Skip to content

Latest Class and Race Disputes

December 9, 2013

“Lazy poor” rhetoric has been greatly stepped up due to the news of fast food workers striking for higher pay or higher minimum wage.

Here is a common meme being passed around:

Just like I only “push a pedal” when my union striked, and autoworkers only “turn a bolt”, and all of us “only do our 40 hours a week and then go home”. Only the CEO or entrepreneur doing 100 hours produces “value”, and thus is “valued”. Everyone else is just a bunch of “chattel”, or a “loutish low level work force”, as I cited in Makers-Takers.

In one discussion now, I’m pointed to “the old days,” where people lived in cramped quarters and worked 16 hours a day, and just rolled up their sleeves and did what was necessary to succeed, and did not complain about their “low wages” in contrast to today’s unhappiness with wages one has “agreed to”, “bashing” the wealthy, and all the “redistribution” or “legalized parasitism”.

But because horrid living conditions (which were not conducive to health and well being) were more common and accepted back then, doesn’t make right. So because people came to demand better than that, they are regarded as parasites, and those with the power (the only ones who “deserve” ANYTHING, apparently) punish everyone for that (so they can blame these so-called parasites instead of non-government power-holders; and even the alleged total abuse of assistance; i.e. not working at all, is totally hyped up by this rhetoric machine).
It’s clear that government is not the only force who wants happy peasant subjects and lies to everyone to get it.

I’m not so much into legislating redistribution (still hardly helps with the high costs of everything), but still, I think too much blame is being placed on this, and it’s a scapegoat for people who control the market (and have largely bought out government), and thus set what everyone must “agree” to, to begin with. —Again, based on a premise of false scarcity.
The poor (or their cause) are not the cause of all these problems. Wealth is power; that’s why they get blamed, but still, the rhetoric blaming the poor has been far louder.

Here’s a good video that deals with how borrowing is creating class (and not to blame on its victims):


Also, this “quote” from West is passing around.

“Hold Obama to the same standards as a white president”
Can’t even find where he said it; it seems to be just his followers on the blogosphere.

This is a total turnaround, where the same people of course deny that he is being treated worse because of his race. As I say in Makers-Takers, he has been totally DISOWNED in a way no other president ever has, and every little thing he does people don’t like is ELEVATED to the level of the worst presidential scandals in history (such as Watergate). Of course, now, they have surpassed even those, since the white scandal bearers were punished, but he isn’t.

So they get to say that the black president is only lasting because of special treatment because of his race. And the real insult is from those “liberals” who are doing this because of his race, and not “the content of his character”.

But the conservatives are the ones calling out race (as much as they complain about others always “playing the card” on them!) No liberal has ever said they are promoting (or “excusing”) Obama because of his race; it’s the conservatives who keep inferring this.

But the issue is a matter of interpretation of what he does. Here is an illustration of all the “impeachable offenses” they have heaped up against him:

A lot of this stuff is grossly exaggerated. He does something that to them amounts to “attacking Second Amendment” (likely referring to gun control; but that is a matter of interpretation, not “attacking”)

Noam Chomsky once pointed out that the last five presidents (up to the Clinton era he wrote in) should have been impeached for declaring war without the approval of Congress!

The “funding Al Qaeda” thing is something I have heard so much from the conservatives, and I’ve never heard the other side of what they are referring to.
Still, all the other presidents do stuff on this level that can be interpreted the same way. Like Iran-Contra.

Again, why is it an impeachable offense for Obama, but not the Reagan administration, if Obama is the one getting all the preferential treatment because of race?

Advertisements

From → Politics

61 Comments
  1. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/12/10/as-someone-who-worked-at-walmart-and-burger-king-dont-raise-the-minimum-wage-n1760313

    The article makes good points, but completely forgets that jobs are hard to come by. It makes the typical assumption that those on the bottom, encouraged the left, are just trying to languish in those jobs, or get by for “free”. People usually stay in those jobs because there’s nothing to move up to. Even if you gain the skills, there’s no guarantee you’ll find anything. My wife has THREE Master’s in her field, and is only slowly finding work.

