Today on Blogcritics
Home » What’s All This Stuff About Racism And Sexism?

What’s All This Stuff About Racism And Sexism?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

According to the AP-Yahoo poll,

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.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

According to the 2002 survey linked above,

Descriptive Results

The descriptive results revealed that the Black students scored higher than the White students on all of the measures included in this study. Although response biases could account for these differences, the magnitude of the majority of these differences suggests that they are meaningful. If so, the results suggest that the White students may have been reluctant to express negative attitudes toward Blacks and that the White students perceived relations between the groups in more favorable terms than did the Black students. Of course, Blacks have many reasons to think that Whites are a greater threat to them than vice versa, despite media presentations that often suggest it is Whites who feel threatened by Blacks. The White students may have been less aware of the conflict and status differences than the Black students. Alternatively, the White students may have been motivated to downplay intergroup conflict and status differences to reduce guilt feelings that might be aroused by regarding Blacks as being disadvantaged and their own group as the cause of these problems (Swim & Miller, 1999).

The threats referenced in the 2002 study were described as follows:

The Threats as Predictors

The strongest predictor in both groups was intergroup anxiety. In this study, as well as in others (W. G. Stephan&Stephan, 2000), fear of interaction with members of another group was associated with disliking the outgroup. Intergroup anxiety is the most self-interested of the threats in the integrated threat theory. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that for young people who function in integrated environments, anxiety concerning outgroup interaction should play a more prominent role in predicting negative racial attitudes than realistic or symbolic threats, which concern threats to the ingroup as a whole. Nonetheless, in both racial groups, realistic and symbolic threats did predict negative racial attitudes.

Exit and other polls focusing on for whom Whites are likely to vote may, as has been suggested, be infected by political correctness and therefore inaccurately reflect the attitudes questioned in the AP-Yahoo News poll; the disinclination of some respondents to say that they will not vote for Senator Obama may distort the polls to give Senator Obama a greater statistical popularity than he realistically has. Conversely, the attitudes of Blacks reflected in pre-election and exit polls may suffer from a similar distortion. Or, maybe not. It is an hypothesis objectively subject to neither proof nor disproof, nor even very useful speculation.

Should the race of a candidate make a difference? How about gender? The answer should be obvious; lest it go without saying because it is so obvious, my answer is, "of course not;" nor, in a perfect society, would these things be significant. Race and gender standing alone have absolutely nothing to do with whether a person will make a good President or Vice President. Yet, it has been argued that race is the only basis upon which Senator Obama might lose the election. A contrary view is expressed here.

How about a candidate's views on race, gender and what to do concerning matters related to them? Ah, now that is different. A candidate's views toward racial preferences could well make a legitimate difference. So might an affirmation or rejection of "Black Liberation Theology," "Negro inferiority" or the view that "Women should stay home and breed." Appeals based solely on a candidate's race should not make a difference. I could not in good conscience vote for any candidate who asked me to vote for him on account of his race or for her on account of her gender. Nor could I vote for any candidate who asked me to vote against his or her opponent for these reasons. There are far, far better reasons to vote for or against a candidate than his race or gender. Their views on the significance of race and gender are, as I said, different.

Many of us, Black and White alike, may be overly sensitive to innocuous comments which can be twisted to seem racist. Senator Biden, back when he was first seeking the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, referred to Senator Obama as follows

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

This was interpreted by some as suggesting that Senator Biden was saying something naughty, and in the process somehow demeaning Blacks whom he must, therefore, have generally viewed as unclean, stupid and inarticulate. Silly? Of course. Hoof and Mouth Disease is a problem with various quadrupeds; it can with some difficulty be prevented, but is difficult, if not impossible, to cure. Hoof in Mouth disease, for which there is no known prophylaxis or cure, seems to be a problem with politicians and other public speakers, as well as, obviously, with writers. Sometimes, comments which might to some appear racist can be explained away; sometimes, they can't. In any event, Senator Obama seems not to have taken much umbrage and Senator Biden is now the Democratic Party candidate for Vice President. He probably would not have consented to run with Senator Obama if he thought him other than articulate, bright and "clean."

Senator Clinton (whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I despise for many reasons) relied heavily on the votes of women — as women — in attempting to secure her party's Presidential nomination. Lots of women seem more than a little disappointed that she did not get either that or second prize, the Vice Presidential nomination. Senator Clinton's best(?) efforts notwithstanding, some of her supporters are now supporting the McCain/Palin ticket financially and otherwise. Off hand, I can't think of many views shared by the former supporters of Senator Clinton and those whom they now support. Perhaps this reflects little more than anger at what is perceived as sexism in the Democratic Party — how on earth could Senator Clinton have been denied the first prize, let alone the second prize? Even Donald Trump has now switched allegiance from Senator Clinton to Senator McCain.

During the Democratic Party candidate selection process, the percentage of Black voters who supported Senator Obama was extraordinarily high — far higher, I suspect, than would have been the case had Senator Obama been of, say, Korean ancestry rather than (half) Black. South Carolina is one example. North Carolina is another. There are more. Senator Obama didn't have to "play the race card;" all he had to do was to be (half) Black. Neither, for that matter, did Senator Clinton have to play the race or the gender cards; all she had to do was to be White and female. Neither could creditably claim personal credit for choosing to be Black or White, male or female, and neither has done so.

Would it make lots of us feel good to elect the first (discounting, of course, former President Clinton) Black President or the first female President? Probably. Would it be a good thing in and of itself? I don't feel at all strongly that it would be; it might assuage a bit of the "White Liberal Guilt" from which the country is said to suffer, and if we could put that behind us it might be nice.

There has been a lot of bile on these threads of late, much of it counter-productive if informed discussion is desired and if racism and sexism are to be put behind us, where they belong. Some of the bile has to do with the issues (and they unfortunately are issues, big ones) of race and gender.

Until we — all of us — put racism and sexism behind us, we gotta big problem.

Powered by

About Dan Miller

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Duh, Dan. But do you think you’re saying that is going to make it just go away, poof!

    You’re a white man. You guys have been in power just because you are white and male since forever.

    I am not voting for Obama because he is black. I would not have voted for Hillary just because she is a woman. But I certainly think it would be interesting, in the case of a woman, for example, to see if her perspective, which, if you are married, as I know you are, is different from yours, might make a difference in her governance. OTOH it might not. I don’t think Obama’s race will make one iota difference in his: but his own personal philosophy and who he is as a person will, which is why I support him: plus I like his take on the issues and the way he generates enthusiasm in young people and has gotten the people involved and engaged in politics again.

    For people to vote against him because he is black is disappointing. For people to vote against any woman because of her sex would be the same.

    I know that you would wish it were not so, as, obviously, from my own opinion piece, would I.

    But just wishing, ain’t gonna make it so, Dan. This country is mired in issues of race, class, and religion. And those are not going to disappear overnight just because good-minded people wish they would.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “I don’t think Obama’s race will make one iota difference in his: but his own personal philosophy and who he is as a person will, which is why I support him:”

    I see, so it’s preferable to support a candidate with a 20 year association with a racist black liberation theologian who preaches “Goddman America” to his congregation and is on record of being anti-Semitic?

    So it’s preferable to support a candidate who supports 60’s era leftist radicals who blow up government building and show no remorse for their actions?

    So it’s preferable to have a candidate whose wife once referred to Caucasian Americans as “whitey”?

    “plus I like his take on the issues and the way he generates enthusiasm in young people and has gotten the people involved and engaged in politics again.”

    So he’s a cheerleader for dopey Gen X/Y skateboarders who do little more than text message, yak on their cell phones, and play video games.

    I’m sorry, I’m not ready to surrender the keys to those nitwits.

    I want an America run by serious and mature adults who have little patience for the kind of frivolity that arrives from embracing kiddie oriented pop culture.

    Kids who still live with their parents at age 25 are losers in my estimation and unworthy of respect or consideration.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Lisa,

    No, of course not.

    It understanding that racial and tribal loyalties/antipathies have been around for a very long time. When I was in Korea about forty years ago, there was great antipathy toward the Japanese; some of it racial, probably more of it based on historical interactions. I understand that the antipathy was at least equally prevalent in Japan, a very racially homogeneous society. There is a significant racial divide in China, and it shows. In the Latin American countries I have experienced, light skin is generally (but not always) a good thing if one wants to advance. I understand that the same is often true in the United States.

    I don’t anticipate that my articles, or your articles, or anyone else’s articles or statements will make the least bit of difference in how people make decisions on the basis of candidates’ race or gender. Perhaps the only way to eliminate racism/sexism might be to eliminate the human race. Ah, but then it might still exist in other species.

    I did want to point out a couple of things, however, namely (1) that however one labels it, “racism” is alive and well in both the Black and White societies, and (2) that it is possible, even salutatory, to consider a candidate’s views on racial and gender based issues, as distinguished from whatever might be his race and/or gender.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “You’re a white man. You guys have been in power just because you are white and male since forever.”

    The strongest and the smartest always rise to the top of the food chain. That’s scientific fact.

    What pity for many of you that nature isn’t governed by affirmative action policies.

  • Cindy D

    “DAVID BLACK IS A DARK SPIRITED AMERICAN WITH A STRONG CONSERVATIVE BENT. HE’S NEVER MET A SWEEPING GENERALIZATION HE DIDN’T LIKE. HE’S BEEN CALLED CANTANKEROUS, INTOLERANT, IRASCIBLE, WITTY, IGNORANT, INSIGHTFUL, AND DOGMATIC …”

    I’d like to add Racist.

  • Clavos

    I don’t think Obama’s race will make one iota difference in his: but his own personal philosophy and who he is as a person will, which is why I support him

    And exactly the reason (not his race — I would vote for a Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, among many other AAs, in a heartbeat) why I will not vote for him. He is the most leftist candidate you Dems have EVER put up for prez, and his principles are anathema to me.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    Cindy D: please tell me what I’ve said that’s racist.

    Of course, let me say in advance that the term has been distorted to the point where any negative comment is construed as being “racist,” so I’m not sure how constructive it would be to cite examples, even though you are welcome to try.

