The Racist Left

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I'm sure that it's frustrating to most left-leaning bloggers these days that they can't seem to make the Democrats listen to them or win any elections. I'm sure that many of them are wondering why despite their best efforts, despite giving all their money, despite fighting and bleeding for the cause, they manage to make no headway. The answer is simple: there is a fundamentally racist grain to American leftism that the Democratic Party can't afford to be associated with, and that the American people by and large reject.

It is no surprise, then, to find modern leftists engaged in a desperate and ridiculous campaign to dig up allegations of racism on the right. As long as human beings have had character flaws, they have striven mightily to deflect and project those flaws on to others. It is even less surprising to find the left-leaning blogosphere engaging in smear campaigns rather than engaging in the search for legitimate solutions to real life problems that affect the black community.

More below...

UPDATE [04/03/06 11:55:00 EDT by Leon]: Thanks to Matt Stoller for proving my point perfectly.

The history of racism associated with leftism and the Democratic Party has been well-documented. For the sake of this post, we'll ignore the institutional racism that led the Democratic Party to split the nation in Civil War, and to oppose (in higher ratios) the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. It's important to understand that the modern American Left has not departed from the old-school Democratic roots.

For instance, the modern American Left is defined by nothing if not by slavish devotion to the Birth Control movement and legalized abortion. What they'd like for you to forget is that the movement was founded in large part by a woman who was a devoted eugenicist. They've gotten much better about suppressing racist rhetoric in support of abortion rights, but it's hard not to notice the incredibly disparate impact that abortion has on the black community. In fact, even if one wasn't aware of the history of Planned Parenthood, it would be difficult to intentionally formulate a policy that would stagnate the black population from a demographic standpoint more effectively than legalized abortion has.

You see, the American left has to go on fishing expeditions for racist rhetoric because they don't want people to notice that they consistently advocate racist policies. Apart from legalized abortion, the left also boldly advocates a policy which says that educational sucess is inherently a function of race, not class. Nothing displays the fundamentally racist assumptions the left has about non-Asian minorities better than their resort to the positively Orwellian deflection in which they call conservatives racist because conservatives believe that black and hispanic students who grow up in similar backgrounds and attend the same school as white students are capable of scoring just as high on their ACT/SAT. I don't know of a single conservative who would object to a program that would give a leg up to those who are disadvantaged on the basis of socioeconomic status or inferior school systems; leftists, on the other hand, insist hysterically and condescendingly that a program which effectively labels non-Asian minorities as less intellectually capable must be sustained. True liberals (as opposed to leftists) would be ashamed to be associated with crowd that touted such assumptions: I know that conservatives are. American Leftists, on the other hand, are proud of their racist assumptions, all the while screaming "Racism on the Right!"

American Leftists - particularly the online left - are also so concerned to find racist rhetoric on the right because they need to distract attention from the racist rhetoric of their own. While leftists have to hopelessly distort "code words" to divine racism on the right, the racism of the left is open and bare for all to see. Inevitably, whenever you find genuine and overt racism rearing its head in political discourse these days, it's a leftist at fault, like Oliphant or Danziger or Trudeau or Gilliard. I understand the desire to level the playing field when it comes to embarrassing racist gaffes, but it seems to me to be a counterproductive waste of time. Which is probably why the online left is doing it: counterproductive wastes of time are their specialty.

Before any of you fill up my inbox with a bunch of profane, ranting complaints, please understand that I, at least, can grasp the principled that just because there are a lot of racists on the American left, that doesn't mean that all (or even most) leftists are racist. And yes, I realize that this kind of post is inflammatory and counterproductive: in fact, that's the whole point. There are (liberal) people I respect who recognize that minorities in this country face real and serious problems which demand practical solutions. Sadly, these people do not seem to be leading the way for the modern left. The people who are leading that way are more concerned with expending the limitless energy of their slobbering minions trying to dig up insenstive phrases than they are using that same energy trying to do something that might actually help someone solve an actual problem.

As for us, we will continue to work with people who are honestly working toward solutions, even if we might disagree about methods and philosophy. We won't be surprised when our opponents engage their energy in petty rants and vendettas instead.

« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part OneComments (20) | Tough and StrongComments (19) »
The Racist Left 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

The people they most resemble are old line white supremacist segregationists.

gamecock--  Correct, most of the racists left are of the colored persuasion.  They bought into the welfare state of the 60s, "the man" keeping them down, etc.  I use these terms as descriptive, and not in any other way.  I think this next election will show that more and more former "victim status" people will break out of their "slavery" and declare their independence.

