More Hilarious Anti-Obama Racism!

[nighttimer]

The Republican Party may not have a clear leader, but they still have some core beliefs and one of them is it's fun to be racist.

A Republican activist and former South Carolina state senate candidate Rusty DePass made a comment/wisecrack after learning a gorilla had escaped from the Riverbanks Zoo:

"I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."

DePass later apologized saying, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

link (http://www.theroot.com/buzz/video-gop-activist-likens-first-lady-gorilla)

In Tennessee, Sherri Goforth, the executive assistant for Republican state senator Diane Black e-mailed the following photo to other legislative staffers:

http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/presidentobabma.jpg


Christian Grantham of Nashvilleistalking.com interviewed Goforth.

I spoke with Sherri Goforth minutes ago to confirm she sent this email. She confirmed she had sent it and also said she had received a letter of reprimand from her superiors but said she will stay on the job.

When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people.

“I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button,” Goforth told NIT. “I’m very sick about it, and it’s one of those things I can’t change or take back.”

link (http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2009/06/sen-diane-blacks-r-gallatin-legislative-aid-circulates-racist-email/)

Senator Black issued a statement that the cartoon "does not reflect my views" and that Goforth was reprimanded verbally and in writing, but no further action would be forthcoming.

Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester said, "I am calling on Sen. Black to reject this racist smear and fire this staffer who, on state government time, on state government computers, using a state government email account, launched this bigoted attack on our president."

Goforth and Senator Black are both White.

Another day, another half-assed Republican "apology."

[dclary]

I'm glad you find it hilarious. The rest of us don't.

[Cranky]

The Republican Party may not have a clear leader, but they still have some core beliefs and one of them is it's fun to be racist.

Guess I must be a shitty Republican, then, since I don't find racism funny.

[rugcat]

What I found most telling was the woman's cluelessness about how what she really was sorry for was accidentally sending it to the "wrong" people. Who might that be -- people who don't find racism amusing?

[Fokker Aeroplanbau]

Oh come on, like we really find this horrible! It's a sad reflection on today's society that one wayward comment about race becomes front line news, while racial cleansing gets sent to the back page because it doesn't have the same sensationalism appeal the Main Stream Media is looking for.

Nighttimer, please don't continue this trend - okay?

[blacbird]

"I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I'm conflicted about despising this idiot for his racism, or despising him for his stupidity. Can I do both? It's time we consigned these mouthbreathers to the dustbin of history in the same way we should those who compare Obama or GWBush to Hitler.

caw

[StephanieFox]

Guess I must be a shitty Republican, then, since I don't find racism funny.

You probably are a shitty Republican, according to a lot of the GOP leadership right now. They pander to the far right leaving reasonable conservatives left out. They even call moderates terrible names. It's no way to run a party.

[blacbird]

Oh come on, like we really find this horrible! It's a sad reflection on today's society that one wayward comment about race becomes front line news, while racial cleansing gets sent to the back page because it doesn't have the same sensationalism appeal the Main Stream Media is looking for.

"Racial cleansing?"?????????????

Nighttimer, please continue this trend, if you don't mind contending with someone who uses the name of a Nazi warplane as his moniker here.

caw

[rugcat]

Oh come on, like we really find this horrible! It's a sad reflection on today's society that one wayward comment about race becomes front line news, while racial cleansing gets sent to the back page because it doesn't have the same sensationalism appeal the Main Stream Media is looking for. Racial cleansing? Not sure what you're referring to.

And perhaps it doesn't bother you, but that's not really a reason to discontinue a thread.

[aquacat]

Oh come on, like we really find this horrible! It's a sad reflection on today's society that one wayward comment about race becomes front line news, while racial cleansing gets sent to the back page because it doesn't have the same sensationalism appeal the Main Stream Media is looking for.

Telling racist jokes and spreading racist imagery in the media perpetuates a culture that looks the other way on things like racial violence. Allowing such comments to go by unremarked only legitimates and adds to the process of dehumanization that is a part of all cultures in which genocide and racial/ethnic violence occurs. These two things aren't separate issues, they're fundamentally linked, and criticizing someone for racist speech does not take away from or limit our ability to also focus on racial violence. Unless you think there's a limit to compassion, attention or anti-oppression activism. I do not.

[nighttimer]

Oh come on, like we really find this horrible! It's a sad reflection on today's society that one wayward comment about race becomes front line news, while racial cleansing gets sent to the back page because it doesn't have the same sensationalism appeal the Main Stream Media is looking for.

Nighttimer, please don't continue this trend - okay?

I really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about FA and I don't really think I care to know.

If you don't care for this thread, there are plenty of others in this forum and on the board that may better suit your interests.

Or just start one of your own. Go wild.

[Cranky]

You probably are a shitty Republican, according to a lot of the GOP leadership right now. They pander to the far right leaving reasonable conservatives left out. They even call moderates terrible names. It's no way to run a party.

True enough. And that crap in the OP was beyond the pale. As Rugcat says, I was struck by what she said about it going out to the 'wrong people'. Not that what she'd done was wrong or racist and that she was sorry for that, no. Just that she's sent it to the wrong people.

Jeebus. My mind boggles.

[backslashbaby]

She's just a staffer; she really should have been fired ASAP. There is no room for racism in our representatives [or their offices]. Period.

[nighttimer]

I have high hopes that the GOP really starts to get their act together and returns to their principles. Until they do, the inmates seem to be running the asylum.

I'm a Obama supporter more than I am a die-hard Democrat, but I recognize there are legitimate issues the Republicans should be keeping the president and Dems honest on.

On its face, this is trivial b.s. on a state, not national level. But on the grander scale, this is exactly the type of thing that will be conflated into an issue against the Republicans in 2010 and beyond.

This is the kind of thing RNC chairman Michael Steele needs to get out in front of and stomp the life out of it. Too bad these days "RNC" seems to stand for "Rush, Newt and Cheney."

Thank you Howard Fineman and NEWSWEEK for that one. :D

[benbradley]

A Republican activist and former South Carolina state senate candidate Rusty DePass made a comment/wisecrack after learning a gorilla had escaped from the Riverbanks Zoo:

"I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."

DePass later apologized saying, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone."
If? Yeah, right.
"The comment was clearly in jest."
Aren't all jokes, whether racial or not, meant in jest?
In Tennessee, Sherri Goforth, the executive assistant for Republican state senator Diane Black e-mailed the following photo to other legislative staffers:

Christian Grantham of Nashvilleistalking.com interviewed Goforth.

I spoke with Sherri Goforth minutes ago to confirm she sent this email. She confirmed she had sent it and also said she had received a letter of reprimand from her superiors but said she will stay on the job.

When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people.

“I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button,” Goforth told NIT. “I’m very sick about it, and it’s one of those things I can’t change or take back.”
In other words, she's going to be a lot more careful about what email account she uses and where she sends racially charged emails. Okay, gotcha.
Another day, another half-assed Republican "apology."
So where's that African-American leader of the RNC? I remember months ago when he backpedaled on a comment about Rush Limbaugh, so he doesn't appear to have much spine. If he really wanted to make a point right now, he could resign. Maybe say "Well, maybe Rush IS the leader of the RNC. Regardless, it's obvious that I'm NOT the leader."

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard something like this. I sure remember the comment made by Earl Butz, but he was a Republican with the Nixon and Ford administrations, not a Democrat with Carter as I had thought he might have been (a lot of stuff from back then blends together in my memory...).

Surely democrats have also said things like this in recent times, surely we don't have to go back to Lester Maddox before he became Georgia Governor...

[Zoombie]

Um...

Was there a racial cleansing in America no one told me about?

[caromora]

Stereotyping an entire group of people doesn't help anything, either. Are there racist Republicans? Sure. Racism exists everywhere. That doesn't make it right to decide that these specific morons are representative of all Republicans.

But it's always easier to demonize people you disagree with rather than listen to them, I suppose.

[Gretad08]

Stereotyping an entire group of people doesn't help anything, either. Are there racist Republicans? Sure. Racism exists everywhere. That doesn't make it right to decide that these specific morons are representative of all Republicans.

But it's always easier to demonize people you disagree with rather than listen to them, I suppose.


Too true.

Having a thread about dumb politicians making dumb racist comments and having a discussion about it is great. Anytime we can laugh at people I'm happy.

Making blanket statements that an entire group of people is (fill in the blank) then you become guilty of a lot of the things that aren't looked on too kindly. Stereotyping is one that pops in my head.

[Ken]

... I agree with Greta and Caro.
These racist remarks were particularly reprehensible, though, so making an over-generalization as an immediate reaction to them is perhaps a bit excusable, though still of course wrong and in need of correction. Most republicans have the best interests of all people at heart, not to say I agree with their policies and ways of going about things.

[robeiae]

Why is it Republican racism? Why isn't it Southern racism?

How does one spot the difference?

[Robert Toy]

Why is it Republican racism? Why isn't it Southern racism?

How does one spot the difference?
large embossed "RR" vs. "SR"

[Diana Hignutt]

I despise the Republican party just as much as I despise the Democratic party, but to say that the Republican party is responsible for the racism of a few of its members would be the same as saying that AW is a hate group because a couple of members espouse hatred.

Logic Fail.

[Noah Body]

But damn it, if literary agents fail to respond to our queries, they deserve our hatred and scorn! ;)

[Celia Cyanide]

What I found most telling was the woman's cluelessness about how what she really was sorry for was accidentally sending it to the "wrong" people. Who might that be -- people who don't find racism amusing?

Exactly! She's not sorry for the photo, and seems to equate it with forwarding a risque joke.

[Don]

This is obviously of critical national importance, while who Obama has as visitors to the White House he's occupying, that we built, own, and maintain doesn't mean a thing. Glad we've got our priorities straight.

[SPMiller]

Although Republicans are statistically more likely to be bigoted than Democrats, the OP's argument has a number of flaws as follows:

- the Democrats also have bigoted supporters (see: Obama);
- DePass was a candidate for state senate, not an elected politician;
- Goforth is an executive assistant, not an elected politician;
- and Sen Black, an actual elected Republican, went so far as to distance himself from the controversy.

The OP has blown the issue out of proportion, which is typical for P&CE. This would be more of an issue if we could show elected Republicans saying stuff like this. The more time I spend around here, the less I like everyone.

[Haggis]

How do you come to the conclusion that Republicans are statistically more likely to be bigoted than Democrats?

[SPMiller]

Oh, I don't know... lots and lots of polls taken over a long period of time? I don't really care if people get butthurt over being told how things are. That's how it is.

[Haggis]

Oh, I don't know... lots and lots of polls taken over a long period of time? I don't really care if people get butthurt over being told how things are. That's how it is.

Ah. I see.

:Shrug:

[dmytryp]

Oh, I don't know... lots and lots of polls taken over a long period of time? I don't really care if people get butthurt over being told how things are. That's how it is.
What forms of bigotry do those polls entail? I've seen a recent study saying Dems are more likely to be anti-semitic than repubs by something like 15%

[Celia Cyanide]

This is obviously of critical national importance, while who Obama has as visitors to the White House he's occupying, that we built, own, and maintain doesn't mean a thing. Glad we've got our priorities straight.

Are there rules to how many threads we can have going at one time? I'm concerned, because I started that "healthy cigarette" thread, and it might to be important enough.

[Jcomp]

Don't know if this has been used here but...

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd196/jcompton4/79289_combo_breaker-1.jpg

Much better picture...

[rugcat]

Why is it Republican racism? Why isn't it Southern racism?I thought the same thing, then realized if I posted that thought I'd get a bunch of replies about how typical it was to stereotype southerners with a broad brush.

But people are afraid of you.

[mscelina]

Although Republicans are statistically more likely to be bigoted than Democrats, the OP's argument has a number of flaws as follows:

- the Democrats also have bigoted supporters (see: Obama);
- DePass was a candidate for state senate, not an elected politician;
- Goforth is an executive assistant, not an elected politician;
- and Sen Black, an actual elected Republican, went so far as to distance himself from the controversy.

The OP has blown the issue out of proportion, which is typical for P&CE. This would be more of an issue if we could show elected Republicans saying stuff like this. The more time I spend around here, the less I like everyone.

How do you come to the conclusion that Republicans are statistically more likely to be bigoted than Democrats?

Oh, I don't know... lots and lots of polls taken over a long period of time? I don't really care if people get butthurt over being told how things are. That's how it is.

Ah. I see.

:Shrug:

What forms of bigotry do those polls entail? I've seen a recent study saying Dems are more likely to be anti-semitic than repubs by something like 15%

Wow, and I thought that the sweeping generalizations of the OP were bad enough. Why don't you 'tell us how it is' with some source citation? Stating that Republicans are statistically more inclined to be bigots than Democrats implies that you have stats that back this assertion up. Okay, let's see 'em. I'd really like a chance to analyze any statistics that say such a thing.

Bigotry and racism is not confined to one political party or ideology.

[johnnysannie]

Guess I must be a shitty Republican, then, since I don't find racism funny.

You may not be because sadly enough most of them do.

[Robert Toy]

everyone already knows that there are no racist democrats in the north

[mscelina]

You may not be because sadly enough most of them do.

This makes absolutely no sense.

[Don]

You may not be because sadly enough most of them do.
...annnnndddd here's another opportunity to back up a nonsensical statement with some hard data.

Personally, I think Republicans are as misguided as Democrats, but claiming most Republicans find racism funny is ridiculous. Cites, please, and thank you.

[Haggis]

Don't know if this has been used here but...

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd196/jcompton4/79289_combo_breaker-1.jpg

Much better picture...

Nobody can take this picture seriously. It shows Ike as a president before Truman.

[johnnysannie]

...annnnndddd here's another opportunity to back up a nonsensical statement with some hard data.

Personally, I think Republicans are as misguided as Democrats, but claiming most Republicans find racism funny is ridiculous. Cites, please, and thank you.

Here's one just because I'm feeling benevolent; it is easy to find with a few keystrokes and Google.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-gordon/racism-check-out-the-expe_b_214803.html


There is a reason we caution those who live in glass houses about throwing stones.

