So, are the Democrats or the Republicans fundamentally racist?

Wertz??!?!?

Mike

What do you mean by "fundamentally"?

Racist at their core, hence "fundamentally".

Just for the record, though:



Mike

I had a feeling my posting to the Trent Lott thread might've caused a bit of a stir.

I'd like to take up each of the questions Mike raised there, but for the moment (until I have a bit more time), let me give the short answer to the new questrion posed here: YES. The Democrats and the Republicans are fundamentally racist. Or, at least, both parties are or have been fundamentally racist at various stages in their history. Southern Democrats were probably the most overtly racist and remained so through the early sixties. At about the same time, the Republican Party began more covertly adopting the racist agenda and courting the segregationist constituency - and still has the strong support of the crypto-racist lobby.

More later...

Bush "dynasty" is racist. Thats why Bush appointed Colin and Condi right?

--cheers

Bush couldn't be a racist. He doesn't have any ideas that don't related to Iraq or the Houston Texans. Didn't somewhere around 90% of blacks vote for Gore?

Mike: I'm not ignoring or avoiding this thread - really! It's just there were quite a few issues raised in the Trent Lott thread and I want to try to address them all at once - which means setting aside a reasonable block of time rather than working at the posting in bits and pieces. Plus, okay, I keep getting distracted by other threads. I will get to this, though!

Digital P: Are you familiar with the term "house nigger"? Because a man keeps black "help", doesn't mean he's not a racist. Indeed, it is often evidence of racism.

Bill,

Why can't anyone on the liberal side see how helpful it is to blacks and woman that George Bush has given substantive jobs to Rice and Powell? I mean, this "house nigger" stuff is just going the complete opposite direction of the joy that the black/female community should feel for having a seat "at the table." Do you really think that Rice and Powell are "yassir, yassir," types?

It always seems to get overlooked, but GWB was one of the most bi-partisan governors ever (in Texas). He had the support of both Tony Sanchez (Democrat gubanetorial wannabe and nobodys fool) and Bob Bullock (a giant in Texas politics and a Democrat). He was able to work with everyone. So, he appoints Rice and Powell and what do we get? Harry Belafonte and yourself slamming their dignity.

Mark

Mark: Ah, the bipartisan myth. Hello - this is America - we only have one party. It's got a vaguely corporatist Democratic wing and a fully corporatist Republican wing, both right of center. To imagine broad distinctions between these two wings - especially in Texas - is just plain silly.

Powell and Rice are black and Republican: they have no dignity. Judging by Rice's politics, she might just as well be a white male - and Powell is so ineffectual he might as well not exist. These are role model for anyone?

Fundamental racism defined

Well, I guess you are doing the thinking for all minorities. If they don't think in lock-step, then they are dim-witted or "house niggers." Is that it? You ought to take a job with the NY Times so you can censor everyone.

One party? What about party planks on:

Abortion
Legalizing gay marriages
Affirmative Action
National Security
The environment
etc.
etc.
etc.

Mark

Perhaps. I'm the first to admit that, like pretty much everyone else, I'm far from free of racism. What I meant, though, was that Condominium Rice's "constituency" is not African American - it is Corporate American. She has an oil tanker named after her, for God's sake. And she is hardly pursuing a feminist - or even "female" - agenda (I'm not entirely free from sexism either). Like her male counterparts in the administration, she's a greed-ridden war-monger. She's much more in the hawkish league of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, or Margaret Thatcher than the more humane league of Mary Robinson, Cory Aquino, or Benazir Bhutto.



No, that's not it. My reference to the "house" staff was a characterization of how Powell, in particular, is treated - not how he behaves. "Dim-witted" is your own characterization. There is nothing in anything I've posted to suggest that either is anything like dim-witted. Indeed, they are probably two of the brightest members of the administration. That doesn't mean they're shown any more respect. Now, why would you leap to a characterization like "dim-witted" in reference to blacks, one wonders?



Abortion: False issue. Roe vs. Wade is not going to be reversed. Differences between the "two" parties are irrelevant and cosmetic - except in wooing voters.

Legalizing gay marriages: False issue. It's not going to happen - especially not on a federal level. Differences between the "two" parties are irrelevant and cosmetic - except in wooing voters.

Affirmative Action: False issue. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not going to be repealed. The executive orders of JFK, LBJ, and Nixon's Department of Labor are not going to be overridden. Differences between the "two" parties are irrelevant and cosmetic - except in wooing voters.

National Security: We've seen how much dissent there's been from the Bush Doctrine in Congress. The Department of Homeland Security, for that matter, was originally a bipartisan recommendation under Clinton (from the Hart-Rudman Commission), which the Democratics had embraced and endorsed, the Republicans ignored, and Bush eventually co-opted after first rejecting it. No difference.

The environment: Okay - slight differences here. Both parties are in the pay of corporate interests which oppose any kind of environmental action which could affect industry. The Republicans are a bit better paid, therefore somewhat less hypocritical. The Democratic Party talks the talk and has taken a bit more initiative, but has hardly pushed through a rational agenda - mostly for propaganda purposes. (Bill Clinton waited for eight years to lower the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water, for example; when Bush, a few months later, attempted to reverse the eleventh-hour decision, the Demos acted like he was trying to rape a nun on the White House lawn.) Nevertheless, this is one of the few real issues which places the Democrats marginally closer to the center of our single right wing political system.

Etc., etc., etc.: Which would be what, what, and what? Probably irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant.

Obviously, there are superficial differences between the two parties regarding certain social issues - though none that are going to significantly affect the role of big business in our government, a GNP which goes primarily to support our defense budget, our economic system, our widespread social inequality, our status as a national security state, or our empire-building. There are clearly major distinctions between liberals and conservatives - but there are very, very few true liberals in the Democratic Party - and virtually none among the Republicans.

Bill,

When you say that abortion and affirmative action are false issues, does that mean that you are no longer concerned about who GWB might appoint to the Supreme Court? Why is it that the Dem's seem to fight GWB appointees so vigorously? Character assassination is a tool used quite frequently and Daschle's tactics of not even allowing appointee's to come up for a vote in the Senate would seem to provide evidence as to the relevance of these issues.

Legalizing gay marriages - I really believe that this will happen some day as there is no legal reason in my mind to prohibit this and as you know, any prohibition on religious grounds should be unconstitutional. Do you think it is just a matter of courage in our elected officials to admit that there is no legal basis for the prohibition?

National Security - I think the Democratic Party is very much against the preemptive strike doctrine and that all they need is someone with the guts to stand-up and say it is wrong to attack a sovereign nation without evidence (and evidence that is made public) that our security is at risk. To me, there is a very real difference in the parties, but the political courage factor blurs the distinction.

Environment - I am gratified to see your opinion concerning the arsenic issue. But what about ANWR? What about federally mandated gas mileage requirements for SUV's? What about the thinning of our forests issue to mitigate wild-fires?

Etc., etc, etc is just laziness on my part. I do understand that the Democratic Party is very beholden to corporate interests (again, I commend you calling a spade a spade), but it is clear to me that the Republicans are more responsive to corporate America than the Dem's. What about the funding of the SEC? Bush has back-peddled on this (much to my chagrin). Don't you think that the Democrats wish to substantially beef up the enforcement arm?

Dim-witted - I do not think that blacks are dim-witted. My leap is that somehow you chose to denigrate Rice and Powell and the "house-nigger" image that many wish to impute to them is a way of disparaging their mental capabilities. I just think that if they are as bright as they seem, that the term "house-nigger" would be unbelievably false.

Mark

Bill,

....and another thing! It would require that we all know the true story in terms of the threat that Iraq poses for us to conclude that Ms. Rice is a war mongerer. The term WM supposes that Ms. Rice is corrupt and evil in the sense that she would sacrifice American lives for (fill in the blank here). Has this been proven? Surely the information available to her is closer to the truth than what you and I may know.

Mark

Colin and Condi are not Bush's servants. sheesh... Colin is "4th in command" if you will......

And whats wrong with Condi and supporting Oil? Oil benefits EVERYONE, feminism benefits ONLY WOMEN. So she doesn't cater to special interest groups, and fights for the greater good of EVERYONE EQUALLY. I applaud her for that.

And maybe she doesn't feel that the great white oppressor is holding her down (like Sharpton and Jackson would have you believe) Maybe, because of this, she was able to focus on her career and her OWN life, which is how she became so successfull. Maybe she is proof that when you stop blaming others for your own problems, you can get further in life.

Oh, and AA is not the same thing as Civil Rights act of 1960's. AA is not a non-issue.

--cheers

This may stray off topic, but dont you think that classism is more prevelant than racism?

And (I dont know much about Rice or Powell' backgrounds, but since they are in DC, Im going to assume they have some money) since both Rice and Powell have some influence, power and cash, that is why Bush can over look their pesky skin tones? It shows him as being not racist, but still allows him to oppress a minority.

Also, wasn't Powell involved in a cover-up during Vietnam? (Just to satisfy my curiosity)

Mike: In addressing the “statements which warrant clarification”, there are several things which must first be understood. Indeed, I may not get much beyond the preface in this posting...

