The racers
For the sake of convenience, I’ve decided to call people like Maureen Dowd, who see hidden racism in every complaint about Obama, “racers.”
If I could sum up the underpinnings of their position, it would be a riff on Descartes’s proof of existence: “I think, therefore I am.” For racers, it goes something like this: “I think it, therefore it is.”
Such thoughts don’t require logic or evidence—just a gut feeling, a hunch, and to racers that makes them real. To understand the extent of the racers’ projections, and read how much they demonize those on the Right, you need only wade through the comments section of the Dowd piece. I’ll just offer one fairly typical example to give you the flavor of what I’m talking about:
All you have to do is look at the photographs of the people at the protest Saturday in Washington and at the ones showing up to scream at town hall meetings. They look like the wild-eyed crazies that showed up to throw tomatoes at black children trying to go to integrated schools in Little Rock in the 1950s. It’s the same bunch. They can’t stand black people and they’d rather burst their own blood vessals and scream until their veins bloat out of their necks than get used to the fact that it is the 21st century. From their attitudes to their hairdos, everything about them screams 1950s racists.
The hairdo theory of racism—heaven help us.
It’s an odd thing, isn’t it? With the election of Barack Obama, many of us (I include myself among them) thought for one brief shining moment that race relations in this country would improve. But it turns out that if racism really ceased to exist (which of course it has not), racers would have to invent it. With the precipitous decline of overt racism against black people, racers must imagine covert racism everywhere to take up the slack.
[NOTE: For those who are interested in actual history rather than projection, I offer a glimpse back in time to an era when the racism a black person experienced in the House of Representatives was all too real. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was the first black person elected to the House from New York, back in 1944. He was a controversial figure who ultimately was censured by the House for some shady financial practices, but he was also instrumental in some important fights against a racism that was blatant and open:
As one of only two black Congressmen, Powell challenged the informal ban on black representatives using Capitol facilities reserved for white members only. He took black constituents to dine with him in the “whites only” House restaurant. He clashed with the many segregationists in his own party”¦He passed legislation that made lynching a federal crime, as well as bills that desegregated public schools. He challenged the Southern practice of charging Blacks a poll tax to vote, and stopped racist congressmen from saying the word “nigger” in sessions of Congress.]
Geraldo Rivera is a racer too. When talking about Joe Wilson he asked Ann Coulter, How much of this is about race?
Item 1: Obama’s black. Item 2: Wilson supported the retention of the Confedrate flag design within the South Caorlina state flag. Therefore his shout in the chamber was racially motivated.
Coulter’s response was a quick, caustic “Come on!”
Lenny Bruce did a bit on the N-word. Use it enough and it loses its power, he reasoned, and then launched into several absurd uses of the word. If the Left over-uses “racist” it will certainly lose its power, among reasonable people in any case.
Of course it was racist. It is fitting and proper that Obama call others liars in his speech to Congress, but racist to call him on it.
The Wizard must not be doubted.
I think that Bill West has the right idea. In the long run, Obama may well help race relations because his supporters are overusing the “racist” slur so often that it’s losng any credibility except among those so mired on the deep Left that they’ll be rescued.
It’s no use. Any opposition to this administration will be radicalized as racist and, I’m afraid, worse. The race card itself will be radicalized. “Racist”, losing its cache and/or grip to condemn will have to give way to a stronger, more desperate, and more frightening appeal, It’s a matter of not much time before someone or some group is labeled a “political lyncher” or some such. The verbal war campaign will escalate and the President will do nothing to stop it.
The True History of the Democratic Racist Party
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523692/posts
Excerpts:
1) If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party.
2) How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.
3) Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 — with 6 not voting — in the House, and 30 of 32 — with 2 not voting — in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.
4) Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.
Who are the racists today? Democrats
Period.
I don’t have a racist bone in my body. I resent anybody using this trump card with ease. To say that somebody like Joe Wilson is like Maureen Dowd did is unconscionable. She is … a racer
I do not call them “racers.” I call them “race hustlers.”
How did Obama manage to get elected in this racist country by a wider margin than Bush? Just saying.
This is off topic, but since we once had a very vigorous thread on Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist who had a connection with Barack Obama’s childhood, I will post.
