While getting lunch today, I was reading some of Bernard Goldberg's book Arrogance. In it, he spends a fair amount of time examining how the Main Stream Media (aka MSM) approaches the issue of race. One of his arguments is that the overwhelmingly liberal media takes extraordinary measures, both institutionally and also individually, to avoid being called racists or bigots.

And that is the springboard for this thread. Not to examine whether or not Goldberg's assertion is correct, but rather, to ask these questions:

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

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

Why would they work so hard to avoid the accusation?
Same reason guys work so hard to avoid charges of sexual harassment in the workplace or deny being a communist or a neo-nazi.

It's embarrassingly pathetic and offensive to be a bigot.

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


To avoid charges of impropriety, act appropriately. Then the truth is your defense and you need no other.

1. No one needs to "work hard" to avoid the accusation of racism if they are not racist.

2. By telling the truth.

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

Being accused of racism is similar to being accused of pedophilia. There is an immediate gut response by those hearing of such an accusation. That response is amplified when the accused is a public figure. An example - this isn't race related, but the concept is the same. I have a lot of friends in Canada. I got a mass email asking Canadians to boycott Keith Urbans upcoming Canadian engagements because someone claimed he asked for a show of hands of all those in the audience at some concert in North Dakota and then asked those Candians to leave before he would start the concert.

Now, I've noticed that Canadians are quite proud of being Canadian and didn't take well to this - hence the call for a boycott. But, the accusation was false - it never happened. Will it affect attendance at his Canadian performances? Maybe. It took the mere accusation to get things going.

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

Honesty. Truth. But sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you are videotaped making racist or bigotted comments, it becomes much harder to defend yourself.

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

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

1} Who says so? Oh, Goldberg. Yeah, he doesn't like liberals. Think he has an axe or two to grind as well. Imagine getting shafted by your employer after publishing something critical about your employer. Where's freedom of speech? Oh yeah, there is none when it comes to employees yakking about their employers. It's all those dang liberals who brought that one on, huh?

Wiki on Goldberg

2} I've never been accused of either racism or bigotry, so I don't know. I have been accused of being something that I'm not though. Eh, accuse away. Yer wrong. But that's okay, lots of people are wrong. It's not illegal to be wrong, although it can be in specific instances. It's wrong to hold up a bank, and that's illegal. But if you want to believe something about me that's not true, well, unless there's libel or slander involved, there's no law against that.

Some people publish book after book of wrong ideas. That's not only legal but it makes big $$ for publishers, agents and authors. I put Goldberg among those untrustworthy authors. The publishing industry doesn't care. If drivel sells, that's fine.

Anyway, it's probably good for media outlets to be concerned about coming across as racist or bigoted. I mean, who wants to read an article that starts out like this?

"Yesterday President Bush, a self-proclaimed spokesperson for Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior, declared himself to be above the law."

A better lead is:

"Yesterday President Bush signed into law the XYZ bill and included his take on what it means."

Of course nobody should care what President Bush thinks a law ought to mean, as he is not a judge. He is also not a legislator, so his opinion on the meaning of law is on the bottom of the totem pole. What I see in journalism is closer to the second lead because that's the way journalists write. Who, what, where, when, sometimes how and possibly why. Everyone who reads news ought to understand this simple thing, and if any opinion is included, this should be obvious to the careful reader. I do believe I got this training in high school, and not in journalism class. It was in straight up English class.

So complaining about any bias in the news outlets is useless. People should understand the simple principles of objective reporting, and by gosh I think they do. It's not that hard to spot a poorly written piece of trash.

The problem is that the claim of racist sticks like the term rapist, sexual harasser, or sexist. It's kind of a "guilty until proven innocent" deal in the US today. Why does white America dance so far around race? .

Fear. Plain and simple.

You can't sue someone for libel if called a racist. How could you prove the case? The old "I have black friends" argument? HA! It would never fly. But if you were called a philanderer you could... I'd suppose.

I guess it depends on what you do or where you stand in life, but the word is scary. I've never been victim (not really anyway), but have seen what it does to someone at a company. The irony of the story was this dude was a super easy going man who'd just fired the wrong person. Our company won the EEOC claim and some folks stood behind him, but actually quite a few jumped ship quick. Don't want to be associated with "Ted" the bigot...

How would that be any easier?

A person is typically called a racist based on statements or actions, hard facts. If you can prove damage do to a misleading representation of facts, you've got a libel case.

Nothing is special about charges of racism, except people fear-mongers about how "white people can't talk about race"

Nonsense, they do all the time. Just don't drop the n-word or call someone a "poverty pimp."

It's not complicated.

I accidentally stepped on an older woman's foot once waiting at the bus terminal. She was black. She called me a racist. Needless to say, this is not what you want to hear in the middle of a large crowd... so I turned around, and said loudly (not obnoxiously, but loud enough that people who heard her claims could hear me) said that I was sorry and that it was an accident. I was polite and showed an appropriate level of respect. She apologized, grudgingly, and let it pass.

I walked home.

Good job with calling white people "fear mongers" who worry about race relations.

It's a real issue turnea. It is.