  • troll

    Black – I don’t think ‘racist’ is the real issue…’dumb’ or ‘simple minded’ (as in The strongest and the smartest always rise to the top of the food chain. That’s scientific fact.) would be more appropriate…whoever it was who called you ‘ignorant’ was perceptive imo

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “The strongest and the smartest always rise to the top of the food chain. That’s scientific fact.”

    Please refute that contention if you think it’s wrong.

    Who is on the top of the food chain of the entire animal kingdom of this planet?

    Homo sapiens.

    Why?

    Because homo sapiens are the strongest and the smartest animal.

    Have you ever read the The Bell Curve? I have. Everything about that book is essentially true, it’s just that most people are too cowardly to embrace its conclusions, for fear of appearing “insensitive” and not politically correct.

  • troll

    Please refute that contention if you think it’s wrong.

    been there and done that Black – and have found that arguing the point serves no purpose and changes no minds

    but just for fun:

    Who is on the top of the food chain of the entire animal kingdom of this planet?

    viruses

  • Cindy D

    David Black,

    Your back-peddling shows troll was probably more accurate than I was.

    In any case, I was wrong. Because I should have added both sexist and racist.

    I’m not in the habit of shouting racist at people simply because they are simple.

    Your comment above, however, seemed to evoke the very definition:

    Merriam-Webster

    rac·ism

    1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    Please tell me how that is different than a belief that “white males rule because they are superior”. (Of course, that’s where you have to factor in the sexist part of your comment.)

    The reason I am calling you a sexist racist, rather than something milder or more forgiving, is because it is your very point of view, the insidious sexist-racist view, rather than the blatant anti-women, other-hating view that supports the continued inherent racism institutionalized in our society.

    You have been the recipient of affirmative action since the country began David Black.

    In the human world, it’s not intelligence or innate superiority that rises to the top, but power.

    Nature is not a force for right or good. Sometimes the brutal win. It hardly makes them superior in any worthwhile sense of that word.

  • Clavos

    In addition, homos (sapiens or sexual) are not the strongest animals on the planet, just the best equipped (opposable thumbs, etc.). Any number of animals are stronger than us; from the smallest (see troll’s comment #11, above), to the largest.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “white males rule because they are superior”

    That should be amended to include all Judeo-Christian males, as well. I didn’t want to leave out my own race, whose wealth and influence is undeniable

    I’m sorry, but a simple review of Western history since the middle ages confirms this. Superior in the sense that we held all the wealth, power, and influence.

  • troll

    eof

  • Cindy D

    “comments about what I’d like to say to you deleted by me”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    I personally feel that Akita dogs are superior in intelligence to most other breeds, and that quarter horses are faster over a quarter mile race track than thoroughbreds. Perhaps that makes me a breedist?

    Dan(Miller)

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Check out this exchange with the venerable Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. Now I know what bobbing and weaving means. Enjoy!

    I’m sorry, Iris, but I simply don’t have time for this kind of exchange. I’m sorry you found my response incomplete. Your first email, like this one, was simply too long and rambling to post. And no, it is not a “flip-flop” or at all inconsistent to say that race is of course a factor in the election, but that it isn’t nearly as important a factor as people insist on presuming it is, because it isn’t nearly as central to our divisions as a society as it was even 30 years ago. Obama understands that, which is why he ran, and which is why he won the nomination. It is one of the great ironies of his appeal that so many of his suuporters seem so invested in this notion of America as a nation of unbending ignorance and venality. Perhaps he’ll prove them wrong.
    matt

    On Sep 20, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Iris Bittencourt wrote: Iris Bittencourt sent a message using the contact form at mattbai.com/contact.

    Matt,

    I was just about to write you a response thanking you for replying to my e-mail, when I saw that you had published your reply on your site. While I appreciate your public reply and do sincerely thank you for taking the time to read what I am sure is not always the most well-written or coherent stuff, it also strikes me as odd that you would publish your response but
    not what prompted your response. You dismiss the substantive points and questions that I raised in
    my original comments, and your response makes me fear that you continue to ignore these questions. Let me show you why.
    First, you declare: I don’t really understand what the revelation is with this AP poll. That white Americans harbor racial stereotypes? That those attitudes affect people’s votes? We needed a poll to tell us that? Well, if you recall, in the article that I responded to you declared that “the biggest deal about racial and gender identity in the campaign is that, especially to younger Americans who live and work in a vastly changed
    country, it isn’t such a very big deal after all.” It seems to me, Matt, that these two statements are inconsistent. Last week, you proclaimed that “our divisions are as likely to be about income and geography as they are about race and gender,” and this week you are saying racism exists and affects people’s votes. With all due respect, it sounds like a flip flop
    to me.
    So, after destroying the straw man that you created, you proceed to discuss the “more salient questions,” none of which, of course, are any of the questions that I raised in my original comments. But, OK, fine. Let’s examine these questions. 1. To what extent are those biases disqualifying biases in choosing a candidate, or are they merely factors among many others? The AP study shows that in the absence of racism, Obama’s lead would be at least six points higher. I take it that you do not dispute this finding. By how much did
    Bush win in 2000 and 2004? In our current political environment, a six-point handicap would seem to be disqualifying. But, the larger question and one that I raised in my original comments that you did not address, is what is the effect of the extent of racism in society on the lives of everyday black people, including police brutality, equal pay, job
    and promotion opportunities, etc. If we focus on Obama only, I believe that we miss the boat. I go into this question in more detail below.
    We all know people with racial biases who will vote for Obama anyway, just as we know people with ageist biases who will vote for McCain. Are you equating racism with ageism? Based on your prior article, I would not be surprised, as every “ism” is equal to an other “ism” in your view. Think about what you just said. Do you actually believe that?
    The trajectory of progress is generally that what was a disqualifiying factor (i.e., anti_Catholicism bias that existed when Al Sith ran for president) becomes, in time, an obstacle that can be ovecome (i.e. JFK in 1960). The mere existence of a racial bias doesn’t make it determinative.
    Agreed. However, this is a lot more complex than it appears that you are recognizing. Do you think that if Alan Keyes or Colin Powell or a so-called black conservative were running for president that race would be as large a factor as it is now? Did anyone attack Clarence Thomas in this manner? I dealt with all of this in my original comments. You need to
    understand Sambo and Quimbo and there role in white society. Is Clarence Thomas progress in your view?
    2. Are there other legiitimate reasons that a moderate to conservative leaning voter might not choose Obama, aside from race? I believe there are.
    OK. My question is, particularly with respect to white female voters that supported Hillary Clinton, do you believe that any of these so-called legitimate reasons will matter more than race when they walk in that polling booth. Her royal hiny the baroness Rothschild is a good example. Just listen to all those legitimate reasons that she spouts for supporting McCain and those bitter rednecks.

    3. By constantly harping on the idea that white Americans are hopelessly racist–this familiar liberal vision of America as a dark and unjust place–do you make it more or less likely that the voters mentioned above will decline to vote for a Democrat (yet again?).
    Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do not make it more or less of anything. I am part of the voiceless masses. Are you sure that you are not a McCain supporter. I sort of feel like I imagine Obama felt when McCain blamed him for the financial crisis. Now, because I raise legitimate questions about racism
    through a private e-mail connection, I am somehow to blame for white racist voters who refuse to vote for a black man. You can do better than that.

    Thus far, none of the poll numbers I’ve seen put Obama in any
    substantially different range with white men than was Kerry or Gore. Neither of them lost because of racism.
    Kerry and Gore are now potential victims of racism?
    Somebody better warn them. Why didn’t you add Clinton? Wasn’t he the first white black presidential candidate? It seems that his close relationship with the black community would be more of an issue for white voters than Kerry or
    Gore. I could be wrong though. Remember though. Palin was not picked to draw white men. She was picked to draw white women. So, I am not sure what your question ultimately gets at? What has been the effect of Palin’s choice on working to middle class white women without a college education? That is the target group.

    As you may actually publish my response to your response, I include an edited version of my original comments.