Racism an easy card to play. I can remember one woman recently that struck a police officer in Washington, and proclaimed, "racism". I think the Democrats seem to like to play that card more than Republican's. But I have not noted much of a difference between members of the parties as far as how many people in the parties tend to exibit such behavior. There are racist black's, white's, hispanic's, asian, indian's and even an old japaness guy we found on a deserted island that thought WWII was still goin' on, that are racist. I think that the Dems just like to affiliate Republican's with racism when it is true that it rears it's ugly head from all sides, every corner, every crack.

Racism would most likely be better served as to gettng rid of it by ackowledging that it's "not" party affiliated, it's affiliations are social in nature, and has nothing to do with political views.

of the racist left was on full display last week with Cynthia McKinney's racist charge that this whole incident of her slugging a police officer was instigated by "the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female, black congresswoman."

I guess it's ok for a black woman, who happens to be a congresswoman, to slug a police officer, but it's not ok if a white woman, who is not a congresswoman, slugs one.  Reading between the lines, this is what she is really saying.

racists in Atlanta in 2001 in % numbers much greater than anywhere in SC, but,

I was referring to white liberals that have become what they once purported to loathe! They are racists and dont know it, much as many white southerners were prior to mianly the mid-70s.

I am a white southerner and was a dem for 20 years, 5 as a county chair, before the 6-2001 epiphany, as I was inspired as a teen by the dems in my hometown that were more racially inclusive. The national dems also talked a good game. I see now that many of their policies were wrong and that the GOP were more for the correct civil rights laws that dems. It was a moral and religious matter with me. My parenst had the first integrated little league and cub scouts and I hired some of the fuirst black paralegals. I wanted my black friends to be able to get the american dream like me, thru hard work and moral choices. And I knew they could.

What I saw over the years were white libs that cared more about being perceived as moral for being for taking care of poor blacks that deemed incapable makeing it on their own. They would blame 300 yrs of oppression and white racists that seemed to be whites that acheived things they couldnt!! pure envy

But I started to detect a slight tone of white supremacy or maybe class supremacy, elitism? that I hadnt seen since the late 60s and 70 s from some loathsome racists. And many of these white libs were in league with the black poverty pimps that deemed themselves better than mst of their own race!.

Cynthia McKinney and the white lib govt dependency crowd and their crowd here in ATL are the perfect examples.

I made racism an issue in my church in the 70s as a teen and the pastor backed us teens up and preached aganst racism. The MLK moral message worked.

The libs have gone off the tracks.

anti-segregation GOP during and after the Civil War and thru the 60's when dems filibustered Civil Rights laws and

started a Civil War to retain slavery.

Let me paraphrase Reagan's Evil Empire speech that describes your attitude and that of many that, whenever, EVERYDAY, a dem is noted for saying something outrageous, say that

oh well, they ALL do it

No, they don't. Not in proportion or numbers.

regan paraphrase about moral equivalency between ussr and us

 "I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an [modern liberalsm]and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong..."

For instance, the modern American Left is defined by nothing if not by slavish devotion to the Birth Control movement and legalized abortion. What they'd like for you to forget is that the movement was founded in large part by a woman who was a devoted eugenicist.

I hear that lefties wear shoes, just like racists!

C'mon, you can do better than that.

I would disagree that it is not party affiliated. The problem is that there is an inherent racism built into the core belief of the democratic platform that does not exist on the republican side. Walter Williams pointed it out perfectly when he said:

"...his [Kerry's] vision differs little from one that holds blacks as a rudderless, victimized people who cannot control their destiny and whose best hope depends upon the benevolence of white people"

I believe the basic belief of the right is one of equality, that anyone willing to try can be successful. Unfortunately, by trying to create a TRUE even playing field that would strengthen black independence, we are ironically called racists. Democrats have for decades tried to get blacks more and more dependent upon the government because they truly dont believe they are bright enough to do it on their own. And that kind of racism is much deeper and more destructive.

By the way, could you point us to a forum where you have criticized Stoller, Hamsher, or indeed, anyone else for their accusations against conservatives in general and RedState (otherwise known as 'your hosts') in particular?

