Racism and sexism are perverse, regardless of whose ox is being gored. They are not likely to disappear soon.
There are doubtless some people who will vote for or against Senator Obama because he is Black. Some will doubtless vote for or against Senator McCain because he is not. According to a recent AP-Yahoo News survey, there are many Whites who harbor misgivings about Blacks. This survey focused on the attitudes of Whites concerning such characteristics of Blacks as violence, trustworthiness, responsibility and boastfulness. A similar survey of Black attitudes toward Whites would have been useful. The best I have been able to find is a survey conducted in 2002 and reported in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (free registration required; PDF format) which focused on attitudes of Blacks toward Whites and vice versa. The respondents were male and female, Black and White, students at six universities selected to provide regional diversity. It is an interesting academic study, rather tightly written, and full of complex statistical methodology. Still, those who find such things comprehensible (I had many problems, but think I got the basic thrust) might also find it interesting. The similarities between the results of the 2002 (Black and White) and 2008 (White only) surveys seem, to me, quite remarkable.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Daniel Miller
Baronius,
I haven't lived in the United States for about twelve years, and have visited only occasionally and briefly since then. Accordingly, I don't know whether "racism" has diminished, increased or remained about the same since then. The 2002 and 2008 surveys linked in the article suggest that it continues, but what trend, if any, there might be I can't address. Even if the survey methodologies had been the same (and they were not), and even if I understood them completely (and I do not), I would not feel comfortable attempting to do so.
To paraphrase the "first Black President," a lot depends on how one defines words. Were the various comments attributed to the Reverend Mr. Wright "racist?" I so consider them, but others doubtless feel otherwise. I don't listen to "rap" music; however, based on what I have read, much of it seems racist to me. Again, others probably disagree. Are affirmative action and racial preferences racist? Do they demean the intended beneficiaries? I tend to think they are and do, but maybe that's just me.
Racism -- a feeling of discomfort with folks of a different race or otherwise "outside the herd" -- seems to me to be a characteristic not only of humans but of other species as well. Dogs and cats sometimes get along OK, but more often than not they don't.
I think that the best we can hope for in the race arena is to consider a candidate's views on racial (and other) issues, which can sometimes be independent of his race itself. To the extent that a candidate's views on racial matters are colored by his own race, as is sometimes the case, I don't see much difference between a Black urging people to vote for him because he is Black and a White urging people to vote for him because he is White. Or, for that matter, a woman urging people to vote for her because she is a woman.
To paraphrase Mark Twain (I think) who once commented on his premature obituary, I think that the tales of its death have been exaggerated.
Dan(Miller)
27 - Cindy D
David Black,
Which do you think is a personal attack--ignorant or dangerous?
You may be ignorant, which is a fair--even generous--assertion, given what you have expressed. A negative assertion is not necessarily a personal attack.
You bait people with sexist, racist comments--then you cry foul play when they utter the mildest of reproofs. That sort of behavior is more in line with someone who is a coward.
Therefore, I personally, don't actually think you're dangerous.
You're more pitiable.
Now if someone called you a fucking asshole, then I could see some validation for feeling attacked.
As it is though, no one's said much beyond that they think your opinion's ignorant. (i.e. you ignore facts)
28 - David Black
hey, I'm just quoting the website rules, sweetie.
You would cover yourself if you simply said that conservatives are ignorant and dangerous.
Baiting? No one is twisting anyone's arm to respond.
Your reaction is typical of those who post to a lib dominated website where any tolerated conservative is so neutered and inoffensive that they can never pose a real threat to your sensibilities.
Libs trash conservatives and conservative thinking all the time here. I'm just returning the favor. You libs are all about fairness and equality, so you should understand my motivation perfectly.
29 - Lisa Solod Warren
You have been consistently baiting me and every one else on this list who does not agree with you and it is laughably disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise. If you feel insulted, that is your problem. Clearly, it is you who does not understand the rules of anything resembling polite or reasoned discourse.
30 - Cindy D
You would cover yourself if you simply said that conservatives are ignorant and dangerous.
But that wouldn't be the truth. It's not conservatives who are ignorant or dangerous. It's just you.
But this reminds me of last night. I went to see Jeff Dunham and on the way out, my sister (who is handicapped) was having a hard time walking the distance to the exit. I saw a gurney against the wall, with a bunch of first aid stuff on top of it. There were a group of guys spread out in front of the gurney. I asked one if he had a wheelchair around. He got very offended and made some defensive remark. I said, fairly defensively myself, that I wasn't jumping down anyone's throat I just needed a wheelchair. Where upon another in the group said they didn't work there.
It was only at this point that I realized that the retarded man who answered me was apparently quicker than I was to assess the situation.
I don't take pride in harassing retarded people. I guess that's all I have to say about it.
31 - Jordan Richardson
Libs trash conservatives and conservative thinking all the time here. I'm just returning the favor. You libs are all about fairness and equality, so you should understand my motivation perfectly.
Actually, David, the website is pretty even. We don't need your weight to adjust the scales, but you're welcome to chime in regardless. Just don't fancy yourself some sort of Conservative Martyr.
32 - Lisa Solod Warren
Don't, under any circumstances, ever call me sweetie again.