“Proof” is difficult to come by when confronting impulses which are often almost subconscious and agendas which are necessarily hidden. That said, I believe there is a certain amount of evidence to support all of my “speculation”. Some of it is documented research which can be cited, some of it is anecdotal research, some of it is based on forty-odd years’ worth of observation and peripheral study (and sources can only be referenced if memory serves), and some of it is pure opinion. In addressing each statement, I will refer to sources where I can and attempt to avoid that which is “pure” speculation.

Some of the points I make could probably be further researched, but the statements in question raise about thirty-seven different interlocking issues and I could spend the next several weeks researching a more learned dissertation. As I would prefer not to let the thread languish and don’t really have the time to devote to the necessary footnoting, I’d like to keep this more “conversational”. I am, therefore, open to correction and am willing to research any points which may be found particularly lacking in credibility. The most I can guarantee is that I will not knowingly make anything up or distort any facts as I know them.

It will be difficult to make my case unless a number of observations are more or less agreed. First, we are all racist to a certain extent – some, obviously, more than others. Even those of us who feel we make no distinctions between people on the basis of race or have risen above racist tendencies or judge people purely as individuals may be subject to a lifetime of unspoken or even unrecognized prejudice. We are certainly surrounded by it every day of our lives and it is much more insidious than I think many of us – especially the more socially “liberal” - may imagine.

Some of my black friends have mentioned a number of examples of the unconscious racism in which many whites participate: making sure car doors are locked when driving through black neighborhoods (even identifying a neighborhood as “black”); when waiting in line at a checkout counter or a bank, surreptitiously making sure that handbags are closed or wallets still secure in pockets when a black joins the queue behind us; entering a waiting room or lobby in which the only empty seat is between two black youths and standing until another seat is vacated; lowering our voices ever-so-slightly when mentioning in conversation that someone we’re describing is black.

Some of us are aware of such ingrained racism and attempt to overcome or even overcompensate for it. This does not, by any means, make us color-blind – indeed, it may make us overly aware of racial distinctions in our efforts to "rise above" them.

For others of us, our racism is more overt: frowning on mixed marriages; genuinely believing that some races excel in some areas but not others (whites or asians are intellectually superior, blacks or hispanics are physically superior); imagining that blacks are worse off in this country through their own fault; believing that blacks are more prone to violent crime. Still others are "white and proud" and actually participate in white supremacist organizations and activities.

More to come...

It must also be understood that racism is fostered in our criminal justice system and fed by the media. An article in the Orlando Sentinel last year cited a study in Florida which indicated that black men are five times more likely to be stopped by the highway patrol in “random” traffic checks than white men. I’ve come across several sources which demonstrate that black suspects are more likely to be arrested than white suspects, that blacks are more likely to be charged – and with more serious crimes, that blacks are more likely to be denied bail, that blacks are more likely to be found guilty by judges and juries, that blacks are more likely to receive maximum sentences (and less likely to have sentences suspended), that blacks are less likely to be paroled. Racial profiling is endemic to our justice system at all levels.

Two examples from Manning Marable’s Racism, Prisons, and the Future of Black America: the US Commission on Civil Rights found that while African Americans today constitute only 14% of all drug users nationally, they are 35% of all drug arrests, 55% of all drug convictions, and 75% of all prison admissions for drug offenses; according to a Justice Department study, while blacks under eighteen comprise 15% of their age group nationwide, they represent 26% of all those who are arrested - 44% of those detained in juvenile jails, 46% of all those tried in adult criminal courts, and 58% of all juveniles who are incarcerated in adult prisons - black first-time offenders are nine times more likely to be sentenced to juvenile prison than white and, for drug offenses, forty-eight times more likely to be sentenced to juvenile prison than whites.

And following on that point, the “liberal media” feeds and popularizes institutional racism. According to Mikal Muharrar in Media Blackface, racial profiling is hardly confined to law enforcement:

Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), a high-profile group of doctors composed, in part, of high-ranking health officials from the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, released an exhaustively documented study on drug use in 1998. According to a PLNDP announcement, "The research we are releasing today shows, conclusively, that drug addiction is very treatable and that it reaches across all strata of society, with affluent, educated Caucasians being the most likely drug users, and the most likely to be addicted." News reporting, on the other hand, not only portrays drug abuse as being more readily solved by the punitive approach of the "War on Drugs", but also as being an overwhelmingly "black issue". None of the major newspapers, weekly news magazines, or network news reports, by the way, covered the results of this study.

In a monograph on Moral Literacy, Frank Gilliam details how the media – and local television news in particular – over-represents blacks as perpetrators of violent crime, under-represents them as victims of violent crime, and reinforces negative racial stereotypes in myriad subtle ways. Black suspects, for example, are regularly shown shackled, in the custody of law enforcement personnel, and without identification, while white defendants are more frequently identified by name and shown in street-clothes accompanied by their lawyers; crimes involving black suspects are far more likely to make the news than crimes committed by white suspects (and those stories which do feature white suspects tend to be much shorter); and blacks are also far more likely to be depicted as criminals than as judges, lawyers, or law enforcement agents – not only on the news, but in crime drama as well (and neither depiction has any basis in statistical fact).

Gilliam's overriding conclusion is that, in news coverage, crime is seen as increasingly violent (homicide coverage by network news increased by 473% from 1990 to 1998, while homicides actually decreased by 32.9% during the same time period) – and, contrary to criminal statistics, the majority of violent crime is shown as being committed by blacks. A list of references documenting such media racism can he found here.

Such coverage contributes to the general underlying racism of the white population and reinforces the negative stereotypes already harbored by overtly racist extremists. (The extent to which racial profiling in news coverage impacts the public at large is also covered in Gilliam's monograph, should anyone be interested.)

Gilliam's monograph is supported by a massive study conducted by Building Blocks for Youth entitled OFF BALANCE: Youth, Race & Crime in the News. This study analyzed 110 articles relevant to the issues of youth, crime and race from 1910 to 2001 all of which were subject to peer review. Their findings produced the following conclusions:
1. The news media report crime, especially violent crime, out of proportion to its actual occurrence.
2. The news media report crime as a series of individual events without adequate attention to its overall context.
3. The news media, particularly television news, unduly connect race and crime, especially violent crime.

More to come...

As we are seen to have progressed considerably since the height of the civil rights movement, why are such prejudices still so prevalent in our media – and either acceptable to or unnoticed by the population at large? Marable describes the black civil rights movement of the sixties as being “successful largely because it convinced a majority of white middle class Americans that Jim Crow was economically inefficient, and that politically it could not be sustained or justified. The movement utilized the power of creative disruption, making it impossible for the old system of white prejudice and power to function in the same old ways it had for decades.”

That majority of "convinced" white middle class citizens was far from overwhelming and, even with many of them, it was not a matter of changing hearts and minds. Racism eventually became less overt, less often publicly endorsed, justified, or even debated. But that does not mean that it just went away – that we suddenly underwent a major societal evolution in a matter of a decade or so.

A “common sense” barometer: ethnic jokes remain widespread – the teller is just more cautious about the company in which such jokes are repeated; All in the Family is as popular as ever – not because we've come so far as a society since the early seventies, but because Archie Bunker is as recognizable now as he was then.

A statistical barometer: In 1997, 65.9% of FBI documented hate crimes were perpetrated by white offenders, 16.7% by black offenders; on the other hand, blacks were seventeen times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites.

Extremists at either end of the spectrum are a minority – but such minorities are essential in a country where relatively moderate voters make up more than two-thirds of the population. Republicans need the support of the 10-15% right-wing (racist) extremists just as Democrats need the 10-15% of left-wing (generally much less racist) extremists. This is why, for example, Pat Buchanan was damaging to the RNC and Ralph Nader was damaging to the DNC.

Racism is alive and well – and our public figures know it. Some desire to confront and remedy the issue, others desire merely to exploit it for political gain.

I'll be back to address the specifics of racism in religious fundamentalism, the NRA, the modern Republican Party, and the Bush dynasty as soon as possible. For now, these introductory observations have worn me out - at least on this topic.

Who are the REAL racists? Well let us see. . .

Perhaps the "Congressional Black Caucus" which works for people of "African descent." Imagine the outrage of the Kumbaya We are the World crowd if there was a "Congressional White Caucus" headed by Strom Thurmond which worked to promote the interests of European Americans.

FadeTheButcher,

Unfortunately, Fade, I think that I know the liberal response all too well on this one. The point is that Strom Thurmond and his ilk HAVE been promoting the white agenda and given the theory of for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction, I would suppose that the CBC and the NAACP are reactions to past oppression. Clearly, the "white caucus" is on the defensive, what with their leader (the intellectually challenged Trent Lott) having stuck his foot all the way down his esophagus. I think that the black special interest groups will eventually marginalize themselves due to their extreme rhetoric (see Harry Belafonte, Julian Bond, etc.) as middle America is slowly but surely embracing a color-blind society.