I realize that you're on the other side of the coin, but look alone at the links that I've provided in the past about "EEOC racial discrimination claims" and how few are founded.

Very often, racism is claimed for being the cause for poor service, bad things happening to good people, etc. Sometimes the waiter just had a bad night man... sometimes the employee needed to be fired, etc. However- often, very often, race cards are dealt whether it was a factor or not.

This is specifically why white people generally avoid the topic, even around each other.

*Edited to note-
Turnea- have you ever thought you've been discriminated against, and how? Could it have been coincidence?*

It's not complicated if you oversimplify it.

If you are a conservative, many people assume you are a closet racist. I don't know why, but they do. Earlier today you said that "one party" survives without the support of an entire race. Which is baloney. If a group of people do not agree with a philosophy (which is what conservatism is) then I can't help that. It doesn't make me a racist to say that the government's function is not to even the playing field, or that outcomes should be based upon effort, or that emulating the successful will up your chances of being successful. Those are not racist viewpoints, but they are easily fodder for trumped up charges of racism.

It's a loaded question to ask "What have Republicans done for blacks?". If the answer is "nothing" and the reason is that Republicans don't feel they should be helping ANY specific race group, then the fact that nothing has been done for blacks is not evidence of racism.

Republicans are de facto racists in the eyes of many, many people. Even being black is no defense as some black conservatives are labeled are race traitors.

I live in Southern California where we obviously have a large population of Hispanic people. I have lived here for over forty years and was raised in the military. Basically, because of my life's experience thus far, I believe myself to be "blind" when it comes to race. However, I have many Hispanic female friends. They tell me that they are discriminated against on a regular basis. Where? In stores by clerks, in restaurants and many other public places where one must wait in line etc. I have found this incredible and I've told them I feel this way. I don't believe this "treatment" as they're describing it actually exists. In living here this many years you would think I would have witnessed this type of discrimination at least once!

Has anyone out there witnessed the type of discrimination described above?

Don't recall saying that.

That term is reserved for those who say they've been unfairly muzzled. It's a free country, if what you say is reasonable people will judge it accordingly.

Could people mistake coincidences for racism? Of course, all the time.

People make mistakes about all sort of things, sexual harassment that turns out to be a crowded elevator.

Are you flipping me the bird?!

Nope, just adjusting my glasses. (don't laugh, it happened )

Normally an honest mistake can be corrected just like UJ's situation.

This is just life, not a crusade on conservatives.

Does that mean what I said isn't true?

It's snide remarks by Reagan about welfare queens and less than subtle remarks by Pat Buchanan about Martin Luther King.

It's Strom Thurmond and Nixon's Southern strategy and Newt "Ghetto" Gingrich. ..and Tom Tancredo and Jeff Sessions and on and on..

...that gives conservative such a bad reputation on race relations.

The GOP is the big-tent party, but just like liberals were once warned about communist infiltration others are constantly warning Republicans you've got members of the underbelly of American life in that big tent that it's time to disown.

Republicans are not de facto racist, but are racists more common in the conservative movement?

Hard to deny.

We've got to face facts here.

Edited to Add:
..and yes I've heard racists comments about Hispanics that lead me to believe they face discrmination. Have I been followed in a store? Sure.

Was it my race? I didn't ask but it's not an unreasonable guess.

Hard to prove too. Outright "hate" groups cannot be considered Conservatives, so lets exclude Klansmen and Heritage Front type groups. Really, can you quantify "racism" in the Conservative movement then? In the Republican party?

This is where I have to say... dude- you're proving Amlord's point.

There are more racists in the Conservative movement? What's racist about Reagan and talking about welfare? Did he mention black people? Nope. Of course not.

I believe that it's this MTV history that confuses reality. Reagan didn't put black America into poverty. He began to fix a woefully broken system. That's not racist. (*even though guys like Chuck D and MTV's black history lessons would try to tell you that*)

Kinda proving my point some more... not everything that has "anything to do with" black people is racist.

What about the president that passed more civil rights legislation than any other? LBJ- a conservative.

I believe that the liberals in America telling blacks that they're not as good or as capable are the most racist. I believe that many liberals in the US actually believe that blacks can't do it on their own.

Who's racist?.....ugh...

This is exactly why many (if not most) white people are concerned with being deemed bigots. It comes from any angle at any time... cut someone off in traffic? Bigot. Don't open a door? Racist? Fix a welfare system? Racist! ha!

I word argue that outright hate groups can often be considered Conservatives. David Duke sure didn't run as a Democrat (well for La senate, but the local story is complicated).

The right is home to many hate groups. The left doesn't share as much of this legacy anymore though in the past labor unions have done their share of damaging race relations, they've since cut that out.

Studies have found correlation between conservative values and racism. Typically centered around Symbolic Racism and Social Dominance Theory.

Since it will clearly take me a while to find a free version of said studies, I'll likely start a topic on it.

..but I'd be shocked to find that most conservatives don't acknowledge racists tend to group on the right side of the spectrum. Even watching 'ers (or the naughty ones) can tell you that.