A link from a link from a link… from the Front Page article on Valerie Jarrett points out that her father-in-law,Vernon Jarrett, served in the 1940s with Frank Marshall Davis on the Publicity Committee of the red-dominated Citizens Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. Frank Marshall Davis moved to Hawaii and was later a “mentor” for Barack Obama when he was a teenager.
Small world. Makes one’s head spin.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36289 Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s “advisor”
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-file-84-why-was-obamas-brain.html Connection between Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law and Frank Marshall Davis
I think I said over a year ago, during the Rev. Wright brouhaha, that Obama had already set race relations back 30 years. He’s only reinforced my opinion since then.
On the bright side, it looks like the epithet ‘racist’ is losing its power to intimidate white people, and it’s about time. Guilt-ridden white liberals have been excusing all kinds of black thuggery and criminality for 40 years or more. And it was guilt-ridden white liberals who put Obama in power, after all. He never could have been elected without their votes.
They look like the wild-eyed crazies that showed up to throw tomatoes at black children trying to go to integrated schools in Little Rock in the 1950s.
they look like democrats?
The Democrats’ Missing History
By JEFFREY LORD
“So what’s missing?
– There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
– There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
– There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
– There is no reference to “Jim Crow” as in “Jim Crow laws,” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC’s missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the “whites only” front section of a bus, the “whites only” designation the direct result of Democrats. (and her protest was taught to her at the highlander school)
– There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”
– There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
– There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln’s ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
– There is no reference to the Democrats’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
– There is no reference to the Democrats’ 1904 platform, which devotes a section to “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”
– There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “Rights of the Negro” (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks “wards of the state.”
– There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
– There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
– There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
– There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the “nay” vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
– Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact-yes indeed-a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.”
Just a point of political order. Whoever wrote this (in Neo’s Wikipedia quote) doesn’t understand government:
“He passed legislation that made lynching a federal crime…”
Last I checked, it was impossible for one Congressman to pass anything. Maybe he voted for it, maybe he sponsored it, maybe he lobbied for it…but he didn’t pass it.
thought for one brief shining moment that race relations in this country would improve.
Before the election Callimachus at Done With Mirrors asked his readers whether they thought the election of Obama would improve or worsen race relations. My opinion at the time was that in the short term race relations would worsen but long term they would improve because playing the race card all the time was going to look a bit ridiculous when the president was a black man.
The race industry is a boil that needs to be lanced. It will look like a mess as the bloody pus runs out, but long term we will all feel better for the operation.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/60D37B6EC5FF4711862576320011605B?OpenDocument
The 17-year-old victim was white and the teen assailants were black. Police released a video of the beating, which shows the victim being punched repeatedly while other students on the bus gather to watch, some cheering. It doesn’t appear that the victim did anything to provoke an attack and tried only to defend himself. …
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
“In my estimation, it’s racially motivated,” said Capt. Don Sax of the Belleville Police Department. He said one reason he had formed this opinion was that many of the students, most of whom were black, yelled their support for the beating.
http://www.fox2now.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=b4857769-5b0b-4b89-bc23-09476439ac79&cat=empty&src=front&title=RAW%20VIDEO:%20Bus%20Beating%20Caught%20On%20Tape
“…that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan
“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ’emergency’. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And ’emergency’ became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.” — Herbert Hoover
if this keeps up charles manson will end up being prescient…
I think it, therefore it is.”
More like, “It would be convenient if it is, therefore it is.”
To your point, Art, how many people know that blacks were Republicans to a man until the 1960s? Or that whites lynching blacks could equally well be described as Democrats lynching Republicans? Or that Jackie Robinson was …a Republican, because (he said) Republicans preached self-help?
More like, “It would be convenient if it is, therefore i think it is.”
not very many Occam…
and most african americans are completely incredulous… so ya cant tell em either.
i was recently trying to hunt down some information on one event about a man named pinkston and thanks to google and their paper scanning all kinds of interesting history in detail is coming up.