You're right, I don't have to answer you. But you are such a Neanderthal, it's actually sort of amusing.
I also think it's funny that you let Cindy call you a racist, but when I called you ignorant you took umbrage. hmmmm, what's up with that?
33 - Toadal
There are really no words to adequately describe how unbelievably vacuous and simplistic this article is. It is based upon a premise so ridiculous and dumb that I really don't understand how "journalists" produce such drivel. This article could only be produced by a monoplistic, opinionated, out of touch group, with a hard-left-liberal worldview. A description that fits the antics of the Curley Brothers of Associated Press rather well. The idea that whites who oppose Obama have motives to be questioned is insulting and juvenile and pathetic. Given that is perfectly OK for every Black Person in America to vote for Obama because he is Black the snide, incredibly stupid insinuations in this absurd piece of junk belies some serious deficiencies on the part of the authors. It is to be charitable a simply awful piece of typing--it is most certainly not writing.
34 - David Black
The fact is, Lisa my dear, I was calling Cindy D. "sweetie," if you had comprehended correctly.
And you're suggesting that I should lighten up?
35 - Cindy D
David Black,
Thanks sweetie. I think you're a sweetie pie too :-) And you are an excellent typist.
I bet you're an excellent driver too.
Did I mention how much I love K-mart? I buy my underwear at K-mart. Love K-mart. Such a great store.
Well, carry on. And don't ever forget. You can do it!
36 - troll
(Cindy - that guy could count cards...there's no comparison)
37 - Cindy D
oh shit
38 - Daniel Miller
Toadal, re comment #33
It might be useful were you to indicate to which article you refer. My article had links to multiple articles, and I would be interested. If perchance the reference was to mine, please be so kind as to support your assertions.
Dan(Miller)
39 - Cindy D
Gee, I hate sweeping generalizations.
"Your reaction is typical of those who post to a lib dominated website..."
"Libs trash conservatives and conservative thinking all the time here."
"You libs are all about..."
40 - Cindy D
Course that's cuz I'm a lib.
41 - Iris Bittencourt
I am honestly ashamed at the cluelessness of my fellow white commentators regarding the concept of racism. One guy has defined it as a feeling of discomfort. If that is that racism was, then blacks in this country would be in a far better place than they are today. Racism is not the discomfort, so to speak, it is acting on the discomfort in a manner that prevents a group with certain racial characteristics from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society. One example of racism is slavery in the Americas. Whites and others in society actively prevented blacks from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society during slavery. Would you say that an angry slave reacting to slavery is guilty of racism? I hope that you can see that racism does not make sense from the perspective of the excluded slave. The slave had no power (no matter how much he hated whites or called them names or committed acts of violence against them) to exclude whites or other groups in America from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society. If you agree with this eminently reasonable conclusion, then I ask you when did the descendants of slaves gain access to wealth and power in sufficient quantity to exclude other groups (either individually or in conjunction with other groups) from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society? What do blacks own in America? If they do not own anything of importance, how can they exclude anyone from anything? Listen, you can feel however you want. It only becomes a problem when you act on those feelings and convince others to act in a similar fashion to exclude a particular group of people from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society on an equal basis as other groups, including the equal protection of the law. Racism is a group phenomenon and not an individual one. What good would it have done if the larger society did not enforce slavery, including through fugitive slave laws and otherwise? Black slaves would have run off and lived in the larger community, and the slave masters would have been left without a remedy. The entire society had to participate in this racist system. We all saw what happened when a part of white society said enough: the Civil War.
42 - cuervodeluna
Forty percent of whites in Gringolandia ADMIT to having negative views of blacks.
We don't know how many do NOT admit in polls of this sort to being racists, but I would guess that it's at least another 40%.
Blacks have been asked to vote for whites for as long as they have been "allowed" to vote, so their views of whites clearly are of no interest whatsoever to any political parties.
43 - David Black
iris:
Count for me the number of black slaves currently in America?
Sounds like you've been taking too many Black Studies courses at some ultra lib university staffed by Marxists.
44 - Baronius
Daniel, I've been working with senior citizens recently. One thing that jumps out at me is their racism. They say things that shock me. I don't know if they're more or less racist than people of my generation, because you'd have to see into people's hearts to be sure. But older people clearly grew up in a time when certain racial ideas were intellectually palatable. These days, that's just not true.
Is mainstream black culture fixated on race? It looks that way to me. Does affirmative action institutionalize racism? Yup. Do people shoot niggers who apply for jobs in whites-only factories? No, not any more. Overall, that's a net plus.
As for black culture, I can't get too critical of it. For one reason, I'm a condescending white guy. For another, it makes sense that the victims of a crime are likely to remember it longer than the perpetrators. It was probably very easy for slaveowners to achieve "closure". Slaves, not so much.
Affirmative action is something I can get riled up about if I'm in the right mood. After all, it's unconstitutional and immoral. But it affects relatively few people. If I were one of them, I'd be pig-biting mad, but I'm not. So I'll vote against affirmative action whenever I can, and I probably underrate its importance.