Trent Lott is but another brick FALLING off the wall of discrimination. I believe that once the old guard dies off (and they are getting their - Helms, Thurmond, Lott - who will resign in my opinion etc.), the leadership of the Republican Party will be able to attract more blacks (and woman and Hispanics) to the fold.

I had a conversation with a Hispanic man in Laredo last year. He told me that he wanted to be a Republican, but that the race issue hadn't sorted itself out as of yet. He was Catholic (hence pro-life) and was a very successful entrepreneur (so he understood getting the government off of his back). It's just that he see's too many Trent Lott's with their hand on the till. I personally believe that the Republican Party leadership would be shocked at the numbers of minorities that would vote for them if they would get their head out of their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** when it comes to race issues.

The biggest problem in this regard (IMO), is the question of the constitutionality of Affirmative Action. Regardless of the merits of the system, many conservatives truly (and intellectually) believe this is discriminatory and should not be in place. Because of the highly emotional nature of this argument, the Republican Party will be at odds with minorities unless they decide to leave AA alone (and thus, swallow their Constitutional concerns). The Constitution or Inclusion? Can you have both? Highly ironic question considering that the Constitution is here to protect each and every one of us. Yet, that is the point, is it not? For if each and every one of us is not to be discriminated against, then in theory, Affirmative Action must go. What Republican has the courage to argue this?

Mark

I completely agree with Mark. What is sad is the fact that if anyone does question the constitutionality of Affirmitive action then they are branded as a racist and ostracized and pretty much are dead politically. The press has brought up the fact that Trent Lott voted against a holiday for M.L.K Jr., I guess to show how racist he is. Could it be possible that he was against it because of the millions of dollars it costs the federal gov't for a nat'l holiday? I am not saying that is why he voted against it. I don't purport to know whether he is racist or not, especially not from those words he said about Thurmond. It is just sad that often if you simply disagree with a plan or idea that happens to be supported by the "Black Caucus" or the NAACP and the like, you are often in danger of being called a racist, even though that may be the farthest thing from the truth. I also think it was kind of ironic that Trent Lott was talking about how awful segregation is on Black Entertainment Television. Did anyone else see the irony in that? I personally think he should go because he is not a very effective leader, and whether or not he is a racist I don't know, but either way I think he needs to go.

I think this post may belong better on the Trent Lott thread, oh well.

Stotty, I think your post is ok here because Trent Lott IS fundamentally racist.

It isn't just his vote against a MLK holiday or against AA, or his defence of a policy against mixed race dating, or even his recent remarks. It the SUM TOTAL of these incidents.

MT

That may be true, but I personally do not know enough about him to make that judgement, and I did not feel it was correct to call him a racist based solely on his recent remarks.

As I said, I don't believe it was solely on his recent remarks, he has left a trail. I say good riddence!

From the Chicago Tribune today:

Among Hispanics who earn more than $50,000 per year, 58 percent said they would pay higher taxes if the money would support a bigger government that provides more services. Because support for lower taxes and smaller government is a linchpin of the Republican political agenda, that political attitude could hinder GOP efforts to reach out to the growing Hispanic population.

>>>Unfortunately, Fade, I think that I know the liberal response all too well on this one.

There is no liberal response to this one. It is flat out hypocrisy.

>>>The point is that Strom Thurmond and his ilk HAVE been promoting the white agenda

Since when have Strom Thurmond and his ilk been promoting the “white agenda” in the last several decades? “Segregation” ended decades ago, at least on paper, before I even existed in this world or any of the contemporaries of my generation. There is no such thing as any “white agenda.” What is called the “white agenda” today is promoting the racism of minority empowerment groups and denigrating any form of white resistance.

>>>and given the theory of for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction

If there is an equal and opposite reaction to “segregation” and “slavery” would that not necessarily entail the enslavement of white Americans?

>>>I would suppose that the CBC and the NAACP are reactions to past oppression.

There is no “past oppression.” If anything, it is white Americans who have been systematically discriminated against by their government for thirty something years now. No black born in 1979, the year I was born, ever lived under any segregation. This is Cultural Marxism. In other words, you have simply exchanged “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” for “white” and “black.” The “oppression” is eliminated by the proletariat, nonwhites, annihilating the bourgeoisie, white Americans. In essence, the end result is the complete eradication and annihilation of white America. The NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus are racist black empowerment organizations which advocate preferences to blacks at the sole expense of others. This is the same NAACP which in Brown vs. Board laughably said it believed in a “color blind” constitution. Thus this NAACP is hypocritical and full of liars. The only people who believe in this tart ferry are white Americans and other assorted utopians. The only result is ruin.

>>>Clearly, the "white caucus"

There is no “White Caucus.” There may be white members of Congress but they do not for damn sure advocate policies that are remotely anything like those of the “Congressional Black Caucus” and the “Congressional Hispanic Caucus” and the “Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.” The only thing the so called “White Caucus” advocates is Affirmative Action, the deracination of White America, the empowerment of minorities, and massive Third World immigration designed specifically to dispossess white Americans and their culture in the United States.


>>> is on the defensive, what with their leader (the intellectually challenged Trent Lott)

Trent Lott is not the leader of any “White Caucus.” If Trent Lott was the leader of a “White Caucus” he would have refused to appear on something that calls itself “Black Entertainment Television” to apologize to the “Congressional Black Caucus” by offering them racial entitlements at the expense of White Americans, those who he laughably is somehow supposed to be supporting.

>>>having stuck his foot all the way down his esophagus.

Trent Lott’s sole mistake is not pointing out the sheer irony of an organization which calls itself the “Congressional Black Caucus” which maintains a racist and segregated caucus in the United States Congress in the year 2002 coming out and hypocritically attacking the segregation that they themselves endorse. Segregation it would appear is fine, if not policy, for everyone but White Americans. Where is the “Congressional Black Caucus” on something called “Black History Month” or something called “Black Entertainment Television? Perhaps the “Congressional Black Caucus” should advocate de-segregating our “Historically Black Colleges” or even better de-segregating themselves before holding others accountable to a double standard they hypocritically endorse - yet attack.

>>>I think that the black special interest groups

There you go right there. It is FINE, completely and totally FINE for racist and segregated black organizations to come out and openly work for and advocate racially discriminatory policies against Americans of other races. This is mainstream! The only thing we ever talk about is “burning crosses” and the KKK which is mostly composed of what, about 1,000 blue collar gas station attendants scattered throughout the country with absolutely no influence whatsoever on policy. What about Elijah Cummings, the new leader of the organization which calls itself the “Congressional Black Caucus” funded by millions of dollars, a former member of the Black Panthers, a militant anti-white hate group which carried out massive terrorism and acts of murder throughout the United States in the 1960s and 1970s?

>>>>will eventually marginalize themselves due to their extreme rhetoric

Where is your evidence of this? If anything, Blacks are becoming more RADICAL than ever in their policies. Now the head of the NAACP comes out and talks about attacking Confederate graveyards, and memorials, museums, and making white Americans, whatever their historical background, pay Reparations for Slavery. Who is going to stand up to these people? The GOP? Trent Lott? The so called “Congressional White Caucus,” an imaginary organization which does not exist?







>>>(see Harry Belafonte, Julian Bond, etc.) as middle America is slowly but surely embracing a color-blind society.

Middle America is not slowly but surely embracing any color-blind society. There is no such thing as any “color-blind” society. There certainly is not any color blind society in the minds of the “Congressional Black Caucus” or the NAACP hate group which viciously attacks all aspects of Southern Culture and heritage. Oh and btw if that is not enough in the 1990s we got the “Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus” and the “Congressional Hispanic Caucus” and all its derivatives such as MALDEF and the hate group MEChA which advocates carving out Aztlan out of the American Southwest. You say you “think” these groups will eventually “marginalize” themselves because some Tartuffe called “Middle America” is buying into some “color blind” society. The truth is that your Middle America is becoming more conservative by the year, as they are in Florida right now and the South especially, as they are overrun by millions of Third World immigrants with foreign cultures who absolutely refuse to assimilate and hate groups which advocate racism against white Americans - such as the NAACP. America is not becoming a more “color blind” society. It is becoming just the opposite - a more color “consciousness” society. Hopefully more white Americas in the next 25 years, as America becomes a Third World immoderate utopia like Zimbabwe or South Africa, will realize the asisinity and stupidity of liberals who want to annihilate their civilization attempting to create a utopia.


>>>Trent Lott is but another brick FALLING off the wall of discrimination.

Trent Lott does not believe in any discrimination other than discrimination against White Americans to save his own career. If Trent Lott was against discrimination, and segregation, he would not have bent over backwards to appease something that calls itself the “Congressional Black Caucus” on “Black Entertainment Television.”

The whole affair over Trent Lott is written with the future of the United States. It is not economics, but race, which will be the DEFINING issue of the 21st Century. There is only ONE question for America in the next fifty years and it is not terrorism because terrorism is just a corollary of it. The question is whether or not white Americans will voluntarily embrace their own electoral dispossession as America becomes a Third World society like South Africa and Zimbabwe which in the past twenty years have FAILED.