    Another article:
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/when-is-inequality-harmful-when-its-caused-by-cronyism/article/2540338

    People try to downplay the notion of cronyism. One FB commenter said “They assume that since corporations make a lot of money that they are ripping someone off. It does not cross their minds that it is a value for value trade between the seller and the buyer, and that the corporations and businesses that make the most money are offering the best products and services that people want, like iPhones”. But this ignores stuff like planned obsolescence and many other tricks of the trade. And that the “value” they produce has not gone up as astronomically as what they are making. (especially with stuff like lowering quality, which is apart of obsolescence).

    So a lot more cronyism is likely involved.
    Here’s a great image:

  2. Here’s one I’ve been seeing for the past few days I should have jumped on:

    Yeah, you would vote for them, until they were getting close to winning, then find a way to get them out. This is what you already did with one of the men pictured here: Herman Cain! (And yet you have the nerve to still include him there after forcing him out of the election with a last-minute ‘years-ago scandal’ revelation like that!) Earlier, Colin Powell was the one you looked up to, and he dropped out, likely seeing the same thing coming!

    They would probably do this to all of them, one after the other, and it will only be “fact, not racism” that led to their elimination, yet “at least we were willing to vote for them…”. Then, someone somewhere will put it all together, “Those blacks, even the ‘good ones’ who hold policies we like, just are too corrupt to be president. That’s just ‘the facts‘! It shows they once again need to fix their own communities”.

    Since West is the one they seem to like the most now, it will be interesting to see what happens if he does run in 2016.

    As for class:
    Pope Francis In Peace Message Attacks Mega-Salaries With ‘Crumbs’ For Poor
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/pope-attacks-mega-salarie_n_4431701.html

    I had already seen people calling him a “socialist”, and even “The Obama of the Catholic Church”!

  3. Here is something I copied for something on my tablet, and it was still in the clipboard. (Nice thing I like about Android, is that you can have multiple clippings and can access them in certain applications, where Windows only can have one, and you can’t see it anywhere).
    Not sure what I used it for or where I even got it from. Probably a link on Facebook. Can’t find it cited here already, so I might as well just post it now. (I think I remember now; I copied it because of the doctrinal implications, but didn’t know what to use it for. So again, might as well post it here).

    Butler writes that when Zimmerman told Sean Hannity that it was God’s
    will that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, “he was diving right into
    what most good conservative Christians in America think right now.
    Whatever makes them protected, safe, and secure, is worth it at the
    expense of the black and brown people they fear.”

    However, Craig counters this premise by writing, “What’s perhaps most
    ridiculous about this theology is that it seems Prof. Butler is trying
    to draw an analogue between God and Zimmerman’s situation, which is
    completely unfounded. Trying to press social and political situations
    onto a theology of God is methodologically backwards and is nothing
    more than a personal construct of Prof. Butler.

  4. They’re on the Cosby bandwagon again:

    Bill Cosby Bashes Thugs and Welfare Moms: ‘We Can’t Blame White People’
    http://americanoverlook.com/bill-cosby-bashes-thugs-and-welfare-moms-we-cant-blame-white-people-6/11125#

    “But will these people listen?” -article author.

    What Cosby is saying is right, but I think the observers cheering this on are a little too focused on “THESE PEOPLE” (Especially when the same are among the ones claiming a “race card” is being played too much).

    “These people” is just the ‘third person’ version of “YOU people”!
    And this attitude is what we as always see in some of the other comments.

    While expressing their admiration for Cosby, and how he is a “good one” (to paraphrase; as for the rest of the blacks? “Bill has said this for years but it has fallen deaf ears. Obviously common sense can’t be translated into Ebonics!” And another one mentioning the Democrats being “part of the problem with all the freebies they hand out”.
    And people think these sentiments are not racist!

    All have sinned. [This was first commented on the Christian FB “friend” and coworker’s post of the article]. All do wrong and can do better. Everyone tries to put all blame on others, and that is what’s being done by focusing so much on “these people”, when the economy is a mess, and they don’t ever want to look at their own system. It’s all just “them” (and the liberals favoring them).

    Later on, we have this: https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t31/p480x480/1889019_500809486706909_542496681_o.jpg

    Followed by this:

    (They hated the Clintons so much, but they didn’t exclude Bill!)

  5. Why Are White Men Like Michael Dunn So Angry?
    A crisis in white masculinity is killing black teenagers and, history says, the violence is likely to continue.

