gone. Its in the past........... and how far we progress from here is up to the public, a whole hell of a lot more than our gouvernment at this point.

Are we now going to pretend that everyone Sharpton criticizes gets fired?

Rappers rise and fall all the time for many reasons, typically not from scandal over their content as music is a different medium than entertainment. Radio edits and the fact that anyone can choose not to buy a CD that comes labeled with parental advisories and the like make for a situation when musicians don't catch this type of flack no matter what color.

That and despite the fact that rap songs are often filled with invective, very little of it actually qualifies as bigotry.

The fact that you think Al Sharpton is racist against whites speaks volumes.

In the spirit of the thread why have you labeled him a bigot?

Evidence to back your specific claims please.

Seems you were unsuccessful in naming one black person fired due to the actions of Rev. Al. In my research I couldn't find anything myself so
don't feel bad, and no not everyone he pursues thats white gets fired, although if he had it his way everyone of them surely would be.

You really need evidence that he is a bigot, says racist things, and attempts to effect the lives of whites substantially more than blacks? Well heck