>>>I believe that once the old guard dies off (and they are getting their - Helms, Thurmond, Lott - who will resign in my opinion etc.), the leadership of the Republican Party will be able to attract more blacks (and woman and Hispanics) to the fold.

I tend to believe just the opposite. What do I see? I see nonwhites MOBOLIZING for their eventual victory sometime around mid-century. They are becoming increasingly radical in their demands. Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms have not advocated anything beneficial to white America in fifty or so years.

Your Republican Party is nothing but a JOKE. The Republican Party would have been called the lunatic left fifty years ago and given the rate this country has changed in just the last few decades, and how radical these minority organizations have gotten, that is the writing on the WALL for the America of 2050 when they become a majority.

>>>I had a conversation with a Hispanic man in Laredo last year.

There is no such thing as “Hispanic.” That is an artificial category used to designate just about anyone who comes from Latin America. There are all sorts of differences between Negro Cubans and the Cubans who came here after Castro took power and there are multiple differences between Mexicans, Spaniards, and Guatemalans.

>>>He told me that he wanted to be a Republican, but that the race issue hadn't sorted itself out as of yet.

We can see where Hispanics vote in California quite clearly, and how they voted in Texas in the last election too.

>>>He was Catholic (hence pro-life) and was a very successful entrepreneur (so he understood getting the government off of his back). It's just that he see's too many Trent Lott's with their hand on the till.

What is the illegitimacy rate amongst Hispanics? What party do they vote for, that is even if they bother to vote, 2 to 1 across the board? Many of the Cubans in Florida are not mestizos in the least like Mexicans or El Salvadorans.

>>>I personally believe that the Republican Party leadership would be shocked at the numbers of minorities that would vote for them if they would get their head out of their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** when it comes to race issues.

In other words, you think the Republican Party leadership would be shocked if they did not roll over and capitulate to the demands of radical minorities as they have over the past few years under the leadership of President Karl Rove. Perhaps the Republican Party would have won in Arkansas and Louisiana if they were not to busy appeasing all the radicals who always vote against them instead of advocating policies for the people who actually vote for them. The truth is that there is a change sweeping across many areas of the country that is not felt in other parts just yet. In South Carolina and Georgia, white Southern voters lynched King Roy Barnes and the radical democrats who had been appeasing the NAACP hate group over the past several years. In Alabama, the Republicans BARELY beat Siegelman, and that must be embarrassing, given how poorly he has done his job. The truth is that many hardcore Southern voters simply are not stupid enough to pay any attention to the GOP anymore and come out like they used to, especially after Bush’s unbelievable attempt to legalize millions of illegal aliens and jump in the attack with the New York City plutocrat crowd in lynching the South yet again. Hopefully the Grand Old Plutocrats will continue to be DEFEATED across the South. I will work my hardest to ensure that Karl Rove goes down in ‘04. Perhaps he can come to the South and motivate us by announcing his support of Affirmative Action, Illegal Immigration, and attacking Southern Culture with the NAACP. At least the Democrats can honestly say they work for our destruction, rather than lying to us and pandering like Dubya.

>>>The biggest problem in this regard (IMO), is the question of the constitutionality of Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is the belief that minorities should get jobs based on their skin color. It is flat out illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Humphery even said he would EAT the bill itself if it was ever used for preferences. But again what does all this matter when some judge can look at a piece of paper and announce it means the exact opposite of its intent? Who do we have to thank for Affirmative Action btw? Oh yes, Richard Nixon and the GOP. Why again does Dubya not simply issue an executive order banning it? Perhaps because he has no intention of ever doing so.

>>>Regardless of the merits of the system, many conservatives truly (and intellectually) believe this is discriminatory and should not be in place.

Many Conservatives, like George W. Bush, have no problem whatsoever with Affirmative Action. After all George W. Bush is an Affirmative Action graduate based on his legacy admission. Continuing Affirmative Action, just like the other non-issue of Abortion perpetually, keeps the idiots coming out to vote against the Democrats! We can thank the KONservatives for Affirmative Action in the first place? Why the hell would they want to do away with it?

>>>Because of the highly emotional nature of this argument

I cannot think of any majority in any country in history that has actually enacted legalized discrimination against itself, rare, given that it is very rare that such minorities in history have ever been given so called “equal rights” or much less “special rights.”



>>> the Republican Party will be at odds with minorities unless they decide to leave AA alone

In other words, the Republican Party is at odd with racist hate groups that want to enact legalized racial discrimination against other racial groups based on their skin color. To avoid this opposition, the Republican Party should give in. Thus, why in god’s name should anyone who is on the receiving end of such policies, ever vote for the Republican Party when it is in their interests not to do so?

>>>(and thus, swallow their Constitutional concerns). The Constitution or Inclusion?

ROFL some Constitution. We stopped paying attention to that document years ago.

>>>Can you have both?

Affirmative Action is not any INCLUSION for it EXCLUDES people on their skin color.

>>>Highly ironic question considering that the Constitution is here to protect each and every one of us.

I assume you are referring to the 14th Amendment here. ROFLMFAO oh yes and btw just how was that one passed again? Constitutionally, at gunpoint! The 14th Amendment was passed for the specific purpose of setting up a dictatorship in the United States - but you knew that right?

>>>Yet, that is the point, is it not? For if each and every one of us is not to be discriminated against, then in theory, Affirmative Action must go. What Republican has the courage to argue this?

ROFL courage and the Republican Party - the party of pandering to foreigners and special interest groups.

Fade,

Whoa! That was a hell of a response. I am at work and will be traveling soon, so I cannot respond very thoroughly to your post. One question, who did you vote for in 2000? It appears that you are disgusted with the Republican Party's timid responses to AA and other race issues. How long have you felt this way? Is there a party or individual at this point who carries your flag?

Mark

I think it appears Fade is more than mad at the republicans, Mark. He seems to have a seething animosity for anyone who will not assimilate to "white" America (whatever that really means )

I still don't get this white culture preservation idea. What is it you're trying to save, Fade and/or what is it the Republicans are failing to save? I get the idea you are white and so am I. However, I doubt your ideas speak for me. Just as the ideas of the NAACP and the CBC speak for only a percentage of black Americans, who in those instances, tend to be liberal. Maybe you're more mad at the media because they give more coverage to left-leaning minority groups rather than the right?

I'd rather be an advocate of the positive and work to better myself and groups about which I care than spend time hating and trying to bring down groups that aren't like mine.

I tried to stay on topic best I could, but I would like to remind everyone of the original question:

In the year 2002, I am immensely proud of the fact that in the year 2000 I went out to vote AGAINST George W. Bush and voted instead FOR Pat Buchanan. This great soul is one of the finest men America has ever produced since Alexander Hamilton who was responsible for the creation of the Union. In another era he would have been one of our greatest presidents but in these days of plutocracy great men simply are not destined to be Presidents anymore. Such a shame too few people have actually gotten to read the man's books and read his articles on a weekly basis. He is a fountain of wisdom. The last 3 years should have been, you would think, the complete vindication of Buchanan's campaign.

A. Buchanan said that Dubya was soft on immigration, that he would work to legalize millions of illegal aliens at the expense of Conservative voters. This, has come to pass.

B. Buchanan said that Dubya would not do anything about race based preferences, but would continue to pander to all those but those who do not vote for him. This, has come to pass.

C. Buchanan in the year 2000 said that that massive immigration and our foreign policy were bad for America and would eventually lead to a disaster. This, has come to pass with John Lee Malvo's running around shooting dozens of people and al-Queda destroying the World Trade Center.

Buchanan is not running again in '04, which is sad, given how much he has been completely vindicated in the last 3 years as the GOP went out and did everything it said it would not do that Buchanan said it would do.

Personally, I hate the Republican Party with a passion that is almost indescribable. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Both, as Buchanan has pointed out over and over again, will lead to the RUIN of the United States.

As I said before there is only ONE issue in the 21st Century, of which, all other issues are corollaries. That issue is the issue of race. It will DEFINE American politics in the future as the population undergoes the most massive demographic change in the entire history of world civilization.

The terrorism issue is tied to the issue of immigration. After all, the 9/11 terrorists were immigrants. These immigrants are coming from a specific part of the world, and in a more rational period of American history, immigration from this volatile area would have been immediantly shut off. Unfortunately, it has not been the case. This is because anyone would DARED to challenge immigration from the Middle East would have been hit by an alliance of special interest lobbies and accused of the magic word which silences all debate - racism. All it takes is for someone on one side of the debate to utter racism to end all argument. The result - more John Lee Malvos and 9/11s, more millions of aliens streaming across our border busting state budgets in Texas and California, ruining the economy.

What has happened to Trent Lott is just the latest example of how race is the defining issue of American politics. Another example would be the assortment of racially based special interest groups and how racist minorities vote in elections depending upon how they or how they are not appeased with entitlements. It all ultimately comes back to race and whether or not anyone has the moral courage to support any policy that can remotely be construed as "racist."