THE HAYES-TILDEN
DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION OF 1876
PAUL LElJ^ND HAWORTH
http://www.archive.org/stream/hayestildendisp01hawogoog/hayestildendisp01hawogoog_djvu.txt
striving after effect – a striving which was altogether unnecessary, for the slory needed no embellishment What £he had to tell caused 2, great sensation among the Northern visitors. 1 ard was telegraphed to the remotest parts of the Union,
She testified that up to the Saturday night before the election she had lived wilii Henry Pinkston in a catMn on what was known as “The Island” of Ouachita parish. On that night a party of white men, some of whom she claimed to liave recognised, and two negroe? had ridden up to ihe cabin, and had called for Pinkston. Failing to entice him ont, they had broken in the ikxir, had seized him, and had sworn that if he voied the Repnblicaii ticket he would have ‘*to vote k in hell.” When die woman had attempted to Inter-fere, she had been knocked down. The ruffians had then gagged the man] had gashed him witJi knives, making a sound “\\i^ like cutting in new leather:” had then dragged him outside; and had there shot him seven times- Some of them had then re-entered the cabin j had killed a baby which the woman held in her arms; had assaulted the woman several times; and had then shot her, cut her, gashed her with an axe, and left her for dead. In proof of her story she exhibited her wounds, which were still unhealed. Thcv were a shocking sight, for she had unquestionably
be«n brutally dealt wirb; oti her thigh th^e was A frightful gash, there were wounds in her head and neck, aTid Uiere was a deep wound in one of her breasts-
Every possible effort was made by the Democrats, btxh before the reliirning board and before later con- gressional investigating conmiittees. to break down the story of ibis outrage. It was claimed that the murder had no political significance* that, as a matter of fact, Pinkston was a Democrat, ^ Charles Tidwell, the owner of the plantation on which the murder occurred, relucrantlv admitted before a Senate committee, how- ever, that while Pinksion had two years before voted with the Democrats, he was at the time of his dealh a Radical ; 2 there was also evidence to the effect that bv remaining away from ‘A Democraiic rally Pinkstcn had endar^ered his life. ^ Arother theory propounded by the Democrats was tliat Plnkston was killed by a negro named Brcxjks, with whom he bad had a fight 5onte months before. * Hut there was no real evidence 10 support the theory: while there was evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that the killing was the work of several men, ^ Much evidence was brought in by the Democrats to show that because Eliza was ol bad character no weight should be attached to her
story of the outrage. ^ As regards her character tlicre was no room for doubl. Her own testimony ^ showed her to be vulgar and indecent to a degree scarcely con- ceivable; and she was much given to embellishing her account with details that were evidently fictitTous, Yet the essential pOTtions of her siory were not success- fully impeached. The anxiety of some partisan writers, such a^ Gibson and Bigdow, to prove tie out- rage all a prtlf nse has betrayed them into some rather grim absurdities, Gibson triumphantly point* to the fact that the child’s throat was not cut, as she alleged, and that Pinkston’s body was not mutilated in the man- ner she described, ^ He seems to lose sight of the fact that the child was nevertheless killed, that its body was thrown into a pond, where it was not found for a week; of the fact tlial Pinkston was shot sever times and that his dead body was so distorted that it was not put into a coffin but was buried in a. quilt. So fiendish an outrage may appear incredible to some people, yet it Is a matter of history that outrages fully as brutal were committed by the Ku KJux – arc still coniniitted in some sections. The explanation lies in the barbarous character of a portion of the while population and in the low value attached to a *’nig- gCT’s” life.i
its a interesting read… but then again i read so much…
Banned in the House: All the things Obama is.
Acorn. It can now stand alone.
The “regular” democrats, and especially the blue dogs, have to know by now, things are getting out of hand.
Like I’ve been saying off and on for a couple years now, it may be getting close to the time to bring the troops home after all. We need them to stand guard on all borders and keep out all others while we citizens have a knock down drag out to see exactly which way this country is going to go. I no longer doubt anything is possible.
in this one book you can read that the tactics they used, and in one paragraph learn more of the truth as to why african americans vote democrat now than any one musing who doesnt study history at all.
This fact furnished die Democrats an opportunity of which they appear lo have cLinningly taken advan- tage in this campaig:n, Tlieir plan invglved two fea- tures,^ They purposed to carry on in most sections of llie state a canvass that was entirely devoid of violence. They even took pains to propitiate the negroes; employed colored preachers and other leaders to speak for them: j^ave barbecues with miisic and other attractions ; and in some di.stricts in promises of equality “outstripped the Republicans-“^ This policy was especiallv pursued in those parishes which usually gave Democratic majorities ; in such parishes the party managers strove hard to prevent the occurrence of any aci of violence whicli would give the Republican re- turning board a pretext for rejecting the vote; and in the main ihey were successful in this effort, although outrages were occasionally committed by Democrats whose hor blood got the better of their discretion.