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/02/did_white_male_insecurity_kill_jordan_davis.html

    For angry white men like Dunn, Jordan Davis’ “gangsta rap” music and Trayvon Martin’s “hoodie” symbolize a larger culture war in which putatively wholesome American culture is under siege by blackness. “Stand your ground” laws, Dunn believes, give Americans the right to defend themselves against “the denigration of women” and “the violence and lifestyle that the ‘gangsta rap’ music and the ‘thug life’ ” adopted by “an entire generation” of “young black men.”

    Awaiting trial, Dunn wrote several letters to his family and friends complaining about how “jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs.” In a letter to his daughter, he offered the following solution to the problem of black thuggery: “This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these f–king idiots when they’re threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior.

    Threatened by growing black economic and political power in the early 20th century, white men calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan used this same portrayal of black men as violent, sexual predators to justify racial terrorism. It’s estimated that from 1880 to 1930, more than 2,400 African Americans were lynched, often for insulting white men or forgetting “their place.” For contemporary angry white men, standing up to “gangsta rap” and “thugs” is akin to night-riding on black men, as portrayed in D.W. Griffith’s classic 1915 film The Birth of a Nation.

    Although economic downturns disproportionately affect black unemployment and home ownership, working-class and college-educated whites are now feeling the sting of restricted opportunity. In his book Angry White Men, sociologist Michael Kimmel describes how these men often blame the trifecta of feminism, affirmative action and immigration for their woes.

    The relative devaluing of white privilege has been interpreted as racial oppression of whites and “reverse discrimination.”

    An aura of victimhood also extends to white millennials (ages 18-29). Almost 60 percent of young whites believe that “reverse discrimination” has become a major problem. As Adam Mansbach, the author of Angry Black White Boy, argues, the saturation of American popular culture with images of wealthy, sexy and cool black people like Jay Z and Beyoncé has left many white youths feeling inadequate and shut out of the American dream. White-student unions on college campuses like Towson University and Georgia State University exemplify the backlash against the tanning of success.

    This is not good. It means the sentiments of blame are spreading. I liked to think the problems I witness are mainly the older generations, and that for younger generations race was becoming more irrelevant, but I did caution in Makers-Takers the possibility of it spreading to younger generations, if they are persistently made to feel guilty. But here, the “reverse discrimination” claim (which the older “angry working class” people had been using) is apparently leaking through, coloring another generation to carry the banner of the need to “take back the nation”. That’s what this is really all about.
    So my point there was, that if we keep demanding something from them along the lines of race, raising guilt, while they look and see supersuccessful blacks like that, then it will all the more lead to them thinking that maybe their parents were right after all.

    In Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, Charles Murray—of The Bell Curve fame—blames liberals for what he sees as the pathologies of white America.

    Reading a review of this, basically what it boils down to, is that while we are assured that “the book is about class and not race”, this is drawn along the lines of “the cognitive elite” (who were identified in The Bell Curve, of course) versus an unnamed “lower class”, and the gist of it is basically those good old [righteous, superior] “values” of the forefathers being “eroded” by the liberals, which, if you put two and two together, was from among other things, forcing the lack of values of the influence of these “lower” people on society. The solution, shun the “welfare state” and go back to “the republic’s original foundations of family, vocation, community, and faith.” (i.e. our righteousness of the Law, even with all the evils being committed back then under the banner of those “values” which very few could even see as contrary to the true ideal of these values).
    The same old junk, just rehashed and dressed up a bit differently this time.

    Likewise, Dunn, writing to his grandmother, reached a similar conclusion, that “the courts are biased toward blacks” and his prosecution was the result of “a bunch of liberal bulls–t” and “white guilt.”

    This, despite the fact that social science research clearly documents racial bias against blacks at every stage of the criminal-justice process, including police stops, arrests, bail, legal representation, jury selection, trial prosecution, sentencing, incarceration and parole.

    More likely, the recent shootings of unarmed black people are related to a hateful strain of minority-white politics stoked by the Tea Party and right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, who has written despairingly of the “demographic winter of white America” and once described President Barack Obama as a “drug dealer of welfare.” This kind of race-baiting exploits the legitimate concerns held by white people, and other Americans, who are becoming the casualties of widening inequality and the crippling costs of college education and health care.

    It all starts with these broad, sweeping judgments they feel justified in making.