    In your recent piece in the NYT regarding Retro Identity Politics, you recollect “competitions over who remained more oppressed than whom” during college in the 80s and conclude that, unlike then, current “notions of race became jumbled in the faces of children who, like Barack Obama, couldn’t
    check any one box on a census form.” You acknowledge that sexism and racism continue to exist and point to insidious e-mails sent about Obama and Clinton as examples. Yet, you conclude that “our divisions are as likely to be about income and geography as they are about race and gender.” To support this conclusion you cite the fact that “although elite men’s
    colleges began admitting women in the 1960s, it wasn’t until 1993, when Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington, that the country got a first lady who was an accomplished lawyer and policy expert in her own right. (Four women arrived in the Senate that same year, representing what came to be
    known as “the year of the woman.”) Even today, a modest 16 of the nation’s 100 senators and only 8 of its 50 governors are women. Among African-Americans, the numbers are even starker; Obama is the only black senator in Washington (a number unchanged from 40 years ago), and currently there are just two black governors.” When these numbers seem to contradict your larger point, you posit that “politics in Washington has largely lagged behind the workplace and the local mall in reflecting a more integrated and less rigid America.” Without offering proof for this assertion, you then marvel at “how much of an afterthought history has actually been. Obama had already won his first caucus by the time racial tension entered the Democratic primaries; no one ever seemed to question his viability as a candidate in the way they did Jesse Jackson’s two decades years earlier.” Based on the foregoing, you conclude that “the biggest deal about racial and gender identity in the campaign is that, especially to younger Americans who live and work in a vastly changed country, it isn’t such a very big deal after all.”
    Do you know why in the 80s (as opposed to any other decade in that century or any other century before that) there were competitions between so-called minority groups to see who was more oppressed? The seed of those competitions was sown in 1964 when a cynical Southern senator inserted the
    word “gender” in a bill that would later be enacted as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you recall, the principal purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to redress some of the harms suffered by the descendants of black slaves in America both during slavery and Jim Crowism. White women like myself were never slaves in America. To the contrary, we have always been part of a protected class in society, including the right to inherit and pass on the wealth of our parents and husbands and to child support and alimony in the event that we divorce our husbands. How many young black men were lynched for allegedly ogling a white woman? (When you ponder the
    answer to the last question, also reflect on McCain’s campaign ads that accuse Obama of being disrespectful and on what sexism means in the context of a black male and white female)
    Yet, the inclusion of the term “gender” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 equated our struggle, the struggle of white women that have always been in a protected class in America, with that of the descendants of slaves of any gender. More than that, this inclusion gave racist white men an easy choice: either give the opportunity to their white mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, cousins, daughters or friends (or those of their white male colleagues) or give the opportunity to a black person of any gender. Accordingly, what started as legislation meant to redress the harm caused by slavery was effectively hijacked and transformed into a means to maintain or increase the aggregate accumulation of wealth, power and other benefits within the white community (at the expense of the descendants of black slaves). For example, African Americans currently make up about 13% of the US population, but have historically been underrepresented in Congress. Currently 42 members (9.5%) of the House (including two non-voting
    delegates) are black, while Barack Obama is the only African American member of the Senate. Only five African Americans have ever served in the Senate. To put this in perspective, there are currently 16 women in the Senate, the highest number in history, and 74 female representatives. You
    also aptly point out the disparity between black and female governors. Now, it is important to note that when I refer to blacks, I refer to both black men and black women. When people refer to women, to whom are they referring? Since 1964, other groups in addition to white women have been added to the list of intended beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act and the programs that have been established to redress racial inequality in America, including Hispanics and Asians. Like with respect to white women, white racist men have demonstrated an inclination to offer opportunities to
    Hispanics and Asians instead of to African-Americans. Although it took African Americans approximately 135 years to elect an aggregate of five U.S. senators, five Asian-Americans and six Hispanic-Americans have been elected to the U.S. Senate over the last 30 years. The experience in major U.S. law firms is very similar. As aptly noted in an article comparing the progress of women and other so-called minorities in large law firms, “[a]s a general rule, the available literature tends to
    focus more on [white] women than minorities in the legal profession.” Since 1975, the representation of white women as professionals in large firms has increased by 179.9% from 14.4 percent in 1975 to 40.3 percent in 2002, whereas the representation of African Americans (of both genders) increased
    by 91.3% from 2.3 percent in 1975 to 4.4 percent in 2002. (As stated above, Hispanics and Asians of both genders are now classified as minorities and benefit from programs that were developed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address racial inequality in America. Hispanics increased from 0.7 percent to 2.9 percent, and Asians increased from 0.5 percent to 5.3
    percent over the same period). By 1982, the percent of white women reported as legal professionals was nearly identical to the percent of white women receiving law degrees in that year, and since then the employment of white women in these firms has remained higher than in the more general work force. Conversely, law degrees earned by African Americans appear to consistently exceed the employment of African Americans as professionals in large private law firms and as lawyers in the general work force. Unlike the employment patterns for white women, the proportion of African Americans (of both genders) employed as lawyers in the general labor market and as professionals in law firms as captured by the EEO-1 data is fairly consistent, and changes in the employment of African American professionals in private sector firms required to file EEO-1 reports lagged behind their increase as lawyers in the general work force and in their increased rate of receiving law degrees over the past twenty years. (Contrast this experience with Asians: the growth in Asian attorneys has been so rapid
    that by 2002, the percentage of Asian professionals in Legal Services, 5.3 percent, as reported on the EEO-1 exceeds the percentage of African Americans, 4.4 percent. Degrees conferred to Asians also increased during the twenty year study period. In 1982 just 1.3 percent of all law degrees
    are awarded to Asians but by 2002, they earn 6.5 percent of all degrees. Over the past twenty years the rate of change for the percent of Asians reported as professional by Legal Service firms on their EEO-1 reports is 341 percent. The increase in law degrees earned by Asians is even higher at 400 percent.) So, contrary to your conclusions, blacks have lagged behind other groups not just as elected officials, but in the private sector as well. Based on these and other statistics, who were the true beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act that blacks marched and died for? Somehow, we have gotten to a
    point in our history where white women, Hispanics, Asians, handicapped people and others are equated with black people in America. When were they slaves in America? You gave us the perfect answer for this conundrum: history has been an
    afterthought. What were white women doing while black men and women were slaves? How is my plight equal to that of the plight of the descendants of slaves? I could never understand that and reject it openly. When people talk about equal pay, they speak about equal pay for white women, because both black men and black women earn less than white men, and
    black women earn on average far less than white women. If you are a white woman in this country, you benefit from the Equal Pay Act, which requires a woman to prove only that she received lower pay than a similarly situated male. If you are a black man (whose descendants worked for centuries for
    free and has always received less pay than whites), you cannot use the Equal Pay Act and must sue under the Civil Rights Act, which requires you to prove both that you received lower pay and that the reason that you were paid less is because of racism (a nearly impossible task, as reflected in
    recent civil rights jurisprudence). If it reminds you of the difference in sentencing for possession of crack and powder cocaine, do not be surprised. It is not a coincidence. To show the absurdity of equating blacks with white women and other
    minorities, I ask one question: do we equate any of these groups to the suffering of the Jews? After all, the Holocaust lasted for approximately 10 years, whereas slavery in the Americas lasted for 385 years, and for approximately 255 of those years the U.S. participated actively. If Obama
    were Joe Lieberman, would white women feel as strongly as they do against Obama? The obvious answer to this seemingly absurd question reveals the racism that underlies the equation of blacks with any other group in America. The McCain campaign itself has indicated that they expect Palin to help him among lower income female voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. In addition, Palin herself made references to Hillary Clinton’s glass ceiling and to Ferraro (who herself during this campaign has called Obama an affirmative action candidate who is not qualified) in her initial speech. Get real. With this pick, McCain is calling lower income white
    women without a college education (a polite way of saying racist white trash) to a race war veiled in the tattered clothes of the white feminist movement. On what other basis are these traditional Democratic voters going to support Palin –her record? Will the white female Democrats (life-long
    in many cases) who vote for McCain do it because they agree with his policies and believe that a McCain presidency will help the plight of women in America? Returning to the points raised in your article, current “notions of race [have become] jumbled” because this serves the interests of white society. The fundamental question in America has not be gender; it has been race. If you step back and look at the world as a whole, the most successful racist society in the world today is Brazil. Why, because they deny that racism is a problem. If there is no problem, then there is no need for a solution. You may not know it, but Brazil has the largest number of blacks
    living anywhere outside of Africa and espouses what is called a racial democracy in which everyone is Brazilian. Brazil commenced slavery in approx. 1503 and ended it in 1888. Although Brazil was the first to commence slavery in the Americas and the last one to end it, it was the first country to declare itself a racial democracy. Thus, unlike South
    Africa and the U.S. where white racism was expressed in the form of violent segregation, Brazil was able to achieve the same results in a more understated way. Today, Brazilian whites are one of the only groups of white colonialists slave holders that have not been required to share part
    of their wealth and power with the descendants of slaves (who make up approximately 50% of the population). Whites in Brazil have a similar standard of living as Kuwaitis, whereas black Brazilian live as if they were in El Salvador. But, this disparity has nothing to do with racism, because Brazil is a racial democracy …
    But just like in Brazil, racism has not gone away in the U.S. just because you say it has. There, as here, numbers do not lie. You cannot simply ignore the disparities in elected representatives and in private sector advancement, especially during the so-called heydey of affirmative action (without affirmative action, what would the numbers look like?). They are evidence of racism. Racism is not, as you allege, insidious e-mails. Who cares? Racism is about power. In a nutshell, it is a concerted effort to deny the fruits and benefits of society to a particular group based on their racial characteristics. In this manner, since blacks have never
    owned or controlled anything in America, they by definition cannot be racists. They can react to racism, but cannot in themselves be racist. Give me one example of where blacks have forcefully prevented any other group from obtaining the fruits and benefits of society? From this perspective, it is interesting that a black man is being accused of sexism
    by white women (which I read as denying women access to the fruits and benefits of society on an equal basis. Again, if blacks do not own or control anything, how are they being sexist? Calling people names is one thing; denying them a chance to earn a livelihood or to have equal protection under the law is entirely different, and let’s not conflate the
    two). When have blacks of any gender ever denied white women access to the fruits and benefits of society? Yet, the utter hypocrisy of this claim is too subtle for most to grasp. No, the only group that I know of in America that has been denied (and that continues to be denied) the fruits and
    benefits of this society are blacks. To equate white women, Asians and Latinos with blacks is just another attempt to deny (through substantial dilution of) the fruits and benefits that blacks should enjoy in this society in light of their unique sacrifice, history of slavery, qualifications and representation in the population as a whole — or in other words, racism. The plan has obviously worked like a charm. Spoken like a true Brazilian, you conclude that “our divisions are as likely to be about income and geography as they are about race and gender.” When you can show me someone in America whose people were enslaved due to income, geography (outside of
    Africa) or gender, then I will agree with you. Until then, your conclusion is pie in the sky wishful thinking that only serves one purpose: to reverse what little gains blacks have made and provide those opportunities to white women and our so-called model minorities, while at the same time undermining any argument that blacks may have regarding discrimination,
    etc. Once you get everyone to forget the true history of racism in America, it will be very easy for you to equate the concerns of white women, Hispanics, Asians, gays, lesbians, humpbacks, midgets, dwarves, elves and bearded women with those of blacks in this country.
    I went to college in the 80s, and I discovered a strange pattern when writing an article about financial aid: based on a 10-year analysis, the overall amount of financial aid dedicated to so-called minorities did not change (approx. 25%); however, the internal distribution among so-called minorities changed from year-to-year based on which group had complained the loudest the year before. The gripes of Asians, Hispanics and others
    were equal to the gripes of the descendants of slaves in America. I wanted to understand how our nation got to such a crazy place. I believe I finally understand why.
    Forget globalization. Brazilianization is a greater threat. If “the
    biggest deal about racial and gender identity in the campaign is that, especially to younger Americans who live and work in a vastly changed country, it isn’t such a very big deal after all,” then we may be in even more trouble than I imagined. In fact, your Obama and Jackson comparison undercuts your central argument. Isn’t the fact that Obama is bi-racial somehow less threatening than full-blooded Jackson? Wasn’t it when white
    America began to suspect that (unlike the example you give where people do not know which box to select in the census) Obama willingly selected the black box (look at his militant wife Michelle and his 20-year association with Rev. Wright, after all) that support for Obama started slipping? Had
    Obama been clearly against the redistribution of the fruits and benefits of society to blacks, would whites have criticized him at all?
    You must remember that Sambo from Uncle Tom’s cabin was a black man who did the white man’s bidding, even beating Uncle Tom to death. The Clarence Thomas types have never been problematic because they accept the revisionist history and support the continued exclusion of blacks from the
    fruits and benefits of society. The 20-point shift among white women in favor of Palin is not a coincidence. The “new” racism is sexism (which conveniently only applies
    to white women — compare the treatment of Michelle Obama vs. treatment of Palin/Clinton) and multiculturalism. Once the U.S. can claim its own Brazilian racial democracy (as you appear to claim that we are close to), the door will close on blacks in America for good. History matters!!!