Republicans calling Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor "racist" should look in the mirrors of their brittle glass house. If they choose to open their eyes, they can readily see decades of Republican racism, and denial. "Race" has been a central pillar of Republican political strategy; clearly it continues to be. Go back to Ronald Reagan declaring his bid for President in, God help us, Philadelphia, Mississippi ... how deeply and self-consciously offensive then and now. Why? To appeal to racists. The Nixon "Southern Strategy". What was that about? Racism, plane and simple. And on and on and on and on.

Not that Dems can be let off the hook, starting with faux history. Look no further than John F. Kennedy's signal failure as President. Despite all the latter-day and utterly imaginary hype to the contrary, he emphatically distanced himself from the Civil Rights Movement. Why? He feared the power of Richard B. Russell, the longtime segregationist Democratic Senator from Georgia for whom (we should all be deeply ashamed) the U.S. government's "Russell Senate Building" is named.

Shame on Gingrich and his screaming cohort. Shame. There's a reason we didn't hear this nuttiness from the radical reactionaries when Thomas or Alito or Roberts were nominated -- each ready, willing and eager to trifle with the truth to get confirmed. Standard Republican Issue Old Boys Club. Caucasian (or wanna-be) Old Boys Club.

We must not allow the hysterics of extremists on the far right end of this struggling nation to contaminate the confirmation of a worthy individual who will serve the nation well. Why the media persist in treating these people as responsible participants in the political discussion is an enduring mystery. They should be monitored not attended.

Evaluate Judge Sonia Sotomayor on her skills and character, not on bogus race-baiting rhetoric. Based on what we now know, her confirmation will be one more step in getting on, late-in-the-day though it be, with the weaning of this nation from its appalling and enduring racist, sexist history, past and present.

Supreme Court
Sonia Sotomayor
There's a reason we caution those who live in glass houses about throwing stones. Republicans calling Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor "racist" should look in the mirrors of their brittle...
There's a reason we caution those who live in glass houses about throwing stones. Republicans calling Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor "racist" should look in the mirrors of their brittle...

[Jcomp]

I gotta say, that doesn't really "cite" any statistical evidence that most Republicans are racist (bearing in mind that we're talking about more than just the politicians, but the voting citizens as well).

[Robert Toy]

Paula says is good enough for me

[dclary]

You may not be because sadly enough most of them do.
Just like most democrats indulge in incest.






What?

I thought we were just hurling unfounded offensive accusations around.

[DavidZahir]

I for one don't buy for a second that all the racists in this country are Republicans. However--in terms of the racial issues faced by the US today, it seems that many Democrats are at least trying to face up to all this whereas a lot of Republicans appear baffled that anyone claims there's a problem.

Case in point -- columnist Marcus Epstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Epstein) and an associate of Pat Buchanan, who when asked what is necessary for a genuine dialog between races in essence says "Blacks need to stop talking about racism." I'm not kidding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV4ppLfliTQ
Turns out there's a nasty little sequel of sorts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUw6KpwaFqo

[AMCrenshaw]

What does this (http://cofcc.org/) have to do with Republicans?



AMC

[mscelina]

I'm thinking no one is citing statistical evidence that Republicans are more inclined to be racist because *gasp!* there isn't any.

[AMCrenshaw]

http://www.governorbarbour.com/


This guy a racist?



AMC

[Robert Toy]

What does this (http://cofcc.org/) have to do with Republicans?



AMC
nothing?

[AMCrenshaw]

Well I wonder what it matters, Ms. Conversely, I've heard Republicans say there is more crime in areas where people vote Democrat.

Hmm.



AMC

[Gretad08]

Well I wonder what it matters, Ms. Conversely, I've heard Republicans say there is more crime in areas where people vote Democrat.

Hmm.



AMC


Is that claim true?

[AMCrenshaw]

We have winning experience. The Council of Conservative Citizens is unique in another way — it was founded and is staffed by men and women whose political experience comes from every responsible social movement, conservative organization, and effective political party in America.



Heh.

[Robert Toy]

Well I wonder what it matters, Ms. Conversely, I've heard Republicans say there is more crime in areas where people vote Democrat.

Hmm.



AMC
careful, you probably can get stats on that

[shawkins]

Why is it Republican racism? Why isn't it Southern racism?

How does one spot the difference?

She didn't say "y'all."

...annnnndddd here's another opportunity to back up a nonsensical statement with some hard data.

Let me preface this by emphasizing that:

I DO NOT, repeat NOT, think it is fair to characterize all, or even most, republicans as racist.
For my own part, I am sincerely and explicitly excluding every single conservative who has posted in this thread thus far from any personal accusation of racism.
As numerous polls last fall showed, racial bias certainly is present among white members of the democratic party.However, I do think it's fair to say that you will find a higher percentage of white voters with anti-black racial bias in the republican party than you will in the democratic party.

Here's your poll:

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race&printer=1;_ylt=Av3StDEW_iarOrg2vIOPFxlh24cA

[AMCrenshaw]

Is that claim true?

Maybe, but there's no direct link to one voting Democrat and then going out and stealing a car. Just as, I think, being racist and Republican is incidental, even if there's a statistical correlation.


AMC

[Gretad08]

Where is the OP? He's been conspicuously absent from this entire discussion.

[AMCrenshaw]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

And see, I personally distrust any source that points out racism in a political party-- is the motive to tell the truth or play a political game with me?


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

or

http://moleprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/09/blatant-republican-racism.html


AMC

[donroc]

More broad brush crap to marginialize those one disagrees with. Specifically Liberals including Jews and blacks did not feel tainted by racism when they supported FDR's party of the still lynching KKK and Dem. immigrant exclusionary policies that refused to accept refugees from the Nazis except big names and those who had relations with clout. I'll take conservative country club racism over that anytime if racism must exist.

Ah the sham, the hypocracy. Let Marion Anderson sing at the Lincoln Memorial and continue segregation; let Einstein in and send "ships of Jewish fools" back to Germany.

[nighttimer]

Stereotyping an entire group of people doesn't help anything, either. Are there racist Republicans? Sure. Racism exists everywhere. That doesn't make it right to decide that these specific morons are representative of all Republicans.

But it's always easier to demonize people you disagree with rather than listen to them, I suppose.

Why would I want to listen to a bigot and their weak-ass, whiny excuses?

The generalized comment "racism exists everywhere" is a cop-out, catch-all that glosses over the deliberate and systematic way bigotry, prejudice and appeals to racism are strategy of the contemporary Republican Party.

For example:

Ronald Reagan opens his 1980 campaign for president in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 16 years earlier three civil rights workers were murdered, and Reagan offers a stirring defense of "state rights."

In 1982, Reagan directs the Treasury and Justice Department to challenge i the Supreme Court the IRS decision to revoke the tax-free status of Bob Jones University. The university says it is following it's religious beliefs that "God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage." The university loses in the Supreme Court 8-1. Reagan later appoints the lone dissenter, William Rehnquist to Chief Justice.

In 1952, while Rehnquist was a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson, the case of Brown v. Board of Education came before the Court. Rehnquist wrote a memo arguing against federal-court-ordered school desegregation and in defense of the "separate, but equal" doctrine.

Rehnquist wrote in his memo, I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by "liberal" colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson) was right and should be reaffirmed.... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

Richard Nixon would appoint Rehnquist to the Supreme Court in 1971.

After a narrow, but bruising loss in 1960, Richard Nixon wins the White House due to no small part by appealing to Southern Democrats disgruntled by their party's embrace of civil rights. This strategy comes to be known as "the Southern Stratregy" and will eventually change the political map in the Southern states from Democratic blue to Republican red.

A Nixon strategist, Kevin Phillips explained how it worked,

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

The Southern Strategy successfully used wedge issues such as busing and desegregation to appeal to White Southerners.

In 2005, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman spoke to the NAACP convention and apologized for the tactic.

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html)

And of course everyone knows about Sen. Trent Lott's remaks lauding Sen. Strom Thurmond's run for the presidency on a segregationist ticket, Ronald Reagan's hands-off "constructive engagement" policy toward apartheid in South Africa, Karl Rove's race-baiting "Black baby" phone calls in the 2000 South Carolina primary against John McCain, McCain's own flip-flop on the flying of the Confederate flag, and the entire career of North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, but specifically the notorious "hands" commercial (http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1990b.html#movie).

Oh, it's a long list and both easily documented and proven. Racism and Republicans exploiting it for their own political advantage goes back quite a ways and it's still going strong wth the election of a Black man as president.


What forms of bigotry do those polls entail? I've seen a recent study saying Dems are more likely to be anti-semitic than repubs by something like 15%

Would you like to share a link to that recent study, dmytryp? I wouldn't want to think you made it up.

This is obviously of critical national importance, while who Obama has as visitors to the White House he's occupying, that we built, own, and maintain doesn't mean a thing. Glad we've got our priorities straight.

I'll make you a deal, Don since just last week you were all bent out of shape over a column by Bonnie Erbe in U.S. News & World Report that maybe 25 people on this board had read. You got your priorities and I got mine. You decide what issues are to you of "critical national importance" and I'll decide mine.

I'm sure you were equally bent and blustery when The Bush Administration did the exactly same thing. One day when I have absolutely nothing else to do and bored shitless, I'll try to find the post.

[AMCrenshaw]

immigrant exclusionary policies that refused to accept refugees from the Nazis except big names and those who had relations with clout.

That's 200,000 big names and those who had relations with clout. Too few. Didn't want the government too favor them Jews.

I'll take conservative country club racism over that anytime if racism must exist.

That's precisely the suggestion, though; it's no longer country club. There's racism in Republican policy. I'm not very concerned about the labels though I'm convinced capitalism, with its winners and losers, has given way to an oddly disproportionate number of whites winning. It so happens that -- despite a lot of BS in the media -- both the Democrats and Republicans support capitalism and the free market to different degrees.


so...

[rugcat]

I think there's a certain amount of non equivalency here, of the all Greeks are men doesn't mean all men are Greeks variely.

First, I think it's more accurate to talk about ideology, conservative and liberal, than political affiliation. For example the Dixiecrats, those southern democrats of the past, were racist but conservative as opposed to liberal, despite party label.

I'm not saying if you're conservative, you're more likely to be racist, not by any means. But what is true is that if you find an unapologetic racist of the David Duke variety, or the bombers of Black churches, or avowed segregationists, you will also find that their views on other things are usually deeply conservative -- to the far right. You don't find Klan members singing the praises of progressive politicians.

Can I prove this? No.

But can anyone say, with a straight face, that the holocaust museum shooter was just as likely to have held left wing views as right wing views?

Oh, wait, Rush Limbaugh actually made that exact case -- that the shooter was, indeed inspired by the left.

[Sheryl Nantus]

you Americans are all nuts.

oh, wait... is that a generalization?

:D

[robeiae]

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race&printer=1;_ylt=Av3StDEW_iarOrg2vIOPFxlh24cA
Look at the story around that poll. I like this bit:


Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.
Bwahahahahahahaha!

So, if I say something good about another so-called race, I'm not prejudiced as a matter of fact? Cool.

This stuff just kills me.

[robeiae]

Oh, wait, Rush Limbaugh actually made that exact case -- that the shooter was, indeed inspired by the left.
He also said the VaTech shooter was a liberal. Of course, he said both things as a set-up.

But looky here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

That's Paul Krugman laying out a dead-serious argument that this was the fault of the "conservative" media...

[shawkins]

Bwahahahahahahaha!

A compelling rebuttal. Let me counter by saying neener-neener.

[dmytryp]

Would you like to share a link to that recent study, dmytryp? I wouldn't want to think you made it up.




Oh, but of course (http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php). We wouldn't want to that, would we.

EDIT: Then again, this isn't very surprising. You just need to browse a little the threads concerning Israel on Huffingtonpost

[robeiae]

A compelling rebuttal. Let me counter by saying neener-neener.
I wasn't addressing your points, I was addressing the story on that poll.

Did you read it? Look at that bit I quoted, again.

"Not all whites are prejudiced"--if you need a poll to make this determination (the "you" being the writer of the story), you've got some serious problems, imo.

"Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows"--see? The writer actually thinks the poll is hard evidence on this. Further--the reason I cracked up--the writer is saying that if you say "good things" about a race, you can't be prejudiced. Setting aside the fact that people don't always tell the truth, if I say "all blacks are good dancers, good basketball players, and all male blacks are well-endowed," would you say that demonstrates I have no prejudices about blacks?

As to your point re anti-black bias in the repub party, I pretty much agree insofar as there are--without question--more white republicans that openly express racist views than there are white democrats that do the same. There's no way around the fact that of the two parties, the Repub party attracts more of these people, for a variety of reasons. Of course, there was a time when the Dem party attracted more of them. And of course, Byrd is still a Dem.

[dmytryp]

But can anyone say, with a straight face, that the holocaust museum shooter was just as likely to have held left wing views as right wing views?


Didn't Wright hold pretty similar views? Or are you claiming he is a conservative?

[dclary]

But can anyone say, with a straight face, that the holocaust museum shooter was just as likely to have held left wing views as right wing views?

The fact that he's a registered democrat probably doesn't mean anything to you, does it Ruggy? Or that he so hated Reagan's fiscal party he once tried to kidnap the entire federal reserve board?

[dclary]

As to your point re anti-black bias in the repub party, I pretty much agree insofar as there are--without question--more white republicans that openly express racist views than there are white democrats that do the same. There's no way around the fact that of the two parties, the Repub party attracts more of these people, for a variety of reasons. Of course, there was a time when the Dem party attracted more of them. And of course, Byrd is still a Dem.

Oh come on, Robeieaea. The NAACP loves Byrd now. He stopped attending the Klan meetings a long time ago! You know democrats are allowed to reform!

[Jcomp]

Define "pretty similar." Because dude was a violent white supremacist so, for all his glaring, horrible faults, I'd be disinclined to think Wright had similar views...

[robeiae]

Supposedly, he also had a list of targets that included a FoxNews location.

But you know, with these white supremacist types, the distinctions blur. This guy hard core anti-capitalist, from what I've read. But his other views link him with fringe so-called "right wing" groups, groups that support other traditionally conservative--and Republican--views.

[Jcomp]

you Americans are all nuts.

oh, wait... is that a generalization?

:D

Nah, that's about as factual as anything I've seen in this thread, statistically cited or not.

Of course, that's mostly because we Americans are all human and, well, humans are all pretty gotdamn nutty...