  6. A TV Star Had To Explain Why A White Man Killing A Black Kid Is An American Problem, Not A Black One
    http://www.upworthy.com/a-tv-star-had-to-explain-why-a-white-man-killing-a-black-kid-is-an-american-problem-not-a-black-one

  7. From a FB friend I thought to be more liberal (asking “what do you think?”):

    Unfortunately, those are all groups who were discriminated against, and used “Pride” to try to encourage themselves to strive for equality. (“Woman” could have just as well been there by itself, even if white women). The last one was someone who had the power all along. So what else would he need to achieve? Even if you argue power has been taken from him and given to others (and some, such as Rush, grossly exaggerate this into them being the persecuted minority now!), still the only other power they can gain is to “take back” from others, which basically means, re-subjugating them!
    That’s why it looks suspicious and gets called racist.

    Also, from the past couple of days:

    Paul Ryan Laments Inner-City Culture Of Not Working
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/paul-ryan-inner-cities_n_4949165.html

    Followed by:

    Paul Ryan: ‘Inner City’ Remarks Had Nothing To Do With Race
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/paul-ryan-inner-city_n_4957733.html-ryan-inner-city_n_4957733.html

    House colleague, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) called it out as “simply code words for what he really means: ‘black.'” Ryan tries to fix it as concern for the “poor”, and implicating “society as a whole”.
    But as one commenter nailed it:

    “But Ryan makes it clear. He wants to isolate poverty; make it an inner city issue and thus a racial one because the racial makeup of the inner city is overwhelmingly minority: black and Hispanic.”

    Isolation is the term I used in Makers-Takers as the real game in Right wing denial and blaming (called “splitting”; we’re the good guys and the problem is these “others” over there). This rhetorical game is finally being called out [by liberalism I presume], and as long as they keep playing it, they will find themselves tagged as bigoted, no matter how much they try to turn the charge back on others, and pretend to be concerned.

    Here’s something on class:
    What a Destructive Wall Street Owes Young Americans
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/destructive-wall-street-owes-young-americans_b_4967487.html

    • Today makes it just dawn on me.
      White groups DO have “pride” celebrations that are NOT accused of racism, and those are the ethnic sub-groups they all are apart of. So today, the Irish celebrate. The Italians have other days, including Columbus day (which is also about America too). And other groups have other expressions.

      The problem is comparing “white” to “black”, and saying “if ‘black’ can have its pride, why can’t ‘white’?”
      But blacks have all been compressed into a SINGLE GROUP (having lost their individual African national identities. Very few know which African nation they are from. The only ethnic subdivisions are West Indian countries, and people newly from Africa).

      So “black” is one group next to the Irish, Italians, etc.

      As others in discussions point out, when people make “white” an individual category like that, it’s usually to pit the entire race against others, so again, that’s why it gets suspected.

  8. Missed this really good one from the shutdown last Fall:

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/09/2730651/how-racism-caused-the-shutdown

    It gives a detailed synopsis on the shift that became known as the Southern Strategy (without even using the term), and also how other aspects of conservatism stemmed from the racist cause (which they of course deny).
    The best point:

    By the Johnson-Goldwater election, it had become clear that overt racism and segregationism was politically doomed. Brown v. Board of Education and LBJ’s support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act saw to that. As this scary recognition dawned on Southern whites, they began searching for a new vehicle through which to shield themselves and their communities from the consequences of integration. The young conservative movement’s ringing endorsement of a minimalist federal government did the trick — it provided an on-face racially neutral language by which Southerners could argue against federal action aimed at integrating lily-white schools and neighborhoods.

    Kevin Kruse, a Princeton historian whose work focuses on the South and the conservative movement, finds deep roots in segregationist thought for this turn. “In their own minds, segregationists were instead fighting for rights of their own,” Kruse suggests. These “rights” included “the ‘right’ to select their neighbors, their employees, and their children’s classmates, the ‘right’ to do as they pleased with their private property and personal businesses, and, perhaps, most important, the ‘right’ to remain free from what they saw as dangerous encroachments by the federal government.”

    Kruse traces this language through white resistance to desegregation from the 40s through the 60s, using a detailed examination of “white flight” in Atlanta as a synecdoche. In the end, he finds, “the struggle over segregation thoroughly reshaped southern conservatism…segregationist resistance inspired the creation of new conservative causes, such as tuition vouchers, the tax revolt, and the privatization of public services.” The concomitant rise of the modern conservative movement and the civil rights movements’ victories conspired to make Southern whites into economic, and not just racial, conservatives.