    Matt Bai
    The New York Times Magazine
    [Personal contact info deleted]

  • Cindy D

    Superior in the sense that we held all the wealth, power, and influence.

    I guess that makes you superior in the same sense that Saddam Hussein or Nicolai Chauchescu was superior.

  • Clavos

    Ceauşescu

  • Cindy D

    Thanks Clav. :-)

  • Baronius

    Dan, I’ve been arguing on BC for years now that racism is dead in America, at least as an influence in decision-making. I don’t know if I’ve overstated my case, but the worst I can imagine is that we’re 90% of the way done with racism. Some people would say that we’re at 0, or even have become more racist in the last couple of decades! Where do you stand on it?

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “I guess that makes you superior in the same sense that Saddam Hussein or Nicolai Chauchescu was superior.”

    This is about the time when the women folk were dismissed to the parlor to churn butter or spin some cloth.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “Dan, I’ve been arguing on BC for years now that racism is dead in America,”

    baronius, you don’t listen to too much rap or hip hop, do you?

    You don’t attend the Trinity UCC in Chicago, either, right?

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    David, the fact that you can’t even see your own prejudices makes you all the more dangerous and ignorant.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    Lisa, perhaps you need to be reminded that the rules prohibit personal attacks on other posters.

    I see and accept life for what it is, not for what I hope it could be like.

    If my views offend your lib sensibilities, then do yourself a favor and simply do not read or respond to my posts.

    It’s that simple.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller 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)

  • 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)

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com 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?

  • 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!

  • troll

    (Cindy – that guy could count cards…there’s no comparison)

  • Cindy D

    oh shit

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller 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)

  • 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…”

  • Cindy D

    Course that’s cuz I’m a lib.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • Zedd

    Common guys are you serious. READ.

  • 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.

  • Baronius

    Bliffle, don’t you think it means something that you don’t see that kind of racism anymore?

  • 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).

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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…

  • 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller 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)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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!!!

  • Pablo

    I like your post Iris.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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?

  • Cannonshop

    Oh, dear, Godwin’s Law.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • 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…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Iris,

    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.

    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 country.

    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.

    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)

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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?

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Mr. Miller,

    Thanks for responding to my e-mail. I have to run, but please refer to my earlier post (#17) for empirical data regarding affirmative action after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for blacks, white women, Asians and Hispanics.

    Slavery was widely accepted by whom? The slaves? Indentured servants are not the same as slaves. What property or benefits did slave earn and were able to pass on to their children? How much did indentured servants earn? Were slaves allowed to be educated? How about indentured servants? Were slaves allowed to marry and maintain a family? How about indentured servants? Were slaves whipped and brutally punished at the will of white society? How about indentured servants? If slaves ran off and tried to escape, what would society do? How about for indentured servants?

    Racism, not slavery, was invented in the 14th century.

    Immigration data is public information. Do a google search. How many African descendants migrated to the U.S. from 1863 to the present?

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “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?”

    The countries that have a problem with the US these days are those that have succumbed to Islamic infestations and anti-Israeli prejudice. You know the kind of country, where the immigrants refuse to assimilate into the native culture, preferring instead to install an exact duplicate of their own culture.

    Just like England right now, Christopher. Don’t deny it, I read the news reports. I know how Islamic immigrants are hijacking your country and everyone’s hands are tied from speaking out due to very strict libel laws.

    Funny that so many foreigners express how much they despise the US yet look at how much they gobble up our pop culture and electronic gadgets.

  • Pablo

    You certainly are a piece of work Black. I could not possibly offer a better rebuttal to your world views, and obvious love of totalitarianism, and hatred of those that are not of your ilk, than you do with your own words. Please continue!

  • Baronius

    “Racism, not slavery, was invented in the 14th century.”

    Huh? I mean, really: huh?

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “I could not possibly offer a better rebuttal to your world views, and obvious love of totalitarianism”

    So I guess I should just sit on my hands like a cowardly lib and simply witness my people being slaughtered by Islamo-fascist thugs?

    Tell me one thing I’ve written that is not true.

    In order to tell the truth, you can’t view all cultures, people, races, ideologies, etc on the same moral plane.

    There are inferior cultures. There are superior cultures. Islam is an inferior culture. What goes on under its banner proves it.

    What other religion right now is permitted by its own to commit as much mass murder and horror as Islam?

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Mr Black, so your claim that “No one argues with countries that know how to make money” has been disproven but you still defend it? As I said, you are doing a great job of showing us your grasp of reason.

    Another thing that you don’t appear to understand is how the media works. Anybody who relies upon it for their understanding is simply asking to be made a fool of. Your request has been fully answered…

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Modern racism emerged with or slightly before the rise of capitalism. I personally think that its origins relate back to the expulsion of the black moors from Spain and Portugal during the Crusades. The African slave trade commenced shortly after the end of the crusdades, lasting for a little more than 400 years, from the mid-1400s when the Portuguese made their first voyages down the African coast, to the abolition of slavery in Brazil in 1888. The classical empires of Greece and Rome were based on slave labor. But ancient slavery was not viewed in racial terms. Slaves were most often captives in wars or conquered peoples. If we understand white people as originating in what is today Europe, then most slaves in ancient Greece and Rome were white. Roman law made slaves the property of their owners, while maintaining a “formal lack of interest in the slave’s ethnic or racial provenance.” Over the years, slave manumission produced a mixed population of slave and free in Roman-ruled areas in which all came to be seen as “Romans.” The Greeks drew a sharper line between Greeks and “barbarians,” those subject to slavery. Again, this was not viewed in racial or ethnic terms, and it is pretty well proved now that the ancient Greeks and Romans knew nothing about race. They had another standard—civilized and barbarian—and you could have white skin and be a barbarian and you could be black and civilized. Between the 10th and 16th centuries, the chief source of slaves in Western Europe was Eastern Europe. In fact, the word “slave” comes from the word “Slav,” the people of Eastern Europe. In the Middle Ages, most people sold into slavery in Europe came from Eastern Europe, the Slavic countries. In Eastern Europe, Russia stood out as the major area where slaveholders and slaves were of the same ethnicity. Of course, by modern-day racial descriptions the Slavs and Russian slaves were white.

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Hey Black,

    So should we deport all of the Amish people? How about the members of all of those separatist sects and cults? How about anyone who does not speak English as a first language in their community? How about anyone who does not know what the navy jack is and stands for? How about any one who eats French bread, drinks French wine, eats French cheese, studies or speaks French (in public or in private), has a French flag, has a French-sounding name, has a French accent, eats French fries or smells like someone from France?

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Mr. Miller,

    Please see the following excerpt from an article that I found on the Internet:
    “the number of black immigrants is growing at a remarkable rate. More than one-fourth of the black population in New York, Boston, and Miami is foreign-born. Immigration contributed at least one-fifth of the growth in the U.S. black population between 2001 and 2006.

    A new Population Bulletin looks at black immigrants to the United States—what countries they are coming from, which states and metro areas they are living in, and what factors affected their entry into the United States.

    Several new developments sparked renewed immigration of blacks from the Caribbean and Africa beginning in the 1970s. New laws opened legal channels for people wanting to immigrate to the United States. Cheaper and more frequent air travel reduced the physical and psychological distances. Better telephone and eventually email communications connected immigrants to their families back home, and sent news of job opportunities to potential immigrants.”

    Poor economic prospects, political instability, and violence in some areas were powerful “push” factors. The strong U.S. economy and the United States’ long history as an immigrant country were among the factors attracting additional newcomers from these regions. Some analysts also point to a less welcoming atmosphere for Africans in Europe as encouraging potential immigrants to come to the United States.

    The foreign-born black population rose nearly seven fold between 1960 and 1980, and more than tripled between 1980 and 2005. The foreign share of all U.S. blacks increased from less than one percent to eight percent during these years. This was a sizeable increase, even though the percent foreign-born is much higher (12 percent) for the entire U.S. population. The number of Haitians—the second-largest Caribbean group—nearly quadrupled between 1980 and 2005, and the number of Jamaicans—the largest Caribbean group—more than doubled. The increases were even more dramatic among African groups. The number of Ethiopians in 2005 is 13 times the 1960 number.

    Overall, the number of foreign-born blacks rose from 125,000 in 1980 to 2,815,000 in 2005, with a majority arriving just since 1990. About two-thirds of black foreign-born are from the Caribbean and Latin America, and one-third from Africa. Only a small fraction were born in Europe, Canada, or elsewhere. But the African share is growing. More African-born blacks arrived between 2000 and 2005 than in the previous decade.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Iris,

    Just out of curiosity, how does someone from France smell? I’ve met quite a few of them, and haven’t noticed any distinguishing smell.

    Just as a side note, back when we were cruising on our sailboat (1996 – 2002) in the Caribbean, there was a general prejudice against French sailors. Everyone had it — Gringos, Brits, Germans, Dutch, and everyone else. Most were concerned when a French flag boat came into the anchorage, because the general experience was that they would drag anchor and damage nearby boats. They did, more often than boats with other flags. There was also a widespread perception, particularly in isolated anchorages, than if something had been “liberated,” the French flag boat seen leaving the anchorage was responsible.