I ask because we've been getting quite the run of folks who only criticize us - because they know that it's safe to do so - and it'll be great to be able to take your name off of that list.

Thanks in advance!

Moe

does not a liberal make. I cannot see where you're drawing conclusion of apathy, but I'll entertain those ideas all the same.

Allow me to present a more clearified meaning.

(1).Democrats tend to use the race card more often than Republican's, all the while committing the same offense, basically at the same rate, concerning member behavior (a personal view, could be incorrect).

(2). That the removal of racism will not be well served by associating it with party affiliations. I don't believe it's a "party" thing, but rather a "social" thing that is taught. A thing that should be left in the past, not taught, not ignored and not used for political advantage, as the Dems seem so much to like to do. It does not serve the cause well.

"...man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time".

Ralph Waldo Emerson.

in it's form, but there are many forms of racism.

One is now based on political views, but not race so to speak.

Racism is objectively defined as any practice of ethnic discrimination or segregation. So, based on the functional definition of it, there is such a thing called covert racism that has to do with political views.

An excerpt:

"Now a new form of racism, covert racism, has recently sprung from the pressures of political correctness. This new form of racism, although slowly declining, still shows signs of strong support (Piazza 86). Covert racism assumes a form of civil disobedience against politically correct thought and speech. Essentially, covert racism is a "hidden" racism, or a racism not easily detected (Piazza 78). "Racism is still strongly prevalent in today's society" (Gudorf 3).

The three different basic forms of racism, open racism, violent racism, and covert racism all express forms of hatred towards distinct ethnic groups (Bender 47). These basic forms of racism, although different in form, all have the same main purpose, to promote racism".

The definition of racist and the terms "racial and ethnic groups" are no longer limited to these alone. Political racism is indeed a form of racism, but that's not the type that was posted above, and that's my point.

Your confusing actual "racial" racism with "political" racism, as pointed out by the informed Walter Williams.

Racism, based on racial or ethnic groups is one thing, racism, based on political views is another.

But referring to the olden days of Democratic support for segregation is a non-sequitor.  Most of the Southern Democrats drifted over into Republican territory post-1964 and have long since passed from the scene.  I might suggest you stick with the contemporary right-left divide, it makes for a better argument.  

When I did exactly that.

Not if I'm applying the lefty standard for painting an entire ideology with a racist brush.

I'm not sure why I'm surprised that you didn't grasp that this was the entire point of the post.

I think you are confusing the issue with trying to create a seperate "political" racism from "racial" racism. Racism by its very meaning involves someones race.

This post, as does Walter Williams article, is not pointing out any political racism devoid of race because it has to do with black Americans and the left's hypocritical view of blacks. That does make it "racial" racism. Pointing out this hypocracy does not shift the categories.

As for your belief that the dems play the race card but both are doing it the same amount, I would like to see examples that give you the basis for this comment because I believe they are unfounded. Of course I also believe the media and its reporting, or lack thereof, plays into the mix too.

I have heard this oft-repeated meme of the "switchover" of Southern Ds with little evidence to back it up.  While Leon's article mostly deals with the present divide, I feel the need to at least point out that the media-driven impression that racist Ds switched parties doesn't have a lot of empirical evidence.

The only major data point is when Nixon won part of the South using his Southern Strategy focusing on crime, law and order, and other issues that may have appealed to Southern Ds who were also racist.

But most of the South stayed Democratic until the 1990s and much of it is still Democratic.  Off the top of my head OK, AR, LA, and NC still have major Democratic registration (40 years after the Civil Rights movement).  I believe they each have at least one state house in D control and 3 of them have D GOVs.  GA had a D house, senate, GOV, and 2 SEN up until 1998.  Then an R GOV won.  In 2002, a R SEN won.  In 2004, an R SEN won.  And during that time, the Rs took the house and senate.  This shift has mostly happened since Reagan and the 1994 revolution.  Gun control, socialized health care, secularization, and a weakening on foreign policy in the Democratic Party have been the major driving force for this re-alignment.

MartinAKnight has a more comprehensive diary on the topic.  It is very long and very well written.  Worth your time if the topic interests you.

I am not sure of the source you are quoting but I do take issue with this line:

"Covert racism assumes a form of civil disobedience against politically correct thought and speech"

It suggests that if you are not politically correct you are a covert racist. Now, this may be taken completely out of context but...thats preposterous! Perhaps the "civil disobedience" against PC thought springs more from the belief that a "politically correct democracy' is an oxymoron and those that would force political correctness do not believe in individual liberty and freedom of thought.