Here's a pay-per-view link anyway, most of the idea can be gleaned from the abstract.
Racism and Support of Free-Market Capitalism: A Cross-Cultural Analysis

Edited to Add:
...and even though most welfare recipients are white, Reagan knew full well what the public perception of the welfare queen was, I'll include that in the topic.

It's nice to know that this guy's study supports the theory that he invented. Wiki link: social dominance

Capitalism does belief that one group is better: the group that delivers what the customer wants for the price he's willing to pay. Of course some groups are better than others: those that work harder and build the better mousetrap. It has nothing to do with race, however.

It will take a lot of convincing to demonstrate that capitlism==bigotry.

EDIT to add:

Actually, SDO theory does not equate to bigotry.

From the wiki article:


"Climbing the social ladder" or even taking shortcuts to do so is not bigotry.


That statement is a streetch, since SDT does not necessarily have anything to do with racism.

It's hardly the only study and you linked to Social Dominance Orientation only a part of Social Dominance Theory. SDO is an individual measure with the structure of the group-based Social Dominance Theory.

Link

Furthermore the study never claims that capitalism is the same as as bigotry. It uses support for free-market capitalism as a measure of political conservatism and then notes the correlation this has with racist views.

Furthermore capitalism never claims any group is "better" only more able to compete in their market and that group is not based on price so much as consumer preference. Marketing theory notes the gulf between these two concepts.

Out of curiosity.

Do you not agree that racists as a group tend towards the right side of the political spectrum?

No, I will not agree with that.

Robert Byrd Bull Connor and George Wallace are counters to your David Duke example. 82% of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, versus 64% of Democrats. It was Republican Dwight Eisenhower who used troops to force desegration in Little Rock and ordered the "complete desegregation of the Armed Forces".

I'd argue that support for affirmative action continues that legacy of discrimination by bringing race to the forefront and paying people to act badly (i.e. welfare) encourages people to make the wrong choices.

I realize that this is a basic philosophical difference and that the liberal philosophy of "give a man a fish" seems to be nicer and more expedient than my own philosophy of "teach a man to fish".

According to the Washington Post both parties contain racists:


Democrats are outwardly racist when it came to their position on Katrina handouts. WaPost


It is easy to confuse a propensity for racism and conservatism IF you do not account for the fact that minorities tend to be poorer than whites. Then the conservative stance of less government aid can easily be (incorrectly) attributed to racism. But there are racists in both parties.

Turnea- no, no, and no.

Amlord did a good job talking about how this isn't true. It's not historically true, nor does it even have a shred of evidence.

Frankly, this is a black perception that's so far off base that it literally makes me laugh that a guy as bright as you believes it.

Byrd and Wallace are great examples, but what about contemporary examples? Who in the US conservative movement is racist? Give some examples?

I'm talking grass-roots conservatives. If anything else, I'd imagine that there are just as many liberals that are bigots. Again- consider the notion that liberals truly believe that affirmative action is necessary for black success. That in itself insinutates inferiority. I don't know even one conservative that believes that way. Black people are just as screwy as anyone (as whites, etc)... but surely not inferior.

What about Hillary's plantation comments? About Gandhi? Doesn't that insinuate something in itself? If she'll make comments on a national stage that are openly racist, what does she say at home?

In my opinion, a majority of the conservatives that I know are good church going and hard working people. (I say that as I screw off and debate instead of working! ) Believe it or not (go ahead QH, argue this) religion does a good job of making people think twice about their preconcieved notions. This includes racism (anti-homosexuality, etc).

Go for it Turnea, back up those inflammatory comments. I'm ready to hear it. Give me one shred of evidence that racist groups are: a. conservative, and b. that current conservative leaders are more racist.

(hint- I've already eluded to 2 comments by one Dem front runner that have racist notions)

And of course that has nothing to do with the Republican Southern strategy in the modern era. It's a complete coincidence that people like Strom Thurmond changed parties, and have prominent Republicans like Trent Lott praising actions they took as segregationist Democrats.
It is shameful that Robert Byrd is continually re-elected, but at least he is always someone Republicans can rely on to switch sides on any vote dealing with narrow minded bigotry, as in his support of the Musgrave marriage-discrimination amendment. Likewise, I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that Republicans regularly make campaign speeches at Bob Jones University.


It is truly disgusting that so called conservatives (who in fact support nothing even remotely resembling actiual conservatism) lie about history. Prior to the civil rights acts of the 60s the Democrats had a strong racist base, which is forever to their shame. Those Dixiecrats went Republican, though. And now you want to tar those who don't support hatred with the very votes you pander to by being as blatantly racist as you can get away with. Fact is republicans routinely praise the racist actions Dixiecrats took in the past, They just leave party affiliation out of it when they want to say racism was a good thing, and that we'd all have been so much better off if a segregationist Democrat like Strom Thurmond had won.

Fact is that people keep calling conservatives racist, but no one has shown how the current conservative base in the US is.

Give me an example please. We've shown history on both sides of the aisle, ok. It's done. What about now? What you all are insinuating is that conservatives... wait, what you're actually out and out saying is that current conservatives are most likely to be racist.

No support yet. Give me a quote, a vote, something. Anything. I personally believe what you're saying is woefully inaccurate, and have shown how. Please reciprocate.