The current war on Iraq is also tied to race, specifically the immense power of the Jewish Lobby, which works for a specific ethnic group, in the United States and its ability to influence policy. Big Oil really does not want any war. It does not want to depress prices much less risk its billions of investment in the area. No one seriously believes Iraq is an terrorist threat to the United States. The War on Iraq should realistically be called Israel's War on Iraq via America and America's wallet.

America's domestic and foreign policy is simply a reflection of its domestic population, the size of their special interest lobbies, and their ability to influence policy. It is a competition for power and nothing else. Accusations of racism is nothing more than philosophical poison, it has nothing to do with being offended in anyway whatsoever. The intent is simply to disarm the enemy for one group or organization can increase its power over another - usually financially.

The "Congressional Black Caucus" are Rattlesnakes. Their victims are the white population at large. There should be no negotiation with those out to destroy you.

Finally I personally do not believe in "democracy" or "parties" for no "party" and no "democracy" is going to solve any of America's problems. America is simply another South Africa in the making, and today South Africa is an immiserated impoverished Third World society - the rape, AIDS, and Murder capital of the world. Some people want that here and some people believe their utopia is going to succeed. Personally, I don't.

>>>I think it appears Fade is more than mad at the republicans, Mark.

I consider myself to be the complete and total enemy of the Republican Party.

>>>He seems to have a seething animosity for anyone who will not assimilate to "white" America (whatever that really means )

Theodore Roosevelt once said that there was one sure way above all others to ruin the United States, to permit it to become an entanglement of hypenated Americans and warring nationalities. Obviously some people have taken him seriously for that is the precise situation we are in today. You say I talk about "White America." This is true. White Americans are Americans like any others but they are not treated as such. No population in America accepts the sort of double standards that White Americans put up with on an everyday basis. This is because there is no "Congressional White Caucus" to counteract the vitrol and poison unleashed by race pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who make their living off of racism.

>>>I still don't get this white culture preservation idea.

It is very simple. There is no longer any "American" culture anymore. That came to pass decades ago. In its places, there is something called "multiculturalism." Let me explain to you precisely what "multiculturalism" really means. Multiculturalism is a transition phase between Western Civilization in the United States, between European America and its way of life, and its replacement. Why should "white culture" be preserved? Very simple. Because it is MY culture and I am an American like any other.

>>>What is it you're trying to save, Fade and/or what is it the Republicans are failing to save?

The Republican Party is an accomplice to turning America into a Third World country. What am I trying to save? Why that is very simple. My culture and my way of life. I do not like being surrounded by millions of complete and total foreigners, who are told and encouraged to celebrate their foreign way of life, who are told to move into my area and make me feel like a total stranger. You see that is not the kind of country, the kind of society, that I want to live in. I do not want to have to learn Spanish or Chinese to communicate with my neighbors.

>>>I get the idea you are white and so am I.[b]

Yes I am white.

[]i[b]>>>However, I doubt your ideas speak for me.[/i]

I doubt they do.

>>>Just as the ideas of the NAACP and the CBC speak for only a percentage of black Americans

The NAACP and CBC speak for MAINSTREAM Black America. The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are also in perpetual opposition to White America. They seek entitlements. They attack Southern Culture. They believe in special rights, not equal rights, discrimination, not equality.

>>>who in those instances, tend to be liberal.

Liberal and Black American is synonymous. There is only one black Republican in both houses of Congress and he is on the way out the door.

>>>Maybe you're more mad at the media because they give more coverage to left-leaning minority groups rather than the right?

I am not a materialist so personally I do not believe in the asisine dichotomy of some "left" and some "right."

>>>I'd rather be an advocate of the positive

Define Positive. I would say there is no such thing as "positive" without "perspective." From the "perspective" of black America, Reperations for Slavery might be a "positive thing." Perhaps from the "perspective" of black America racially based discrimination against white America is a "positive thing" as well. Of course, from the perspective of the victim, this is in many cases a "negative thing."

>>>and work to better myself and groups about which I care than spend time hating and trying to bring down groups that aren't like mine.

My group is white America and my group is under attack by hate organizations that call themselves "civil rights" groups who indulge in hypocrisy on an every day basis. This angers me and I see no reason whatsoever, and perhaps you can give me one, why I should work for the interests of a population that is obviously oppossed to my own.

[]i>>>I tried to stay on topic best I could, but I would like to remind everyone of the original question[/i]

We are talking about the "fundamental racism" in society. I have come to this website to talk about the "fundamental racism" in American society. That racism is the institutionalized racism of organizations such as the "Congressional Black Caucus" against other Americans.

I was born in the year 1979. This was as I pointed out before well after segregation ended in the United States - de jure. Segregation still exists in America however - de facto - as pretty much any sociologist will tell you. It always has, it exists now, and it always will. Only materialists believe that segregation is abolished by writing words on a piece of paper and calling it "law." That is ridiculous. Seperate but Equal is the very same standard we live under today. It is reflected in racially gerrymandered Congressional districts, the plethora of ethnic lobbies which continue to exist despite the so called phenomena of integration, the phenomena of "multiculturalism" and "diversity", public policy such as affirmative action, and most blaringly in the US Congress itself.

I can sympathize with a lot of what you said. And yes, I do read Pat's articles from time to time. I used to read his articles weekly...just don't get around to it these days....

I especially liked the series he did "Death of Western Civilization" I haven't made up my mind yet, if I believe it. But it was good nonetheless.

I do agree that by hypenating all the different types of Americans, we are separating and segragating ourselves...only it's a little more PC. We are ALL Americans. Born here or immigrated.

I also agree that each of the races are treated very differently. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton exist in peace (the opposition hides in the shadows), yet when Trent Lott says something that could be interpreted as racism, he is unabatedly bashed, and on the brink of resignation.

NAACP can exist just fine, but lord forgive us should we have an NAAWP (w=white)

Equal treatment of the races is what we're after. Thats all.

I do disagree with you however, when you said it was the repubs who are backing AA. Repubs are the party of big business. Hiring based on skin color is bad business...hiring based on qualifications REGARDLESS of skin color is perfect. I think they back it, just because they look racist if they don't. It's the dems that are fully behind it. Who in their right mind would actually speak out against AA publically? Talk about political suicide.

--cheers

>>>I can sympathize with a lot of what you said. And yes, I do read Pat's articles from time to time. I used to read his articles weekly...just don't get around to it these days....

Pat Buchanan is one of the greatest minds America has ever produced. The man should have been President. In another time, perhaps he would have been but we live today in a different era. I will post an article on the controversy surrounding Trent Lott, who I personally do not like but feel sorry for, in a minute.

>>>I especially liked the series he did "Death of Western Civilization" I haven't made up my mind yet, if I believe it. But it was good nonetheless.

Buchanan's book "Death of the West" is great. Genius always looks to the future - that is its nature. Buchanan is right on the money on this one and every year that goes by we are seeing just how far he hit it home one this one. Examples.

9/11 was a result of the immigration fiasco, a huge terrorist event which Buchanan predicted in his book "A Republic, not an Empire."

The Beltway Sniper was in part a result of the INS screwing up once again.

The HUGE and ominous state budget deficit in California is a result of the same loss of manafacturing jobs caused by globalization and the demographic replacement Buchanan warned about years ago.

Buchanan was right about Bush on how the Republicans would pander all over themselves on immigration and that immigration and race would become the defining issues in American politics.

Buchanan was right about the Republicans on Race Based Preferences and numerous other subjects.

>>>I do agree that by hypenating all the different types of Americans, we are separating and segragating ourselves.

There is no such thing as "integration" other than on a piece of paper. Segregation is not going to go away by writing "segregation be gone" on a piece of paper. We are still living under the "Seperate, but Equal" standard we were 40 or so years ago. This is reflected in the Congress itself. TR was not the first President to WARN of such a policy and what its long term consequences would be so we are in agreement here.

>>>only it's a little more PC.

Political Correctness is nothing but a symptom of multiculturalism. It is totalitarian sensitivity, almost Orwellian in nature. The reason there is such sensitivity is because without such sensitivity this society would simply implode. Multiculturalism can only exist alongside totalitarianism.

[]i>>>We are ALL Americans. Born here or immigrated. [/i]

With this, I have to disagree. That is indeed the fundamental problem of America. That is its Achilles Heel and it will be the cause of America's downfall as well. What is an American? To be honest, to be an American is to live in a geographic area under a government with a piece of paper that says citizen. The same was true of another society called the Soviet Union and we know how the Soviet Union turned out. That is pretty much what it means to be an American for to be an American these days is to be anything and anything can never be something because it is distinguishable from nothing. America is a society of strangers and a society of strangers, in the long term, cannot endure. That is the lesson of history but what history teaches us is that the lessons of history are rarely - if ever - learned.

>>>I also agree that each of the races are treated very differently.

We are in agreement here. This should be self evident to anyone. No Americans other than White Americans would EVER tolerate such treatment. And why? What is the basis of it? Those are very important questions with very obvious answers.

White Americans do not have any sort of organization that advocates their interests. Any such organization is instantly decried as "racist" and "white supremacy." That is a double standard - an obvious one.