On the other hand» in a few selected parishes, ^uch as Ouachita, East and West Feliciana, Hast Baton Rouge, and Mordiouse, llie Defiiocrats pursued entirely differ- ent tactics. T]iese were parishes in which^ since the great majorit>’ of voters were negroes, the Democrats had everything to gain and nothing to lose. Jf, by a process of ^’bnlldozing’* in any one of these parishes, they should succeed in destroying the Repubiican ma- jority, they would, if the vote were allowed to stand. be gainers to the amount cf the majority destroyed plU5 whatever majority they managed to secure. If, on the contrary-, they succeeded, but the vote were rejected, then the Republicans were at least deprived of their normal majority. So it was with the other alternatives; in any case it was “heads I win, tails you lose” for the Democrais. ^
Conditions in other respects were favorable for carrying out the Democratic plans. From numerous bitter experiences in the past the negroes had learned that when the whites entered upon a campaign of intimidation f it was safest to yield peacefully and grace- fully EO the inevitable. When, therefore, the white rifle-clubs began to ride about the country at night singing such ditties as,
“A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify; If a nigger don’t vote with us, he shall forever die-” *
many freedmcn needed no further warring, but joined Democratic clubs, attended Democratic barbecues, and ate DenKx:Tatic roa.tt ox with ihe best of tliem. Others who were slightly more stubborn were induced to change their politics or al least to refrain from voting bv being threatened with loss of employment. Vet others were whipped nr otherwise Tiialtrcated, while a few, more unfortunate still, were roused from their beds at night and brutally murdered. Thanks to the work of past years, however, the amount of actual violence needed was comparatively small. Tn those parishes where there had been recent conflicts the (ask of intimidation was particularly easy. ‘
The success of the Democratic policy in the selected parishes was 30 ^rcat that the Republicans, seeing that a fre* ekction wa.^ impossible, decided in some cases to make merely nominal contests and to dcvott them- selves to collectirg evidence of the buKdozlnff in order that the rentminp board rai^ht have grounds for re- jecting the parishes eJtlter in whole or in part. Thus, says a congressional investigator, there was “presented this singular spectacle: That in portions of the slate an active and vigorous campaign was going on be- tween the parties and in other portions of the state there was substantially no campaign at all.*’ ^ The Democrats later claimed that the Republicans gave up the fight in tTiese parishes because the negroes volun- tarily joined Democratic cUibs. bul tlic argument seems hardly a reasonable one. All llie bulldoztd parishes hatl two years betore given large Republican major- ities, and tliere h no real evidence lo show that they would not have done so again had it not been for disorders and outrages during the campaign itself or during the year preceding it by which the negroes had been thoroughly cowed.
since there were many more places where the slaves were not a majority, as a group the majority were bought out with free bbq, and parties, as they are bought out by welfare and other entitlement programs today.
the point being is that where there were actual white masses of people the democrats didnt act this way, but when they were in areas where no white person other than their own people, they took the gloves off and terrorized and murdered people in exchange for power.
the republicans in this then backed down or see literally more than a thousand people killed, and whites too in areas where no one “in the white community” could know the truth.
is it any wonder that the side that was compromisable from a communist perspective, historically was the democrats.
And if you *really* want to make some of their heads explode point out that arguably the two most influential civil rights legislation in history was passed by Eisenhower and Nixon, voted unanimously in by Republicans, and heavily opposed by democrats. However Kennedy gets credit for both of them.
Apparently Eisenhower feared Kennedy enough that he passed the legislation in an attempt to co-opt his message and keep the Republicans in Power, since Kennedy won it didn’t work.
After that (and with this part I will agree) Kennedy laid down the groundwork for a passage of a true civil rights bill, (this part I do not) but those Republicans blocked it at every turn by voting for it.
LBJ just wasn’t tough enough to stand up to those republicans – see how he was duped into escalating Nixon’s war for another example of their ability to get their agenda across.
Then along comes the most evil of evils: Nixon. Due to the hard work by Kennedy, Nixon and the other republicans were forced into passing our main civil rights legislation by the suddenly super duper Democrats who spent the last 6 or so years being duped and controlled by the republicans. They may have voted for it but they hated to do so.