Political correctness is no friend of the Republic and spitting on it does not make you a racist.

even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR200601290
0642_pf.html

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

many articles concerning this issue, I'm sure you'll see a wider view if read. So, I'll just disagree, this is a form of political racism, accented by passive racism.

I'll point out to you that "racism" based on "political correctness" is not based in race. Should be obvious, let me know if it's not.

Hypocritial racism? I've never seen a study of such an event that Walter proclaims, but am not without listening to it for it's merits.

"Reverse Hypocritical Racism", sorry, never heard of it, or anything ever being studied on it or about it to lend proof to such a postulate.

Dems use the race card more often as a party agenda is what was stated, (read again). Republican's seem not to also, was stated (read again).

"Covert racism" on Google.

"views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites"

Did they do a survey of black views on whites and how correlated they were with votes for Kerry?

Or more to the point, correlated with someone like Congresswoman McKinney?

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.

This is just like measuring the speed of light. Great example, genius. Spot the methodological flaws.

I know journalists are chronically averse to learning elementary science, but you need to make a better run at it than this.

Racism is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum and comes in many, many forms. Trying to say "x is more racist than y" is, for the most part, an exercise in futility.

Why use the actual words and thoughts of actual people (as Leon has done above) when an obscenely flawed study of anonymous humans done over the Internet will suffice to prove that 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

You perhaps could not have picked a worse position from which to argue that point - such as it is.

'conservative' right is spineless. In order to avoid the sneering 'racist' tag, Republicans bend over backwards promoting things the Republican base opposes. Things like reverse discrimination, increased federal control of schooling, bloated Katrina relief packages, and our inability to secure our Southern border.

Not to mention the President's obsession with promoting Islam, our inability to profile potential terrorists at airports, lack of any meaningful entitlement reform, our bloated budgets that show Republicans care, and a whole list of things I could continue with.

Are leftists racists? Absolutely. Are Republicans, by and large, racists? No. Instead, our elected officials are simply cowards for the most part. That is why the Republican national convention is turning more and more into a minority showcase. That is we find a Republican Administration supporting the Michigan decision.

It's great to point out how awful the Left in the U.S. really is. I support that. But let's get real, how are we supposed to move forward when the Republicans are buying into the same policies?

It reminds me of the last time I was at a Young Republican discussion group. The topic was a passage from Dobson's book on children at risk, and the specific passage talked about women in combat roles in the military. The book detailed this as an assault by the Left on the value of womanhood.

Well, guess what? It isn't the Left that has young mothers in combat today. It's a Republican administration that has young women in combat. And no one, not Dobson, not anyone else is saying 'boo' about it. In fact, if you decry this fact, you are instantly attacked by Republicans as being anti-military, or discriminatory, or any of the other formerly Leftist buzz words that Republicans have now borrowed.

Well, women didn't belong in combat or direct combat support roles when Clinton was president, and they don't belong there now. I haven't changed my views on this one iota since I was commissioned in the 80's. But, my party certainly has.

I care about ideas. I'm a Republican because I want real reform. Otherwise, why win elections? That is why I am just sick of hearing about how bad the Left is.

Sure, they are awful. Now what are we going to do differently? What is our plan for correcting for their obvious flaws? How are we going to push a conservative agenda that favors free market solutions and right of free association, and also leads to increased economic opportunity for all citizens?

So by jsteele

did they test 130,000 blacks or Asians or whatever to find their views on people of other races?

Yes? So what are the results?

No? So why should anyone accept these result, other than people who are predisposed to believe that only whites, and Republicans at that, are capable of racist views.

Typical of most such studies, the study results reflect the intended results going in. How coincidental!

This is just like measuring the speed of light. Great example, genius. Spot the methodological flaws.

I'm guessing, since the study is contrary to the main topic, that they could have hit a +/-1 correlation and the results would still immediately be discarded.

I know journalists are chronically averse to learning elementary science, but you need to make a better run at it than this.