There's probably a bit of a Kantian in me, who lives his life as he'd want everyone else to. So I don't think about race. I usually don't even read BC articles about racism. (The title of this piece caught my eye.) If that leads me to underestimate the level of racism, so be it. I still think I'm closer to right than Lisa is.
45 - Zedd
Common guys are you serious. READ.
46 - bliffle
The only rabidly racist people I know are all my age (71). Sometimes the frankness of their prejudice is so shocking it takes my breath away.
47 - Baronius
Bliffle, don't you think it means something that you don't see that kind of racism anymore?
48 - Iris Bittencourt
David Black,
Your question is so inane that it does not even deserve an answer. Based on your reasoning, in 1863, the problems of black America were over. Never mind that Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1897 and was not overturned until 1954. I suppose that anti-semitism does not exist either, as the Holocaust ended years ago. You racists are so mediocre that it is scary. Your lack of intellect borders on imbecility, yet you exalt in your ignorance as if it were a badge of honor. No thanks. You bitter rednecks are just too much for me. You are beyond education, thought or reason. A waste of space, if you ask me, and I am ashamed that you are part of our great country (despite your best efforts).
49 - Christopher Rose
I think it is time for a general reminder that we are debating subjects not people. I'm sure the authors of deleted comments understand that...
50 - Iris Bittencourt
Boronius,
Your logic (if I can call it that) is fundamentally flawed. "Is mainstream black culture fixated on race? It looks that way to me."
Based on what, your crystal ball, tarot cards, ouji board or other gizmo? What is mainstream black culture, by the way? What does "fixated" mean? Concerned, wary, paranoid, what? As a condescending white man, you admit that you do not think about race. Have you ever asked yourself why? As a white man, your race has never been an issue in this country in the sense that no one has ever denied the fruits and benefits of this society to you because you are white. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. You are so accustomed to our white privilege that you cannot see it anymore. You are blind, but are acting as if you can see. You cannot see, and do not even try. It is impossible for you to see or understand. If you really want to understand, dress up as a black man (in a really good costume so that people do not know immediately that you are in disguise) and go to a town where no one knows you. Then come back and tell us about your experience. I bet you could not even last for three days as a black man in America. Take the dare and do it. I can't wait to hear about your experience on the other side.
Does affirmative action institutionalize racism? Yup.
Excuse me. Was racism institutionalized during slavery? Was it in the court system, the police force, the schools, the churches, the press? Did it continue to be institutionalized during Jim Crow and segregation? So, if racism was institutionalized when affirmative action was created by President Johnson in the 60s, how can you conclude that affirmative action institutionalizes racism? That makes no sense at all, either historically or logically. Put it this way, how did blacks get down in the well in the first place? Whites lowered blacks down the well and then removed the rope so that blacks could not climb out of the well by themselves. Whites know this. All they have to do is lower the rope of affirmative action down the well so that blacks can pull themselves out of their hole. Whites created the obstacle of racism, and only they can remove it. However, it is obvious that white racism is as strong as ever, because few whites acknowledge these fundamental truths. Blacks did not create racism, they are victims of it. If blacks did not impose racism on themselves, then how do you honestly believe that they can remove it by themselves? Affirmative action was a feeble attempt to cure in 20 years what took 360 years to create. It is a joke that 20 years later, cynical whites can talk about reverse discrimination. It just shows that my fellow white citizens have not evolved much over the last 400 years.
Do people shoot niggers who apply for jobs in whites-only factories? No, not any more. Overall, that's a net plus.
I disagree, because all-white factories, law firms, accounting firms, investment banks, etc. still exist today and commit violence against blacks by continuing to exclude them from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society. The problem is the all-white, and not necessarily the violence. When it was all-white with violence, at least whites were consistent. Now, whites are a bunch of liars and cowards who vainly attempt to deny racism (while their very explanation clearly shows that they are fundamentally racist). We are beyond help, I fear.
51 - Daniel Miller
Baronius,
Thanks for reading and commenting on the article. I think that "racism," however defined, is quite alive, as the two cited studies conducted six years apart indicate. Many things have changed, some for the better. For the first two decades of my life, racial segregation was the norm. Schools in Northern Virginia were segregated, as were restaurants, toilet facilities, and even water fountains. No longer legally enforced and less institutionalized, segregation persists and probably will for a long time.
I think that affirmative action was a good idea. Like many good ideas, I think it has outlived its usefulness and is now counterproductive. There are obviously exceptions, but I think that it often demeans those whom it is intended to help, and suggests to others that the beneficiaries are somehow less qualified than those who were not. We have all heard complaints that affirmative action has deprived others equally or even better qualified of benefits which they would otherwise have enjoyed. We have all heard Senator Obama referred to an "affirmative action" candidate, just as we have heard Governor Palin referred to as just another pretty (White) face selected as Senator McCain's running mate because she is female. There may be some validity to these observations, but not a great deal. I do question whether Senator Obama would be the Democratic Party nominee were he of, for example, Korean ancestry, and whether Governor Palin would be Senator McCain's running mate were she, for example, a Jewish male from Boston. I think that neither might be in their current role, even if both otherwise had the same qualifications and held the same positions on the issues as they do.