And those democrats that voted against it? They were really republicans. While almost none change party affiliations this caused them to realize that they were not what the Democratic party stood for and they became Republicans in heart if not in reality.
At least that is the history I’ve been told more than one time by people with a perfectly straight face. Indeed, they are usually getting quite angry when I point out the voting record and who it passed under. If you really want to inflame them use quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. too (who has been *so* misrepresented it is unreal).
“I think it, therefore it is.” nailed it Neo!!!! I detest these thoughtless walking sacks of shit that speak in the name of Liberalism and all they do is follow the template — never an independent or unbiased critical thought — just follow the template. Ahhhhh!!!!!
One thing we are seeing is the beginnings of a financial collapse bigger than Bear-Sterns or Lehman.
How many $billions have been generated by the Race Industry? How many six-figure incomes are going to vanish if it fizzles out?
How many political, PR, and journalistic fiefdoms will evaporate with it?
These people ain’t going gently.
The race card is played every day. Today in my medical practice an African American gentleman called one of my partners a racist for not giving him a prescription for Vicodin. Before any progressives jump out and insist that the man may have been in pain, I would like to point out that his painful injury was an ankle fracture he sustained six years ago. He also scammed me for a few years before I got wise to him. I have no doubt he was selling Vicodin on the street.
My husband and I were in the DC march on Saturday. Yes, it was predominantly white, but I don’t think any of us were there because of race. There were black people in the march too, and Hispanics, and Asians, and Russians, and Democrats, and Independents, and Constitutionalists, and no one made a big deal of our differences. We were there because of our similar passions and that is all that mattered. CNN didn’t show any of that, did they?
Dan, FWIW, I broke my ankle three years ago, and flushed my Vicodin prescription down the toilet two days after surgery to insert a plate and half a dozen screws to hold it all together. Dealing with the ankle was preferable to the weird feeling from the Vicodin.
So I take a pretty dim view of someone wanting Vicodin six years after the fact.
Open public mocking,
of racers, since Henry Gates
O Happy Day!
What is the Dowd Left else than a self-deceiving, easy shortcut to virtue? These people combine everything that is immoral on the old right and the old left. Spoiled, haughty, nasty, slandering, cold, hypocritical, conformist under the pretext of being nonconformist, almost everything is rotten about these people. When I think about people as Dowd and Letterman I can only throw up.
And this is the consequence of postsixties Leftist thinking; I have seen people become like this many times in my personal environment. This kind of thinking destroys real moral integrity.
No more fatal way to moral selfdestruction than to exchange the Ten Commandments for the political correct commandments of the New York Times editorial.
80 years ago there was no such a thing as a black Democrat. Franklin D. Roosevelt changed all that.
How did he change 50 years of black loyalty to the Republican party? FDR gave them free stuff.
This has been the recipe for ‘progressive’ election success ever since. On the one hand you a liberal white electorate eager to assuage their guilt for having been born white, on the other hand you have a newly liberal black electorate eager to get free stuff.
…”vessals”?
*headshake*
Having said all that, I do see the concede the argument that Representive Wilson’s actions could reasonably be perceived as racist.
I’m not saying it was racist, I’m just saying I understand why someone would perceive it that way.
While I agree with Rep. Wilson that Obama is a liar, the Congressman did no service to the cause by calling the President out as though he were an errant stable boy.
For Christ’s sakes folks, put down the cartoons of Obama as Hitler and posters of him as a jungle savage, take control of your emotions, stick with the issues and the facts and let’s beat this guy.
VC, I concede nothing of the kind. Wilson was ignorant – that much I’ll give you – but without more I don’t see his outburst as racist in any way, shape, or form.
And to some extent, Wilson’s transgression was mitigated by the tenor of Obama’s speech, which I would characterize as truculent. If Obama had been statesmanlike, I’d have more problem with Wilson’s …uh…ejaculation.
I’ll go one step further, Wilson’s transgression was PROVOKED by the tenor of Obama’s speech, as well as the outrageous behavior and comments from Madame Speaker and many ranking Democrats over the past ten months.
If Wilson’s goal was to make himself feel better by publicly demeaning the President, then ‘mission accomplished’.
If Wilson’s goal was to persuade those on the fence that the Republican party has the better answer, then he failed miserably.