    Valid? Realistic? I don’t really know. However, I feel confident saying that it was the consistent perception.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “Mr Black, so your claim that “No one argues with countries that know how to make money” has been disproven but you still defend it? As I said, you are doing a great job of showing us your grasp of reason.”

    Disproven by whom, Christopher? Some fatuous bleeding heart libs too afraid to be harshly judgmental of non-white cultures?

    Please don’t attempt to suggest that the media is the only source to inform my opinions and that there is something wrong with that. What I read from the liberal side of things here can easily found on the webpages of the HuffPo or the dailykos. Don’t think for a moment that the lib, I’m sorry, PROGRESSIVE, posters at blogcritics represent some rarified species of pundit that transcends other media sources.

    A lib by any other name is still lib, sparky.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “Just out of curiosity, how does someone from France smell? I’ve met quite a few of them, and haven’t noticed any distinguishing smell.”

    I’ve been to Europe many times, and many citizens there have an aversion to daily bathing and the wearing of an anti-perspirant.

    Quite frankly, Paris during a hot spell stinks to high heaven.

    Also, women who don’t shave their armpits and legs are disgusting.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “So should we deport all of the Amish people?”

    If they committed terrorist acts or any other acts of sedition, they should be prosecuted and quite possibly, executed, depending on the charges.

    They can “separate’ all they want, as long as they don’t interfere with national security or national interests.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    Gringos?

    Why do white people have to call themselves disparaging names, when there are so many other ethnicities or races far more deserving of disparaging names.

    For starters, I can think of one race that occupies nearly half of the US prison population.

    I can also think of one religion that beheads prisoners on TV and flies jets into buildings during suicide missions.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Ms. Bittencourt,

    I would be honored if you would call me “Dan.” Most everyone does. Being referred to as “Mr. Miller” makes me feel rather old. I hope that you are not offended at my use of your first name. If so, I shall no longer use it.

    Thanks for the info concerning recent immigration patterns. I would still be curious to learn how many Black immigrants came to the U.S. voluntarily when slavery was abolished in the English colonies in the Caribbean. As noted previously, I haven’t been able to find anything, reliable or otherwise.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    David,

    I do not find the term “Gringo” disparaging. Nor is it used here in Panama by Panamanians in that sense, unless accompanied by an adjective which it rarely is.

    Here, in case you are interested, is a link to a recent comment on a local blog. We Gringos are sometimes disparaged, for what in my opinion are good and adequate reasons.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    Dan: I read Ricardo’s story and here is my reaction.

    It reminded me of a saying my father used to say quite often …

    “No one owes you a damn thing in life.”

    No one twisted the arms of the natives of Dland to sell their land to the Japanese.

    They got their money but they wanted more. What they wanted beyond their monetary compensation was not the responsibility of the Japanese.

    As the rightful buyers, the Japanese had no further obligations to the natives, moral or otherwise, unless terms were stipulated in a contract of some kind.

    As for the language thing, well, that was another issue. The natives should have told them to stick it as far as that goes. I certainly would have.

    However, on their property, the Japanese get to set the rules. If someone didn’t want to speak Japanese while working for them, the Japanese weren’t obligated to guarantee employment.

    Perhaps they should have thought about the legacy of their children before profiting from the sale of that land.

    It seems to be that natives saw a good thing then had regrets afterwards.

    That was just tough luck for them, but really, why complain when they had fat bank accounts?

  • Zedd

    Baronius,

    “Bliffle, don’t you think it means something that you don’t see that kind of racism anymore?”

    I think that you keep missing that what “rabid” racists believe has never been true. What moderate racists believe is also a “none thing”. So how is a person to be grateful becuase people don’t believe something extremely ridiculous about them but they only believe something merely ridiculous about them.

    If someone believes that you have a tail. Off course you don’t. Then another person who believes that it’s wrong to think that you have a tail but they believe that you to be the complete opposite of who you are; that they things you do everyday without thinking, you don’t do and cant do and maybe need to be taught how to do. Would you be excited that most people don’t think you have a tail? Hope that helps. Welcome to our world.

  • Zedd

    David,

    Let’s wrap this up. You are getting boring.

    Okay why do you think Blacks are the way they are? Smart people ask why. So because you are a smart man, please tell us WHY they are as they are.

    As you make that assesment, give us a people that you would compare them to in terms of experience, who have come out better. We need a reason for them to be worse than everyone else. In order to do so we need a comparison.

    Thanks

  • troll

    (Zedd – prepare yourself for a journey into the absurd…good luck

    Black – please prove me wrong)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    David,

    I think you may have missed one important point in the commentary linked above in my comment #91. You focus on what you consider the lack of cognizable harm to the original residents of Dland. You and I disagree, but I have no problem with that.

    The other side of the coin, which you seem to miss, is the disservice to the new Japanese who went there because of the simple pleasures it offered before lots of them arrived. Their arrival in large numbers, and the resultant changes in the physical and cultural landscape, diminish those pleasures, not only for many of them but for the original inhabitants as well. Hostility, theft and even violence increase.

    Suppose you find a beautiful, isolated place in the woods to go with your family for a picnic. Suppose there is a crystal clear stream. Then, after a while, the stream becomes full of trash and there are lots of noisy, unpleasant people around every time you go for a picnic, playing loud noise which they consider music and seem to enjoy. You might reconsider your view that it is a good place to go for a picnic. Suppose, on the other hand, that the new arrivals respect the place and make a conscious effort not to ruin it for others. You might then not reconsider your view that it is a good place to go for a picnic.

    Several years ago, our local “Gringolandia” was a beautiful, pleasant place and the locals were friendly and welcoming. Now, it is full of gated communities and condos, and folks who seemingly want to make it resemble as much as possible the places from which they came. Not everyone, by any means, but quite a few. Sensing what was coming we left, and now live in a beautiful, comparatively remote, rural area where the locals are still very welcoming and the streams crystal clear. I hope it stays that way. We like it the way it is, and have no desire at all to see it change to be more like anywhere else. A substantial increase in the number of Gringos would have that effect.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    One characteristic of many expat Americans I first noticed as a child growing up in Mexico, is their puzzling tendency to tend to cluster together in the host country, shutting out, to the extent possible, the native population and its culture.

    In Mexico, for example, the Gringos (and Brits) had their own country clubs, associations, and even hospital, and tended to cluster together in a few neighborhoods (upscale) in Mexico City. There is an American School, which, in fairness, was necessary to ensure transferability of credits for American kids returning to the States for higher education. However, there were also American Boy and Girl Scout groups, despite the existence of Mexican counterparts; there even was an entire Little League baseball organization, in which the teams, ironically, were named for Mexican indigenous tribes, and on and on.

    I particularly noticed this, because my parents, unlike many of the American community, were voluntary expats (as opposed to those who had been transferred to Mexico by their employers for limited stays) whose move to Mexico was intended to be permanent (although for unrelated reasons, did not work out that way, after twenty years there), and who deliberately immersed themselves as much as possible in the Mexican culture, beginning with choosing to live in predominately Mexican neighborhoods.

    Consequently, I considered myself Mexican as a child, and rarely (mostly in school) even contemplated my “Americanness.” Even today, my wife (an American born and bred; though also, as an Army brat, with brief expat periods in her childhood), often refers to what she calls my “Inner Mexican,” which she insists, is still dominant. Fortunately for me, she loves Mexico, its cultures (ancient and modern), and its people.

    I’m rambling. My point is, I don’t understand why anyone would voluntarily move to another culture, only to seal themselves off as much as possible once there.

    Why bother?

  • cuervodeluna

    I will tell you why folks move to places like Mexico, but don’t learn the language or mix with the culture.

    When I first started going back and forth between Mexico and New Mexico, working on projects primarily having to do with the history of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, I happened to stop after 10 days or so on the road in a small town on Lake Chapala called Ajiic. This was in 1992.

    After refreshing my body and mind with a long sleep I wandered into the lobby of the hotel in search of food–and was handed a copy of a “community newletter”, which started out with words to the effect of “You don’t need to learn any Spanish–we are all English speakers here”.

    Really?

    I went out a little later to take photos for a book I was putting together on cemeteries in Mexico. I saw gringos always in packs of 4 or 5 abreast on the little streets. After making some images inside a church, I stopped at a little cafeteria for a cold drink. There were only locals, and one–assuming that I was a gringa and therefore didn’t speak any Spanish remarked to the waitress about how surprising it was to see a gringa in their part of town.

    I didn’t actually speak very much Spanish at the time, but enough to say: “Chhht, hablo espanol senor”.

    A couple of folks came over to strike up a conversation then.

    But the most revealing conversation I had was the next morning when I was packing our car in the hotel parking lot and a guy came up to complain that he was really disappointed in Mexico–that it was NOWHERE near as cheap as everyone in South Florida had told him it was.

    I decided to give him my opinion that it was expensive because gringos had pushed up property values, along with the cost of everything else, had polarized the community and that if he wanted a real Mexican experience he would probably have to live in a community with no gringos and learn Spanish and learn about the history of Mexico.

    He just shook his head. Clearly, that was not what he was looking for.

    In short: Gringos move to Mexico to live better than they can afford to live in Gringolandia. If they can have a “muchacha” to cook their meals and wash their clothes and clean up after them, they feel they have made a successful move to another culture.

    Fortunately, there are no gringos anywhere near where I live….

  • Clavos

    Ajijic (and the entire Lake Chapala region), of course, has been a Gringo magnet for about fifty years because of it’s perceived “cheapness.”

    My point was that the Gringos who move to the D.F., Cuernavaca, or even Guadalajara and Monterrey (and any number of other cities), are obviously not doing so for the “cheapness.”