Black slavery was, in retrospect, not a good thing. Had it not existed in the United States, had African Blacks not been sold into slavery by their brethren in Africa and brought to the United States as slaves -- had they come voluntarily, as for example did people of European, Asian, Central and South American parentage to find a better life -- things might be quite different. History can be rewritten, but not changed, and we don't really know.
I once owned and read a two volume history of the Caribbean, published by a University in Trinidad. Unfortunately, I let someone borrow it and it was never returned. I was quite surprised to learn that substantially more Blacks were brought to the Caribbean as slaves than were brought to what is now the United States in that capacity. Blacks are by far the largest racial group in the Caribbean, and obviously getting there other than as slaves would have been quite difficult. I no longer have that source, and have searched in vain for pertinent statistics elsewhere; they may exist, but I haven't been able to find them. If what I read, and my recollection of it, are accurate, a substantial percentage of the Blacks now living in the United States are not descended from slaves brought to the United States involuntarily, but from those brought to other nearby places to toil on sugar cane plantations and whose ancestors voluntarily immigrated to the United States. What does this mean? Nothing, really, insofar as racism is concerned. Whether one's ancestors came as slaves from Africa to Nevis or Haiti or one of the other islands and thence to the United States voluntarily, or came directly from Africa to the United States involuntarily, probably has little impact on Black, or White, racial views. Neither does the suggestion that Blacks now living in the United States tend to be better off in many respects than those now living in Africa. Although doubtless intended at least in part to overcome the ill effects of Black slavery and the later racial segregation in the U.S. due in large part to it, a showing of one's roots in U.S. based slavery has never been a requisite for receiving the benefits of affirmative action. I have never heard a suggestion that it is or should be.
I have rambled on a bit more than perhaps I should have, but I think that a racial divide, perhaps a chasm, persists, and will for a long time. I also feel pretty sure that it will have a significant impact on how people vote in the upcoming general election. We won't know until after the election, and even then we won't have much precise data.
Dan(Miller)
52 - bliffle
Baronius:
I think it means two things:
1) we have become less racist
2) racists have become more circumspect.
I don't know what the proportions are.
53 - Iris Bittencourt
Dan,
I am glad that you chimed in to the conversation. I am also glad that you "think that affirmative action was a good idea." However, I am not clear on what basis you conclude that "it has outlived its usefulness and is now counterproductive." What was the usefulness of affirmative action? And to what has its productivity run counter? You may "think that it often demeans those whom it is intended to help," but I would wager that those so-called beneficiaries do not feel that way. Were all the white students in your university at the top of the class and all the black students were at the bottom of the class? In the classroom, I remember that some of the brightest students at my college were blacks, like Barack Obama. As illustrated by the data that I cited in my post above, do you believe that white females, Asians, Hispanics and other so-called minorities feel demeaned by affirmative action? Sounds like a non-sequitur, doesn't it. Do legacies, like John McCain, who get in to college based on who their parents are feel demeaned? Should they?
I also take it that the "others" to which you refer that "believe the beneficiaries are somehow less qualified than those who were not" includes yourself. Do you really think that someone from Alaska or Hawaii, regardless of race, competes with someone from New York or New Jersey when applying to a top college? Do foreign students compete on an equal basis with U.S. students? It strikes me that you reduce "affirmative action" to programs that help blacks, but this is underinclusive and shows an inherent bias in your perspective. Women, Hispanics, Asians, legacies, foreigners and others do not also benefit from affirmative action? What is affirmative action? Would it include, for example, the tax benefits given to major corporations in America? Is the current bailout affirmative action? If not, how does the current bailout or the aggregate amount of tax breaks given to white corporations compare to the aggregate amount of so-called affirmative action given to blacks? How much wealth was stolen from blacks during slavery (in the form of non-payment for labor, inability to inherit or pass on property and the economic benefit conferred on white society by their labor (i.e., dividends, proceeds and infrastructure)) and thereafter (i.e. high prices for low quality goods, excessively high interest rates, lower wages and the continuing effect of nearly 100% of the wealth in society in non-black hands)? Who was compensated for the at least 8-20 million deaths during the Middle Passage, as well as the millions of death due to illness, violence, etc. in the Americas? How do the benefits afforded blacks during 20 years of so-called affirmative action (which helped white women, Asians and Hispanics more than it did blacks, as explained in my post above) compare to the aggregate amount of wealth that was stolen from blacks and passed down by whites from generation to generation?
We have all heard complaints that affirmative action has deprived others equally or even better qualified of benefits which they would otherwise have enjoyed.
What is being qualified? Do you really believe that an admissions officer will fill all of the slots in the upcoming class with Jewish kids from New York, even if they had the highest scores on their standardized tests? No. That is not how it works, because parents of people like John McCain make sure that a certain number of slots are saved for their children, regardless of their intelligence (i.e., George Bush). And let's not forget athletes. I doubt any of the athletes at most universities, regardless of race, would make the cut with respect to qualifications. Should we mount a campaign against affirmative action for athletes and legacies? How do you think that their numbers compare to the number of black students on any given campus? Again, you have your eyes open, yet you do not see. You have been taught to see the world one way. Guess what: it is an illusion.