[robeiae]

Define "pretty similar." Because dude was a violent white supremacist so, for all his glaring, horrible faults, I'd be disinclined to think Wright had similar views...
They share anti-semitism as a core tenet, if nothing else.

[Jcomp]

Supposedly, he also had a list of targets that included a FoxNews location.

But you know, with these white supremacist types, the distinctions blur. This guy hard core anti-capitalist, from what I've read. But his other views link him with fringe so-called "right wing" groups, groups that support other traditionally conservative--and Republican--views.

Word. I don't think you can paint him into one corner or the other, which I suppose is what I'm getting at. Saying he has "pretty similar" views to anyone other than other psychopathic white supremacists (and even that's probably inaccurate) seems a bit of a stretch.

[shawkins]

Further--the reason I cracked up--the writer is saying that if you say "good things" about a race, you can't be prejudiced.

The way I took that was that the writer was referring to the polling methods--are members of group X likely to have attribute Y.

Setting aside the fact that people don't always tell the truth, if I say "all blacks are good dancers, good basketball players, and all male blacks are well-endowed," would you say that demonstrates I have no prejudices about blacks?

True, that's quite literallly prejudice as well.

As to your point re anti-black bias in the repub party, I pretty much agree insofar as there are--without question--more white republicans that openly express racist views than there are white democrats that do the same. There's no way around the fact that of the two parties, the Repub party attracts more of these people, for a variety of reasons. Of course, there was a time when the Dem party attracted more of them. And of course, Byrd is still a Dem.

You're no fun anymore, you know that?

Fine, if you won't play then I'll argue with myself:

Here's your poll:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race&printer=1;_ylt=Av3StDEW_iarOrg2vIOPFxlh24cA

That poll (at least as shown, the lazy poster didn't bother to track down the raw data) proves nothing. There aren't any control questions where white pollees are asked similar questions about white people. From the data shown one might just as easily conclude that republicans simply hold a lower opinion of humanity in general than do democrats. The only thing the above post proves conclusively is that the poster is prone to the sloppy thinking endemic among liberals.

[rugcat]

Didn't Wright hold pretty similar views? Or are you claiming he is a conservative?There is certainly a strain of anti semitism among the far left, mostly centered on criticism of Israel and identification with the "oppressed" people of Palestine.

Wright, however, apologized for his comments about jews, whether or not he was sincere. Von Brunn spent his life proudly promoting his views -- which included besides virulent anti semitism and virulent racism, conspiracy theories and total distrust of government.

Actually, he is more the extreme nutjob that can grow out of the libertarian philosophy than a conservative one -- he hated bush and the neocons as much as he did the left. And being a nutjob, he was a bad example for me to use -- you really cannot make any valid conclusions from the beliefs of someone that crazy.

[Jcomp]

I think he was referring to anti-semitism...which has been espoused by both men. (Just last week Wright claimed that the Jews in Washington won't let him talk to Obama.)

I figured that. But one hideous belief shared does not make for a similarity of views. I doubt Wright and Von Brunn would be chummy with one another, all things considered...

[robeiae]

You're no fun anymore, you know that?

Perhaps I've merely succeeded in shifting your paradigm. We can hope so, anyway...

[Jcomp]

Setting aside the fact that people don't always tell the truth, if I say "all blacks are good dancers, good basketball players, and all male blacks are well-endowed," would you say that demonstrates I have no prejudices about blacks?



I've kind of wondered / joked about this with friends recently. How bad is it if a racial stereotype turns into a positive? Like if someone thinks all blacks can dunk (which, incidentally, is entirely true), how bad is it really? That's one of things we overreact about.

I think there's a difference between "All blacks are terrific athletes" (even though it could be seen as an attempt to make us more like "beasts" than human beings) and "All blacks have horrific hygiene and smell bad." I mean, the former might just lead to an eye-roll, but the latter = automatic-face-punch.

[rugcat]

The fact that he's a registered democrat probably doesn't mean anything to you, does it Ruggy? Or that he so hated Reagan's fiscal party he once tried to kidnap the entire federal reserve board?In my previous post, I said why I thought Democrat and Republican were the wrong labels to use. Ideological beliefs, as in conservative or liberal, or progressive, are more to the point.

Did you miss that, or did you ignore it to make your point?

[Gretad08]

I figured that. But one hideous belief shared does not make for a similarity of views. I doubt Wright and Von Brunn would be chummy with one another, all things considered...

I certainly can't see them sitting down together for a beer, you're right about that!

[robeiae]

Actually, he is more the extreme nutjob that can grow out of the libertarian philosophy than a conservative one -- he hated bush and the neocons as much as he did the left. And being a nutjob, he was a bad example for me to use -- you really cannot make any valid conclusions from the beliefs of someone that crazy.
He wrote a book--Kill the Best Gentiles--in which he pretty much accepts a neo-marxist economic viewpoint, opining that capitalism is over. Of course, he makes a point of noting that Marx was somewhat wrong because he was a Jew...

An excerpt (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35192):

The Age of Reason produced CAPITALISM in the West, the IDEA of rugged individualism: “Every Man for Himself.” Freedom from authority: “Don't tread on me!” At the same time, paradoxically, it was understood, that these rugged individuals should act in the best interest of the Nation-State. To the West ECONOMIC CAPITALISM meant: free trade, no personal income-tax, no state interference in money matters, private ownership, etc. USURY, however, was relegated outside the Pale, and proscribed. Capitalists found no fault with economically defeating, within the law, opposing economic groups. That was considered “healthy competition.” European States, goaded by Bankers, also competed with one another. Often with disastrous results. During WWI it became painfully clear that the IDEA of “rugged individualism” worked against the ARYAN NATION and its individual States.

WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates not from Reason alone butfrom the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea is the Musketeers' cry: “One for All and All for One!” The ingathering of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM — its own territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the Nation — precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value — not an ILLUMINATI weapon.” (pp. 143-4). “No intelligent person took MARX seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil — and New Testament idea that men and races are equally endowed — opposes Nature and the very Soul of the West.” Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce “capitalist pigs.” While from behind the scenes — in the on-going battle to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION — all wars and revolutions are financed by JEW CAPITALISTS

[dclary]

In my previous post, I said why I thought Democrat and Republican were the wrong labels to use. Ideological beliefs, as in conservative or liberal, or progressive, are more to the point.

Did you miss that, or did you ignore it to make your point?

I didn't see the earlier post. Sorry.

[Sheryl Nantus]

He wrote a book--Kill the Best Gentiles--in which he pretty much accepts a neo-marxist economic viewpoint, opining that capitalism is over. Of course, he makes a point of noting that Marx was somewhat wrong because he was a Jew...

An excerpt (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35192):

The Age of Reason produced CAPITALISM in the West, the IDEA of rugged individualism: “Every Man for Himself.” Freedom from authority: “Don't tread on me!” At the same time, paradoxically, it was understood, that these rugged individuals should act in the best interest of the Nation-State. To the West ECONOMIC CAPITALISM meant: free trade, no personal income-tax, no state interference in money matters, private ownership, etc. USURY, however, was relegated outside the Pale, and proscribed. Capitalists found no fault with economically defeating, within the law, opposing economic groups. That was considered “healthy competition.” European States, goaded by Bankers, also competed with one another. Often with disastrous results. During WWI it became painfully clear that the IDEA of “rugged individualism” worked against the ARYAN NATION and its individual States.

WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates not from Reason alone butfrom the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea is the Musketeers' cry: “One for All and All for One!” The ingathering of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM — its own territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the Nation — precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value — not an ILLUMINATI weapon.” (pp. 143-4). “No intelligent person took MARX seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil — and New Testament idea that men and races are equally endowed — opposes Nature and the very Soul of the West.” Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce “capitalist pigs.” While from behind the scenes — in the on-going battle to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION — all wars and revolutions are financed by JEW CAPITALISTS

I weep for the damage to his keyboard...

:D

[robeiae]

I've kind of wondered / joked about this with friends recently. How bad is it if a racial stereotype turns into a positive? Like if someone thinks all blacks can dunk (which, incidentally, is entirely true), how bad is it really? That's one of things we overreact about.

I think there's a difference between "All blacks are terrific athletes" (even though it could be seen as an attempt to make us more like "beasts" than human beings) and "All blacks have horrific hygiene and smell bad." I mean, the former might just lead to an eye-roll, but the latter = automatic-face-punch.
Assuming these things are a consequence of race is the problem.

The idea that people's abilities are defined and limited by their race, first and foremost, is racism.

[Cranky]

You may not be because sadly enough most of them do.

I beg your pardon? I've tried to parse this a couple of different ways, and none of them make any sense to me.

[dclary]

He wrote a book--Kill the Best Gentiles--in which he pretty much accepts a neo-marxist economic viewpoint, opining that capitalism is over. Of course, he makes a point of noting that Marx was somewhat wrong because he was a Jew...

An excerpt (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35192):

The Age of Reason produced CAPITALISM in the West, the IDEA of rugged individualism: “Every Man for Himself.” Freedom from authority: “Don't tread on me!” At the same time, paradoxically, it was understood, that these rugged individuals should act in the best interest of the Nation-State. To the West ECONOMIC CAPITALISM meant: free trade, no personal income-tax, no state interference in money matters, private ownership, etc. USURY, however, was relegated outside the Pale, and proscribed. Capitalists found no fault with economically defeating, within the law, opposing economic groups. That was considered “healthy competition.” European States, goaded by Bankers, also competed with one another. Often with disastrous results. During WWI it became painfully clear that the IDEA of “rugged individualism” worked against the ARYAN NATION and its individual States.

WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates not from Reason alone butfrom the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea is the Musketeers' cry: “One for All and All for One!” The ingathering of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM — its own territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the Nation — precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value — not an ILLUMINATI weapon.” (pp. 143-4). “No intelligent person took MARX seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil — and New Testament idea that men and races are equally endowed — opposes Nature and the very Soul of the West.” Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce “capitalist pigs.” While from behind the scenes — in the on-going battle to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION — all wars and revolutions are financed by JEW CAPITALISTS

The three musketeers were not socialists, and their rallying cry referred not to the "i've got your back" of militial camaradarie, not having athos and porthos help pay for d'artagnan's rent.

[robeiae]

The three musketeers were not socialists, and their rallying cry referred not to the "i've got your back" of militial camaradarie, not having athos and porthos help pay for d'artagnan's rent.
You're actually looking to critique this stuff?

You've got problems, my friend...

[dmytryp]

There is certainly a strain of anti semitism among the far left, mostly centered on criticism of Israel and identification with the "oppressed" people of Palestine.

Wright, however, apologized for his comments about jews, whether or not he was sincere. Von Brunn spent his life proudly promoting his views -- which included besides virulent anti semitism and virulent racism, conspiracy theories and total distrust of government.
Yes, he said he meant "Zionists" (you know, them other jews). But I think you are not familiar enough with Wright's views. Most of the criticism centered on "God damn America", but it was hardly all. He espoused conspiracy theories about US gov and Israel, openly endorsed Hamas' regime (which explains how Hamas propaganda ended up on the newsletter of Trinity Church), etc etc.
He, certainly, didn't go as far as Brunn, but we were talking about views, no?
Sadly, anti-semitism today is predominantly comes from the far left (and the Jihadis, of course). I am not talking about US, but the Western world here. But this is another topic.

[rugcat]

I didn't see the earlier post. Sorry.And sorry I assumed you ignored it. Guess we all make unwarranted assumptions about people, after all.

[Jcomp]

Assuming these things are a consequence of race is the problem.

The idea that people's abilities are defined and limited by their race, first and foremost, is racism.

No, I don't deny that. My thing is though, some things are generally harmless while others are certainly more vile. It's probably just me, but I don't put it all on equal footing.

Like with jokes. I've heard some funny black jokes in my day, but they're harmless. Some people tend to equate any joke based on race as racist, which I disagree with, but that's just me.

The issue is when, like with the jokes in the OP, lines get crossed. One essentially puts the (half-white and decidedly light-skinned) Obama in what amounts to black face that somehow affects even the immediate area surrounding him (black is a single, uniform color, and contagious to boot!), while the other equates blacks to being primates.

Conversely, the other day when a non-black friend asked me how it is that every Wendy's in the city seems to have a black person working the drive thru, no matter what side of town you're on--even spots that are predominantly white or Mexican--that made me laugh. It's harmless and kinda true.

[blacbird]

Sadly, anti-semitism today is predominantly comes from the far left

Well, I suppose that's true as long as you define "anti-semitism" to mean disagreement with any policies of the Israeli government. Which, of course, makes those far left Lubovitcher Hasidim anti-semitic.

caw

[donroc]

No, I don't deny that. My thing is though, some things are generally harmless while others are certainly more vile. It's probably just me, but I don't put it all on equal footing.

Like with jokes. I've heard some funny black jokes in my day, but they're harmless. Some people tend to equate any joke based on race as racist, which I disagree with, but that's just me.

And me. I love ethnic and gender jokes when they are not mean-spirited but show cultural foibles.

Never stereotype but respect all cultural differences. Fun, no?

[dmytryp]

Well, I suppose that's true as long as you define "anti-semitism" to mean disagreement with any policies of the Israeli government. Which, of course, makes those far left Lubovitcher Hasidim anti-semitic.

caw
I don't, and you very well know that. But there is criticism, and there is criticism.

[aquacat]

And me. I love ethnic and gender jokes when they are not mean-spirited but show cultural foibles.

Never stereotype but respect all cultural differences. Fun, no?

Oh, did you hear that one about the white, middle class guy who...

Hmm, can't finish that one. Wonder why that is?

[Jcomp]

Oh, did you hear that one about the white, middle class guy who...

Hmm, can't finish that one. Wonder why that is?

You probably can finish the one about the young white guy who went to Spring Break and...

Admittedly there aren't too many "white jokes" in the conventional "Setup then punchline" format, but lots of observational humor can be made on all races that is generally harmless and often funny. Just gotta know the line, and mostly people do know, I think, and some just cross it anyways because they don't care...

[robeiae]

"Snake!"

[Diana Hignutt]

Oh, did you hear that one about the white, middle class guy who...

Hmm, can't finish that one. Wonder why that is?