Perhaps you should acknowledge that Kevin Phillips, author of the Southern strategy has left the GOP for...well NPR and the LA Times. He seems to give advice to the Democrats in book after book. He's a shrieking basket case (personal opinion there).

Perhaps you missed Ken Mehlman's apology for the GOP southern strategy? It came right after Bush was re-elected in 2004.

Regardless, nothing you (nor turnea) has said provides any proof whatsoever that the Republican party is the party of racists.

You haven't shown anything. I mention the Musgrave amendment to write discrimination into the constituton, which was promoted vociferously by self-proclaimed conservatives. But it's just a coincidence, of course, that people who praise the actions a segregationist like Strom Thurmond took while he was a Democrat support writing discrimination into the constitution.
Former Dixiecrats are current Republicans, it is to Democrat's shame that they used to pander for those votes, it is to Republicans current shame that they are doing the same now.

Ah yes, now I should have know I needed to defend Republicans not only from charges of racism, but sexual orientation-ism as well.

You disagree that marriage is worth defending in its current state--the state that has been around since the time of Abraham, but I disagree. This does not mean I hate gays. I won't even try to convince you otherwise.

So when Conservatives call people faggot, that has nothing to do with hate, right? And when people gladly step up to defend such attitudes, that's not hate? It's just a complete coincidence that you oppose equality under the law for a group of people and you also cheer slurs about those people, right?
And since you seem to think hating fags is just peachy keen, what of the previous comments about ragheads that were not enough to get Coulter disinvited from speaking on your behalf at the Conservative Political Action Committee?

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to blame the Democratic party for the Dixiecrats while exonerating the Republicans for pandering to the same people because they apologized in 200freaking4. The Democratic party took action to oppose the former Dixiecrats, and lost a lot of votes because of it (votes the Republican party was more than willing to wallow in the slime for). What have Republicans done to oppose the likes of Coulter? The strongest condemnation you'll hear from a Republican or supposed conservative of the vile filth that spews from her and hundreds like her is "Well I disagree with her tactics, but Clinton got a blowjob! ... and by the way, macaca, wink wink, nudge nudge..."

I suspect and have for a long time that people are rather unclear on the history of our two major political parties.

Until the demise of the Solid South and the realignment under Nixon conservatives and liberal found homes in both parties, which were more regional affairs than ideological tents.

No one would call Wallace, Connor, or Thurmond liberal even for their day.

I'll formulate a topic soon, but consider as Grendel72 noted the Dixiecrats stage was a intermediary step in the migration of conservative Democrats to the Republican party, racists values often in tow.

Here's something. The Council of Conservative Citizens. To which Republican senator Trent Lott (among other Republican politicians) has undesputable ties. This is right now, today.


<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

Obiviously, not every conservative is a bigot. But the bigots have certainly found a good home among the so-called conservatives of today.

From:

Racist Liberals? Go Figure

by Lana Hampton



~

The same argument conservatives used to defend miscegenation laws. I suppose there was no bigotry in making interracial marriage illegal either, right?
I can remember when conservatives would always proclaim that you can't legislate morality. Of course, at the time they were talking about laws granting civil rights to people. Apparently conservatives are just fine with legislating morality as long as it involves discriminating against people.

Can anyone point to a single action conservatives have taken to oppose institutionalized bigotry. That's conservatives not Republicans, for anyone who wants to try the already seen dishonest tactic of equating pre-civil rights act political parties with their modern counterparts. If you really oppose Dixiecrats, why do you vote for their modern incarnation?
Has there ever in history been a movement to grant rights to a previously discriminated against group that hasn't been opposed by conservatives? This isn't about political party, that has changed in the past and could change in the future, it is about recognizing that by virtue of our shared humanity we all deserve the same rights.

Pretty much the 68 Dem convention created a migration of racists OUT of the democratic party, in a fairly large way. Anything talking about racism in terms of party affiliation has to include that defining moment to be honest at all- I would say that the Democratic party was the more racist pre-68, but definately lost power and votes by switching directions, and eventually lost the south because of thier repudiation of thier racist past.

In RECENT HISTORY- the republican party has been PROFOUNDLY racist- Willie Horton ads, Jesse Helms etc etc etc. How about the REPUBLICAN push poll by Rove regarding John McCain and the "brown baby"- that is a 2000 election issue- NOT from the 70s now!

Anyone that speaks at Bob Jones is racist, unless he is there to repudiate them.

Bob Jones is an incredibly racist University, and created the likes of the Rev Phelps.

You go thier voluntarily- you might as well join the KKK while you are at it.

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

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

Ironic how this topic has become the very incarnation of the questions for debate?

Why would I work hard to avoid accusations of bigotry? Look at the blanket statements thrown around right here. How can I respond to accusations of racism by association? Obviously, for some, there is no defense.

There are racists and bigots of every political stripe and party. And yet the Republican party is the "party of racists"?

You may not believe that equal rights actually means "equal" or that school vouchers are an avenue for escape for the downtrodden, but I do. You may think that opposition to gay marriage is a bigoted stance, but I see it as a defense of an institution that has a significance in the social fabric of society. It has importance and not just so that you can choose who can come into your hospital room. It is about children. I realize this issue is personal to you grendel, but let's try to stay away from personalizing things. It detracts from objectivity.