Let us suppose Maxine Waters came out and said that Jesse Jackson, who advocated race based preferences in his '88 presidential campaign, should have been elected President but did not mention anything about such preferences. Imagine if the ENTIRE media establishment came down with a ringing condemnation of Maxine Waters, including the Democratic Party. Imagine the Congressional White Caucus, headed by an openly segregationist Strom Thurmond, which advocates discrimination against blacks based on their skin color and the National Association for the Advancement of White People came out and immediantly demanded a resignation. To apologize to White America, Maxine Waters comes before the entire nation on White Entertainment Television to be interviewed by a white man, who when questioned about her opposition to David Duke day to save her own job openly on national television advocates racial discrimination against blacks to benefit white people. Trent Lott appears before Maxine Waters, looks in her eyes, and says "We Shall Overcome!"

Imagine such a scenario. Hard to imagine is it not? We do not live in any "integrated" society. There is no such thing as "equality" other than in rhetoric.

>>>Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton exist in peace (the opposition hides in the shadows)

I am not sure if you remember the whole Tawana Brawley Hoax where the police officer committed suicide because Al Sharpton decided it was okay to lynch the police but that is just one example of the hypocrisy of society. Jesse Jackson is a race pimp, whose entire career has been premised upon advocating racism and segregation, and just by APPEARING in front of any corporation they throw millions out him. This charlatan is actually taken SERIOUSLY! This con artist and adulterer is a public figure! This racist is something called a "Civil Rights Leader."

>>>yet when Trent Lott says something that could be interpreted as racism, he is unabatedly bashed, and on the brink of resignation

Trent Lott is accused of being a "witch." What is going on is nothing less than a 21st Century Salem Witch Trial. The entire charade is ridiculous - ludicrous and overflowing in hypocrisy. The Republicans will bend over backwards, do anything, support anything, say anything, completely abandon their own majority leader to prevent themselves from being accused of witchcraft, sorry, racism, rather than possibly say Trent Lott is not a sorceror, sorry, a racist.

>>>NAACP can exist just fine, but lord forgive us should we have an NAAWP (w=white)

Imagine what would happen if the NAAWP, in an imaginary society where it is a mainstream organization, and it exists btw, came out and said it supports discrimination against blacks and racial preferences in GOVERNMENT to benefit white people. Has anyone stopped to wonder how the NAACP went from advocating a "colorblind constitution" in Brown v. Board to supporting segregation and racial discrimination in less than 20 years? Ironic isn't it. Just what are these so called "Civil Rights." Since when is it a "right" to profit at the expense of others on the basis of your race? Do Americans even know what "rights" are anymore? Do they even know what the foundations of their own government are or do they even care?

>>>Equal treatment of the races is what we're after. Thats all.

This brings up a pretty good and fundamental question about the future of American society. Do minorities want "equal rights" or "special rights?" It is obvious to me it is the latter rather than the former. Now extrapolate this out about 50 years into the future, most likely not even that long, when White Americans become a minority. What sort of society is this going to be? If "equal rights" are not possible NOW - how in God's name are they going to be possible after the entire demographic makeup of society is utterly transformed?

There is a precedent for this. In the past 10 years, another country which you may or may not have noticed has not been in the headlines lately underwent an unusual experiment. That country is South Africa. Not all that long ago Apartheid came to an end in South Africa under American and British pressure. The ANC, a Marxist terrorist organization, led by its leader Nelson Mandela came into power there. In just 10 years, South Africa which used to be one of the richest nations in the world has become the AIDS, rape, and murder capital of planet earth. Affirmative Action is out of control there. The Death Penalty is abolished, but the murder rate is the highest of any country anywhere. A woman is raped every 23 seconds in South Africa now. The Rand, South Africa's currency, is only a fraction of its former value. The Nonwhite majority there, which just several years ago preached the equality of all races, is now talking about "land re-distribution."

To the Northeast in Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, white farmers are being massacared by the Mugabe who just several months ago came to New Yor City and had dinner with the New York City Council. The entire country is on the brink of a massive government engineered famine. Ethnic cleansing is now common place there. Poverty is out of control. Tens of millions may starve to death in coming years.

These are very important questions and cannot be taken lightly nor can the precedents of Rhodesia and South Africa be ignored.

>>>I do disagree with you however, when you said it was the repubs who are backing AA.

We have Richard Nixon, a Republican, to thank for Affirmative Action preferences. Why would the Republicans seek to abolish something of their own creation? Why doesn't Bush issue an Executive Order to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act? He could easily do this right now. Furthermore, the Republicans control the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the majority of governors and state legislatures. Is not now the time to do away with Affirmative Action? If not, what is it going to take to convince the Republicans to do ANYTHING? Why not restrict immigration? The vast overwhelming majority of the population wants to do something about immigration. The public for DAMN SURE does not want amnesty for millions of aliens. Why is Karl Rove and Bush trying to legalize so many foreigners, so many criminals?

>>>Repubs are the party of big business. Hiring based on skin color is bad business...hiring based on qualifications REGARDLESS of skin color is perfect.

Big Business loves Affirmative Action. No one is FORCING Affirmative Action on Big Business in the least. Just take a few management courses at a University of your choice. Get to know "Diversity Education" first hand.

>>>I think they back it, just because they look racist if they don't.

Is it not ironic that oppossing racism these days is construed as racism?

[]i>>>It's the dems that are fully behind it. [/i]

The Democrats support Affirmative Action but so do the Republicans. The Republicans could end Affirmative Action right now with one Executive Order like Johnson's or Kennedy's. Why not do it?

>>>Who in their right mind would actually speak out against AA publically? Talk about political suicide.

Yes, it is political suicide today to oppose discrimination against White Americans based on their skin color. That is mostly a result of their own complacency and fear of being called racist. Something however tells me given how events are now unfolding in California, and especially in the world economy, and as the demographic face of America utterly changes in the next few decades that complacency will change in the not so distant future.

Or maybe it's because some white folks DON'T feel discriminated against. Perhaps it is additionally because these same white folks have seen real discrimination against minorities.

Fade, I feel bad for you. It seems you must have had an awful experience to be so biased against multiculturalism. Most of my experiences have been good, so I have come to love to see the races mix and people of all sorts getting along. And it actually happens, seems like more so as I grow older.

I don't know where you live, but it doesn't sound like the same America I know

Ditto. Thank you Jamie for putting it so eloquently.

>>>Or maybe it's because some white folks DON'T feel discriminated against.

Oh really! The last time I checked the overwhelming majority of White Americans were against Affirmative Action and race based preferences. But I will tell you what, give me twenty years. Twenty Years from now America is going to be an UTTERLY different society on every single level..

>>>Perhaps it is additionally because these same white folks have seen real discrimination against minorities.

I have never seen any "real discrimination" against any "minorities." I can turn on my television however and witness a debate about discrimination RIGHT NOW against White Americans but you do bring up a very good important point which cannot be emphasized enough. Just who are responsible for all "multicultural" and "affirmative action" insanity?

For the most part, it is the utopian hippy generation which is now in its 40s and 50s who are about to retire and draw social security off my taxes - something I most likely won't have at that age. These are the people who have left us with massive Third World Immigration, the Welfare State, Diversity, Multiculturalism, Affirmative Action, Bi-Lingual Education, Identity Politics, a soaring National Debt, the disintegration of Public Education, the timebombs of Medicare and Social Security, Political Correctness, Foreign Terrorism, the soaring costs of Prisons et cetera. This is THEIR legacy. This is what they will go down for in history.

The truth is that this "Age of Multiculturalism" will not last indefinitely. Like all previous eras, it will pass away with the passing of time. It is going to take one HELLUVA serious effort by my generation to dig the entire country out the black hole into which it is falling - the black hole it may NEVER pull out of.

>>>Fade, I feel bad for you. It seems you must have had an awful experience to be so biased against multiculturalism.

ROFL biased against "multiculturalism." What is "Multiculturalism" precisely? Multiculturalism is the belief that there should be no cultural center in society, no national way of life, no commonality other than living in a geographic area under a government with a piece of paper that says citizen. Multiculturalism is the asisinity that being submerged by foreigners with a foreign way of life is desirable. Multiculturalism is a society of strangers, of competing racial and ethnic groups over power, a nation of foreigners with nothing in common. What is the blessings of "Multiculturalism" in the long run, twenty or fifty years down the road? The truth is that Multiculturalism is nothing other than Replacement, the demographic and cultural transformation of America into an impoverished immiserated Third World Society.

We are already witnessing it in Southern California right now and other places of America. It is just now, finally beginning. In the next twenty or so years we are about to see the REAL effects of Multiculturalism. What is the blessings of this so called "diversity is our stength" tartuffery? Well for starters, you can start with the complete meltdown of the California Public Education system despite its gargantuan budget. You can then look at how many millions of White Californians have left this "diverse" paradise in the last ten years after the Los Angeles Riots. Then you can look at the demographic forecasts that show that California is about to DOUBLE in population size amongst its Third World population, and that is just great, consider California's SOARING fiscal costs and poverty levels. If that is not enough, the same phenomena is just starting in Texas, Arizona, and New York City. You import millions of foreigners, encourage them to remain foreigners and celebrate their foreign way of life, which drives out the native population which results in economic meltdown from above.