Same with the swastika carriers, and effigy burners. Hey, if it makes ’em feel good – it’s a free country.
I won’t associate with it.
Is the bottom line that any criticism of Obama is racist? Does that mean that he can do anything without concern for the voters? True equality would lead to much criticism of Obama in that he could be treated like Nixon or Bush. In an academic department I once worked in years ago we used to joke that it would be wise to hire a white male so we could fire him if it did not work out. Nobody cares about white males.
I don’t see how Wilson’s comment could be racist.
The lie in question was whether illegal aliens would be covered–they would–and zero said no. That was a lie.
The only way to make that racist is to insist that Wilson was not objecting to being lied to–which is infuriating when the liar knows or ought to know you know better–but to insuring Hispanics who are here illegally because he doesn’t like Hispanics. Not because he doesn’t want to insure people here illegally.
IOW, you’d have to show he’d be okay with insuring illegal immigrants from, say, Canada.
Playing the race card here is not only nonsense, it is pathetically transparent nonsense.
Neo, I was in Little Rock in 1957. My family had just moved to Arkansas from Germany when the Army, in its wisdom, transferred Dad to Arkansas. I vividly remember the hate screamed by the segregationists and I’ve been to the tea parties and to the town hall meetings. MoDo is a liar – MoDo is full of it, in fact, I’m surprised she hasn’t exploded yet..
the “racers” have an asymetrical definition of racism. thats what my posts of the idea that class oppresson is valid against oppressors. that creates an asymetrical definition of racism, a relative one.
THATS how jimmy carter, and others can say what they say. because ANY action by an opressor is ALWAYS oppressive. even good acts.
and thats why acts of violence and bad things comeing from an “oppressed” class towards designated oppressors is not seen as racism, but as social justice.
under this, your a racist because your born one, and can never get around it… and that the only cure for this problem is the eradication of your existence.
wwii was about extermination of a “race” who is generally superior in intelligence to the majority of others in the world. the jews (count nobel prizes, inventions, entertainment, business, etc).
this next round is not going to be so discerning, as this time, its the whole of the population designated globally as oppressors. guess what color they are. aand the past 40 years was pavlovian in preventing them from defending themselves in any manner as the only thing the oppressor class can do is lay down and die piecefully.
so in this way, the majority white tea parties are the oppressor class attempting to reassert their power over the other classes. so all of it is racist, because opposing obamas polciies, is an oppressor class which is not standing to the side and doing absolutely nothing. which would be the just thing to do as they see it.
this is the power of stalinisms historical revisionism.
Good post, artfldgr. You are right: in their world, racism is necessary and axiomatic. They don’t need no stinkin’ proof.
Hairdo Theory of racism.
Haven’t I been preaching that liberalism is a fashion accessory, a social rather than intellectual phenomenon? It’s an outrageous accusation on my part – I would have abandoned it years ago if liberals didn’t keep providing evidence of it for me.
I maintain that the transition from black-and-white photography and TV was a powerful influence on boomer attitudes. Forever after, we seem to have regarded the 50’s as the time of black-and-white morality, in contrast to our lively, nuanced, colorful lives. This was never driven by the facts, just the impressions of children viewing new technical marvels.
Pingback:Althouse, Dowd & the Toxic Card of Racism » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog
AVI, as you might remember, the movie “Pleasantville” used just that convention to illustrate the contrast between the uptight, frumpy fifties (filmed in b & w) and the colorful innovations inspired by time-traveling teenagers from the hip and enlightened 1990s. The modern teens, of course, know more at 15 or 16 about “real” life than those dopey adults from the ’50s, who had never faced any challenges in their lives other than, oh, growing up during the Depression and winning World War II and useless stuff like that.
Assistant Village Idiot . . .
I’ve observed the same thing about liberalism as a “fashion accessory.” That’s one of the reasons it’s so hard to argue with a liberal. They simply can’t believe that what they believe isn’t correct–they don’t “think,” they “know.” Just like they know when it’s time to redo their scarf look.
Your observations regarding color TV are terrific. Before color TV, everyone looked stuffy, except for the “noir” look, aided by smoking cigarettes in an artful manner.
One of my children asked me once, “Mommy, what was it like when the world became color?”