But, Democrats as well as Republicans are against the idea of same sex marriage. This isn't a party issue.

To CR's "point" about Bob Jones University, Bob Jones has called my branch of Christianity (Catholicism) a "cult" and all popes are "Demon possessed". The guy (himself) is a loon. So what?

Again and again we see people stuck in examples of the past. BJU has lifted its interracial dating policies (just prior to a visit from presidential candidate George W. Bush). If Bush were a racist, why the change at that particular time? It seems like Bush brought pressure to change the policy, not to reinforce it.

Absolutely right. For some, there is no defense.

Case in point: What's wrong with THIS picture?

Anybody see any subliminal racism in this case? Just because the racism is unintentional does not mean it isn't there.

They were forced to do so by court order. John McCain refused to speak there- GW did speak there. They (BJU) are major players in the Republican party. The number 1 biggest player in the republican christian right up here- Rev Prevo- is a republican caucus leader- has also been a major supporter of Bob Jones University as well, for decades.

Amlord- Willie Horton, Jesse Helms, and th SC push poll are as recent as 2000- not exactly "in the past" you know.

I will concede that being anti-welfare, anti-AA or other social programs does NOT make you a racist- it is if you think that it is minorities that are abusing those, and white poeple don't, that you have a bit of a racist problem.

Huh? You cannot be "unintentionally" racist. That ad is either racist or it isn't.

I bet the model in the ad (it seems to be one guy, duplicated six times, and not six "employees") probably is glad he was chosen instead of some white guy (or girl). Maybe advertising agencies should only hire white models?

When will it ever become clear to people that the vast, vast majority of Americans (hell, earthlings) do not desire to have black people waiting on them hand and foot or in shackles of any kind? Nobody has owned slaves in the country in over 140 years! If you look for racism, yeah you're going to find it.

I guess the sport of sprinting is racist. It is dominated by black people and they are forced to bend down at the beginning of every race! I can't believe we allow this type of thing to go on in this day and age!


Willie Horton-- a real issue. It wasn't about a black man, it was about a murderer who became a rapist and the furlough he received which allowed him to commit further crimes.

Jesse Helms is an individual. I have already said that racist individuals exist in both parties.

The SC push poll wasn't conducted by the Bush campaign. It is not evidence that conservative == bigot. In fact, on many issues John McCain is more conservative than GWB. So in fact, it can be argued that this push poll was used against the conservative (although admittedly maverick) candidate.

I don't think if I can follow you here, Nighttimer. If you look at this picture you can see many things. You obviously see it as a product of subliminal racism (although, on closer inspection, I began to understand why you would do so: smart white boss, black men almost seemingly bowing to the boss, represented as the working force, men without any authority, who are seemingly not as smart as their white employer etc etc).

But that is not the only reaction / interpretation. When I looked at the picture, I didn't see any racist undertone. My first reaction was, ooh just another one of those standard ads I see everyday. And when I looked closer, I interpretated the black sprinter(s) not in a subliminal racist way at all. I saw him in a positive way, as a symbol of power, of strength, especially when you compare him/them with that wimpy white guy.

But perhaps I am naive. I was always brought up with the important lesson, "never judge a person on his/her appearance". I never think in terms of somebody's skincolour. Besides that the issue of racism is not as lively and intense in my country as it appears to be in the U.S.. Perhaps that's is an explanation why we view the same picture in a different way.

I also live in So-Cal. I'm not sure how it was in previous decades, but the general feeling currently is one of majority rules and the majority here is hispanic and will continue to be. I have received mean looks from hispanic women too many times to count. It's the sort of look that says, "You white person! You greedy white person." The looks I've gotten from hispanic men have often been, "You want to be the mom of my seventh child?" But seriously, I cannot imagine that in the current political and social hierarchy hispanics have anything to fear.

On Saturday afternoon I was with my son in Target. We were looking for an open checkout. We approached what looked to be open and the white checker said very bluntly, I'm closing (she had a customer she was finishing up). So we proceeded to the next checkout. As I'm being rung up I see a black woman put her basket down on the checkout we had just been turned away from. The white woman smiled at her and rang her up......Why? I imagine it was because she didn't want to offend the black woman.......

I'm an easy target; a white female who will not call her a racist or make a verbally callous comment. That's the price that white women are paying in society. We are supposed to be really nice and keep our mouths shut. And if we are treated with any form of hostility, by virtue of our skin color, that's the price we have to pay......so be it! I'm not gonna cry over it.

About the ad that Nighttimer posted a link to: I see it as embracing the superior physical skills of blacks. And quite honestly, showing the white guy to look a bit like a schmuck standing there awkwardly. But my opinion doesn't matter, I know.

See here:


http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...047272705001192

Roemer is a big name in Economics, by the way.

Also see here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-895X...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

With particular reference to the South, see here:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p63884_index.html

I think this is the best example of what I've been trying to say in threads for weeks about racism.

Frankly- I think they found a dude that looked really good in this picture. He happened to be brown. Actually, in this ad, he's kinda 'copper colored', and really cut up. I think that's the point.