Did you hear the one about the priest, the minister, and the rabbi? They decide to convert a bear who lives in the nearby forest, and then report back.

The preist says: "I sprinkled holy water and baptized the bear, he is converted."

The minister says: "I preached a powerful sermon, the bear was moved by my words, and was saved"

The rabbi comes in, all beat up looking: "In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have started with the circumcision."

There are white jokes.

[aquacat]

Did you hear the one about the priest, the minister, and the rabbi? They decide to convert a bear who lives in the nearby forest, and then report back.

The preist says: "I sprinkled holy water and baptized the bear, he is converted."

The minister says: "I preached a powerful sermon, the bear was moved by my words, and was saved"

The rabbi comes in, all beat up looking: "In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have started with the circumcision."

There are white jokes.

You're assuming that all those characters are white.

Nothing in the joke is explicitly about them being white, or a joke about some hilarious "social foible" related to their whiteness. They could be Mexican and Chinese, for all you know. This is not equivalent to all the "dumb women drivers" and "aren't black people from the hood hi-lar-rious" jokes I think of when someone says "ethnic and gender-based jokes." I'm not talking about jokes white people tell - I'm talking about jokes that explicitly mock some perceived similarity shared by members of a particular identity group. My point is that the fact that it's so hard to actually think of or find ones that are aimed at white, middle-class men is significant.

[robeiae]

Well, you've triple-downed on your target group. Why append "middle-class" and "men"? How many jokes do you know specifically about "black middle class men"?

Redneck jokes are about--wait for it--white people.

[Robert Toy]

Oh, did you hear that one about the white, middle class guy who...

Hmm, can't finish that one. Wonder why that is?
What's white and fourteen inches long?
Absolutely nothing!
What do you call 500,000 white guys jumping out of a plane?
Snow.
What do you call a bunch of white guys in a circle?
A Dope Ring!
What do you call 300 white men chasing a black man?
The PGA tour.
Why do so many white people get lost skiing?
It's hard to find them in the snow.
What did they white guy do before his blood test?
He studied.
How long does it take for a white women to take a crap???
9 months
What's the difference between a white man and a snake?
One is a evil, cold-blooded, venomous, slimy creature of Satan, and the other is a snake.
How many white men does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One, white men will screw anything.
What's the flattest surface to iron your jeans on?
A white girl's ass!
What did the black guy do with his M&Ms?
Eat them
What did they white guy try and do with his?
Put them in alphabetical order
What did a white guy see when he looked at his family tree?
A straight line!

[Cranky]

What's the flattest surface to iron your jeans on?
A white girl's ass!



Okay, no fair mocking the booty-challenged. I call foul!

[mscelina]

Well, you've triple-downed on your target group. Why append "middle-class" and "men"? How many jokes do you know specifically about "black middle class men"?

Redneck jokes are about--wait for it--white people.

They are? Wow. I never knew that.

*thinks really hard*

[Jcomp]

What's white and fourteen inches long?
Absolutely nothing!
What do you call 500,000 white guys jumping out of a plane?
Snow.
What do you call a bunch of white guys in a circle?
A Dope Ring!
What do you call 300 white men chasing a black man?
The PGA tour.
Why do so many white people get lost skiing?
It's hard to find them in the snow.
What did they white guy do before his blood test?
He studied.
How long does it take for a white women to take a crap???
9 months
What's the difference between a white man and a snake?
One is a evil, cold-blooded, venomous, slimy creature of Satan, and the other is a snake.
How many white men does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One, white men will screw anything.
What's the flattest surface to iron your jeans on?
A white girl's ass!
What did the black guy do with his M&Ms?
Eat them
What did they white guy try and do with his?
Put them in alphabetical order
What did a white guy see when he looked at his family tree?
A straight line!

*writes some of these down to use at the next battle rap tournament*

I keed... I keed...

[robeiae]

What's the difference between a white man and a snake?
One is a evil, cold-blooded, venomous, slimy creature of Satan, and the other is a snake.
Come now, Robert. That's a lawyer joke.

[robeiae]

*thinks really hard*
I can tell...the buttons on your jeans are popping.

[Robert Toy]

Come now, Robert. That's a lawyer joke.
a white one

[aquacat]

Well, you've triple-downed on your target group. Why append "middle-class" and "men"? How many jokes do you know specifically about "black middle class men"?

Redneck jokes are about--wait for it--white people.


And you make my points for me so effortlessly. Race, class and gender work together to shape and limit how we see people. Redneck jokes are, as far as I'm concerned, jokes at the expense of a disadvantaged group.

Newsflash: Not all white people are the same, and jokes about poverty are just as problematic as jokes about race and gender.

[aquacat]

What's white and fourteen inches long?
Absolutely nothing!
What do you call 500,000 white guys jumping out of a plane?
Snow.
What do you call a bunch of white guys in a circle?
A Dope Ring!
What do you call 300 white men chasing a black man?
The PGA tour.
Why do so many white people get lost skiing?
It's hard to find them in the snow.
What did they white guy do before his blood test?
He studied.
How long does it take for a white women to take a crap???
9 months
What's the difference between a white man and a snake?
One is a evil, cold-blooded, venomous, slimy creature of Satan, and the other is a snake.
How many white men does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One, white men will screw anything.
What's the flattest surface to iron your jeans on?
A white girl's ass!
What did the black guy do with his M&Ms?
Eat them
What did they white guy try and do with his?
Put them in alphabetical order
What did a white guy see when he looked at his family tree?
A straight line!

*golf claps*

[robeiae]

And you make my points for me so effortlessly. Race, class and gender work together to shape and limit how we see people. Redneck jokes are, as far as I'm concerned, jokes at the expense of a disadvantaged group.
Oh, there's no question that we perceive people by things like race, class and gender.

But your point was in this:


Oh, did you hear that one about the white, middle class guy who...

Hmm, can't finish that one. Wonder why that is?
Are you now claiming that your point wasn't something along the lines of "there aren't any jokes about this group"? Because that sure seems to be the point. Others may see a different point--I'd be interested in hearing such.

So, what I see now is that--faced with evidence that what you assumed did not exist actually DOES exist--you are trying to fashion some sort of meta-point out of your obvious error.

Of course, I think it quite obvious that there is--indeed--more humor derived from mocking marginalized groups. But that reality doesn't translate into "there are only jokes about these groups, not about the majority group," despite how much you appear to wish that it did.

[aquacat]

Oh, there's no question that we perceive people by things like race, class and gender.

But your point was in this:

Are you no claiming that your point wasn't something along the lines of "there aren't any jokes about this group"? Because that sure seems to be the point. Others may see a different point--I'd be interested in hearing such.

So, what I see now is that--faced with evidence that what you assumed did not exist actually DOES exist--you are trying to fashion some sort of meta-point out of your obvious error.

Of course, I think it quite obvious that there is--indeed--more humor derived from mocking marginalized groups. But that reality doesn't translate into "there are only jokes about these groups, not about the majority group," despite how much you appear to wish that it did.

Hahha, no, I never said such jokes don't exist, and that wasn't the point.

Whatever, man. You think my point was one thing, I think it was another. Since I don't think you have even a minimal understanding of what I'm talking about at all, we'll just leave it at that.

[rugcat]

Okay, I've posted this before, but never gotten a good answer. Is this quote racist, and if not, why not? It certainly ascribes specific traits to a specific group.

Wish I could write that well, either way.

There is nothing tougher than a tough Mexican, just as there is nothing gentler than a gentle Mexican, nothing more honest than an honest Mexican, and above all nothing sadder than a sad Mexican.

— Raymond Chandler

[Robert Toy]

*mind reading 101 required*

[mscelina]

Hahha, no, I never said such jokes don't exist, and that wasn't the point.

Whatever, man. You think my point was one thing, I think it was another. Since I don't think you have even a minimal understanding of what I'm talking about at all, we'll just leave it at that.

Actually, I think Robieae knew exactly what you were talking about and called you on it. *shrug* The fact of the matter is that, despite your assertion, there are jokes about every subgroup of the American population. You can choose to ignore those jokes if it helps to fit your perception, but ignoring them won't make them go away.

[mscelina]

Okay, I've posted this before, but never gotten a good answer. Is this quote racist, and if not, why not? It certainly ascribes specific traits to a specific group. There is nothing tougher than a tough Mexican, just as there is nothing gentler than a gentle Mexican, nothing more honest than an honest Mexican, and above all nothing sadder than a sad Mexican.

— Raymond Chandler

Wish I could write that well, either way.

Isn't the purpose of racism to be derogatory? i'd think that would be your answer--no, this isn't racist, because Chandler did not write these words in order to demean Mexicans.

[robeiae]

Hahha, no, I never said such jokes don't exist, and that wasn't the point.

Whatever, man. You think my point was one thing, I think it was another. Since I don't think you have even a minimal understanding of what I'm talking about at all, we'll just leave it at that.
Whatever?

Come on, explain it. Again, you said this:

Oh, did you hear that one about the white, middle class guy who...

Hmm, can't finish that one. Wonder why that is?"Can't finish that one"--what does that imply?

And then you even clarified:


My point is that the fact that it's so hard to actually think of or find ones that are aimed at white, middle-class men is significant.
Now, again, you've got three distinct characteristics to define this group, as opposed to just the one re the post you quoted: ethnic and gender jokes (clearly meaning "ethnic jokes" and "gender jokes"). So, I submit that you made a bad comparison, to put it nicely. But even then, you assumed wrongly, since it's very easy to think of and find the jokes you think are so rare, at the most.

[Cranky]

Isn't the purpose of racism to be derogatory? i'd think that would be your answer--no, this isn't racist, because Chandler did not write these words in order to demean Mexicans.

Yeah, but then aren't we circling back around to "positive" stereotypes?

Still, I don't think what Chandler wrote was racist, though I can't explain why.

[Robert Toy]

Okay, I've posted this before, but never gotten a good answer. Is this quote racist, and if not, why not? It certainly ascribes specific traits to a specific group.

Wish I could write that well, either way.
Personally I don’t see it racist at all. The reason is it lists the extremes of four very human emotions and is applicable to any race.

[robeiae]

Okay, I've posted this before, but never gotten a good answer.
I disagree (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2592627&postcount=101). ;)

[mscelina]

So why would positive stereotypes be racist? If we go off a standard definition of racism, such as this:

rac⋅ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

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

Origin:
1865–70; < F racisme. See race 2 , -ism


—Related forms
racist, noun, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source |Link To racism

then in order for Chandler's quote to be racist, one of those definition would have to apply. Granted, I realize that this is a plug into the blank sort of answer, but I'm just using it as an example of my overall concept of racist statements. The statement is not demeaning to Mexicans, therefore the statement isn't racist.

IMO, of course.

[AMCrenshaw]

Still, I don't think what Chandler wrote was racist, though I can't explain why.

It's the difference between racial and racist. Racial stereotypes aren't always useful but, like any construct or web of constructs, can be used for malicious or benevolent purposes -- Chandler's use is obvious to me.

Additionally that quote has, IMO, catholic (extreme) undertones to it.



AMC

[Cranky]

So why would positive stereotypes be racist? If we go off a standard definition of racism, such as this:



then in order for Chandler's quote to be racist, one of those definition would have to apply. Granted, I realize that this is a plug into the blank sort of answer, but I'm just using it as an example of my overall concept of racist statements. The statement is not demeaning to Mexicans, therefore the statement isn't racist.

IMO, of course.

I've tried like three times to answer this, and I just can't make my statements jell the way I want them to. I'll have to leave it to someone else who might agree to explain.

Stupid cold.

[blacbird]

The statement is not demeaning to Mexicans, therefore the statement isn't racist.

Disagree. The statement treats the group as one of monolithic uniformity, thereby dehumanizing the individual. That's the definition of demeaning. A stereotype of any kind does that, but in this case it's a racial stereotype at issue.

caw

[robeiae]

Disagree. The statement treats the group as one of monolithic uniformity, thereby dehumanizing the individual. That's the definition of demeaning. A stereotype of any kind does that, but in this case it's a racial stereotype at issue.

caw
A-gree.

[Robert Toy]

Disagree. The statement treats the group as one of monolithic uniformity, thereby dehumanizing the individual. That's the definition of demeaning. A stereotype of any kind does that, but in this case it's a racial stereotype at issue.

caw
racial stereotype does not necessarily have to be racist

[blacbird]

I think we'll just have to disagree on that one, Robert, as an issue of semantics, if nothing else. You appear to define "racist" in a somewhat different manner than I do. You Chinese are all good at linguistics.

caw

[AMCrenshaw]

Disagree. The statement treats the group as one of monolithic uniformity, thereby dehumanizing the individual. That's the definition of demeaning. A stereotype of any kind does that, but in this case it's a racial stereotype at issue.

caw


I think when 'good' intention meets 'bad' consequence, you have an action we can't call "racist" since that implies maliciousness or intolerance.

'Monolithic' isn't synonymous with 'generally speaking'.

But this is silly. Individuals make up collectives. Races are different from one another. Cultures are different from one another. Statements begin to be racist when the subjects assume superiority over their objects, up to and including every individual which makes up the collective.



AMC

[mscelina]

I think we'll just have to disagree on that one, Robert, as an issue of semantics, if nothing else. You appear to define "racist" in a somewhat different manner than I do. You Chinese are all good at linguistics.

caw

:roll:

[Cranky]

I think when 'good' intention meets 'bad' consequence, you have an action we can't call "racist" since that implies maliciousness or intolerance.

'Monolithic' isn't synonymous with 'generally speaking'.

But this is silly. Individuals make up collectives. Races are different from one another. Cultures are different from one another. Statements begin to be racist when the subjects assume superiority over their objects, up to and including every individual which makes up the collective.



AMC

Right. And then, what's "positive" becomes, then, condescending? Serious here, btw. Just...not all "there" today.

[Robert Toy]

I think we'll just have to disagree on that one, Robert, as an issue of semantics, if nothing else. You appear to define "racist" in a somewhat different manner than I do. You Chinese Asians are all good at linguistics.

caw
s i hayakawa

[AMCrenshaw]

And then, what's "positive" becomes, then, condescending?

Well, then being the key word, what is the issue? The observation of a positive trait or the becoming-condescension? I hope no person is suggesting the issue is anywhere else but the process of making the other inferior to oneself. This isn't a problem of observation! It's a problem of perspective, education, and flat-out willingness to esteem another. I say this because those three problems are inherent in every form of bigotry; that's the common denominator.