>>>Most of my experiences have been good, so I have come to love to see the races mix and people of all sorts getting along.

ROFLMFAO. You live in Georgia right? Perhaps you should take a trip to Atlanta and witness all the Mexican and Vietmanese gangs there now, or Los Angeles and the gang warfare breaking out there again now, or fastfoward back in time to the Los Angeles Riots and the controversy over OJ Simpson, or the Cinncinnatti Riots of last year. I went to one of your "diverse" schools. Personally, I hated the institution. Go take a look at some of your "diverse" areas. Go look at South Atlanta, or West Montgomery, New Orleans, inner city Detroit, West New York City, Miami, or East Los Angeles. Go take a look at London England in recent years or Paris France lately or Sydney Australia. And of all places you go to, go to Johannasberg South Africa these days - the murder and rape capital of the world. There is poverty and disease in many of these areas equivilant to Third World societies. The TB rate in London is now higher than many Third World countries. There is actually a market of human flesh there now, in the city of Shakespere. There are parts of France that the President of France cannot even go to anymore without fear for his life. The Mayor of Washington D.C. is a racist crack addict who presides over one of America's most violent cities.

Your "Multicultural" society in the long term is going to be a complete and utter disaster. In many areas of America, it is obvious, that it already is! This is the America of the FUTURE - Alien Nation, a society of FOREIGNERS.

>>>And it actually happens, seems like more so as I grow older.

ROFL well for starters I went to one of our "diversified" and "integrated" schools here in the United States. To be honest, I thought it was a load of poo-poo and internationally, compared to Europe's schools, it is poo-poo. American SAT scores peaked in the year 1963 and have fallen over 80 points since that year. Education in America, and especially in California, gets worse every year. It is RIDICULOUS in that state now. Violent Crime has increased over 467% in real numbers in 4 decades. Our prison population is at a record high, and to cut costs, we are about to release many of these people back onto the streets which will increase crime. Parts of this country do not even speak English as the primary language anymore and Americans are leaving these areas as they are replaced with foreigners. Millions of fanatic Moslems are trying to kill us because of our foreign policy now. There are radical organizations all across America which advocate creating something called "Aztlan" out of the Southwest. The fiscal situation in many of these states is already cracking due to relentless immigration and soaring poverty and social costs. Taxes are going up, people are losing their jobs, and the standard of living is going down across the board. Divorce is skyrocketing, so are out of wedlock births, civic participation hits new lows almost every year.

Some "great society." Some model for the world to admire. Some future - alien nation.

>>>I don't know where you live, but it doesn't sound like the same America I know

Your America is a JOKE. Your America is America at its lowest point ever. From Emerson to Puff Daddy, from Twain to LeRoi Jones, from James Madison to George W. Bush. Your society is ridiculous and will only grow MORE absurd in the future. What is the long term to Americans? The long term to Americans is twenty minutes from now, a generation of day traders.

Where are your stocks now? Oh wait! Its just the "recession." ROFLMFAO some recession, what year is this now? The truth of your recession is that it is the Death of California, the sixth largest economy in the world as it has hit the Third World iceberg and is sinking like the Titanic. That will drag the entire country down perpetually. Oh and what is the state of the world economy today? Japan, the oldest nation in the world, is in its third recession in ten years. Its economy continues to meltdown. Germany is in chaos and sinking into ruin dragging down Europe with it. Russia is aging so fast they are losing roughly a million people every few months or so. That is going to produce VAST and SWEEPING changes there in the long run. The Third World is sitting on a mountain of debt spiraling out of control, perpetuated only by IMF cash infusions at the expense of the American economy which like the credit cards of most Americans is simply MAXED OUT. Marxist lunatics like Lula and Chavez have been elected all across Latin America in Venezuala, Brazil, Ecuador, Guyana and soon to be Argentina. Southern Africa is falling into a black hole of Marxist ruin like the rest of Africa. The Moslem world is filled with vitrolic hatred of the United States and we are about to go spend several hundred billion more dollars there than we currently can afford.

ROFL twenty years from now you are not going to be able to RECOGNIZE your America. There will not be any America fifty years from now the way things are going.

I happen to live in the middle of California and have gone to school with Hmongs, Vietnamese, Mexicans, and blacks along with whites. I had no problem with it.

Your bitterness seems to be misplaced.

Must be spending a lot of time on that floor, Fade

I don't think I have any more to say on this matter. There will be nothing I can do to get you past your own ideas and there is nothing you will be able to do to get me to believe what you say. We'll have to agree to disagree.

>>> I happen to live in the middle of California and have gone to school with Hmongs, Vietnamese, Mexicans, and blacks along with whites. I had no problem with it. Your bitterness seems to be misplaced.

LOL oh yes. BTW tell me what is the State of California's public schools like compared to its schools 30 years ago. Then compare them internationally and amongst American states. Go run down some stats for me. Oh, and while you are at it tell me how many tens of billions of dollars California's state budget decifict is projected to be next year, I believe it went from something like 24 billion to 34 billion a day or so ago according to Gray Davis, and perpetually into the future as California's population doubles in size in 25 years while its manfacturing jobs flee the state and as its higher income population moves to the Mountain States.

My kids are in a school that is pretty poor. But I think that has to do with the area we live in. Some of them are quite rich. I graduated in 1986 and it was fine. My kids do not complain at all about being racially integrated.

California is having some major budget problems all around. The schools are just part of it. I don't think all of our problems are due to immigration. Bad accounting and not enough funding from the feds I assume...add the fact that our border is not properly being kept probably does add to it.

I have no problem with immigration...I do have a problem with illegal immigration though.

>>>My kids are in a school that is pretty poor.

My apologies.

>>>But I think that has to do with the area we live in.

It has more to do with the type of society we live in and its culture

>>>Some of them are quite rich. I graduated in 1986 and it was fine.

I graduated in the year 1998 and I am currently an undergraduate in my senior year at Auburn University. I am well aware of the state of our public education system today.

>>>My kids do not complain at all about being racially integrated.

I went to a "racially integrated" school. Attending such an institution, experiencing the kind of "education" given there and the kind of environment children are put in was more than enough to convince me of the immense stupidity of such an unprecedented social engineering experiment. America is a dumber place because of "integration" which is actually a Straw Man for most people here who can afford to pull their children out of such institutions do so.

>>>California is having some major budget problems all around. The schools are just part of it.

I do not live in the State of California. I live in the State of Alabama. The funniest story of the last decade however to me is how fast California's schools have fallen to the state they are in today. Under the California State Constitution 405 of the state's budget is reserved for "education" but more is actually spent on it than that number. The most interesting thing however about California's schools is the demographic transformation of them and the accompanying transformation of the cirriculum in use there and most importantly what effect that has had on California's public schools.

>>>I don't think all of our problems are due to immigration.

Actually, I would say immigration is THE problem in California since it has taken in roughly half of America's immigrants since the 1965 Immigration Act and millions more illegally. A very very interesting phenomena however has started to occur there - which can ominously be found in Texas and New York City as well. MILLIONS of White Californians are leaving the state. These millions of White Californians were disproportionately in higher tax brackets as well, and as the Third World population in California has exploded, combined with the exodus, along with the changing structure of the economy it has produced massive fiscal deficits. As California's population explodes, entirely amongst its "diverse" element, this will only FUEL the continue exodus of white high income Californians and exacerbate the state's long term revenue problems resulting in higher taxes fueling the downward spiral. This is no "temporary" situation. This is no "slight market correction" or some "temporary recession." 20 years from now California will be unrecognizable. This process is just BEGINNING today.

>>>Bad accounting and not enough funding from the feds I assume...add the fact that our border is not properly being kept probably does add to it.

The truth is that the cause of the problem is the changing structure of the economy and most of all the demographic transformation of the state. Economics is nothing but a reflection of consumers and their behaviour - their economic choices. When you completely alter the makeup of consumers in the absurd belief that human beings are interchangable units that will have dramatic and permanent long term economic consequences.

>>>I have no problem with immigration...I do have a problem with illegal immigration though.

The vast majority of the so called "immigrants" are illiterate impoverished and unskilled poor people that come here through family reunification law. There is no rational reason to continue this absurd policy.

Wow, and the only thing that can save California is to get rid of all the foreigners, huh? Don't you see how simplistic that is?


And I wouldn't trade living in California for living in Alabama...they would have to drag me there kicking and screaming and they wouldn't like me once I got there.

>>>Wow, and the only thing that can save California is to get rid of all the foreigners, huh? Don't you see how simplistic that is?

There is nothing that is going to save the State of California.

[]i>>>And I wouldn't trade living in California for living in Alabama...they would have to drag me there kicking and screaming and they wouldn't like me once I got there. [/i]

I am sorry to hear that. Personally, I do not visit Aztlan that much myself. If I do decide to take an extended vacation it will most likely be to London rather than Mexico, sorry, I meant California.