I say this because based on the number of Asians in America compared to the number of blacks, the gains that Asians have made in the U.S. during the so-called heyday of affirmative action and the unique history of blacks in this country, you "question whether Senator Obama would be the Democratic Party nominee were he of, for example, Korean ancestry, and whether Governor Palin would be Senator McCain's running mate were she, for example, a Jewish male from Boston." Let's take the easy one first. How about a Jewish guy from Connecticut named Lieberman? If I recall, he did not seem to cause much stir? To compare the black community and its struggles to the Korean community (which arrived here after the Korean War in the 1950s) is not only insulting, but also absurd. The Korean community is far too young at this point to aspire to the presidency of this cuontry. I do not know of any immigrant group of any race that has attained the presidency withing two generations of arrival here. Look at the Irish Catholics. That, however, is not racism, as the society has not formed a public policy to exclude Koreans or Irish Catholics from enjoying the fruits and benefits of society. Just look at the data that I cite above. Asians have surpassed blacks in major law firms in the U.S. over the last 20 years.
I was shocked to hear that "black slavery was, in retrospect, not a good thing." Wow, I am speechless. In retrospect? So does that mean that at the time it was a good idea?
And we "do really know" that had slavery not existed in the U.S. (and therefore racism did not exist in the U.S., which after all was a recent invention in 14th century Europe), things would be drastically different, and we probably would have had more than one black president by this point.
"Substantially more Blacks were brought to the Caribbean as slaves than were brought to what is now the United States in that capacity," because the Caribbean islands served as initial entry points for most slaves that came to the Americas in general. There they would be transitioned into slavery and then sold off to various destinations in the Americas (not only the U.S.). What you read is incorrect or your recollection of it is inaccurate, because the overwhelming majority of Blacks now living in the United States are descended from slaves brought to the United States involuntarily and did not voluntarily migrate to the United States. Think about how the government today treats black Haitians vs. Cubans? Does that make you rethink your theory? What was the immigration quota for blacks in this country both during and after slavery? Could blacks immigrate to the U.S. during slavery and live freely? After slavery, how many blacks were allowed to migrate to the U.S. through the end of the 50s? How many black immigrants have arrived since the 50s? How do these numbers compare to the total number of blacks in the U.S. (13% of the population)? Don't you think you would have heard about a massive black migration to the U.S.? Why would a racist society allow that to occur? Does that really make sense to you?
Although doubtless intended at least in part to overcome the ill effects of Black slavery and the later racial segregation in the U.S. due in large part to it, a showing of one's roots in U.S. based slavery has never been a requisite for receiving the benefits of affirmative action?
I agree. Nor has it been a requisite to receiving the burdens of police brutality, etc. Do you think that racist white people (who cannot even distinguish one black person from another) is going to same to himself: "Wait a second, that one looks like he is from Haite (or Ethiopia, which was never colonized by any European power)?" Life does not work that way. But I also agree with your point in a larger context: white women, Hispanics and Asians have also benefited from affirmative action, not to mention whites in the form of white privilege.
54 - david Black
"A waste of space, if you ask me, and I am ashamed that you are part of our great country (despite your best efforts)."
Again, I have to laugh at libs with their phony altruism and childish preoccupation with feeling guilt and remorse for events in American history they had personally nothing to do with.
I am ashamed that people feel that their hearts have to bleed for strangers who don't deserve the consideration they are accorded.
Minorities have been given so many opportunities and so much money has been spent on their problems and there is relatively little to show for it.
There's still rampant crime and poverty in the minority community. That's fact. What a shame your heads are up your derrieres and you can't see that.
This is what I mean about investing in losing stock.
Accept the world for the foul and festering sty it is. You'll sleep better.
55 - Iris Bittencourt
Do you feel remorse for the victims of 9/11 and their families? Do you feel remorse for the soldiers that have been cut down in the line of duty? Do you feel remorse for those who have lost their home in natural disasters? Do these people "deserve" your remorse? Did you have anything to do with any of the events described above? Based on your view, you should not feel remorse for any of the above. Your overly simplistic argument falls of its own weight. Try again.
Who are "minorities"? How much money has been given to them? How does that compare to tax breaks for U.S. corporations or subsidies for predominatly white residents of Alaska?
I agree with your stock reference, though. I am not buying what your selling. In fact, your selling fraud, lies and bigotry. It does not matter how hard you try, your ignorance shines through and through. Go Billy Bob!!! Soooeeeey!!!
56 - Pablo
I like your post Iris.
57 - Christopher Rose
Have I lost all grasp of the English language? I can't actually detect any altruism, guilt or remorse in the following exchange as set up by the clearly damaged Mr Black.
"A waste of space, if you ask me, and I am ashamed that you are part of our great country (despite your best efforts)."
Again, I have to laugh at libs with their phony altruism and childish preoccupation with feeling guilt and remorse for events in American history they had personally nothing to do with.
58 - Cannonshop
"Who are "minorities"? How much money has been given to them? How does that compare to tax breaks for U.S. corporations or subsidies for predominatly white residents of Alaska?"
According to the U.S. Census, Alaska has a lower percentage of whites, than NEW YORK.