Generally speaking, general statements are not the problem (again, I reference the Bird Cage-- a movie that, without generalized statements and keen observation of the individual, would not be so good).


And I am,
generally,


AMC

[aquacat]

I think when 'good' intention meets 'bad' consequence, you have an action we can't call "racist" since that implies maliciousness or intolerance.



I'm not sure that's fully true. It's important to parse intentions from effects, as people frequently act in ways that, to them, might not seem racist but have racist implications or constitute a form of racist action. It's also important to make a distinction between racist beliefs and racist action so we can avoid descending into ridiculous, counterproductive "yer a racist" name calling.

Take, for instance, all the work on linguistic profiling. Linguistic profiling is when a person hears a voice without seeing the body, makes assumptions about that person's racial and/or class position and acts to deny them or grant them a resource accordingly. Many studies have been done on the kinds of profiling done by apartment managers, for example, which show that they will frequently deny someone an apartment or lie to them about its availability based on assumptions about "racial" or "class" nature of their accents. John Baugh (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ejbaugh/) has done a lot of work (http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html)on this issue.

Now, many of these apartment managers would deny being racists - and I would argue that many of them aren't, at least interpersonally. The justification for their behavior is often that they need to get the "right" kind of people as tenants and they're being cautious. For them, this is a good or positive reason for their actions. However, one has to ask why certain accents are gauged as the "right" kind and why some are not. This, of course, is where racism comes in - stereotypes about ethnic or poor accents are fundamentally steeped in racism. In these cases, it's possible to see how individuals who would deny being racist in any other way often still make use of coded racial language and reasoning that is based in racist assumptions. It may be that they think they're only trying to pick people who are "trustworthy," but in this case "trustworthy" is being perhaps unintentionally understood as a racially-based characteristic. I would say there's rarely outright hostility or maliciousness in some of these cases, but that doesn't mean the behaviors aren't steeped in racism and don't constitute racist action.

And as for stereotyping - human beings all do it. We have to, it's how our brains work. If we wandered around all day without having pre-set categories with which to analyze the world and we had to start freshly understanding everything each day we'd go crazy. But what is NOT inevitable is the content of those stereotypes and how we act on them. The content of our stereotypes is formed by our socialization. And once we become aware of them, we absolutely can change them. But it takes work to recognize the nasty (or even positive, but still harmful) stereotypes we hold, see how they're affecting our behavior and subvert them. It's much easier to just not.

[cethklein]

racial stereotype does not necessarily have to be racist

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming you meant to say "racial generalizations". Racial stereotypes are not only racism, they are the foundation of racism. No one ever woke up one morning and said "hey, I think I'll hate black people". Racism is hatred towards a given race or ethnicity. That hatred usually stems from a belief that members of said group are inferior This is based off of stereotypes about said group.

I sincerely hope you're not implying that racial stereotyping (or any stereotyping for that matter) is somehow justifiable. Because you'd in effect be justifying racism or other forms of bigotry. If you Are jsutifying it, well obviously that's your right. But again, I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt before assuming things about what you said.

A generalization is a generalized statement about a group. Sometimes generalizatinos are stereotypes, but not always. A stereotype, by definition is a negative generalization. Hatred and bigotry are based off of said negative assumptions.

The title of this thread, for example, could be interpreted as a stereotype.

[rugcat]

Redneck jokes are about--wait for it--white people.Except, most redneck jokes are told, in a self deprecating manner, by self identified "rednecks."

Jeff Foxworthy or Larry the Cable Guy tell jokes about themselves and their friends. Believe me, if David Letterman told the same jokes, there'd be a very different reaction.

Likewise, Richard Pryor told jokes and used stereotypes about African Americans. Anyone who thinks that somehow it's wrong to consider that the same jokes would be racist, just because a white person tells them, lives in a bubble. Context is vital.

Racial jokes told by the majority ethnic group, the ones with the power, about minorities, the ones without power, are meant to be demeaning and reinforce the perception of earned superiority.

[mscelina]

A generalization is a generalized statement about a group. Sometimes generalizatinos are stereotypes, but not always. A stereotype, by definition is a negative generalization. Hatred and bigotry are based off of said negative assumptions.

The title of this thread, for example, could be interpreted as a stereotype.

It is a stereotype, ceth. It's also a negative generalization used to demean or belittle a group of people with whom the OP disagrees ideologically.

[cethklein]

It is a stereotype, ceth. It's also a negative generalization used to demean or belittle a group of people with whom the OP disagrees ideologically.

Par for the course around here.Although to the creator of the thread's defense, he did little to hide that unlike some who go around trying to pretend to be "unbiased" while posting umpteen threads bashing Obama and having posted next to none bashing bush.

I may not agree with this thread but at least the creator has a spine.

[robeiae]

Except, most redneck jokes are told, in a self deprecating manner, by self identified "rednecks."I agree.

Believe me, if David Letterman told the same jokes, there'd be a very different reaction.I disagree. Letterman HAS told these sorts of jokes, has mocked rednecks and "trailer trash" in the past.

Likewise, Richard Pryor told jokes and used stereotypes about African Americans. Anyone who thinks that somehow it's wrong to consider that the same jokes would be racist, just because a white person tells them, lives in a bubble. Context is vital.
But I agree with this. Context IS vital, no doubt. Still, Richard Pryor also used stereotypes about white people. Eddie Murphy did the same.
Racial jokes told by the majority ethnic group, the ones with the power, about minorities, the ones without power, are meant to be demeaning and reinforce the perception of earned superiority.Well, that can be--and maybe even usually is--the case, but it's not always the case. You ignore your own point: context is vital.

[Robert Toy]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming you meant to say "racial generalizations". Racial stereotypes are not only racism, they are the foundation of racism. No one ever woke up one morning and said "hey, I think I'll hate black people". Racism is hatred towards a given race or ethnicity. That hatred usually stems from a belief that members of said group are inferior This is based off of stereotypes about said group.

I sincerely hope you're not implying that racial stereotyping (or any stereotyping for that matter) is somehow justifiable. Because you'd in effect be justifying racism or other forms of bigotry. If you Are jsutifying it, well obviously that's your right. But again, I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt before assuming things about what you said.

A generalization is a generalized statement about a group. Sometimes generalizatinos are stereotypes, but not always. A stereotype, by definition is a negative generalization. Hatred and bigotry are based off of said negative assumptions.

The title of this thread, for example, could be interpreted as a stereotype.
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt but, no I didn’t mean to say “racial generalizations” since I have no idea exactly what it means.

I have a fair idea what I meant when I used racial stereotype

Your explanation of “generalization” sounds like a PC exercise.

[rugcat]

You ignore your own point: context is vital.Well, somebody has to.

[Haggis]

Except, most redneck jokes are told, in a self deprecating manner, by self identified "rednecks."

Jeff Foxworthy or Larry the Cable Guy tell jokes about themselves and their friends. Believe me, if David Letterman told the same jokes, there'd be a very different reaction.

Likewise, Richard Pryor told jokes and used stereotypes about African Americans. Anyone who thinks that somehow it's wrong to consider that the same jokes would be racist, just because a white person tells them, lives in a bubble. Context is vital.

Racial jokes told by the majority ethnic group, the ones with the power, about minorities, the ones without power, are meant to be demeaning and reinforce the perception of earned superiority.

If Jeff Foxworthy is allowed to tell jokes about Rednecks, but I'm not one, and if Richard Pryor is allowed to tell jokes about African Americans, but I'm not one, am I still allowed to laugh at them?

[robeiae]

If Jeff Foxworthy is allowed to tell jokes about Rednecks, but I'm not one, and if Richard Pryor is allowed to tell jokes about African Americans, but I'm not one, am I still allowed to laugh at them?
No. You may smile appreciatively, however.

[Haggis]

No. You may smile appreciatively, however.

Well, that's something.

[AMCrenshaw]

Take, for instance, all the work on linguistic profiling. Linguistic profiling is when a person hears a voice without seeing the body, makes assumptions about that person's racial and/or class position and acts to deny them or grant them a resource accordingly. Many studies have been done on the kinds of profiling done by apartment managers, for example, which show that they will frequently deny someone an apartment or lie to them about its availability based on assumptions about "racial" or "class" nature of their accents. John Baugh (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ejbaugh/) has done a lot of work (http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html)on this issue.

Now, many of these apartment managers would deny being racists - and I would argue that many of them aren't, at least interpersonally. The justification for their behavior is often that they need to get the "right" kind of people as tenants and they're being cautious. For them, this is a good or positive reason for their actions. However, one has to ask why certain accents are gauged as the "right" kind and why some are not. This, of course, is where racism comes in - stereotypes about ethnic or poor accents are fundamentally steeped in racism. In these cases, it's possible to see how individuals who would deny being racist in any other way often still make use of coded racial language and reasoning that is based in racist assumptions. It may be that they think they're only trying to pick people who are "trustworthy," but in this case "trustworthy" is being perhaps unintentionally understood as a racially-based characteristic. I would say there's rarely outright hostility or maliciousness in some of these cases, but that doesn't mean the behaviors aren't steeped in racism and don't constitute racist action.

And as for stereotyping - human beings all do it. We have to, it's how our brains work. If we wandered around all day without having pre-set categories with which to analyze the world and we had to start freshly understanding everything each day we'd go crazy. But what is NOT inevitable is the content of those stereotypes and how we act on them. The content of our stereotypes is formed by our socialization. And once we become aware of them, we absolutely can change them. But it takes work to recognize the nasty (or even positive, but still harmful) stereotypes we hold, see how they're affecting our behavior and subvert them. It's much easier to just not.


Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor were mentioned. I think it is worthwhile to transgress socialized images of race. Most comedians do exactly that. Most clowns, really.

Stereotypes are not solely the foundation of racism; they are also the thing we transgress the more clearly we individuate. So it's not stereotypes in themselves that cause racism, though I imagine racism wouldn't work well or at all without them.

I'm not sure that's fully true. It's important to parse intentions from effects, as people frequently act in ways that, to them, might not seem racist but have racist implications or constitute a form of racist action. It's also important to make a distinction between racist beliefs and racist action so we can avoid descending into ridiculous, counterproductive "yer a racist" name calling.

And I misspoke earlier: You have to be able to see what the *causes, intentions and effects were. But I think-- I especially get the feeling around here-- it sometimes seems useful to condemn a person, or to channel into a person the condemnation of a specific kind of action (a racist one, for example). Which I prefer to avoid, at the risk of recklessly calling people bigots; I've done so before.



AMC

[Jean Marie]

Guess I must be a shitty Republican, then, since I don't find racism funny.
I'm w/ you on this one. Racism disgusts me.

Stereotyping an entire group of people doesn't help anything, either. Are there racist Republicans? Sure. Racism exists everywhere. That doesn't make it right to decide that these specific morons are representative of all Republicans.

But it's always easier to demonize people you disagree with rather than listen to them, I suppose.
Well stated.

Too true.

Having a thread about dumb politicians making dumb racist comments and having a discussion about it is great. Anytime we can laugh at people I'm happy.

Making blanket statements that an entire group of people is (fill in the blank) then you become guilty of a lot of the things that aren't looked on too kindly. Stereotyping is one that pops in my head.
Also well stated.

Broad brushing an entire group is stupid.

Why is it Republican racism? Why isn't it Southern racism?

How does one spot the difference?
Pronunciation.

But damn it, if literary agents fail to respond to our queries, they deserve our hatred and scorn! ;)
Of course they do. Everyone knows that :D

A compelling rebuttal. Let me counter by saying neener-neener.
You forgot the 3rd neener.

What's white and fourteen inches long?
Absolutely nothing!
What do you call 500,000 white guys jumping out of a plane?
Snow.
What do you call a bunch of white guys in a circle?
A Dope Ring!
What do you call 300 white men chasing a black man?
The PGA tour.
Why do so many white people get lost skiing?
It's hard to find them in the snow.
What did they white guy do before his blood test?
He studied.
How long does it take for a white women to take a crap???
9 months
What's the difference between a white man and a snake?
One is a evil, cold-blooded, venomous, slimy creature of Satan, and the other is a snake.
How many white men does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One, white men will screw anything.
What's the flattest surface to iron your jeans on?
A white girl's ass!
What did the black guy do with his M&Ms?
Eat them
What did they white guy try and do with his?
Put them in alphabetical order
What did a white guy see when he looked at his family tree?
A straight line!
Great jokes, Robert.

Answer to the one I bolded should be, jealous :)

Except, most redneck jokes are told, in a self deprecating manner, by self identified "rednecks."

Jeff Foxworthy or Larry the Cable Guy tell jokes about themselves and their friends. Believe me, if David Letterman told the same jokes, there'd be a very different reaction.

Likewise, Richard Pryor told jokes and used stereotypes about African Americans. Anyone who thinks that somehow it's wrong to consider that the same jokes would be racist, just because a white person tells them, lives in a bubble. Context is vital.

Racial jokes told by the majority ethnic group, the ones with the power, about minorities, the ones without power, are meant to be demeaning and reinforce the perception of earned superiority.
I'd break this down to; context is vital. I know vowel boy did so already, and he commented on a few other things, too.

Context is definitely key.

No. You may smile appreciatively, however.
Haggis, you're a dog, you do what you want :D

[blacbird]

I disagree. Letterman HAS told these sorts of jokes, has mocked rednecks and "trailer trash" in the past.

Letterman in fact got into trouble this week with his joke about Sarah Palin's daughters, which drifted into the boundary of "trailer trash." It was a lousy joke, intended more at Alex Rodriguez than at Palin or her daughters, but it was beyond question stupid and not really very funny, a bad smudge on Letterman's resumé of humor. If he himself didn't write it (which he probably didn't), he needs to yell at the writer, and then kick his own ass if he can for permitting himself to use it.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

I thought it was a very good joke because it was able to poke fun at A-rod and Palin's daughter in one shot. TJS. Topical Joke Synergy.

In my business, we call that gold.