Get it? Power? Really cut up dude? Improved efficiency? 40% more power? Maybe the guy who showed up loved the idea. I would.

Don't know wheteher I should post this in this thread or the other race thread started by Turnea.

Amlord


I see your point. And I think a lot of conservatives feel this exact way. Your not a bigot just a person with views regarding policies.

But in what ways are the policies you support bigoted.

I think this is a question I asked before... In terms of race why are Blacks so much worse off than Whites in this nation. Are Blacks truly inferior? Blacks are disproportionately in prisons, they are disproportionately failing in schools, you could pull up a litany of negatives associates with Black people in America. But it always seems to be Genetics vs Social underpinning.

I don't think conservatives think it is genetics for the most part. However, they are unwilling to take the time or maybe they lack the desire to see the problem as a creation of the forefathers of this nation. In the end, true and blunt racism is responsible for the downward spiral of minoririties in this nation, IMO.

All conservatives (not all, but many) do is support policies that will continue the spiral or stand against policies that may put brakes on the momentum caused by the racism of yesterday, like AA.

So that is why you get the "Bigot" rep. Because it is almost impossible for a minority to believe that you can't see... say what the war on Drugs is doing to the community of minorities. Yet more times than not it is a conservative who seems to want to get "tougher" and lock people up for longer.

At best the average conservative is likely just apathetic to the world around them. Maybe they should stop being called "bigots" and start being called the party of narcissists. obsessed "my" family, "my" wealth, "my" country, "my" values, "my" religion and so on...

But it is this same ultra self preserving behavior that has gotten conservative labelled as bigots.

I think these phrases are what get threads derailed droop. Apathetic? Narcissists?

If people are selling drugs, why is it a minority issue? It's a criminal issue? Are you saying it should be okay to sell crack? You want that on your street? (some drug legalization might be ok... but not overall) Again- how is the war on drugs against a certain racial persuasion? I see it as a certain behavior droop.

The biggest difference in ideology seems to me, since we're pulling punches, that liberals don't see minorities to have the ability to do it on their own. It's insulting to me and should be to every single minority, particularly Black Americans.

I believe that the vast majority of conservative America believes that there shouldn't be preferential treatment. It's not about apathy or narcissim. It's quite the contrary. I see the nation sliding down a slippery slope of allowing certain behaviors to become acceptable socially. It's never ending. Year after year, more and more becomes "ok", and at times there are more acceptable behaviors based solely upon being "black".

For instance, "hill billy vernacular" doesn't have a name like "ebonics". Think of this, what if I was a comic and made fun of people in "hip hop" and their inability to speak English correctly? Backlash? You bet. Now consider this. What if we made fun of "trailer park" absurdities? No problemo. Why? Because it's acceptable for a double standard. It's an issue.

It's not about "my values", or "my wealth", or "my whatever". It's about American Values, American wealth, etc. Our nation cannot afford to remain competitive and to remain the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world so long as we perpetually negate the value of hard work, and if we perpetually slide the scale of shame. 15 years ago a pregnant woman couldn't go to High School with the rest of her classmates. Nowadays it would result in an ACLU suit to have her sent to alternative classes. When does it stop?

After all... we have intelligent people claiming the war on drugs is a racist notion....

the war on drugs is very racist- because it targets mostly minorties, when by far the largest drug users and dealers are right in white suburban America

sure, there it has something to do with the mechanics of drug dealing in the US- inner city street drug dealers are easier to pop than the ol' lady next door dealing weed- but the bottom line is- if the war on drugs were truly "color blind"- there would be far, far , far more white poeple in jail.

Everytime some politician wants to "clean up the drug problem"- they don't send cops into white suburban America- they send them out for the colored folks- because they are easier to bust, not neccesarily for color- but the bottom line is- while the majority of drug dealers/users are white, the majority of arrests are NOT white poeple.

So there is a very good basis for calling the WOD "racist".

I think this is the key philosophical difference.

Amlord, do you really believe people cannot be unintentionally racist? If so, then I can see why you simply cannot understand what others are trying to express here. Do you believe racism can only be (by definition) intentional? And if this is the case, then what would you call an unintentional bias involving race?

I hope not.



Not to get to deep on the war on drugs... but we already knew what would happen. We had a test model... it was called prohibition. And it got repealed. Because prohibition caused more violent crimes and more struggles for territory.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Yeah it's behavior. But is it innate or learned. Do you honestly believe that people implementing policy against drugs don't see the degradating effects or didn't know what would happen when prohibiton was there as a working model to be examined.

To answer your question, no I don't want Crack on the streets, but I'd rather have crack then a crack dealer. Why are selling narcotics a felony and using them are not?? Hell why. A non-violent crime a felony?? Why not make not wearing a seat belt a felony, it makes as much sense??

But this is what i mean. You merely are in support of the law. If the war on drugs cause further degradation in a community... it's the people's fault for not following the law, not your problem it is theirs... apathetic, by defiition.