Alaska:
White persons, percent definition and source info White persons, percent, 2006 (a) 70.7% 80.1%
Black persons, percent definition and source info Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) 3.7% 12.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent definition and source info American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) 15.4% 1.0%
Asian persons, percent definition and source info Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) 4.6% 4.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent definition and source info Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) 0.6% 0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent definition and source info Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 4.9% 1.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent definition and source info Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) 5.6% 14.8%
White persons not Hispanic, percent definition and source info White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 66.4% 66.4%
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000 definition and source info
Source
New York:
White persons, percent definition and source info White persons, percent, 2006 (a) 73.7% 80.1%
Black persons, percent definition and source info Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) 17.4% 12.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent definition and source info American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.5% 1.0%
Asian persons, percent definition and source info Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) 6.9% 4.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent definition and source info Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) 0.1% 0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent definition and source info Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 1.5% 1.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent definition and source info Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) 16.3% 14.8%
White persons not Hispanic, percent definition and source info White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006
Source
New York has a higher percentage of white people, than Alaska does, Iris. How many subsidies are going to support the private businesses in Predominantly White New York again?
59 - Iris Bittencourt
Cannonshop,
The only bad things about cannons is that they sometimes fire indiscriminately, killing innocent victims by mistake. This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but the facts that you present actually support my conclusion. 3.7% of Alaska's population is black, whereas 17.4% of New York's population is black. It is obvious to me that you are not familiar with the so-called tipping point. I will never forget when a black male graduate of Yale Law School in the early 70s told me that he was against affirmative action because it may mean that blacks surpass the so-called tipping point (approx. 5%), at which point whites would start to feel threatened and retaliate against blacks. To keep the peace, he said, blacks should never exceed 5% of anything in this country. On which side of this tipping point is Alaska?
Again, you seem to conflate so-called minorities with blacks. White folks do not feel the same about Asians and Eskimos as they feel about blacks, and your comparison sets up a straw man. Why do you think that whites that live with and around blacks poll as more racist than whites in Oregon or other predominantly white states? White show their racism when they believe that they are threatened in some way by blacks (i.e., if there are too many of them in one place, they are probably plotting to overthrow, because if I were treated that way in the past in this society, that is what I would do). So, although whites were the only genocidal murderers in the Americas since the rediscovery, they project that irrational violence onto blacks (who have predominantly been the recipient of such violence), and then feel justified that they have protected themselves against "themselves." Blowback -- anywhere but not here? Do whites really fear that blacks are like them? Rest assured, they are not. Look at who are serial killers are -- predominantly white males. This is not a coincidence. How many blacks are perpetrating these horrible school shootings? Blacks would divide the cake with whites, whereas whites will not even leave a crumb for blacks.
It seems that whites who live in close proximity to blacks fear themselves. The only way that they would know how to act in such circumstances would be to lash out violently.
Think about it. Why do relatively homogenous populations, including Sweden, Norway, etc., have healthcare for all, quality schools and other benefits for just being a citizen? They are not concerned with keeping a particular group from enjoying the fruits and benefits of their society. However, where you see the percentage of blacks increase to above the tipping point, then these types of social programs will be peeled back, called socialist, etc. It is only negative or socialistic when blacks are involved. No one thinks about the Alaskan subsidies, the corporate tax breks or othter benefits of white privilege as socialism.
Remember the tipping point.
60 - Cannonshop
Iris, I suppose that would explain why the most virulent racists I've encountered come from big, northeastern cities or Southern California. On the other hand, I think you miss the point.
Racism, is Racism...is Racism. Racism means you don't consider all people to be people because they aren't of your ethnic background-for instance, Skinheads don't consider Jews to be people, or African-Americans to be people, or Native Americans to be people, or Arabs to be People, or Mexicans.
Racism is a form of Collectivism-it doesn't care what you DO, it cares only about what you ARE (genetically).
sitting there saying "Person X isn't a Real minority because he's not a member of group Y" is, in my opinion, fundamentally racist, in-and-of-itself. When I was in the army, one of the guys I went through Basic with as a Private made it to E-5. He was a "Drinkin' buddy", he asked me, while hammered at a strip club, if I thought he got the rank because he was black.
In the Army, everyone (at that time) was "Green", it was Policy and it's something I believed in then, and believe should be now. I told him "No", and I meant it.
Keep something in mind, Iris-the percentage of Blacks in the Army is higher than the percentage of Blacks in the general population. WELL over your "tipping point" in both NCO, and Officer ranks. That "tipping point" may be true in Ivy League college environments, and Wall Street, but it's not true in the place where the employees carry guns and drive tanks. (individual instances of insecurity notwithstanding-there are sleazy weaklings in all walks of life.)
Personally, I think people should be judged by what they DO, not what they ARE (genetically). You can't control what you look like (in a general sense), but you CAN control how you deal with it, and what you do-and what you do is what's important. Now, that's probably not an attitude that works in, say, Philadelphia, or Chicago, Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, or D.C., but it works pretty good out here.
61 - David Black
"3.7% of Alaska's population is black, whereas 17.4% of New York's population is black."
Right, now ask yourself which state has the higher crime rate.
Libs need to stop avoiding the obvious conclusion why that is so.