[robeiae]

Letterman in fact got into trouble this week with his joke about Sarah Palin's daughters, which drifted into the boundary of "trailer trash." It was a lousy joke, intended more at Alex Rodriguez than at Palin or her daughters, but it was beyond question stupid and not really very funny, a bad smudge on Letterman's resumé of humor. If he himself didn't write it (which he probably didn't), he needs to yell at the writer, and then kick his own ass if he can for permitting himself to use it.

cawOkay.

[darkprincealain]

Sherry Goforth and Rusty DePass might well have not apologized at all. Their "apologies" make them look even more bigoted.

In the one case, "I sent it to the wrong list" is not an apology. In the other, "it was a joke" is clearly not an apology either.

[blacbird]

Sherry Goforth and Rusty DePass might well have not apologized at all. Their "apologies" make them look even more bigoted.

Funny how this tends to happen with bigots, isn't it?

caw

[Haggis]

Funny how this tends to happen with bigots, isn't it?

caw

Only the Republican ones.

[nighttimer]

Sherry Goforth and Rusty DePass might well have not apologized at all. Their "apologies" make them look even more bigoted.

In the one case, "I sent it to the wrong list" is not an apology. In the other, "it was a joke" is clearly not an apology either.

Agreed. If David Letterman can apologize multiple times for bad jokes about The Palins, Michael Steele, who normally loves to run his mouth, should apologize to the President and First Lady.

Two blatant and mind-numbing acts of racism by Republicans were just reported in the news -- and unfortunately and unwisely, GOP "leadership" has chosen to remain silent. Why?

The first involved a former election commission chairman from South Carolina who, upon hearing a gorilla had escaped from the local zoo, posted on his Facebook site, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors -- probably harmless." The second involved the executive assistant to a Republican state senator in Tennessee who circulated a photo of all 44 presidents, with the picture of President Obama being an all black rectangle with two white eyes.

You would think, that as the complexion of America continues to change and as the GOP has discovered a desperate need to reach out to minorities, that at least some of those who purport to speak for the party might look upon these disreputable acts as a way to sincerely reach out to the black and minority communities. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.

Even with the appointment of Michael Steele as the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, the party is far from connecting with black and minority communities. Beyond that, some GOP leaders seem to be looking for every chance to undermine Steele's efforts to create a more relevant and diverse party.

The recent racist flare ups could have been a turning point.

Regardless of whether they intend to run for the White House or not in 2012, the likes of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Romney and any other "leader" of the GOP, should step in front of a microphone immediately and offer a sincere and deserved apology to Michelle and Barack Obama on behalf of the GOP -- and let them and minorities across America know that not only do vile people who make such jokes not speak for the party, but they are not welcome in the party.

Palin asked for an apology from David Letterman for a joke that she said was an attack on women everywhere. He delivered it. Given these recent brazen offenses toward blacks, the GOP could learn from Letterman's contrition.

Speak up, GOP leaders -- and recognize this as a chance to do and say the right thing. If not, your silence will be analyzed and ultimately interpreted.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-mackinnon/gop-leadership-should-hav_b_217351.html)

[benbradley]

Here's yet another different take on/reaction to the Presidential portraits:
http://www.joelsamuelson.com/

[darkprincealain]

Thanks for the linky, BB. I'm afraid though that I couldn't muster much enthusiasm for this guy--he seems addicted to lowering the public discourse with terms such as "flaming liberal." The woman he was referring to was a coworker. I wonder: maybe they ought to lay off the political discussions at work for, to bait him I suspect, she called him a "Limbot."

[nighttimer]

Here's yet another different take on/reaction to the Presidential portraits:
http://www.joelsamuelson.com/

Not particularly witty and not particularly funny. :e2shrug:

Race can be funny. Racism never is.

[Robert Toy]

Not particularly witty and not particularly funny. :e2shrug:

Race can be funny. Racism never is.
ditto

[blacbird]

Race can be funny. Racism never is.

Very good point, succinctly stated, and proved for decades now by people like Flip Wilson, Richard Pryor and Redd Foxx.

caw

[dclary]

And Carrot-Top.



btw: agree about that last link. Not one of his political cartoons was humorous, satirical, or anything but attempts at offense. In particular, the one with the flag hanging upside down?

He can be upset his candidate didn't win, but the fact remains that a candidate DID win. Went through the system, followed the rules, won the game. America succeeded on 11/4. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean the process is flawed.

[blacbird]

And Carrot-Top.

Well, except for the funny part. He looks funny, I suppose, but behind that is less than zero humor, which equates merely to pathetic.

The rest of your post, however, is spot on, and well said.

caw

[nighttimer]

This could turn out to be a growth industry.

ATWATER -- In the past several months Atwater City Councilman Gary Frago has sent at least a half-dozen e-mails to city staff and other prominent community members containing racist jokes aimed at President Barack Obama, his wife and black people in general.

Some compared Obama to O.J. Simpson while others suggested that "nigger rigs" should now be called "presidential solutions."

Perhaps the most overboard e-mail was sent on Jan. 15. It read: "Breaking News Playboy just offered Sarah Palin $1 million to pose nude in the January issue. Michelle Obama got the same offer from National Geographic."

Frago admitted sending the e-mails, but showed no regret. "If they're from me, then I sent them," he said. "I have no disrespect for the president or anybody, they weren't meant in any bad way or harm."

Frago, 63, who was the city's first paid firefighter and has been on the City Council since 2000, said the e-mails were not meant to harm anyone. He has nothing against black people or the president, he said.

"I don't see where there's a story, I'm not the only one that does it," he said. "I didn't originate them, they came to me and I just passed them on."

lin (http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/955392.html)k

Right. Like herpes.

Asshole. :e2moon:

[Bird of Prey]

That's really disappointing. The guy must be an ignoramus. . . .

[robeiae]

An ignoramus on a city council? Impossible.

[SPMiller]

Ha. City councils are always terrible, especially in small towns. You get what you pay for, and in small towns, the positions are volunteer work...

[tiny]

"I don't see where there's a story, I'm not the only one that does it," he said. "I didn't originate them, they came to me and I just passed them on."



If less people "passed them on" then the next generation would be less likely to pick up distorted beliefs that contribute to bigotry and racism. What a foolish man.

[Williebee]

Huh, wonder if he's using his personal email account, or the city's?

Either way, he's probably violating city, state, and federal laws (personal use of publicly supported materials, politics on the public's dime, stuff like that.)

More to the point? At least in this particular instance, he's what my Grandma used to cal "acting a fool".

[Wise Child]

I can vouch for my Conservative family that they are not racists. It is considered polite to give people the benefit of a doubt, regarding racism. However, racists who have no satisfactory public outlet to express their bigotry seem to hide behind those (Conservatives) who are not racist. For the next eight years we are going to see rhetorical human shield tactics by latent racists. It's going to be nauseating.

Then there are those dumbass racists that forget that times have changed, and think the "loyal opposition", at least the local chapter, will go along with their overt bigotry. They think it's okay, because it involves watermelons and character archetypes rather than hostile things like lynchings and burning crosses.

[sandyn]

Par for the course around here.Although to the creator of the thread's defense, he did little to hide that unlike some who go around trying to pretend to be "unbiased" while posting umpteen threads bashing Obama and having posted next to none bashing bush.

I may not agree with this thread but at least the creator has a spine.

Why would 'bashing' Obama and not 'bashing' Bush cause you to think anyone is biased? This remark has NOTHING to do with racism unless you equate disagreement with Obama's policies as racism. Is all disagreement with Obama because of the color of his skin, do you think? Otherwise, I don't understand your logic.

As for bashing the outgoing administration, Bush and Company are no longer in power. The Dems have a solid foothold on Washington, so I don't see the point in bashing an administration that is gone. I don't believe I've ever heard bashing of an outgoing administration this long after a new one has taken over. The carping is usually about the new administration.

BTW, I do not agree with Obama and I am NOT a racist!

[POPASMOKE]

The Republican Party may not have a clear leader, but they still have some core beliefs and one of them is it's fun to be racist.

A Republican activist and former South Carolina state senate candidate Rusty DePass made a comment/wisecrack after learning a gorilla had escaped from the Riverbanks Zoo:"

How about this Nighttimer:

Even though the Democratic Party has a clear leader, they still have some core beliefs and one of them is it's fun to be racist.

"A Democratic activist/clergyman and close personal friend to the President, the right Reverand Right made another comment/wisecrack during a sermon during which he said God Damn America...and them Jews aint gonna let him talk to me..."

The bottom line is, when you marginalize me, or I you, by lumping me in with racists merely because I'm a Republican or your a Democrat, it's patently unfair.

Neither party has a monopoly on fairness or objectivity. Until we get political leaders truly committed to serving this country and their constituencies instead of being re-elected, were doomed to continue this circus every four to eight years.

By the way, many members of the KKK were southern Democrats, and not republicans.

[nighttimer]

How about this Nighttimer:

Even though the Democratic Party has a clear leader, they still have some core beliefs and one of them is it's fun to be racist.

"A Democratic activist/clergyman and close personal friend to the President, the right Reverand Right made another comment/wisecrack during a sermon during which he said God Damn America...and them Jews aint gonna let him talk to me..."

If you mean the right Reverend Wright, he's wrong and I don't know where you came up with the description of him as a "Democratic activist."

I never said there wasn't racism in the Democratic Party. But it wasn't racism that was directed at George W. Bush when Dems denigrated him. It was assaults upon his intelligence and I plead guilty to joining in on the dogpile.

It's not the same thing. Bush's speaking malaprops made him a easy target despite having graduated with Masters in Business Administration. Bush is the only president to have earned a MBA and attended both Yale and the Harvard Business School. So while Bush occasionally tripped over his tongue, he was hardly a dope.

But Obama is a Black man and attacking him based upon his race is an entirely different matter.

A disturbing pattern of behavior (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/07/obama_racism.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10) is emerging where Republican politicians and officials use viral networks to spread their racially-based ridicule againt the President and First Lady, get caught in the act, and then issue some half-assed "apology."

Chris "Boomer" Berman of ESPN is fond of saying, "once is an accident, twice is a trend, three times is a problem." The Republican Party seems to have a big problem dealing with a Black president.

The bottom line is, when you marginalize me, or I you, by lumping me in with racists merely because I'm a Republican or your a Democrat, it's patently unfair.

I'm not marginalizing anyone or lumping anyone with Republicans who are racist or find nigger jokes funny. They know who they are. I'm just doing my part to let others know who they are as well.

It's interesting to me how people take more offense at the outing of the bigots among them than they do to their acts of bigotry. It suggests some skewed priorities to me.

Oh, and I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Neither party has a monopoly on fairness or objectivity. Until we get political leaders truly committed to serving this country and their constituencies instead of being re-elected, were doomed to continue this circus every four to eight years.

Agreed. But we're never going to get it from the Democrats/Republicans tag-team. They're both bought and paid for and neither is truly committed to serving this country and their constituencies. They're committed to serving their vested interests and getting re-elected so they can do just that.

Individual Democrats and Republicans are committed to public service and what's best for the nation as a whole, but as a collective, not at all.

By the way, many members of the KKK were southern Democrats, and not republicans.

Yes, they were. But these days? No, they're not.

[nighttimer]

"Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope." -- Representative Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas)

The phrase "great white hope" often is associated with pre-civil rights-era racism and is widely believed to have entered usage in the U.S. when boxer Jack Johnson, who was black, captured the heavyweight title in the early 20th century. Many whites reacted to Johnson's achievement by trying to find white fighters — or a "great white hope" — who could beat him.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_us/us_jenkins_great_white_hope)

The Congresswoman says she was unaware there was any racial connotation to the phrase.

In July, the freshman representative voted for a resolution urging the president to pardon Jack Johnson. The resolution included the phrase "Whereas the victory by Jack Johnson over Tommy Burns prompted a search for a White boxer who could beat Jack Johnson, a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the 'great white hope.'"

Guess those three little words stuck in the mind of Rep. Jenkins. :rolleyes:

[escritora]

/off topic

The documentary Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson is well done. Netflix is streaming it.

[Don]

Thanks for the history lesson, nt. I always though the phrase referred to the guy in my avatar. :D

[Celia Cyanide]

I always thought it was Eminem. That's what Snoop Dogg called him, anyway.

[AMCrenshaw]

I always thought it was Eminem. That's what Snoop Dogg called him, anyway.

haha (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHxU7tgEhsA)








AMC

[Dicentra P]

I've kind of wondered / joked about this with friends recently. How bad is it if a racial stereotype turns into a positive? Like if someone thinks all blacks can dunk (which, incidentally, is entirely true), how bad is it really? That's one of things we overreact about.

I think there's a difference between "All blacks are terrific athletes" (even though it could be seen as an attempt to make us more like "beasts" than human beings) and "All blacks have horrific hygiene and smell bad." I mean, the former might just lead to an eye-roll, but the latter = automatic-face-punch.

I think that there is an issue. I ran into it last February when my daughter was trying to find a black history figure to write on. She was given a list of people that included mainly sports figures and civil rights activists. No poets, scientists or other role models that do not fall in the "black people are good at this" categories. And the fact is that she (and her dad) (OK and her mom too but we don't expect white people to be good at that stuff) are total klutzes.

[johnnysannie]

I'm glad you find it hilarious. The rest of us don't.

No we don't.

Racism in any form is never funny.

[mscelina]

I am so glad to see the "Republican" disappear from the thread title. Whoever did that, thank you.

Racism isn't just a Republican problem and earmarking it as belong to only one party/ideological group is more than a little inaccurate. As a matter of fact, considering that the purpose of this thread (I presume) is to protest the systematic propagation of racial stereotypes, it was odd that the thread actually participated in the exact behavior it purported to speak against.

Now that we know all racist asshats aren't Republican, maybe we can work on the real problem.

[dclary]

I think that there is an issue. I ran into it last February when my daughter was trying to find a black history figure to write on. She was given a list of people that included mainly sports figures and civil rights activists. No poets, scientists or other role models that do not fall in the "black people are good at this" categories. And the fact is that she (and her dad) (OK and her mom too but we don't expect white people to be good at that stuff) are total klutzes.


That's strange. because the top five I always think of for famous people in black history don't include a single sports figure: Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, Martin Luther King, and Clarence Thomas.

[robeiae]

That's strange. because the top five I always think of for famous people in black history don't include a single sports figure: Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, Martin Luther King, and Clarence Thomas.
I remember--when I was in school--how much focus there was on George Washington Carver. And for very good reason, imo.