But it's not. Most minorities support AA programs and are not insulted, have you ever wondered why?? You as a white man that feel minorities, particularly Blacks, should be insulted, but they are not... Is it minorities lack your value of hard work?? What is it that we are seeing that you don't. I assure you minorities have pride just as much as whites. Do you care what the answer is?? If not... apathy rears its' nasty head once again.



Wrong!!!! Most conservative believe in the preferential treatment that wealth provides. If I were to say something like nationalize schools so that all Americans were to receive a standard education. You'd tell me "why should I have to get the same education as the next person if I (or my parent's) can afford a better one." That is preferential isn't it.



Go get Showtime (cable Channel) if you don't have it. Look for "White boyz in the Hood"... you'll here all the white people talking about Blacks you could ever desire.



American Wealth??? Are you kidding me??? Are we all getting a piece of the pie here... oh that's right American scraps are better than what the scraps of some third world country... therefore American impoverished should be happier, even though they're still... scraps.

American Values and American wealth... I guess you would support more socialist programs that caused greater wealth distribution seeing how its "American" wealth, right??

People aren't scared hard work... they are scared of slave wages. That is why all of our jobs are going overseas and to other countries because they allow cheap labor. Because the wealth of the nation is being consolidated why half our country worry about the crack head on the street and who marry's who and who got across the border that wasn't white.



Whistle all you want... but you don't start or continue a failed path unless there is something you are accomplishing. What has the war on drugs accomplished but overfilling our prisons with minorities? I'm waiting for the answer to that.

HUH? If someone wants their kid to go to private school and is willing to fork out the money, they should be able to. They're paying taxes too. Is it preferential? No way- it's capitalism. Poor people send their kids to private schools all over the nation. It's a matter of giving something up.

That's not the point. The point is that people like you (not just black people... I might add) think that the disproportionate number of Black people in prison is because of some racist ideology.

No- I don't believe in the war on drugs. It's not working. What does that have to do with racism? It doesn't. If Black people didn't sell more drugs, there would be fewer black people in prison for selling drugs. It's really that simple. It's a choice. Poor people can be poor without being criminals. Socio-economics aren't being discussed here.

I'm not going down the "work ethic" path here in reference to race, but I DO believe that if someone stays poor for their whole lives (or families do for generations) in America, it IS their fault. I'm not saying that everyone is lucky enough to be Donald Trump, but a house and a picket fence isn't out of anyone's reach.

I DO believe that someone CHOOSES to be a criminal.



You love the word Apathy, but in my opinion it's being sorely misused.

I believe that black people SHOULD be insulted if they are perpetually being judged as benefactors of government "career welfare". I (we as conservatives) aren't being apathetic but rather involved in the fact that America cannot allow for inferior Doctors, CEO's, Military Officers, Scientists, etc due to some notion that we need to "fix a wrong" that doesn't even exist objectively in America in 2007.

SOME black people are insulted Droop. That's just it. Many people do get upset. It's just that society has proven that people like Larry Elder are called 'uncle toms' (and other nasty things), so keeping quiet is a better alternative.

Something to consider. Who has it better and/or worse in the US today? Native Americans or Black Americans?

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

The biggest problem, as I see it, with race-related issues is that different people have vastly different views about what constitutes racism/bigotry. A great many white people can't believe that black people (or other people of color) are discriminated against on a regular basis due to the color of their skin because they just don't have that frame of reference. A great many people of color feel that everything comes back to 'racism' because they believe their experiences suggest this to be true. Does that make either of them wrong? No, but it sure makes it difficult to have a discussion about race when there exists such a vast difference in experience/frame of reference.

If someone (or a group of people) is accused of being bigoted, I would imagine that unless the person is actively promoting his/her bigotry, it is to be expected that he/she would try to avoid or fight the accusation. I think that's just a natural reaction. In terms of doing something in order to avoid the accusation to begin with, I guess that's much more difficult to answer. I'd imagine there are a ton of reasons one might feel the need to be "defensive" in this matter: history, generalizations, etc.

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

I'd say the cliche "actions speak louder than words" is a good representative of how one should "respond" to such accusations.

As far as the political party angle, I'd venture a guess that a person's definition of bigotry has a lot to do with what political party/philosophy is more "prone" to bigotry. As evidenced in this thread, many conservatives believe that people of color/women should be up in arms about AA because it supposedly makes them look like they can't be successful without it. Many liberals, however, feel that it's more about access and opportunity than it is about ability. The same can be said for poverty, education, drugs, etc. Conservatives, I would say, are more likely to believe that all (at least almost all) people have the same access to success by virtue of the "work hard and you'll succeed" philosophy. Liberals, I would say, are more likely to believe that all (almost all) people WANT the same access to success, but in reality access and opportunity are dependent upon a host of factors (environmental and otherwise). And therein lies the vastly different way the two parties/ideologies go about trying to solve problems.