    Found that article from this one:

    Yes, The South Really Is Different — And It’s Because Of Race
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/18/2786841/yes-south-different-race

    This one shows, among other things, how “the Religious Right’s growth was tied up in the South’s race problem.”:

    Paul Weyrich, easily one of the most important figures in the Religious Right’s founding…and his allies spun IRS’ action [against BJU on its discriminatory policies] into a liberal campaign against the Christian way of life. The Religious Right as an organized movement grew in significant part out of the defense of Bob Jones and other similarly “persecuted” Christian schools.
    This history is fairly well-established. Ed Dobson, one of Jerry Fallwell’s top aides, confirmed it to Balmer: “government interference in Christian schools,” he said, was one of the core original causes of the original religious right.

    Also, that the modern Right is simply “the nationalization of Southern conservatism” continuing the “underlying structural trends in Southern political opinion”.
    This shows what I pointed out in Makers-Takers, that this aims at the fulfillment of the old “Lost Cause”, of “The South Shall Rise Again“, expanded to a national level.

    Another good one:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064

    “Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others. Black America ever lives under that skeptical eye. Hence the old admonishments to be ‘twice as good.’”

    • Very similar points as above, about the “nationalization” of Southern politics:

      The South’s victim complex: How right-wing paranoia is driving new wave of radicals
      http://www.salon.com/2014/09/30/the_souths_victim_complex_how_right_wing_paranoia_is_driving_new_wave_of_radicals

      “’The mainstream issues in [the Reagan] campaign had been, quote, ‘Southern’ issues since way back in the Sixties,’ Atwater said in 1981.
      A century after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the 1960s was a sort of second federal invasion, with the White House strong-arming Wallace, Supreme Court decisions finally implementing Brown’s desegregation order, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts radically reshaping Southern politics and culture. “The South went from being behind the times to being the mainstream,” Atwater said. It is helpful to consider the inverse: The mainstream GOP adopted the ’60s-era mood of the South. Atwater does not suggest that the South caught up with a modernized conservatism — i.e., that it ceased to be ‘behind the times’ — but that the larger movement regressed, albeit with rhetorical coding to evade charges of old-school racism.”

      (And ironic, that their rhetoric loudly accuses others of victimhood, or “whining” as they put it).

      Another good one, from a year ago:

      SALON: The South is holding America hostage
      [MOVED: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/good-liberal-responses/#comment-2243 ]

      • Regarding Weyrich & co. much later found this article (by sociologist Randall Balmer who is mentioned in the above article):

        The Real Origins of the Religious Right
        They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

        (Breitbart offers this response http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/05/29/the-real-origins-of-the-religious-right/ saying they have offered no evidence that the creation of such schools were racially motivated or anything other than…an effort to provide an alternative to failing government schools”. But the evidence is clearly there, including the fact that the reason the government because so demonized by the Right was because it opened its service up to blacks more (And this is also when they became more “failing”. So of course, this is a handy occasion to dismiss the issue altogether, if not turning it around by blaming the liberals for everything).

  9. Paul Ryan’s race flap even worse than it looks
    The notion that Ryan was dog-whistling to racists is actually the best-case scenario. Here’s the scary alternative
    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/17/paul_ryans_race_flap_even_worse_than_it_looks

    Cites the Atwater statement outlining the tactic of the Southern Strategy (replacing the N word with “abstract” economic rhetoric).

    For proponents of the dog-whistle theory, the fact that Ryan cited Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve,” was the smoking gun.

    But if Ryan genuinely stumbled heedless into a racial tinderbox then it suggests he, and most likely many other conservatives, has fully internalized a framing of social politics that was deliberately crafted to appeal to white racists without regressing to the uncouth language of explicit racism, and written its origins out of the history. If that’s the case it augurs poorly for those in the movement who are trying to broaden the Republican Party’s appeal, because it’s easier to convince people to abandon a poor tactic than to unlearn rotten ideology.

    Treating intergenerational laziness of inner-city men as established truth, and bemoaning the ways social spending programs supposedly nurture that “culture,” blends seamlessly into Atwater’s framework.