The journalist didn't conduct the study. He simply summarized the study and results for average human consumption. Drew Weston, the author of the study, actually has quite a few peer-reviewed studies that have been published.

the comments by Howard Dean over the weekend

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/31/D8GMPHVOA.html in which he said:



This is a nonsensical proposal put out by far right-wingers in the Republican Party who have been endorsed for re-election by the president of the United States," Dean said. "The president has a moral obligation to rein in the right-wing extremists in his party and stop this divisive rhetoric about immigrants



your critism of the origial post rings quite hollow. The application of the transitive property of support (e.g. Bush supports candidate who (by Dean's assessment) support policies that are divisive = Bush supports divisive policies)is what you are arguing against here.  Skewering such logic was clearly the point of the OP.

Such logic has its milieu in leftist circles.  Dean's example is only the latest.

I identify it when I see it and attack it in the arena of ideas, with the purpose of  convincing a majority to defeat the policies they propose and identifying the intellectual vaccuousness of same and discrediting the person and party platforms that harbour and incorporate same,

respectively.

..."When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior".

Your a "politically emotional junkie". I'm here too though, so I must be. And, what about everyone else here, AHHHHHHH!!!

OhMyGod, we're all DOOMED!!! We have activated our "Reward Centers", AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Ok, now I'm going to give us "ALL" a fix.

John Kerry is a good guy! Now, reward away!!!

Of the evil that the post deals with.

I'm guessing, since the study is contrary to the main topic, that they could have hit a +/-1 correlation and the results would still immediately be discarded.

Given that the control is laughable and the ability to reproduce the experimental results is by definition zero, that would be the only correct guess you've made to date.

The journalist didn't conduct the study.

Wrong journalist.

Although I don't see that they come to any "conclusions", jsteele makes the best point.

I think it very likely, that if a white person, that looked like a crack out addict, trailer trashed low life was placed as a image in front of these same subjects, that similar prejudices would be noted. Which way they voted would be an interesting endeavor, but what exactly would it prove?

It also said that whites from both parties have an very simlilar reaction to black's, this is what I contended above.

I was going to list Mr. Williams's articles for you since I didnt think you understood what he meant. i have read practically every article he has written for about three years now. I do understand exactly what he is saying. throughout his articles and speeches he expresses the idea that the left decries the right of being racists but, by their very policies are doing more harm to blacks than any made up assertion of racism on the right. That is the hypocricy i am talking about.

Racism has to do with race. I dont understand how you can say racism based on  X has nothing to do with race. Then it isnt racism. It may be something else. It is simple english.

"Reverse Hypocritical Racism"... never heard of it either, not sure where you got this from.

think that the Dems just like to affiliate Republican's with racism when it is true that it rears it's ugly head from all sides, every corner, every crack.

read it again. actually not quite sure what this sentence exatly means as it runs on through two different points but from what i can extract (and Im not the only one) is that "it rears its ugly head from all sides" which is a typical cop out on the left that suggests "everyone's doin' it" with no actual proof. As I said, if you have that, Id love to see it.

Pi is actually approximately 3.14159265358979.

you said

"I have not noted much of a difference between members of the parties..."

I have, from the inside of the dem party for 20 years. I became a dem in the 70s due to the fact that most of those that sought to integrate were dems and most blatent racists I knew were repubs.

That reversed itself slowly over time.

Most dem policies and attitudes are as explicitely racist as segregation was.

I was never timid to speak out against GOP racism in the 70s and Im not now as per dem racism.

Most in the GOP are too timid to call a spade a spade when its their honorble dem colleague.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/4/3/11050/55842/5#5

And I found it interesting. Yes, the line is out of context and it does read differently in context. What I found interesting was that there are two takes on it. One, which I can agree with, is that covert racism is that of liberals who pretend to be all PC but covertly are racists.

the other, which also has all those references you had in your excerpts talks about the same thing but clearly leaves the impression that people on the right and those who disagree with affirmitive action are covert racists. Dont agree with that, if anything it proves a covert intloerance (I wouldnt call it racism) on the part of the "brilliant" scholar who wrote the article in the first place.

that institutionalized political policies toward black's from Dems are actually having a reverse effect on them and creating a social "dependency" and is "hypocrital" because it sees them as not self-reliant, hence the term "Reverse Hypocritical Racism". Which in turn, is somehow related to race because he thinks these policies only affect black's. Again, this asserts that most of these policies only affect black's, which is the neuclear center of the subject and his arguement.