Is Obama a Narcissist?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/is_obama_a_narcissist.html
But one thing I do know is crazy — and that’s not just because I’ve been a licensed psychotherapist for over 20 years. It’s because for almost 30 years I’ve been eating, sleeping, and living with crazy, what I have dubbed the Psycho Network.
Vieux Charles, i guess you dont read my posts either. it happened in the hayes tilden elections, NOT FDR… by then all of that had already been done.
this is why i made the comment that so many people make up stuff as to why, and never consult history. how many remember hayes? what they tend to do is pull up some reason from the more prominent memories including social memories.
they avoid real information like the plague, so they avoid learning the otehr info.
right now i am reading these history books from just after the period to get the facts…
why? because after the 1930s, bella dodd was putting soviets into our school system (and church). she admitted it, detailed, it, and no one has followed my link to her book. why?
because being within the common narrative and facts is more socially valuable than being right with the corect facts from some other place.
we have an incredible inventive ability that is rarely put to inventing things and mostly put to inventing end arounds to some delusion or false thing we know.
during hayes tilden more than 2000 republican blacks and whites were hunted down with dogs. their families mutilated, and bodies left to rot.
that is a mroe powerful life chaning thing than FDR welfare 70 years later.
no?
by the way, in several counties one needed a letter of passage from the democrats to even cross the county.
Is the bottom line that any criticism of Obama is racist?
YES…
and thats teh pooint of my little oppressor oppressed dialiectic speech.
of course, why bother with the right answer when its so much fun commiserating over made up ones!
for those just entering the situation, these ideas. methods, goals, and such have a near 150 year history.
people might consider learning about ducks before they make up stuff pretending to be erudite and intelligentsia.
c’mon… even with the ease of the internet, thats all most are doing.
I don’t see how Wilson’s comment could be racist.
of course not… cause no one is attempting to look at it through their system…
they are attempting to pretend
“what would i do if i was in that position”
problem is that obama and co are not you..
so more properly
“what would i do if i was obama in that position”
the latter necessitates studying what obama says, does, and where did he learn his knowlege rules, and so forth.
since most dont agree with inane things like oppressor oppressed and power dialectics, they dont want to read it.
problem is that the people they are trying to undertsand have read it, understand it, apply it, and sometimes even believe it.
basically everyone is drawing a circle and saying that the answer has to be within the boundary of my ability and imagination…
so why look elsewhere, why listen to someone else, why entertain anyuthing?
For the Left: Racist = Fascist = A person we don’t like.
Neo- that is a useful neologism you have coined-it is yours,isn’t it?
they don’t have any other argument left. there is racism, but questioning a failure in government to protect it’s people is not racist.
I race, therefore there is racism.
Nope Artfldgr, I don’t read your posts. They are way too long, and lack a clearly articulated, defendable premise. Nothing personal. You’re probably a swell guy and all, but I’m a busy dude and don’t have all day to muddle through it all.
No problem vieux 🙂
your not rude about it..
Yeah I was, sorry.
Pingback:The Neo-Neocon makes up a new word « Blog de KingShamus
I LOVE your “hairdo theory of racism”!!!
As for having a dream that the election of Barack Obama would improve race relations in this country, Obama himself disabused me of that possibility way back in December of 2006, when he told a reporter the following:
“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.”
More here: “Did Obama just call me a racist?”
“But it turns out that if racism really ceased to exist (which of course it has not) …”
Oh really? Is the fact of racism so apparent that we can say that “of course” racism exists everywhere?
Please, do enlighten me. Point out 10 examples of blatant racism that are occurring regularly in the United States (but you cannot count racism AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.)
I defy you to create such a list, because racism does not, as you say, exist.
Racists exist, in every race – including black racists.
But “racism” – defined as the systematic discrimination of a particular race – has been eliminated.
icallbs: You are using a very restricted definition of the word “racism.” “Racism” refers to racist beliefs. What you are describing is the subset known as “institutionalized racism.” That is not what I was referring to when I said that racism still exists—I was referring to racist beliefs.
However, since you asked, an argument could be made for the fact that affirmative action is a form of institutionalized racism: in favor of certain minority groups (African-Americans and Hispanics come to mind) and against others (white males come to mind).
Yeah I was, sorry.
oh, then your just a scumbag..
which is what i think of people who are hurtful for no reason.
Sir, let’s not forget you started all this by jumping onto my comment with your own misplaced arrogance.