    Weigel interprets the fact that Charles Murray has lately softened his claims as exculpation for Ryan and other conservatives who cite him. But Murray’s just following a social Darwinist’s rendition of the trajectory Atwater traced.

    Also cites this article from 9 years ago, as where he first heard the Atwater quote:

    Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant
    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: October 6, 2005
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B63

    The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.’s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.

    Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.’s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960’s. And he began his general election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: ”I believe in states’ rights.”

    Bill Bennett’s musings about the extermination of blacks in America (it would be ”impossible, ridiculous morally reprehensible”) is all of a piece with a Republican Party philosophy that is endlessly insulting to black people and overwhelmingly hostile to their interests.

  10. Rush Limbaugh Admits That Republicans Refuse to Work With Obama Because He Is Black
    http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/11/rush-limbaugh-admits-republicans-refuse-work-obama-black.html

  11. Even in Preschool, Black Students Are Disciplined More Harshly Than White Students
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/21/department_of_education_report_black_students_are_more_likely_to_be_suspended.html

    It works like this: Students, especially students of color, are hit with outrageous and disproportionate disciplinary measures in the school system. At best, that causes them to fall behind in their classes, but it can also result in students being suspended or shuffled off to separate classes for troublemakers, causing higher dropout rates and the subsequent higher unemployment and imprisonment rates. Sometimes schools turn to the police, who then arresting kids for minor infractions, treating them as criminals instead of young students who need support.
    That this is happening in junior high and high schools is well-known, but the new report suggests that black students are being funneled into the school-to-prison pipeline as young as 4 and 5 years old.

    Of course, this is the very backbone of the whole conservative argument that “there’s just a ‘problem’ in the black community that blacks are not addressing”.

    They’ll probably just attribute the ‘worse discipline’ problem to black kids just “acting worse”.

    But the younger the ages, the less likely it’s the influence of the culture. They’re just being children at that age (and as I’ve said before, black parents, even, or I could say even especially, those “irresponsible” single mothers tend to be very rough with their children; quite contrary to there being no discipline as racists assume).

    That is the answer to this:
    http://freakoutnation.com/2014/03/26/bill-oreilly-and-paul-ryan-blame-race-hustlers-for-the-congressmans-thinly-veiled-racist-remarks

    “Can’t Ryan reference a white nationalist, libertarian writer who uses racist pseudoscience [Charles Murray see http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2014/03/19/white-nationalist-charles-murray-shaping-american-policy-aint-pretty%5D and not be called out on it, because that’s what he did.”
    (And people like Murray are never seen as the real “Race hustlers”. Instead, they’re the heroes trying to save the nation from them).

    Five Points was a great example of what happens to the character of a “culture” when conditions are horrible. There were a few blacks there, but the area was mainly Irish, with some Italians and Jews; immigrant groups commonly contrasted with blacks as having started out in rough conditions, but climbing out of the cycles. Most of the crime was gang warfare, and these weren’t the blacks.

    But before we jump to “climbing out”, we need to pay attention to how they were while still under those conditions. If the problem was genetic as Murray insists, then the problems (crime, vice, etc) still would not have been as bad among the other groups.
    Meanwhile, blacks who finally moved out along with the other groups and went uptown, also were reported to have done better. (However, they were soon joined by waves of blacks coming up from the South, under brutal conditions. Maybe not as much cramped squalor as Five Points, but instead more fierce racial persecution. This is what would carry a lot of dysfunction).

  12. Thought regarding “resentment”, and why race keeps being an issue:

    What was needed is more acknowledgment of the wrong, but instead, defenders of the old system simply changed their language and framed it in terms of blame. Blaming is not acknowledgment of the wrong, but instead, defending the old system, with “for 200 years, our nation was the shining city on a hill, but 50 years ago, certain groups of people ruined it all”. (Turning the blame onto the victims of what needs acknowledging in the first place).

    Any resentment I may have, is not against a person for race, but because he through stated beliefs represents an ideology that seeks to blame me (or my race, with at best me as a “good one” exception), and refuses to acknowledge the wrongs of their past.

    For those who question patriotism; what does it mean to be an American or “love” America? That I have to accept all of that stuff from the past as right, or at worst “just the way they did things back then”, and then join them in blaming everyone else (including my own “race” group, which they insist I, or anyone else should be preaching at to “improve themselves”) for all of our problems today? (Ignoring the same theme of “might makes right” that drove both colonial conquest and slavery, as well as today’s financial practice). Again, these power brokers they defend are the ones who do not care about this country. They’re just using it for their own goals.