Similar policies are also in effect for poor and undereducated whites, asian, indian, and even poor Irish folk, and the like, that also proclaim that they cannot do it all on thier own and need help, most of the time. Inturn this helps crime go down, etc...etc...etc... it is argued.

Unfortunately for him, it's not true, but makes for interesting babble.

I haven't seen a study on anything resembing this assertion, but am willing to read it if it exist.

Covert racism can exist because it has ethnic groups within the parties, therefore is refered to as racism. But the application is far from traditional racism.

And finally, I'm not going to do you homework for you. If you want to understand what these things are, then go read a book or two that exemplifies the subject of "racism". There are currently over 100 at Barnes & Nobel right now I can see from thier online site.

I don't see the parties as some racist platform organizations, but rather, parties that utilize this subject for political gain.

The End.

Given that the control is laughable and the ability to reproduce the experimental results is by definition zero, that would be the only correct guess you've made to date.

Apparently you've never conducted a psychological survey. Two self-identified groups, the same questions, and the PMCC are basically all you need for something like this.

Wrong journalist.

Are you implying that I'm a journalist? If Journalism 1010 and correcting someone on the proper use of quotes constitutes a journalist, then yes I am.

I would much rather prefer to see the study itself than the WAPOs coverage of it. Yes, I am republican so I am racist! It has been proven!

Studies can be made to get the result you want for a nice and handy aritcle in the Post.

I can also show you the Kellerman gun control study that the left wearily hangs onto and show you how many holes there are in it.

I dont see how this proves any point whatsover.

Just because Williams talks within the context of policies that affect blacks does not mean it doesnt affect others.

I have dont my homework but since you have chosen the path of snippy comments I dont see why I need to continue this conversation.

When a west Texas Dem tells me at the Cowboy Club that those "wetbacks" are a bunch of rag smellin' grease blobs, I don't usually react well to that.

Similarly, when a Republican in Georgia tell me it's good luck to be kissed by a "purple lipper" (a black person with dark, purple like lips), I take equal offense to it. Which seems strange to them, since I am so white looking.

In fact, I have been in knock down drag out fights over this exact subject with people in both places and many more. I'm especially sensitive to the subject. Needless to say, they are careful of what they say around me now.

One was my uncle in Texas. I broke 4 of his ribs for calling my friend a nigger for the 4th time, one for each time. He was nice enough not to have me arrested, and said he was sorry.

I know what prejudice and racism are, and am one that has nearly, "zero" tolerance for it. With that said, I still believe I see about equal levels of it from all people, regardless of the institution they sometimes utilize to express it.

except that there was a study.

We have a good number of people who read this blog from work, and you just used a word that's on a LOT of watch lists.

is that everyone has a perception of other people; perception of individuals they know and of the "group" as a whole. Those perceptions are based on a myriad of factors, your parents, your life experiences, things you see and hear, behavior of individual around you, behavior of the other "group" as a whole, etc.

Sometimes it is difficult to overcome things that are passed on from your parents or family and other times its easy because of the other individual. I've, and I'm sure others, have seen cases where a person we perceive to be outwardly prejudiced has as a life long friend and confidant of the group they supposedly dislike; well, "Bill is different."

I used to work at Pan Am and in the course of my business would often attend industry meetings with colleagues from other companies. One memorable occasion was a meeting in Geneva where we all went out to dinner at a little restaurant just on the other side of the French/Swiss border. When we finished it was too late to get taxis so we all started off walking back to Geneva. There was a light drizzle coming down and the only guy smart enough to have brought an umbrella was the guy from Saudia, the Saudi flag carrier. The most entertaining sight of all was to see him marching down the middle of the road sharing his umbrella with the guy from El Al, the Israeli flag carrier.

Things and people are not always what they seem.

-------------------------

covert political racist, not willing to conform to political correctness. In the context it was used, it should be fine. But, for the benefit of those who are affraid of the term, for fear of some poor reflection by others, I'll refrain.

Remind me why Zogby is so well-respected.

Apparently you've never conducted a psychological survey. Two self-identified groups, the same questions, and the PMCC are basically all you need for something like this.

Don't keep making my point for me.

Are you implying that I'm a journalist? If Journalism 1010 and correcting someone on the proper use of quotes constitutes a journalist, then yes I am.

My apologies. I should have said, "Wrong sloppy thinker."

I also don't like the policies and are against them for different reason. Nor do I appreciate the association to racism or what either ends up creating in the end.