But I have to second Dicentra's comment, to an extent. My kids have had similar assignments, and the lists provided by the school were as noted: civil rights and sports.

[clintl]

Clarence Thomas? Over Thurgood Marshall, who unlike Thomas, was actually qualified and made real contributions to the Supreme Court, rather than sitting there silently and rarely writing opinions, as Thomas does?

One thing that I'm 100% sure about is that Jackie Robinson will always be a more significant figure in black history than Clarence Thomas, and will always deserve to be be a more significant figure.

[Dicentra P]

That's strange. because the top five I always think of for famous people in black history don't include a single sports figure: Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, Martin Luther King, and Clarence Thomas.

These are not the names that hit the list that kids get in Feb. Jackie Robinson is guaranteed to be there. Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King I agree with but lists that are weighted too heavily with civil rights leaders tend to give the impression that black leaders are relevant as leaders of the black community.

[clintl]

But I have to second Dicentra's comment, to an extent. My kids have had similar assignments, and the lists provided by the school were as noted: civil rights and sports.

Well, I think you can blame that partly on what blacks were and were not allowed to do during most of this country's history. They did not have the opportunity to achieve in other areas.

[Sheryl Nantus]

shouldn't Rosa Parks be in there somewhere?

[Diana Hignutt]

I remember--when I was in school--how much focus there was on George Washington Carver. And for very good reason, imo.

.


Ditto

[robeiae]

Well, I think you can blame that partly on what blacks were and were not allowed to do during most of this country's history. They did not have the opportunity to achieve in other areas.
I just gave an example of someone that did exactly that. The point I was making was that for some reason, the "famous blacks in American history" list didn't have Carver on it. Nor many other people that it could have had.

I mean, Shaquille O'Neil was on the last list of people to choose from...

[dclary]

Clarence Thomas? Over Thurgood Marshall, who unlike Thomas, was actually qualified and made real contributions to the Supreme Court, rather than sitting there silently and rarely writing opinions, as Thomas does?

One thing that I'm 100% sure about is that Jackie Robinson will always be a more significant figure in black history than Clarence Thomas, and will always deserve to be be a more significant figure.


For myself, I think of Thomas because I became politically aware during the timeframe that he was being lambasted during his confirmation hearings. Yes, Marshall is a more historic figure for having been the first. But what purpose would I have for lying about the list that came to my mind?

[dclary]

I just gave an example of someone that did exactly that. The point I was making was that for some reason, the "famous blacks in American history" list didn't have Carver on it. Nor many other people that it could have had.

I mean, Shaquille O'Neil was on the last list of people to choose from...

The Big Aristotle belongs on any list he wants to belong on. :D

[Celia Cyanide]

But I have to second Dicentra's comment, to an extent. My kids have had similar assignments, and the lists provided by the school were as noted: civil rights and sports.

When I was in high school, I wanted to do a report on Jimi Hendrix for black history month, and my mom wouldn't let me because, she said, "Jimi Hendrix didn't do a single thing for black people."

[dclary]

Clarence Thomas? Over Thurgood Marshall, who unlike Thomas, was actually qualified and made real contributions to the Supreme Court, rather than sitting there silently and rarely writing opinions, as Thomas does?

One thing that I'm 100% sure about is that Jackie Robinson will always be a more significant figure in black history than Clarence Thomas, and will always deserve to be be a more significant figure.

Your opinion, then, is that Thomas is neither qualified nor makes real contributions to the court? Fair enough. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

As far as I can tell, though, Thomas not only writes opinions, but is never afraid to write dissenting opinions, even if he's the sole dissenter.

[robeiae]

When I was in high school, I wanted to do a report on Jimi Hendrix for black history month, and my mom wouldn't let me because, she said, "Jimi Hendrix didn't do a single thing for black people."That's an interesting standard, to say the least.

[robeiae]

Clarence Thomas? Over Thurgood Marshall, who unlike Thomas, was actually qualified and made real contributions to the Supreme Court, rather than sitting there silently and rarely writing opinions, as Thomas does?

One thing that I'm 100% sure about is that Jackie Robinson will always be a more significant figure in black history than Clarence Thomas, and will always deserve to be be a more significant figure.

Your opinion, then, is that Thomas is neither qualified nor makes real contributions to the court? Fair enough. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

As far as I can tell, though, Thomas not only writes opinions, but is never afraid to write dissenting opinions, even if he's the sole dissenter.
Just FYI, the opinions authored by Thomas:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas

By Ginsberg:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Ginsburg

By Souter:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Souter

Eh. I don't see a real significant difference, here.

[clintl]

Fair enough, I take back what I said about Thomas not writing many opinions.

[nighttimer]

For myself, I think of Thomas because I became politically aware during the timeframe that he was being lambasted during his confirmation hearings. Yes, Marshall is a more historic figure for having been the first. But what purpose would I have for lying about the list that came to my mind?

For years Ebony magazine has featured their "100 Most Influential Black Americans" list and to the best of my knowledge has never included Clarence Thomas (http://www.claremont.org/publications/precepts/id.146/precept_detail.asp) among them.

That is absolutely ludicrous. The editors of Ebony should be ashamed of themselves.

I do not like Clarence Thomas. I don't think he can carry Thurgood Marshall's jock. But you'd have to be totally clueless or deliberately dishonest to yourself to suggest Thomas isn't one of the most influential people in the nation, never mind being Black.

Prior to the election of Barack Obama, Thomas was the most influential Black man in America. It's quite likely when Obama leaves office Thomas will be again.

Would I put Thomas on my Top Five? Nuh-uh. But would I put him in a Top100?

Yeah. I would have to.

When I was in high school, I wanted to do a report on Jimi Hendrix for black history month, and my mom wouldn't let me because, she said, "Jimi Hendrix didn't do a single thing for black people."

I'm not hating on your mama, CC, but she couldn't have been more wrong if she tried.

[rugcat]

I agree that leaving Clarence Thomas off the list of 100 most influential Black Americans is ludicrous.

But "most influential" doesn't necessary mean "best", just as Time's Man of the Year covers have featured Vladimir Putin and (apparently before my time) Stalin and Hitler, as well as Obama and GWB.

The ABA ranks prospective nominees -- well qualified, qualified, and unqualified. Roberts and Alito both received unanimous "well qualified" designations, as have most nominiees.

Thomas received a "qualified," with two members voting for "unqualified" and not a single "well qualified." That's like a B minus -- not bad, but not really what one hopes for in the most important judicial job in the country.

[johnnysannie]

I remember--when I was in school--how much focus there was on George Washington Carver. And for very good reason, imo.

.

There is still a lot of focus for my three kids; of course we live a short distance from the Carver Birthplace which is under the National Park system and Carver first attended school here where I live.

In fact, my son's brand-new elementary school is named for George Washington Carver.

[Cranky]

I remember--when I was in school--how much focus there was on George Washington Carver. And for very good reason, imo.

But I have to second Dicentra's comment, to an extent. My kids have had similar assignments, and the lists provided by the school were as noted: civil rights and sports.

Freakin' A. We learned a lot about George Washington Carver when I was in school, too. And I can think of so many others I would include that don't include sports stars and civil rights leaders. Like, say, Miles Davis? Dizzy Gillespie, Billie Holliday, Etta James? Sidney Poitier? Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Alex Haley! And that's just from a narrow category of artists -- musicians and actors and (duh) writers. I'm afraid I know little about painting and some other artforms. And I don't know more than a handful of scientists, period. I couldn't name you any (besides Stephen Hawking) who are working today off the top of my head. :o

Anyhoo.

Sorry for derailing a little, but the same thing happened with my kids' school last year during Black History Month. My then eight year old knew the entire story (scaled down for kids to an extent) about MLK, up to and including his assassination. Which is great, fine. But I'd like to have seen them talk about Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth or Dred Scott or any number of other historical people, rather than the "stand by" of MLK. Is that really what his legacy is now? It's like he's more myth than man...Daniel Boone or Johnny Appleseed or something like that, rather than a real, flesh-and-blood person who tried and accomplished some great things. Gah! (And yes, I realize that both of those two were real people, too, but that's sort of the point).

Either way, I take it as an opportunity for me to talk to my kids about them, then. But I wish it were talked about more in school.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, yeah. Certainly, I think some of the clowns in the GOP really *are* racists, and they need to STFU. But I'm tired of the correlation between Republicans and racists almost exclusively. I suppose most of those that claim both are more vocal or obvious with their racist b.s., but I'm pretty sure you could turn over some rocks in the DNC and find some racists slithering around under it. They're just less overt about it. Not that either is okay. Both need to be called on it.

[robeiae]

There is still a lot of focus for my three kids; of course we live a short distance from the Carver Birthplace which is under the National Park system and Carver first attended school here where I live.

In fact, my son's brand-new elementary school is named for George Washington Carver.

We had a Carver middle school where I grew up. And I think "Carver" is probably right up there in the "most common names for schools" department.

I think it's good that he's still focused on in your school district. I wish this were the case everywhere.

[dclary]

Freakin' A. We learned a lot about George Washington Carver when I was in school, too. And I can think of so many others I would include that don't include sports stars and civil rights leaders. Like, say, Miles Davis? Dizzy Gillespie, Billie Holliday, Etta James? Sidney Poitier? Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Alex Haley! And that's just from a narrow category of artists -- musicians and actors and (duh) writers. I'm afraid I know little about painting and some other artforms. And I don't know more than a handful of scientists, period. I couldn't name you any (besides Stephen Hawking) who are working today off the top of my head. :o

Anyhoo.

Sorry for derailing a little, but the same thing happened with my kids' school last year during Black History Month. My then eight year old knew the entire story (scaled down for kids to an extent) about MLK, up to and including his assassination. Which is great, fine. But I'd like to have seen them talk about Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth or Dred Scott or any number of other historical people, rather than the "stand by" of MLK. Is that really what his legacy is now? It's like he's more myth than man...Daniel Boone or Johnny Appleseed or something like that, rather than a real, flesh-and-blood person who tried and accomplished some great things. Gah! (And yes, I realize that both of those two were real people, too, but that's sort of the point).

Either way, I take it as an opportunity for me to talk to my kids about them, then. But I wish it were talked about more in school.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, yeah. Certainly, I think some of the clowns in the GOP really *are* racists, and they need to STFU. But I'm tired of the correlation between Republicans and racists almost exclusively. I suppose most of those that claim both are more vocal or obvious with their racist b.s., but I'm pretty sure you could turn over some rocks in the DNC and find some racists slithering around under it. They're just less overt about it. Not that either is okay. Both need to be called on it.

Democratic racists are FAR more overt. They're the ones who say african americans and mexicans need handouts. They're the ones who say minorities can't compete without affirmative action. They're the ones always intimating that minorities couldn't *possibly* make it on their own, without government helping them out, as though they weren't as capable as other races.

[Cranky]

Democratic racists are FAR more overt. They're the ones who say african americans and mexicans need handouts. They're the ones who say minorities can't compete without affirmative action. They're the ones always intimating that minorities couldn't *possibly* make it on their own, without government helping them out, as though they weren't as capable as other races.

*shrug* I guess it all depends on your perspective, I guess. Either way, racism in any form is pretty damn ugly, and I am certain it doesn't come with a "D" or an "R" attached. KWIM?

[Celia Cyanide]

Democratic racists are FAR more overt. They're the ones who say african americans and mexicans need handouts. They're the ones who say minorities can't compete without affirmative action. They're the ones always intimating that minorities couldn't *possibly* make it on their own, without government helping them out, as though they weren't as capable as other races.

To be fair, Clary, a good number of people who ARE minorities themselves also support programs like Affirmative Action. It's not necessarily because they think certain ethnicities are incapable, as you interpret it.

[mscelina]

When I lived in Dayton, a co-worker and I got into an argument about civil rights. The young gentleman was African-American and was insisting that all white people are naturally racist and that for me to say I wasn't was bullshit. Needless to say, I took exception to this remark and we ended up in a long conversation about civil rights. At any rate, somehow the conversation got turned to the Underground Railroad and he made the comment that all the UR was a bunch of white people trying to salve their consciences by helping the poor black man out. I blinked at him in surprise and said, "Really? How could you think that about Harriet Tubman?"

"Who's that?" he asked.

The whole group of people who'd sat through our argument bored stared at him in shock. I just shook my head and said, "I rest my case. When a white girl who is naturally prejudiced against you because you're black knows more about African-American history than you do, she wins the argument. Go look her up."

How any African-American man living in the city of Paul Lawrence Dunbar could be ignorant about Harriet Tubman is beyond me, but this side topic about education may actually have explained that to me ten years after the fact.

[dclary]

*shrug* I guess it all depends on your perspective, I guess. Either way, racism in any form is pretty damn ugly, and I am certain it doesn't come with a "D" or an "R" attached. KWIM?

Totally with you on that.

[dclary]

To be fair, Clary, a good number of people who ARE minorities themselves also support programs like Affirmative Action. It's not necessarily because they think certain ethnicities are incapable, as you interpret it.

I understand that, Celia. But long gone are the days of Martin Luther King, and the belief that people could raise themselves up despite government. Now all that's preached is raising yourself up through government. It's a crutch that's been permanently attached to the civil rights issue, and as such, can only infer weakness.

[nighttimer]

The ABA ranks prospective nominees -- well qualified, qualified, and unqualified. Roberts and Alito both received unanimous "well qualified" designations, as have most nominiees.

Thomas received a "qualified," with two members voting for "unqualified" and not a single "well qualified." That's like a B minus -- not bad, but not really what one hopes for in the most important judicial job in the country.

Democratic racists are FAR more overt. They're the ones who say african americans and mexicans need handouts. They're the ones who say minorities can't compete without affirmative action. They're the ones always intimating that minorities couldn't *possibly* make it on their own, without government helping them out, as though they weren't as capable as other races.

Aren't you forgetting something dclary? When you talk about affirmative action with such derision, you're inadvertently slamming Clarence Thomas. His entire career is the embodiment of a minimally qualified man whom throughout his life benefited from being advanced by his patrons due to his color and politics, not his credentials or accomplishments.