I was wrong to apologize. I should have trusted my initial instincts – you deserved what you got.
I won’t make the same mistake again.
As relates to the above comments/links by various people, a piece I wrote myself and have reproduced from scratch several times:
=====================
I believe we need to steal the term “racism” back, by taking a leaf from their communist predecessors with regards to “democracy”: Remember the “German Democratic Republic”?
The fun part is, we can do it and still tell Truth, not Pravda.
Whenever you open a discussion regarding anything with a Democrat, work hard — very hard — to get in a line something to the effect of “Well, I’ve just never understood how Democrats can have such a long history of promoting racism against negros/blacks/Africans/whatever-the-PC-term-is- today”
At this point, of course, they are going to almost certainly be dumbfounded, possibly spluttering and perhaps even verging on apoplectic.
It is a certainty that they will be utterly confused, however, so take your advantage and run with it.
Begin discussing how it is that they have decided so imperiously that black people who, by equality, should be presumed capable of doing virtually anything which whites or Asian/Oriental/whatever-the-PC-term-is-today can do, are instead taken as a matter of course by the Democrats to be utterly incapable of pulling themselves out of impoverished conditions as those two groups — including people of every stripe, creed, nationality, or religious affiliation — have managed to do in America.
Why/how is it that the Democrats insist on racist policies which basically claim that blacks cannot help themselves, unlike, say, Jews, who have fought anti-Semitism not just for a couple centuries but for millenia, yet still managed to succeed and succeed well.
Why/how is it that blacks are incapable of doing exactly what so many others have managed to do, which is to educate themselves and produce the kind of genius and work product to excel as a group in American culture.
Now, around this time, they might be regaining their feet, and throw out something to the effect of, “well, those groups had no history of slavery to overcome…”
Do not allow them to retain this advantage — knock it out from under their feet immediately by pointing out that the plight of the “coolee” and their descendants — workers from the Orient — was little, if any, better well into the 20th century.
The “coolee” was worked just as brutally, just as uncaringly, as any black slave, performing backbreaking labor for pennies a day, 10,12,14 hours a day, while valued less than a good horse. There were “no oriental” water fountains, too, and any “oriental” who dared look at a white woman sexually, well, he could look forward to the same sort of lynching a black man could.
Yet despite this disparagement, the descendants of those men and women have managed to not only succeed, but usually to surpass the descendants of the average WASP. They rank better financially, and educationally, than the average White Boy.
Now, of course, is the time to press it home… Ask — no, demand — to know why it is that Democrats insist on such racist policies which treat blacks as “lesser people”, utterly incapable of helping themselves.
Around this time their heads should explode with apoplexy, or, alternately, a swing might be made at your face. Be ready for it.
If they do, however, start to regain their feet, then it is time to press home on the history of the Democratic party’s racism.
Cite, first off, the fact of the abolition of slavery in the south, as a part of Reconstruction, was a Republican project, and was strongly opposed by Democrats, who used white racism as a recruiting tool to gain prominence throughout the South, to the point where Democrats are, even now, 140 years later, the dominant party affiliation in the region.
Forward to the 1940s. Cite from the Official 1940 GOP Party Platform:
Negro
We pledge that our American citizens of Negro descent shall be given a square deal in the economic and political life of this nation. Discrimination in the civil service, the army, navy, and all other branches of the Government must cease. To enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness universal suffrage must be made effective for the Negro citizen. Mob violence shocks the conscience of the nation and legislation to curb this evil should be enacted.
Then contrapose this with the 1948 Democrats, which split off to form the Dixiecrats, a blatantly racist political affiliation. These people, rabid racists all — over a million — were Democrats in 1944, and they were Democrats in 1952.
It continued into the 1960s, at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, wherein duly elected black representatives were blatantly disenfranchised by Johnson and Humphrey. I have no doubt that it was this treatment which contributed strongly to the race riots that occurred later on in the 1960s.
And it continues on through today. In the 2004 campaign, John Kerry’s campaign staff did not include a single prominent black person until someone commented on it publicly. And we all know how the immensely talented and highly competent Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were treated at the hands of liberal cartoonists, with blatantly racist depictions.
Q.E.D.: The conclusion is inescapable. The Democrats are a party of racism, founded in racism, devoted to promoting racism through the last 140 years, and inexcusably supporting racist ideas and perceptions for that entire time.