"If they have to, they will", I believe more than "give them a crutch". What that actually has to do with true racism is beyond me.

I think that black's, white's, and all other should be held accountable to this standard.

Incentives work (i.e. tax incentives for business) Crutches don't (i.e Immigration/Welfare/OnAndOnAndOn). Again, making it part of race, is just lobbying to the minorities and thier vote, as cynical as that may be, it's my view.

as almost one on the substance of the matter which is paramount. You say things in such a way on this matter that reminds me of my deepest feelings on this issue, and so god bless. We are brothers on this issue.

Let me say this before I proceed. Under some definitions of racism, esp on a person to person level, yes, it may be about equal in the parties and I would say that that extreme racists of the kind that used to be more prevalent are hard to find and mostly exist in the trash parts of both parties and  races and weild little power in communities. The south was esp good in the area of personal relations because we knew from knowing them in our personal lives!

I do think that a much higher % of modern libs have internalized a racist personalism without realizing it. More of same use it to retain power over dependant victims.

My experience inside the dem party for so many years confirms this, as do the policies of the dem party.

On the repub side, I would say that some repubs I know well might harbour some intellectual racist ideas as per groups, but do not let that affect decisions based on the individual, and so is benign.

On policies, I think conservatism is far superior and is why I switched parties in 6-2001.

I find that repubs judge people based on merit and advance policies that best cause people to attain merit.

Libs see victims and are condescending and irrational.

I cant tell you the exasperation I have had around lib freinds when they say things that I deem blatently racist and they dont realize it!!!

Whereas if a repub makes a racist statement, it is a generalization based on frustration about affirmative action PC policies and not venal per se.

see what I mean?

all in all though, I consider you the kind of warrior against racism that we need more of

god bless

...not reading what I said in the first place. Let me repeat it:

We have a good number of people who read this blog from work, and you just used a word that's on a LOT of watch lists.

But I'll be clearer.  Please do not use words that will increase RedState's chances of getting blocked by commercial webcensor programs: said programs are not sentient, and thus do not care about context.

Thank you in advance for your compliance in this matter.

Yeah, this is right. I do not agree with the Dems practice of "Let's help the drowning victims" when they're are only enjoying a afternoon wallow in 18 inches of water.

"We have to save them from themselves" is another that doesn't mix well with the salsa in my stomach.

The policies that are used and the issue as it is manipulated by them has alwasy been an issue with me, I wouldn't call it racism, however. Dependency control over a minority, yeah, that seems likely, if not an actual fact.

Thanks for the pat's, I'm sure I'll go on bothering people on both sides of the isle when it comes to this subject. It would be my wish to see it taken off the table all together from both sides, but that's not gonna happen. So I'm stuck, making a spectacle of myself, in hopes it get's abit more attention.

"I'll refrain". Seems to be all someone needs to know. Why you may or may not be doing something doesn't matter to me one infinitesimal bit , as it shouldn't. Only asking me to abstain is all that should be needed for me to honor your request. Which in turn, I have agreed to (with some humor added). If you cannot see the humor, that's all you.

I became a republican back in the late 1980's. I figured that since at least the 1960's the Dems had been promising me that the Republicans were going to put blacks in chains, starve old people and children, and destroy the enviroment. And since none of that ever happened, It got me thinking what a bunch of liers they were.

  So actually I think these extremist views hurt the lefties far more than it helps them, keep it up.

 I suggest you read a little bit on the real Margaret Sanger. And not the scrubbed pap put out by Planned Parenthood. A more vile racist would be hard to find outside of the National Socialist Party.

for everyone that detests the results of this research, it's not a new subject at all.  it is just a recreation of previous research done, changed in a way to make their test pool astronomically larger than it needed to be, which resulted in somewhat flawed methodology.  However, their results are consistent with other studies.  If I had online links to similar research, I'd be more than happy to give but I don't right now.

Disagree.  I can't think of many policies that Republicans have enacted that have helped blacks.  In fact, I found the President's claim that social security as it stands unjustly worked against blacks to be downright disingenuous.

Not that Democrats have been African Americans' complete saviors, but the fact they vote 90% for Dems can't be attributed solely to media brainwashing.

I have also recently come to the conclusion that my Republican uncle is a racist, so this may be clouding my judgment.

That was a Republican idea that has helped the black community...

elaborate.

...Hitler thought very highly of her.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service