62 - Cannonshop
David, the obvious reason is because New York is crowded, not because there are lots of any one ethicity there. Put too many people into too small a space, and you get the same result you get putting fifty rats into a space suitable for two. Crowd too many people into too small a space, you're going to have a crime problem, simple as that.
Especially if a lot of those people have all day to stew in boredom. Spread 'm out, give 'm something to DO, and an open path to improving their own lives, and crime will decrease. Crowd them in, with minimum-wage menial jobs, and watch the crime rates soar.
People need room to breathe, and meaningful work to do, without those, you get slums. With slums comes crime. It doesn't matter what colour they are or who their granddaddy was. "Idle Hands" make for Mischief.
63 - Christopher Rose
Ms Bettancourt is misinformed about the breakdown of the Swedish population. A massive one minute of research revealed the fact that over 15% of the Swedish population originate from other countries, a figure not too dissimilar to the UK.
64 - David Black
" I am not buying what your selling. In fact, your selling fraud, lies and bigotry. It does not matter how hard you try, your ignorance shines through and through. Go Billy Bob!!! Soooeeeey!!! "
I'm a New Yorker born and bred to immigrant Jews who fled the Holocaust.
They came to this country with nothing and succeeded entirely by their own wits without government handouts and entitlements. My father and my uncles built a garment business out of nothing and sold it for a handsome profit forty years later.
That's what brilliant and motivated people do. They don't sit around smoking crack, having illegitimate kids, and waiting for the government to send them a check.
That's why I despise these dependent minority underclasses. They are too stupid to survive and succeed by their own wits and intelligence.
My family knew how to survive and eventually succeed because we are of the the Ashkenazim bloodline, the most brilliant strain of Jews out of Europe.
Social darwinism is discredited because it's politically incorrect.
65 - Christopher Rose
What do you think we should do with all the people who aren't as "brilliant and motivated" as you, David? Shall we just kill them all?
Hmm, racial higiene, now who was it that put that idea into practice last century?
66 - Cannonshop
Oh, dear, Godwin's Law.
67 - Christopher Rose
Cannonshop, technically that isn't an example of Godwin's Law in action.
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".
What we have here is the son of Ashkenazi refugees who fled the Holocaust arguing for "Social Darwinism", which ties in directly with ideas of Eugenics and racial purity. I think that would be called irony in some circumstances, although it appears to have gone right over David Black's head.
68 - Lisa Solod Warren
Irony is not the only thing that has gone over David Black's head.
Whenever I read one of his posts (I am still postive he is a ringer!) I can only think of Jon Stewart's riff: "But is it good for the Jews?"
David Black is NOT good for the Jews.
Please don't imagine he represents us, any more than Louis Farrakan represents blacks. I know there are others like him; there are always people in every ethnic group that are troublesome. But then that is where the stereotypes come from, isn't it? And why they are so damned hard to get rid of.
69 - Cannonshop
#67
Ah! thanks, Chris.
#68
"Please don't imagine he represents us, any more than Louis Farrakan represents blacks. I know there are others like him; there are always people in every ethnic group that are troublesome. But then that is where the stereotypes come from, isn't it? And why they are so damned hard to get rid of."
I don't, Lisa. Mister Black strikes me as one of those "City People" who disabused me of the notion that urban living leads to broad thinking. I've said it before, and I'll stand by it, the worst bigots I've known come from the big urban areas, mainly back east, although there are plentiful examples from the more crowded cities of the "big population states" out west. If anything, his statements reinforce my suspicion that people who live in too close proximity and too large numbers in too small a space end up being twisted in ways that folk with enough room to breathe in communities that are smaller just aren't. "Rats in a box" in other words, or maybe some kind of cabin-fever variant that happens when you never truly have peace and quiet, and are never truly free to do anything for fear of the neighbours being offended. Whatever it is, the people I've encountered with the worst cases of the Ethnic-group-hatred come from crowded, rotting cities back east.
70 - Christopher Rose
You're welcome, Cannonshop.
As to your follow on comment, the thing about big cities is that you get all kinds of groups and thinking, from the broadest to the meanest.
However, as someone who lives in one of the most crowded countries in the world (England) and in a region that has almost twice as many people in less than half the land area of the USA (Europe), meaning our population density is 4 times that of the USA, I can't agree with your suggestion that it is population density that leads to the kind of thinking you refer to.
Furthermore, as someone who has experienced a lot of violent racial discrimination (Welsh on English) in small towns and villages, I have trouble subscribing to your contention that small town life is all that.
Mr Black's problem is simply that he is a grumpy old man who has problems adjusting to the complexities of modern life. You get them all over the world, regardless of population density or urban versus rural settings.
71 - Cannonshop
Well, mine was only a speculation, Chris, I know that having to live in what is really considered a very small city has put quite a strain on me after growing up in rural areas. I don't sleep well, for instance, and I get persistent feelings of anxiety when I'm forced to walk around near down-town. The people are just too damn close and too damn many, and they're EVERYWHERE.
If not for work, I'd have up-stakes and headed north, out of this, for somewhere where there are just enough people for company, but not so many that it's 'stuffy'.
maybe Alaska...