    If they then live only as I described, why the hell bother?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Clav and Cuervodeluna,

    The good news is that fewer are coming to our all-too-nearby little “Gringolandia” and some of those who came are going elsewhere, out of country. Equador seems to be getting warm, and I am told that some of the Gringo sharks who infested the waters here have gone there for better hunting. Many houses built on “spec” for sale are now for rent and are vacant. I hope to see some of the dozen or more real estate offices close. The gold-rush mentality has diminished, if not vanished. In the local blog sites which carry advertising, it seems (I haven’t done a actual analysis, or even a count) that more Gringos want to sell their stuff here than buy stuff here. Still, the damage has been done, and it will take a long time for it to be reversed, if that happens at all.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    You know, Dan and Clav, you could listen to people make the same “complaints” about peope who move to the States from other countries and prefer to live among their own….
    immigrants have done that here for centuries: Chinatown, Little Italy, the Puerto Rican and Jewish and Irish and black and Spanish, Indian and West Indian neighborhoods…. there are dozens of examples. Americans complain about those ethnic groups not learning English, and then head down there to eat and shop and soak up the culture. Eventually, most of those groups assimilate somewhat…it just takes awhile. But there are also groups of religious peoples, the Menonits, the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and others, who choose to live separately in their own enclaves. What makes it all so differnt? The world is a large place. People can live where and how they like, yes?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    peope…Menonits…differnt…and you say I can’t spell?

    Throwing stones is such a bad idea!

  • Clavos

    People can live where and how they like, yes?

    In the US, perhaps. Not necessarily elsewhere.

    What Dan and Cuervo and I are talking about is the near universal arrogance and disdain of the typical American expat.

    Your analogy to the US enclaves of recent immigrants is flawed, because immigrants to the US are moving here for better opportunity, while US expats (to LatAm, at least) are heavily skewed to retires looking for cheap living, and who, upon arrival, immediately begin to complain, loudly and offensively, about precisely the aspects of their host country that contribute to its inexpensiveness.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Lisa,

    I have listened and do listen. I think assimilation is often a good thing, but of course do not expect it to be universal or instantaneous. My wife speaks excellent Spanish (two years at the University of Mexico back when she was in college doubtless helped); I don’t but am trying because I find it more comfortable that way. There are very few Gringos in our immediate area, and the local people (very few of whom speak English) don’t seem to mind that I speak ungrammatically or occasionally use the wrong word.

    There are many groups in Panama who tend to associate primarily with their fellows. There are sufficient people of Chinese descent in Panama to support publication of a Chinese language daily newspaper. There is no daily English language newspaper. Many of the merchants are of Chinese descent, and based solely on my own observations, far more little general stores throughout the country are owned and operated by Chinese merchants than any other group. They speak Spanish. There is a very large vegetable market in Colon, and my guess is that about seventy-five percent of the stalls are run by Chinese. They speak Spanish. The Free Zone (Zona Libre) near Colon has primarily Muslim and Jewish owned and operated stores, and I have heard of no friction. Some are even in partnership, I am told. I am also told that most of the Muslim merchants live in Colon, and that most of the Jewish merchants commute from Panama City. That’s their choice.

    Most Gringos coming to live permanently in Panama are no longer of child bearing age, so there isn’t an issue about their offspring assimilating. Some few are of child bearing age, and if they and their children remain here they tend to assimilate to a greater or lesser extent.

    What I do object to is the efforts of the unassimilated to be unkind to and demanding of the locals who have not bothered to assimilate to their ways. People who come to a new country should not expect or want to bring their former environments with them. Here, were I to go to a Government office to get my driving license renewed, and insist that the clerk trying to assist me speak English, I would be thought a fool; quite properly so. Speaking more loudly would not help. When I need the services of an attorney or a physician, I do look for and eventually find one who speaks and understands English well, for very good reasons: they are available, my Spanish is not adequate to explain a complex problem or to understand the offered suggestions, and effective communication on such matters is important to me.

    Were I living in Panama illegally, without having gone through the tedious process of securing a permanent residence visa, I would more than likely be deported. Were I to commit a non-trivial crime, even as a legal immigrant, I would probably be deported. Were I an illegal immigrant and in that status to demand free English or Spanish language medical or legal services, or free education n English or in Spanish for my children, or anything else, I would be laughed at and deported. Even as one here legally, were I to go to a subsidized medical clinic intended for the local population and demand the services of an English speaking physician, I would be told, probably politely, that no such person was available. Were I willing to accept the service of a non-English speaking physician, treatment would be provided on the same basis, and at the same cost, as to a Panamanian (about $3.00 for a visit).

    The world is a large place. People can live where and how they like, yes? Yes and no. So long as they abide by the laws, they can. If they find unpleasant the customs, infrastructure and other aspects of a place, or are intent upon changing them to accommodate their wishes, I would suggest (and hope) that they go elsewhere. Foreigners should not expect to mold a different country and different culture in which they chose to live to make them congenial to their own desires, even though they may perceive that they have the very best of intentions.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    I don’t disagree with you. I moved to Paris for just two years, my kids went to French schools, quickly became fluent (my husband already was, so he navigated difficult things for me like getting a cell phone and turning on utilities) but I took immersion clases and quickly became fluent enough to shop, cook, use transportation, negotiate well enough, attend dinner parties, with natives, go to french movies, etc. I had french friends with whom I made every effort to speak the language and they made efforts to speak english to me, we went back and forth. I expected NO accomodation, make no complaints and lived as like a native as I could, including having my two children, of different sexes and ages share a bedroom (split down the middle with a bookcase)and dragging my laundry to a laudromat to dry (there was a washer in the flat, and I hung up what I could). I shopped daily with my little cart, etc., and watched french news. I did have english and american friends, too, with whom to speak, and an american doctor, however. WHenever I have traveled, whether to south america, including brazil, or to spain or spanish speaking countries where I speak some spanish, or around europe, I do not act like a tourist but try my best to adapt. it seems to be the kindest and must fun thing to do.

    I have seen ugly americans and ugly brits and ugly germas most specifically. Oh, and very ugly japanese:) I appreciate when people make an effort whether they are visiting or living.

    I do not believe people should live illegally (my grandparents came here legally escaping oppression) anywhere and should ask for asylum but I think the government should take those requests seriously.

    And I absolutely agree that people who come to a country to live permanently should make every effort to learn that language even should they choose to speak their own language at home and to their children.

    But I also believe that every American should learn at least ONE foreign language which few do. It would make us appreciate how difficult it can be. Also, if we learn young, as my children have, fluencey and learning another are much much easier. It was hard for me to learn french as a middle aged woman but I did it:) The Spanish I learned as a young teen was far easier! I don’t know how long you have lived there but I suspec a little more pillow talk and television and your Spanish would greatly improve:)

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “Okay why do you think Blacks are the way they are? Smart people ask why. So because you are a smart man, please tell us WHY they are as they are.”

    Read “The Bell Curve” by Herrnstein and Murray.

  • Zedd

    Dan(Miller)

    Your comment that Affirmative Action has outlived it’s usefulness is interesting.

    The first version of Affirm Act was installed in 1961. That’s only 47yrs ago. Off course you know that it wasn’t widely practiced until the mid to late 70’s, 30 – 35yrs ago.

    You think that an initiative that was designed to uplift millions of people who were below human status for hundreds of years could outlive it’s usefulness in 30yrs? Don’t be silly.

    The reason that things are so challenging for African Americans is that this nation handled the entire matter after slavery badly. This nation never acknowledged the extent of wrong that the act of enslaving its people was, therefore the cancer kept festering and racist attitudes got worse. It never morned or atoned after civil rights. Everyone just wanted to move on, give them legislation (that most people wouldn’t follow and many STILL don’t) and hope they shut up because they are cramping our style.

    I’m sorry that you don’t see the usefulness of Affirmative Action. However, it’s not for you or even about you. How you feel about it is neither here or there really. It’s there to do what would never be done in America by Americans.

  • Zedd

    David,

    You are saying that you are genetically superior to Blacks.

    If that is that case then why does it bother you that they don’t do better? It should be expected.

    Just as you aren’t angry about farm animals not working complex mathematical operations, why are you angry that Blacks, who you believe to be naturally less intellectually gifted, don’t do as well as Whites in our society? Much like your pets, you should be willing to take care of Blacks. Retire all of them and be the benevolent caretaker and exercise your dominion over the earth.

    What are you thoughts on that, oh great Superior White Guy, who knows more just by virtue of your birth. Actually your posts are a testament to the Bell Curve. Every time I read your posts I am even more convinced. The Bell Curve was right. What a masterpiece!

  • Clavos

    It never morned or atoned after civil rights.

    And it never should.

    No one alive today had anything whatever to do with slavery. None of my ancestors (or those of a substantial number, if not the majority, of Americans today) had even arrived here when slavery existed in this country.

    Should Germans born after 1945 atone or mourn for the way Hitler and his followers treated Jews?

    No. That’s a ridiculous idea.

    How you feel about it is neither here or there really.

    Wrong. Insofar as it affects the lives of all Americans (and it does. All of us), how we all feel about it is absolutely relevant.

    The law is in place. Use it where necessary and when appropriate.

    But DO NOT expect me to atone or mourn for something neither I nor any of my ancestors had anything to do with, or were even present at, much less participated in.

    It will not happen.

  • Zedd

    Clav,

    “Should Germans born after 1945 atone or mourn for the way Hitler and his followers treated Jews?”

    We were all around in the sixties. The nation needs to face it’s sins. It just does. Full stop. What’s the prob.

    Regarding the Germans, they have. Actually I was thinking of the Germans when responding. They have created memorials (without a great deal of protest) and have really acknowledged publicly the sick nature of that era. Do some homework lil’Fella.

  • Zedd

    Clav,

    You forget, I am not an African American (in the cultural sense) either. I will mourn and will feel the hurt and embarrassment of this great nation as a benefactor of all of its riches, many of which would not have been had it not been for the hundreds of years of sacrifice that these people have given this nation. All without a fitting revolt. You were not present during any part of Americas history yet you celebrate it’s triumphs. You should mourn for its missteps and vow to never allow it to happen again. This should not be a matter for human beings to debate.

    This entire issue has actually turned out to be a high school popularity contest. No matter how dumb or cruel or ridiculous the consensus is, people like you will gleefully sway along because the cool kids say it’s cool. Clav, your an old man. Grow up.

  • Iris Bittencourt

    In Post #61, the infamous Black states:

    “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.”

    Well, let’s look at the objective data.

    With a total population of 663,661, Alaska had a total crime index of 28,170 or 1 crime for every 23.56 people.