All I can add to that is I'm thankful on both points.

This is a bit of a detour from the response I've been framing for this thread, but there's an issue here which must be addressed.

Fade doesn't live in my America either. His allegations of "discrimination against White Americans based on their skin color" and his characterizations of black leaders, organizations, and caucuses as "racist" as well as the "reverse discrimination" mentioned by several people now are just plain wrong.

The loss of undue privilege is not the same thing as the loss of rights. Civil rights are not meant to help blacks because of the color of their skin, but to address past and continuing injustice. Opponents of civil rights apparently believe that being black is a morally relevant feature which deserves discriminatory behavior; advocates of civil rights believe that injustices based on that belief should be compensated. Being black is only morally relevant in that it was used to justify the original, discriminatory sin.

Affirmative action, for example, is compensatory justice. Claiming that it is reverse discrimination is like claiming that damages paid to the state of Israel by Germany after World War II was discrimination against Nazis. Opponents of affirmative action may feel that it was - but most civilized peoples don't.

Those who use the term "reverse discrimination" are actually engaging in moral absolutism, a completely unworkable concept that has never been practiced by any society in history. An example of this sort of absolutism: it is illegal to forcibly remove property from someone else's home. This is known as robbery. If a thief is caught, though, and the police confiscate the stolen goods from his home, he could argue that the police have forcibly removed that property - which is an illegal act. This is, obviously, a morally inconsistent attempt to protect his self-interest through slippery rhetoric. It is exactly the same argument used by those who oppose affirmative action - or black caucuses. "Just because blacks in this country were treated unfairly for centuries is no reason for whites to be treated unfairly." Well, yes it is.

Under affirmative action, white males do not lose the right to be hired for available jobs; qualified minorities gain that right. Granted, awarding these rights may deprive some white males of their traditional unfair chance to be hired, but they should never have had such undue privilege in the first place. Taking that unjust privilege from them is not a violation of their rights. To claim that it is, is to assert that white men deserved the unfair advantage which they enjoyed since the inception of this country. Obviously, there are those who believe that this is the case. Those people are racists. Period. Those who would redress this tradition of unfair privilege are not.

As you are a product of the "immense stupidity" of the integrated school system - and the "dumber place" that America has become due to the type of school you attended, I am tempted to say that your postings here lend credibility to your claims. But how, then, could we account for such a product being in their senior year at Auburn? I guess some students actually survive all that integration relatively intact. Go figure.

"Affirmative action, for example, is compensatory justice. Claiming that it is reverse discrimination is like claiming that damages paid to the state of Israel by Germany after World War II was discrimination against Nazis. Opponents of affirmative action may feel that it was - but most civilized peoples don't."

Bill,

I'm thinking that your example is not on point as Affirmative action is a law as opposed to damages that might be awarded by a court. It would seem that reparations (which I do not support by the way) would be the proper way to redress the problem. I believe that it can be proven in court that AA is discriminatory and thus, unconstitutional. But, that same court might also award blacks compensation for wrongs of the past.

Mark

>>>This is a bit of a detour from the response I've been framing for this thread, but there's an issue here which must be addressed.

Okay.

>>>Fade doesn't live in my America either.

I do not recognize your "America" and your "America" has no appeal to me. I will the the first to admit that.

>>>His allegations of "discrimination against White Americans based on their skin color"

That is indeed in part true.

>>>and his characterizations of black leaders, organizations, and caucuses as "racist" as well as the "reverse discrimination" mentioned by several people now are just plain wrong.

Let us take a look.

On January 2, 1969, Shirley Chisholm of New York, Louis Stokes of Ohio and Bill Clay of Missouri joined William Dawson of Chicago, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. of New York, Charles Diggs of Detroit, Robert Nix of Philadelphia, Augustus Hawkins of Los Angeles and John Conyers, Jr. of Detroit as African-American Members of Congress. The group met as the Democratic Select Committee under the leadership of Charles Diggs. Shortly thereafter, Diggs called a meeting of the group, which now included newly elected members George Collins of Illinois, Parren Mitchell of Maryland, Charles Rangel of New York and Walter E. Fauntroy, the delegate from the District of Columbia, to discuss formal organization, including the election of officers and the formation of committees. On February 2, 1971, at the suggestion of Mr. Rangel, the group agreed to be known as the "Congressional Black Caucus. "

The goals of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African-Americans and others of similar experience and situation, and to achieve greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services. The Caucus has not only been at the forefont of issues affecting African-Americans, but has garnered international acclaim for advancing agendas aimed at protecting human rights and civil rights for all people. Today, the Congressional Black Caucus stands 38 members strong.

Upon her election as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for the 107th Congress, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson expounded on the history and hope of the CBC: “The Congressional Black Caucus is one of the world’s most esteemed bodies, with a history of positive activism unparalleled in our nation’s history,” said Congresswoman Johnson. “Whether the issue is popular or unpopular, simple or complex, the CBC has fought for thirty years to protect the fundamentals of democracy. Its impact is recognized throughout the world.” “The nation will face serious challenges over the next two years. At the same time, it will be blessed with unprecedented opportunities. Over the past eight years, the progress that minorities have fought for through centuries of struggle finally began to be realized. The Caucus is committed to ensuring that the standard of living for minorities in America does not retrogress, but instead rises to meet the expectations of both our ancestors and our children.” “The Congressional Black Caucus is probably the closest group of legislators on the Hill. We work together almost incessantly, we are friends and, more importantly, a family of freedom fighters. Our diversity makes us stronger, and the expertise of all of our members has helped us be effective beyond our numbers.”

http://www.house.gov/ebjohnson/cbchistory.htm

>>>The loss of undue privilege is not the same thing as the loss of rights.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin

( It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor
organization, employment agency, or joint labor­management committee
controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including
on­the­job training programs, to print or publish or cause to be
printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by
such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for
employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification
or referral for employment by such an employment agency, or relating to
admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide
apprenticeship or other training by such a joint labor­management
committee, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or
discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,
except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference,
limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or
national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide
occupational qualification for employment.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly guarantees U.S. Citizens equal protection of the laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is quite clear that the practice of discriminatory preferences by employers with respect to race or sex is ILLEGAL.

>>>Civil rights are not meant to help blacks because of the color of their skin, but to address past and continuing injustice.

In other words, a prescription for perpetual and unending victimhood with no statue of limitations. Explain to me what "past and continuing" injustice blacks are suffering. Explain to me how a black child born in the year 1980 ever lived under segregation. Tommorrow somewhere in America two children are going to be born, one black and one white. People like you would discriminate against this white child for no reason other than the color of skin he was born with and give preferences to the black child on the same qualifier. That is sickening. Why the hell should I support such nonsense?

What you call "Civil Rights" is nothing more than "Special Rights" and they are certainly not "Equal Rights."

>>>Opponents of civil rights apparently believe that being black is a morally relevant feature which deserves discriminatory behavior

A right is a sanction to independent action and a negative restriction upon others. A right is not a guarantee to any result.

>>> advocates of civil rights believe that injustices based on that belief should be compensated.

Basically what you advocate is Social Lamarckism and Ex Post Facto Law.

>>>Being black is only morally relevant in that it was used to justify the original, discriminatory sin.

Your idea is of justice is to dispense with parties, to dispense with trials, with evidence, and all appeals and simply paint white children with guilt and discriminate against them perpetually de jure for being born white. Logical Fallacy: Dicto Simpliciter.

Define morality and explain to me what is morally relevent about something that happened YEARS before many of us were even born. Very interesting how the tartuffery you call morality dispenses with people.

>>>Affirmative action, for example, is compensatory justice.

You have asserted a positive - now it is incumbant upon you to make your case. Define justice. Define Ex Post Facto Law.

>>>Claiming that it is reverse discrimination is like claiming that damages paid to the state of Israel by Germany after World War II was discrimination against Nazis.

Does Affirmative Action use skin color as a basis for the federal government to discriminate against its citizens? Why yes it does. Nice False Analogy.

>>>Opponents of affirmative action may feel that it was - but most civilized peoples don't.

Logical Fallacy, Prejudicial Language.

>>>Those who use the term "reverse discrimination" are actually engaging in moral absolutism. a completely unworkable concept that has never been practiced by any society in history.

Straw Man.

>>>. An example of this sort of absolutism: it is illegal to forcibly remove property from someone else's home.

Yes that is the law.

>>>This is known as robbery. If a thief is caught, though, and the police confiscate the stolen goods from his home, he could argue that the police have forcibly removed that property - which is an illegal act.

This is a false analogy for it presupposes "goods" have been "stolen" from "black America."

>>>This is, obviously, a morally inconsistent attempt to protect his self-interest through slippery rhetoric. It is exactly the same argument used by those who oppose affirmative action - or black caucuses.

You have yet to explain to me what morality is. Even better, while you just attacked moral absolutism you are using an absolute moral standard as the basis of your "stolen goods" theory. That is inconsistent but once one dispenses with all parties, with evide