72 - Daniel Miller
Iris,
OK. I will grant your point on a Korean. Let's substitute someone of Chinese descent. They have been around for a very long time. True, Senator Lieberman didn't cause much stir, and that may be his problem. Had Senator McCain chosen him as his VP running mate, the chances of a McCain/Lieberman ticket winning the election would, in my opinion, have been substantially lower; particularly had Senator Lieberman had as little public name recognition pre-nomination as Governor Palin. And, of course, his and her political ideologies are quite different.Sorry, I could not possibly respond to all of your questions and comments (comment #53) productively. I will attempt to do so with some of them.
1. Were all the white students in your university at the top of the class and all the black students were at the bottom of the class? As I recall, there was one, and he was at about the middle. He was, as I recall, a foreign student from, I think, Ghana. This was about fifty years ago.
2. I also take it that the "others" to which you refer that "believe the beneficiaries are somehow less qualified than those who were not" includes yourself. Nope. I never had that problem.
3. Women, Hispanics, Asians, legacies, foreigners and others do not also benefit from affirmative action? I doubt that women do. I don't know whether some Hispanics might now-a-days. Asians seem to do quite well without it. I don't think that "legacies" do, at least as I understand the term "affirmative action" as it is normally used. Foreigners, I rather doubt it, but don't really know.
4.
5. Asians have surpassed blacks in major law firms in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Why do you think that is the case?
6. I was shocked to hear that "black slavery was, in retrospect, not a good thing." Wow, I am speechless. In retrospect? So does that mean that at the time it was a good idea? No, I don't think so, but then I have the benefit of hindsight. It was, at the time, quite widely accepted and deemed necessary. I would remind you that Trinidad,which is not about fifty percent Black and fifty percent Indian (from India) got that way because, once slavery became illegal, many, may Indians were brought to the country as "indentured servants." They were, for the most part, indistinguishable from Black slaves.
7. And we "do really know" that had slavery not existed in the U.S. (and therefore racism did not exist in the U.S., which after all was a recent invention in 14th century Europe), things would be drastically different, and we probably would have had more than one black president by this point. Slavery was not a "recent invention;" it has been around for a much longer time than that. No, we "do not really know" how things would now be had history been dramatically different. We can speculate, but can not know.
8. The overwhelming majority of Blacks now living in the United States are descended from slaves brought to the United States involuntarily and did not voluntarily migrate to the United States. That's a nice idea, but as I said, I have looked in vain for any factual basis to support it. Slaves were as much needed for the sugar cane plantations in the Caribbean as they were in what is now the U.S. for cotton plantations. The sailing route from Africa to the Caribbean was much easier than from Africa directly to the United States, so the Caribbean islands were a natural way point. The route back to Europe and thence to Africa was much easier via New England than directly back from the Caribbean. That's the way the trade winds and ocean currents work. However, it remains my understanding that far more Black slaves were left in the Caribbean than brought by the slave traders as slaves to the U.S.
Cannonshop says, In the Army, everyone (at that time) was "Green", it was Policy and it's something I believed in then, and believe should be now. That's the way it was back when I was in the Army as well. That was back in 1967 -71. I agree.
Dan(Miller)
73 - Christopher Rose
Cannonshop: It's different strokes for different folks really. And maybe age has a role to play too. When I was younger only the city would do but now I don't mind the country so much. In short spells!
What with global warming and all that shrinking the ice caps, maybe you should consider the new final frontier, the largely undiscovered country that is the Antarctic... It's on the up.
74 - David Black
"What do you think we should do with all the people who aren't as "brilliant and motivated" as you, David? Shall we just kill them all?"
No, just let them do themselves in, which is the inevitable conclusion to leading the life of a bottomfeeding parasite who can't live or prosper without entitlements or charity.
I don't believe that all life is precious or sacred. I think people should have to justify their existence via self-resolve and self-sustainability.
If they can't, it's too bad. I can't be bothered with them.
Lisa Solod Warren has been conditioned to think like 80% of the rest of the Jewish race, that discussion of Hitler or the Holocaust automatically invites the most negative of images.
As a Jew of Austrian lineage, I can appreciate the effiency and productivity of the Germanic people coming back from virtual annihilation. Let's face it, Germany was in the gutter after WW1. No doubt about it, Teutonic tribes are tough sons of bitches and brilliant warriors.
Where Hitler went wrong was scapegoating the Jews. Jews had a life long record of success and productivity in commerce, the sciences, and the arts. You don't kill people like that, you marvel at their achievements and follow their example.
Killing gypsies I can understand. No one in Europe ever liked the gypsies and they did nothing but cause crime.
Homosexuals and Communists? Sorry, I don't care about them.
With Jews, it was ingrained jealousy and resentment, which is an illogical way to judge a race.
You judge people based on their history of achievments and their talent to create wealth and prosperity.
Aside from the murdering of Jews, I had no problem with the Third Reich.
If Hitler hadn't targeted the Jews, the Reich would still be in business, I guarantee you that.
No one argues with countries who know how to make money.
75 - Christopher Rose
There's precious little fun - or point - left in rebutting Mr Black's latest charming outburst, so I'll limit myself to just one.
Your last line above is all the proof anyone could need as to the depth of your reasoning problems.
"No one argues with countries that know how to make money" And how many countries have a beef with the USA these days? Is it none?