The second-biggest lie George H.W. Bush ever uttered ("Read my lips: No New Taxes" will always be first) was Thomas "was the best qualified" nominee he could find for the Supreme Court. This despite Thomas having never argued a case before the Court and had never written a legal book, article, or brief of any consequence, and had been a judge for only a year.

What was it that made Thomas stand out from the pack of better qualified candidates? Since it wasn't his judicial experience or accomplishments on the bench (he had none) it was the fact that he was both a committed conservative and Black making him the (im)perfect replacement for Justice Marshall.

You want to kick away the crutch of Black folks leaning on government charity and White largess, dclary? Start with acknowledging Clarence Thomas is a Affirmative Action Baby if ever there was one.

[Diana Hignutt]

.

But "most influential" doesn't necessary mean "best", just as Time's Man of the Year covers have featured Vladimir Putin and (apparently before my time) Stalin and Hitler, as well as Obama and GWB.



I saw what you did there, it was cute.

[SherryTex]

This isn't funny. It's just stupid, careless and thoughtless. However, the mirth at such things is also uncharitable.

[Celia Cyanide]

I understand that, Celia. But long gone are the days of Martin Luther King, and the belief that people could raise themselves up despite government. Now all that's preached is raising yourself up through government. It's a crutch that's been permanently attached to the civil rights issue, and as such, can only infer weakness.

Martin Luther King wasn't talking about government one way or another. And how does it "only infer weakness"? I think a lot of minorities who support Affirmative Action don't do so because they believe they are weak.

[nighttimer]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Secret Service is investigating an online survey that asked whether people thought President Barack Obama should be assassinated, officials said Monday.


The poll, posted Saturday on Facebook, was taken off the popular social networking site quickly after company officials were alerted to its existence. But, like any threat against the president, Secret Service agents are taking no chances.

"We are aware of it and we will take the appropriate investigative steps," said Darrin Blackford, a Secret Service spokesman. "We take of these things seriously."

The poll asked respondents "Should Obama be killed?" The choices: No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.

The question was not created by Facebook, but by an independent person using an add-on application that has been suspended from the site.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/kill-obama-facebook-poll-_n_302090.html

Kudos to Facebook for shutting this crap down so fast. Now the Secret Service needs to hunt this bastard to ground and not "defriend" him as much as lock his sorry ass up.

I predict Sean Hannity will defend the suspect's Constitutional right to create a poll asking if the President should be killed.

I'm kidding, of course. Kinda.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/kill-obama-facebook-poll-_n_302090.html

[Romantic Heretic]

Can't say I'm surprised. :(

[dgiharris]

"Who's that?" he asked.

The whole group of people who'd sat through our argument bored stared at him in shock. I just shook my head and said, "I rest my case. When a white girl who is naturally prejudiced against you because you're black knows more about African-American history than you do, she wins the argument. Go look her up."

This is shocking and surprising. A black person that didn't know who Harriet Truman was. Needless to say, I would guess that the majority of 'us' know who she is and all about the underground railroad. Similarly, the majority of blacks DO NOT think all whites are racist. That is such an absurd argument. Wish I was there to slap some sense into the kid.

Aren't you forgetting something dclary? When you talk about affirmative action with such derision, you're inadvertently slamming Clarence Thomas. His entire career is the embodiment of a minimally qualified man whom throughout his life benefited from being advanced by his patrons due to his color and politics, not his credentials or accomplishments....

You want to kick away the crutch of Black folks leaning on government charity and White largess, dclary? Start with acknowledging Clarence Thomas is a Affirmative Action Baby if ever there was one.

Biggest problem with being a minority is that since there are so few of us, a mistake or shortcoming of any one of us is easily highlighted then cut and pasted to be representative 'of us all'.

The list of unqualified white people appointed to various prestigious positions could fill a phone book. Look at some of George W's appointments including the woman (for Supreme Court) who had never been a judge. But the reason they blend into the woodwork is becuase it is easy to go unnoticed when you are part of the majority.

As an African American, I will be the first person to tell you that Affirmitive Action is unfair, however, I still think it is needed. Why?

Because a country founded by a majority, the same majority that writes the laws, enforces the laws, owns the land, etc. etc. will foster a system that inherently favors the majority group. It is intrinsic and impossible to sanitize. AA, is a purposeful counter. Furthermore, AA is to the 'advantage' of the majority since the best help for the minority is the ability to help themselves and AA has opened many doors facilitating that.

As with any system, AA is not perfect and there will be some who take advantage of that. It is unavoidable. But it would be a mistake to look at those few and 'cut and paste' there shortcomings to the many.

Mel...

[William Haskins]

Several groups on Facebook are dedicated to the demise of George W. Bush. Most of the dozen or so groups dedicated to killing him however, have only a few followers, but some of them have become quite popular.

For example there is a group named "We all Want To Kill George Bush" with 429 members, and LETS KILL BUSH WITH SHOES has 484 members.

The optimistic leader of the group "I bet that I can find 1000000 people who wanted to kill Bush" has fallen short with 518 members.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Should-Facebook-remove-groups-that-want-to-kill-George-W-Bush-62568487.html

[MacAllister]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Should-Facebook-remove-groups-that-want-to-kill-George-W-Bush-62568487.html
Good god. That's disgusting.

[robeiae]

Vile, hateful rhetoric is "clever" when it comes from the left, Mac. Not disgusting.

[Zoombie]

No, its still disgusting.

[William Haskins]

all that's unique about any of this shit is that it can now be chalked up (sometimes rightly, often wrongly) to racism.

i'm more vexed at the poor memories (or the willful ignorance) of some on the left that leads them to believe (or compels them to try to peddle for public consumption) the notion that everyone loved and respected our leaders so long as they were white.

[robeiae]

No one ever said anything bad about Ronnie, much less tried to assassinate him.


ETA: http://www.noshame.org/scripts/ristau020215.htm

:ROFL:

[Zoombie]

I dunnkow, the way I sees it is that being President is like drawing a big target on your chest. Most people throw insults, some people shoot bullets.

Some would argue that being black is like having a target drawn on you by racists.

Is there a difference between having one target and having two of them?

[robeiae]

Is there a difference between having one target and having two of them?
I guess it depends on how big the targets are and how many are shooting at each one, no?

[blacbird]

This is shocking and surprising. A black person that didn't know who Harriet Truman was.

I believe you mean Harriet Tubman, but I also believe you knew that. I've made the occasional similar typo.

caw

[Zoombie]

True. Personally, I think anyone in Obama's position is going to have a really big target. Enough to overshadow racism?

I dunnkow, cause I don't understand how racists think. They just confuse the hell out of me.

[Lavern08]

...Affirmitive Action is unfair, however, I still think it is needed. Why?

Because a country founded by a majority, the same majority that writes the laws, enforces the laws, owns the land, etc. etc. will foster a system that inherently favors the majority group. It is intrinsic and impossible to sanitize. AA, is a purposeful counter. Furthermore, AA is to the 'advantage' of the majority since the best help for the minority is the ability to help themselves and AA has opened many doors facilitating that.

As with any system, AA is not perfect and there will be some who take advantage of that. It is unavoidable. But it would be a mistake to look at those few and 'cut and paste' there shortcomings to the many.

Mel...

Hmmmm,

Food for thought! :flag:

[nighttimer]

all that's unique about any of this shit is that it can now be chalked up (sometimes rightly, often wrongly) to racism.

i'm more vexed at the poor memories (or the willful ignorance) of some on the left that leads them to believe (or compels them to try to peddle for public consumption) the notion that everyone loved and respected our leaders so long as they were white.


Find ONE example that I have cited in this ongoing thread that can't be chalked up to racism, otherwise all you're doing is trivializing these racially motivated incidents and talking out the side of your neck.

The title of this forum is "More Hilarious Anti-Obama RACISM" for the remedial reading among us. The suggestion that because Bush was subject to disrespect based upon the color of his skin is too ridiculous to take seriously.

George W. Bush came in for his share of ridicule, scorn and outright hatred and NONE of it was based upon the fact that he was a White man.

I call "bullshit" and you can just be vexed.

[CatSlave]

I'm glad you find it hilarious. The rest of us don't.
What he said.

(asshats)

[nighttimer]

all that's unique about any of this shit is that it can now be chalked up (sometimes rightly, often wrongly) to racism.


But there's no universal agreement as to what is racist and what's not.

So now would be an excellent time for a primer.

Politicians and pundits on both the left and right abuse the term racism to tar their political enemies. But decent people with good intentions also overuse the term as they struggle to draw attention to racial injustices that do not involve overt bigotry. With the R-word used to describe so many different things, it no longer has a clear and agreed-upon meaning. Attorney General Eric Holder has urged Americans to talk bravely and openly about race, but how can we when we aren't speaking the same language?

http://www.slate.com/id/2231002/?gt1=38002

[William Haskins]

Find ONE example that I have cited in this ongoing thread that can't be chalked up to racism, otherwise all you're doing is trivializing these racially motivated incidents and talking out the side of your neck.

The title of this forum is "More Hilarious Anti-Obama RACISM" for the remedial reading among us. The suggestion that because Bush was subject to disrespect based upon the color of his skin is too ridiculous to take seriously.

George W. Bush came in for his share of ridicule, scorn and outright hatred and NONE of it was based upon the fact that he was a White man.

I call "bullshit" and you can just be vexed.

was the facebook poll a racially-motivated incident?

[nighttimer]

was the facebook poll a racially-motivated incident?

I respect your ability to draw your own conclusions without my assistance.

[William Haskins]

i'm asking honestly. i've read a bit of the coverage, but maybe i'm missing something.

was there a documented racist element to it?

if so, say so.

if not, i go back to the point i was making that you raked me over the coals for. if talking about a president needing to be dead is, by definition, racist, then how do we explain similar facebook postings about bush?

[nighttimer]

i'm asking honestly. i've read a bit of the coverage, but maybe i'm missing something.

was there a documented racist element to it?

if so, say so.

if not, i go back to the point i was making that you raked me over the coals for. if talking about a president needing to be dead is, by definition, racist, then how do we explain similar facebook postings about bush?

We don't.

I wasn't on Facebook when similar postings were made about Bush. I don't know anything about similar postings being made on Facebook when Bush was president. If there were similar polls on Facebook when I wasn't on Facebook and I wasn't aware of any such polls on Facebook, I can assure you I would have strongly condemned any such polls on Facebook had I known about it when I wasn't on Facebook.

Otherwise, I repeat: I respect your ability to draw your own conclusions without my assistance.

[William Haskins]

okay.

so you got nothing is what you're saying.

[mscelina]

Guys--you're really on the same side here, don't you think? Advocating the death of anyone, regardless of race of position, is a contemptible action.

Don't lessen the real message here arguing over semantics.

[nighttimer]

okay.

so you got nothing is what you're saying.

No.

What I am saying is this is not my table and I am not your waiter.

Find your own answers. Draw your own conclusions. You seemed to do both quite easily back in post#215.

Guys--you're really on the same side here, don't you think? Advocating the death of anyone, regardless of race of position, is a contemptible action.

No, we are not on the same side here. Not at all. Not even remotely.

[William Haskins]

your shoulder chip is inordinately large today.

anyway, here we go.

i've seen no evidence of racist motivation to the facebook poll.

a facebook poll or post or group agitating for the death of a president is not automatically racist, or else the bush death-groups would be racist.

so, without any (stated) evidence of racist motivation, you posted the facebook story in the "More Hilarious Anti-Obama Racism!" thread.

by this litmus test, any news story about anything in opposition to obama could be thrown into the "it's racist!" bucket.

now, please find my waiter. i need more tea.

[mscelina]

No.

What I am saying is this is not my table and I am not your waiter.

Find your own answers. Draw your own conclusions. You seemed to do both quite easily back in post#215.



No, we are not on the same side here. Not at all. Not even remotely.

Oh, good grief. If this isn't a glaring example of single-minded obstinacy, I don't know what is. Every President of the United States has received death threats--duh. Some of those threats were fulfilled--duh. Haskins asked you for empirical evidence that the Facebook page advocating Obama's death was racially based--or else equated it with the hundreds and thousands of sites and polls stating the same thing toward the past President, George Bush. Instead of providing said evidence, you're content to just sit back and say you weren't on Facebook at the time.

Okay--so? Where you involved in the poll against Obama? No? Then how can you be certain what the motivations were? It could just be stupid people instead of stupid racist people.

It's a very easy leap to assume that ANY opposition to a person of color in a position of power is racially motivated. BUT, it is also essential when making that allegation that you have something substantial to back it up with AND The Huffington Post article you cited says this and only this about the poll:


The poll asked respondents "Should Obama be killed?" The choices: No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.
The question was not created by Facebook, but by an independent person using an add-on application that has been suspended from the site.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/kill-obama-facebook-poll-_n_302090.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/kill-obama-facebook-poll-_n_302090.html)

Not exactly an indication of racially motivated hatred; looks like more of the healthcare fiasco bullcrap that's inundating the web at the moment anyway. So, it's fairly clear to me that unless you have some other source material citing a racial reason for this poll, this is, in fact, NOT based on racial hatred and should be treated accordingly.

There you go. I waited on myself.

[nighttimer]

your shoulder chip is inordinately large today.

And your attempts at snark incredibly shriveled.

i've seen no evidence of racist motivation to the facebook poll.Because neither your mind or eyes are open.

a facebook poll or post or group agitating for the death of a president is not automatically racist, or else the bush death-groups would be racist.That's the best example of a Hasty Generalization (http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Hasty_Generalization.html) that I've read lately.

so, without any (stated) evidence of racist motivation, you posted the facebook story in the "More Hilarious Anti-Obama Racism!" thread.

by this litmus test, any news story about anything in opposition to obama could be thrown into the "it's racist!" bucket.No. You only think it is because you've made up your mind that if the Left is going to claim everything is racist regarding the opposition to Obama, you're going to say nothing is racist regarding the opposition to Obama.

By your own litmus test nothing will ever be thrown into the "it's racist!" bucket because you've precluded racism as an option in the treatment of President Obama.

now, please find my waiter. i need more tea.The tea with lemon in it or the tea with what you think is lemon in it?

[William Haskins]

No. You only think it is because you've made up your mind that if the Left is going to claim everything is racist regarding the opposition to Obama, you're going to say nothing is racist regarding the opposition to Obama.

absolute bullshit, sir.