    Crime Rank
    based on number of crimes per capita #31
    Safety Rank
    based on number of violent crimes per capita #44
    *States are ranked from #1 (best) to #51 (worst) for each of the 50 states, including District of Columbia.

  • Iris Bittencourt

    From 1996 through 2006, the rate of violent crimes in Alaska (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) exceeded the national average and trended sharply upward in 2006. A report published in 2007 cited Alaska as having the nation’s highest per-capita rate of forcible rape, with a disproportional number of rape and sexual assault victims being Native women (one in three Native women are expected to be raped in Alaska during their lifetime and are 2.5 time more likely to be raped than other women in the United States).

    Crime Statistics Wasilla, AK Alaska United States
    Personal Crime Risk 110 123 100
    Murder Risk 107 105 100
    Rape Risk 165 279 100
    Robbery Risk 13 48 100
    Assault Risk 220 144 100
    Property Crime Risk 117 103 100
    Burglary Risk 60 79 100
    Larceny Risk 183 114 100
    Motor Vehicle Theft Risk 70 85 100
    Total Crime Risk 104 104 100

    The data for Wasilla, AK may also contain data for the following areas: Wasilla
    Personal Crime Risk: Index score (100 = National Average) that represents the combined risk of rape, murder, assault and robbery.
    Property Crime Risk: Index score (100 = National Average) that represents the combined risks of burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft.
    Total Crime Risk: Index score (100 = National Average) for an area is compared to the national average of 100. A score of 200 indicates twice the national average total crime risk, while 50 indicates half the national risk. The different types of crime are given equal weight in this score, so murder, for example, does not count more than vehicle theft. Scores are based on demographic and geographic analyses of crime over seven years

    Crime Rates New York, New York Wasilla, Alaska United States
    Violent Crime 6 5 3
    Property Crime 5 5 3

    The crime indices range 1-10. A higher number corresponds with more crime. Our crime rates are based on FBI data.

    Crime Rates New York, New York Anchorage, Alaska United States
    Violent Crime 6 6 3
    Property Crime 5 6 3

    The crime indices range 1-10. A higher number corresponds with more crime. Our crime rates are based on FBI data.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    Iris: I’m glad you made the distinction about American Indian on American Indian crime, which is comparable to black on black crime.

    Remove them from the equation and the crime rate dips dramatically.

    Whites aren’t the ones raping in Alaska, as this proves.

    It also proves that minorities are responsible for high crime rates.

    Is it any wonder some people think the way they do?

    You can have your own opinions but you can’t make up your own facts.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “If that is that case then why does it bother you that they don’t do better? ”

    Because my tax dollars are being spent on trying to make many of them into something they can’t possibly be on their own– prosperous and successful.

  • Zedd

    David,

    You don’t seem to think too deeply. Poor people all over the world commit more crime in general. Most people with coporate jobs don’t really need to pick pockets for instance or steal cars. At 62 it just never dawned on you did it. Wow that Bell Curve is on it!

    A thinking person would ask WHY certain people are poor?

  • Zedd

    David,

    When you say prosperous and successful what do you mean? My circle consists of mostly prosperous and successful Blacks. My relatives consist of doctors, successful attorneys, engineers and successful business people. The generation before consisted of teachers and nurses.

    I live in Texas and there are plenty of dumb, poor, lazy, Whites with really bad grammar. Most of my neighbors couldn’t conduct a meaningful conversation on current events (they are White), as middle class as they are.

    You’ve lived 62yrs and your world view is so tiny. Your need to feel important has robed you of a broader richer and more beautiful life. You are in your senior years and you’ve missed it all. Your views are really dumb and small. Your ideas are archaic and laughable. Your beliefs make you feel like someone special and I suppose that works for you. What is sad however is that you express them out loud. People pity you and respond to you in order to “rescue” you but you mistake it for an intellectual challenge. It’s never too. Pull yourself together.

  • Clavos

    Regarding the Germans, they have. Actually I was thinking of the Germans when responding. They have created memorials (without a great deal of protest) and have really acknowledged publicly the sick nature of that era.

    Doesn’t refute what I asked. There is no need for any German born after 1945 to feel responsible for what took place before they were born.

    I will mourn and will feel the hurt and embarrassment of this great nation as a benefactor of all of its riches, many of which would not have been had it not been for the hundreds of years of sacrifice that these people have given this nation.

    Fine. That’s your prerogative as an American citizen. Be as guilt-ridden as you want to; whatever floats your boat.

    But no one else should have to, though they may choose to do so.

    I feel no mourning nor embarrassment. Nor do I think any contemporary American should; though again, if they want to, that’s their prerogative

    I have never even been a racist, let alone had anything to do with slavery, and not you or anyone else is going to make me feel guilty that it took place.

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Black,

    Who said that Natives were raping Natives in Alaska? Where did you come up with that nugget. How about the fact that little Wassila is nearly as dangerous as NY City and Anchorage is even more dangerous than NY City? Alaska is ranked 44th worst state in respect of violent crime. That ain’t all Eskimos, my friend. What would you do for a Klondike bar?

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “You don’t seem to think too deeply. Poor people all over the world commit more crime in general. Most people with coporate jobs don’t really need to pick pockets for instance or steal cars. ”

    Oh, please! I lived in a poor Jewish neighborhood in Queens in the 1950s and nobody robbed, raped, a murdered like they did in minority neighborhoods.

  • Iris Bittencourt

    Clavos,

    Do you feel proud about this country? Do you use infrastucture that was constructed before you were born? Do you feel proud about the U.S.’s role in World War II? Do you feel proud about our Constitution and how it has remained largely intact for over 200 years? Do you believe in original intent and care about what the founding fathers thought and believed at the time that they drafted the Constitution? Are you proud of the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem? Based on your logic, whether you feel proud or not is your prerogative, as you were not around when any of these events occurred. However, I am quite sure that if someone took this position (which is entirely consistent philosophically with your own), you would call them unpatriotic and traitors. What if based on these beliefs, new citizens ask to be exempt from military service? Based on your logic, should U.S. citizens living abroad be required to pay U.S. taxes?
    Should we teach children history in school or only current events? Does history matter at all? Does morality exist in your world or is everything relative? Don’t tell me, let me guess: you are not your brother’s keeper. In fact, you are more like Cain than Able. Whatever floats your boat. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “Who said that Natives were raping Natives in Alaska? Where did you come up with that nugget.”

    You wrote this:

    “with a disproportional number of rape and sexual assault victims being Native women (one in three Native women are expected to be raped in Alaska during their lifetime and are 2.5 time more likely to be raped than other women in the United States).”

    It’s called drawing conclusions.

    Now I suppose you’re going to tell me that it’s white people raping American Indian women.

    Much of the American Indian population still in America, especially those living on reservations, is violent, crime addled, and illegal drug and or alcohol dependent.

  • http://meetdavidblack.blogspot.com David Black

    “A thinking person would ask WHY certain people are poor?”

    Sorry, insert “hand wringing bleeding heart moron” for “thinking.”

    People are poor because they choose to be poor.

  • Clavos

    Iris,

    To most of your questions: No. I feel neither pride nor shame.

    I like the rights I enjoy as a citizen (and I like the rights I enjoy in Mexico as a Mexican citizen as well), and I choose to live here in part because of the rights available to all who reside here (as I’m sure you know, the bill of rights applies to everyone, not just citizens).

    As to your assumption about my opinion of what constitutes a patriot or a traitor: Patriotism is a bogus emotion engendered in the population to manipulate them. Traitors are those who actively work against their country (whatever it might be), such as spies or Jane Fonda. I have nothing but contempt for traitors, and am indifferent to “patriotism”.

    Re your question about taxes for US citizens living abroad: Given what I know from experience to be the nonexistent support by the US government of US citizens resident overseas, no, I don’t think US citizens living abroad should be required to pay income taxes on income earned outside the US. However, the law requires them to do so.

    Of course history should be taught. Though it rarely works that way, it is the means by which humanity can learn to avoid the mistakes of the past.

  • David Black

    When you say prosperous and successful what do you mean?

    That they are conservative Republicans who reject all social engineering on behalf of minorities..

    “My circle consists of mostly prosperous and successful Blacks. My relatives consist of doctors, successful attorneys, engineers and successful business people.”

    I know that cross breeding with Caucasians significantly helped the black race in America in many respects.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Well, now this story is lovely…..

    students at a predominantly white Christian college in Oregan hung an effigy of Obama from a tree, the third such racial incident at a college in the state in the past year. You can read the whole story at the link.

  • David Black

    Well, Lisa, protesters around the world burn effigies of our President all the time.

    But I know that doesn’t bother you, right?

    By the way, Barry O. is actually a white man.

    One is racially defined through their mother’s side.

    It’s the way it is in the Jewish world.

    Barry O. calling himself black was a ploy to ascend up the Democrat Party ladder, which falls over itself annointing articulate and relatively non-threatening minorities.

    All that “one drop” stuff is nonsense.

    Lisa, nothing is more pathetic than a guilt-ridden Jew..

  • David Black

    “Your need to feel important has robed you of a broader richer and more beautiful life. You are in your senior years and you’ve missed it all.”

    I’ve witnessed Islamo-fascist thugs kill innocent Israeli women and children at close range. The kids were students of mine. I had been teaching them how to speak English.

    I grew up among Holocaust survivors.

    I’ve seen and heard quite enough about your precious “humanity,” thank you.

  • David Black

    “I live in Texas and there are plenty of dumb, poor, lazy, Whites with really bad grammar. Most of my neighbors couldn’t conduct a meaningful conversation on current events (they are White), as middle class as they are.”

    Compare that to the overwhelming number of black kids (or adults) who can’t pronounce the word ASK and who drop the consonants from the ends of words.

    In fact, I’ve heard many black professionals who STILL sound a little ghetto when they speak. They haven’t worked enough to remove any remnants of that subculture from their speech.

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    Who said anything about being guilt ridden. I think you are telling more than you mean to.