I certainly don't think that most conservatives are bigots. I do, however, think that conservatives often use their own success to determine how successful others can be. The I-went-to-school-and-worked-hard-so-anyone-else-can-do-the-same mentality seems to be prevalent amongst conservatives (at least that's my experience)...and I happen to believe this to be idealistic and untrue. I think of myself as an eternal optimist, but the reality that I live every day tells me that in order for there to truly be "equal opportunity" there has to be equal ACCESS to said opportunity. I don't believe that our current system offers equal access (and that is why I'm a big proponent of AA, not because blacks or other people of color or women are somehow inferior or incapable of doing things on their own).

edited to add: I started my post before aevans176 had posted about the work ethic issue. His post and beliefs are exactly what I'd consider a common belief amongst conservatives: work hard and you'll succeed, end of story.

I am positive that I am not the only poster here who has seen the very poster who started this thread using the sort of slurs I mentioned Ann Coulter using. I am also positive that I am not the only poster here who has noticed the lack of complaint from "conservatives" regarding the comments made by Coulter and Bikerdad. I am also quite sure I will never see any of our self-proclaimed "conservatives" disagree with the likes of Coulter and Bikerdad.
But of course, those of us arguing in favor of equality have to pretend you have only the purest of motives no matter how loudly you cheer when someone calls us faggots. We are supposed to ignore the presence of Neo-Nazis at anti-immigration rallies.
Because we all know that name calling is the most terrible thing in the world, if it involves acknowledging that people like Coulter and Bikerdad are in fact bigots. Somehow those upset by the namecalling can never seem to muster the same outrage when it's people like Coulter and Bikerdad calling people faggots and ragheads, tho. Odd coincidence, I'm sure.

That's an interesting way to excuse engaging in racist behavior. The only racism is intentional racism, Amlord? By that extremely liberal interpretation only by purposedly discriminating against someone by malice and forethought can there be racism? This isn't a "either/or" situation.

There are degrees of racism. Some of it accidential and unintended, but racially biased all the same. 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 may not be a raging bigot, but her absolute certainty that only a White doctor can treat her is racist just the same.

Most of us have been in a social or business situation where the life of the party of the guy in the office who always knows the best dirty jokes tells a "nigger joke" and there's a uncomfortable silence---especially if there's a few Black guests or employees within earshot. Mr. Funnyman doesn't mean any malicious harm. He's just trying to tell a joke that turns out to be highly offensive.

Unintentional racism exists, Amlord. You don't have to go out of your way to find it or to engage in it.



We allow "this type of thing to go on in this day and age" because of our inability to see things through our own limited range of racial vision. Whites see themselves made victims by the very same people whom they once victimized. Ever notice that its ONLY White people who say things like "Nobody has owned slaves in the country in over 140 years." Does that mean those 200 plus year that went before don't count?

The weakness in your statement lies within this sentence "If you look for racism, yeah, you're going to find it." The dilemma is a lot of White people aren't looking for it, don't know what it is when they see it and don't see much reason to do anything about it if they find it. Particularly so when it comes to looking within themselves. People can be remarkably incapable of recognizing their own physical flaws even when they're standing in front of a mirror. It is not a surprise they're equally blind when it comes to looking into their own soul.

I acknowledge that the vast majority of White Americans do not desire to have Black people waiting on them hand and foot or in shackles.

But that doesn't mean the vast majority of White Americans understand or acknowledge the incalculable invisible advantages of being White which still remains over the incalculable invisible disadvantages of being non-White.

In a 2003 Race Debate Wertz had a good quote from a 1995 book by Roger Wilkins that accurately encapsulates the point that while slavery is over, the effects of slavery are not. Wilkins said, "Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else."




My point Renger is not that the ad is racist. It is entirely subject to perception. Some people will find the ad depicting Black men submissively bowing down before a smart White executive. Yes, the power and strength of the well-conditioned Black athletes stands out in stark contrast to the slightly rumpled and schlubby looking White guy, but one doesn't need to be trained in body language to quickly grasp WHO is in the superior position here.

Let me give you another example. Here on MTV there is a popular program called "Cribs" where for a half-hour a few rock stars and rappers show off where they live. You'll see the video games, the indoor swimming pools, the kennels, the multiple bedrooms and bathrooms, the fleet of "whips" (cars), the stripper pole, the homeboys hanging out eating up the food and watching porn flicks on the huge plasma screens. Just about all the vulgar displays of wealth and consumption that you can stomach in one sitting.

What got to me was the rappers with the hot tub in the living room. All the money in the world can't buy taste and class.

But what I pay attention are two things: I never see rappers or rock stars with ANY computers or a library. The other thing is I don't care about their cribs. Show me the cribs of the record executives who write THEIR checks. There are more than a few Black rappers who are millionaires. Many of them are depending on White executives who are billionaires to pay them.

Either you own or you are owned. Particularly so on the comfortable plantation that is the modern day record company.

Different subject, but still related to the topic.




Your opinion absolutely matters, doomed planet. Feeling like a stranger in your own land or like a guest at a party where you're not really wanted is exactly how a lot of non-Whites feel all the time.

It seems to me that often Whites are made aware of their "Whiteness" when they feel isolated, threatened and frustrated. They fear they will be singled out by non-Whites for harsh treatment and labeled as racists if they dare utter a one word of complaint.

Welcome to the wonderful world of being singled out for something you have no control over, dp. I'm not saying it's right and it sure ain't fair, but the discomfort you're feeling? A lot of us have been feeling that exact same nagging feeling of