    I said this nation needs to atone for its misdeeds. We cant move on unless we wrap this thing up. You see the issue has nothing to do with YOU personally. It has to do with the cancer that is at the bowels of this nation. You know it’s there and everyone knows its there. We have to deal with it. The reasons that we haven’t is because we are isolated, our abuses have been a secret AND Whites are in the majority and they simply don’t have to do anything. No one is looking. We can lie and say were have been a democracy since 1776 an no one really knows what we are really like. We begin to believe our own lie and later on feel offended that anyone would suggest that we are anything but what we believe ourselves to be. Much like spoiled children who are challenged. Were we in Europe where our neighbors would have a clear view of us us, we would have atoned and moved on a long time ago.

    Another problem is simply White supremacy. Its like crack. Look at David. Dumb as a door knob but feels good about himself and his abysmally stupid notions, because he is White. He has no idea that he is an imbecile. No better than some dumb near drooling thug in the hood or some backwoods share cropper who’s never seen the inside of a school. But society has told him that his Whiteness makes him innately superior. Talk about affirmative action! Atoning makes everyone really equal. If you were a David, would you want that? If everyone is equal than everyone has to be treated equally and thought of as equal. That means more competition and the cream really rise to the top. How many Miguels and LaKeshas are suppressed geniuses? You know they exist.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Jews don’t run the world, David. We define our own heritage through our mothers, not the rest of the world’s. Get real. Obama is defined as a black man in this white-run United States (even though,very soon, the majority will NOT be white, and perhaps the power elite will no longer be white men)…

    If Jews did run the world, however, I think they would be quite ashamed to include you among them. I certainly am.

    I feel not a drop of guilt about Obama and am not voting for him because of that; I am voting for him because his is far more intelligent, educated, even-tempered, rational and kind than McCain; he made a superior choice in his running mate; he will be a peacmaker not a warmonger; he cares about all people, not just the rich; he is not trading on his father’s name nor his forty year old record as a P.O.W. as his sole credentials; he is dedicated and committed to bringing back our reputation as a country of integrity.

    You can disagree with that all you like. But accusing me of liking him because he is black is a foolish lie and makes you looks ignorant and absurd.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Oh come on now, Lisa. Any student of history knows that the Democrat reaction to solving an economic crisis is going into war. In time I think Barack Obama will make a great President. Now is not his time. Give me four years of a McCain Administration which only serves one term and isn’t running for reelection from Inauguration Day. For too many Presidential election cycles we’ve been forced to accept the “lesser” of two evils. The only election in my memory where that was not the case is the Dole-Clinton race. Bob Dole would have made a superb President but we would have lost a man as equally superb. The man who loses this election isn’t the only loser. The American people lose as well. Both men are fine patriots in their own right.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I followed this thread – not because I cared about the original article or most of the comments – but because I was curious to see how David Black, an angry bitter man, was being speared here.

    A few points worth noting. Racially speaking, Obama is not an “African American” at all. His father was a Luo from Kenya. Zedd, who has been one of the people dangling David like a spider dangles a fly, is a Zulu from South Africa herself. In other words, she is far more like Obama than the she is the average black person one sees walking around in the States whose ancestors were seized by hostile African tribes and sold as slaves to slavers a few centuries ago. While Zulus have the reputation for being warriors, the most important Zulu running around these days, the head of the ANC in South Africa, Jacob Zuma, is nothing but a thug who rapes women.

    I guess they can’t all be winners, eh Zedd?

    But returning to Obama, the appropriate term to describe fear of him is xenophobia, rather than racism. Culturally, he was not raised as a “black”, and absorbed values from all over the world – Moslem values from Indonesia as well as the version of American Christianity one generally picks up in Hawaii. In addition, of course, he has had a loyalty to his and his father’s native tribe, the Luo of Kenya. It all goes into the mix that makes Obhama more a citizen of the world than a black man, and were he better educated (not in terms of schools, but in the values of decency and honesty one seeks in a leader) and someone with higher moral values, he would be truly someone to be admired and voted for. In other words, if he were more of a real man instead of the good Chicago machine politician who closes his eyes to this and gently overlooks that while stringing together inspiration speeches for the rubes and useful idiots who think he is the messiah…. You get the idea.

    But let’s examine Mr. Black, a man who has views that in some ways are similar to mine – but who is different in several fundamental ways.

    Mr. Black proudly describes himself as descended from Austrian Jews. He is another one of those Central European Jews foisted on the world who escaped Hitler, either directly or indirectly. He comes in famous company – people like Freud, Viktor Borge, Einstein, Neils Bohr and Henry Kissinger. The last of the bunch mentioned has been nothing but a traitor to the Jewish people and nothing but a damned court Jew for the Rockefeller Foundation,and if I was going to be ashamed of having anyone in the Tribe, it would be Kissinger. But I digress.

    Mr. Black has no trouble with Hitler and his theories – except that he targetted Jews of course – probably because he hasn’t a clue as to their origins. A lot of his arguments stem from that general point of view and the understandable pride he takes in the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe and their accomplishments.

    So let’s provide a badly needed history lesson for the good David Black (and the rest of you as well). Older men usually do not change their minds, no matter what evidence is laid in front of their eyes, but Einstein, to his credit, was able to admit in his old age major mistakes he had made as a physicist.

    Hope springs eternal and let’s hope that Mr. Black has more in him of Einstein than of stubborn schneiders who argue over the cut of the cloth for a penny a bolt….

    Miracles do happen.

    What we know as Nazism arose in Austria and is rooted in the unintended results of the Seven Weeks War (1866) between the Kingdom of Prussia and the Empire of Austria. The issue of the war was the vision of German nationalism that was to become reality in Europe. Was it to be the greater German nationalism that included Austria and its German speaking provinces throughout Europe, or would it be a narrower kind that excluded Austria and focused on the northwest German states in Europe, a nation centered on Prussia and its militarized aristocracy?

    The issue was decided on a battlefield in Bohemia, and a Prussian army advanced on Wien when the Austrians gave up the ghost.

    The immediate result was the creation of the North German Confederation, dominated by Prussia, and this creation evolved into the “German Empire” in 1871 when the Prussian army defeated the French at Sédan. This Geman Empire did not include Austria.

    The Austrian régime had to figure out a way to survive after this defeat, and its German leaders sat down (unwillingly) with the Hungarians and cut a deal that resurrected the Kingdom of Hungary within the Austrian Empire, giving it virtual autonomy and a huge swath of territory between Styria and the Transylvanian mountains.

    So much for the boring history lesson.

    Now comes the interesting part.

    The Germans in this new Austria-Hungary were a minority – not only in the Empire as a whole, but in the “crown lands” that comprised Austria itself, particularly Galicia, Croatia and Bohemia. Many Germans felt very insecure in this new arrangement, because as Polish, Croatian and Bohemian power grew, German power declined.

    One of the things that resulted was the development of a “racial superiority” theory. Intellectuals would write about this, cooking up all sorts of theories to back up their ideas. They seized upon Darwin’s “Origin of Species” to argue that races within humankind, as well as species in the animal world, evolved as superior or inferior and that some races within humankind, just as some species in the animal world, deserved extinction.

    But the basic motive, the driving force that pushed these people, was fear of being forced out of a superior cultural position. With each introduction of Bohemian language schools, with every Jew who travelled to Wien and put up a sign saying “tailor”, “butcher” or “candlestick maker” in Yiddish, the hated tongue of those who had murdered Jesus (in a good Catholic country like Austria, that was what was taught) the discomfort of the Austrian Germans grew.

    It is no accident that it was in Wien that the juden-hass, the Jew-hatred that these people felt, developed into the Anti-Semite Party. It is no accident that Slavs (Poles, Bohemians, Croatians, Slovenians) were regarded as a slave people with an inferior mentality. It is no accident that Gypsies were looked upon as little more than a criminal class to be exterminated, as one wipes out crime permanently in the pure Aryan state.

    All this was to make the minority Germans feel more comfortable in their own land. The idea that the German “superiority” that had created Austria in the first place as a wall facing east to block the Mongols and the Moslems morphed into a racial theory that took the Kabbala and stood it on its head, and made the Jews the evil race that had to be destroyed, and the Aryans the race that would redeem mankind.

    Nazism and the völkish theories it is based on has little or nothing to do with Fascism, which is just socialism dressed up as an ambitious Italian’s nightmare.

    But how did this sick world-view gain power? It gained power because the standard bearer of German nationalism, the German Empire, was defeated in a war of its own making, its royal houses (all twenty five of them) fled like rats and an unstable and weak German state followed in Wilhelm II’s stead. As the German money lost value and the German economy became dependent on infusions of capital from the United States, the Germans’ view of themselves sunk lower and lower until the racial theories of the proto-Nazis of Austria started to look very attractive to them. When the stock market collapsed about 79 years ago, that was the nail in the coffin for the weak German successor to the German Empire. Either the Communists or Nazis would take control; it turned out to be the Nazis.

    Noe let’s address you directly, David.

    Behind all the spiritual theories of “cleansing the earth” was a brutal murderousness that would kill your and my relatives in Europe, Mr. Black, a murderousness that would eventually translate into policy for the Wahhabi-influenced scum who rushed to Hitler’s side from Mandate Palestine during Hitler’s great war to cleanse the earth.

    Don’t believe me. Look up the Thule Society. The Nazis had a satanic religion of murder and human sacrifice that makes the symbolic cannibalism of Christianity look humane by comparison.

    Go ahead, David. Sing another verse from the “Horst Wessel Lied” if it will make you happy. Or, if you are the truly wise man that I think your are, have a good hard look at your ideas.

    That’s what I did in my late forties. I had a good hard look at what was basically the agnosticism that had guided me for decades and came out thinking very differently.

    You’re a proud Jew – that’s good. But now is the time to read parshát nitzavím and poarshát ha’azínu in the Torah [d’varím/Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20, 32:1-52] and realize that our history was revealed to us 3,500 years ago by a prophecy of Moses. It is time to humble yourself before G-d (as did King Josiah) and realize Who really runs the Show.

    If you are able to do that, than you will truly surpass the stupid criticisms that appear here in Blogcritics on this comment thread.

    I apologize if I seem to have insulted you, David, for that has not been my intent here at all.

    Shaná Tová v’Shavúa Tov,
    Reuven