  13. Eric Holder Says He Wasn’t Playing Race Card When Decrying GOP Opposition
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/eric-holder-race-card_n_5147881.html

    Some great comments:

    Holder didn’t need to use the word “race”, for anyone with half a brain and intelligence it has been clear what is being done to both him and our president since Obama got elected. I am a 67 year old WHITE woman and I have never seen the likes of what republicans have done over the last 5 years. Try as they might, anything done to Bush pales in comparison to what they have done and continue to do to these two men. I have been disgusted with their antics since the very beginning. The republicans (most but not all) of today are the least patriotic individuals in this country. I actually have a really hard time thinking of them as Americans sometimes because most of what they say, do or want is so against what American stands for. If they dislike America as it is, I suggest they do like the colonists did when they came here – find another undeveloped country and make a constitution that suits their needs and wishes. That is the only way they will get back their cherished “good old days”.

    We all know the republican party played the race card on January 20, 2009 and all they have done was reshuffle the deck and play the same cards year in and year out. No party member, even in the most disagreeable congressional sessions has ever yelled out “you lie” to a President during his state of the union – NEVER.

    I agree. I’m a 59 year old white man who grew up in the South. I know what racism is. I actually thought we had advanced much further than we have. I guess it took a black man in the White House for all of them to show their true “colors.”

    Fox News Reporter: Obama and Holder Being Black is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Them

  14. Here’s a big damning insider confession:

    Charlie Crist: ‘Intolerable’ Racism Is A ‘Big Reason’ Why I Left The GOP
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/charlie-crist-racism_n_5275707.html

    A couple good memes:

  15. This guy makes good points:
    http://www.upworthy.com/im-not-racist-youre-not-racist-so-whats-there-to-talk-about-oh-right

    Four Levels of Racism:
    (Individual):
    internalized,
    interpersonal
    (systemic):
    institutional
    structural

    Media treats it as individual only, distorts our sense of how racism works, like overt intentional racist acts, fixed only by shaming and correcting the individual, and that individual stories of transcending racism, such as having a black president or Oprah being a billionaire, so any problems any other people of color face must be due to deficiencies on their part.
    All of this is precisely what we hear from conservatives, often blamed on the “liberal media” among other things.

  16. A discussion on “white privilege”.

  17. Really not surprising, any more.

    Being Poor Has Never Been A Crime In Our Country. Until Now
    http://www.upworthy.com/being-poor-has-never-been-a-crime-in-our-country-until-now

    They just want slavery back (a guy in there even says “It’s basically a debtors prision!”), even if it’s not defined strictly by race (we see these are all white people in the videos in this story).
    Still, it’s denial of freedom to others with the ability to say they deserved it, it was their own “bad choices”.
    The system is designed to trap people in debt (as “Zeitgest” pointed out). Now, employers are rejecting applicants for their credit scores (while companies still offer you new cards!) Banks have hefty overdraft fees, which make it more likely to overdaft once your next check comes in, or not be able to pay other bills. They revoke online payment “privilege”, making it hard to make a last minute deposits.
    I guess it’s supposed to be a “deterrent”, but it goes overboard, trapping people who happen to make mistakes (which are seen as justifying anything that happens), or even unforessen circumstances (then, some will suppose their must have been some past bad decision that left you vulberable to being caught in such a situation with less resources).
    What one does, all the others do, citing “the market”.

    Imagine if they expand this program to things like that!

    When are people going to stop seeing only government as possible tyrants?

  18. The Shocking Way That Some Prisons Are Kept Full (“Green is the new orange?”)
    http://www.upworthy.com/the-shocking-way-that-some-prisons-are-kept-full

    I just can’t stop heaing the echo of “the South Shall Rise Again!” Just by a different means, but it’s the same old system they’re trying to restore.

  19. 15 Charts That Prove We’re Far From Post-Racial
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/civil-rights-act-anniversary-racism-charts_n_5521104.html

    In the comments to the FB post, I see the Right (Fox News) has just yesterday coined a new code word: “Beyoncé voters” (The single women who want “free birth control”):

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310987/-Fox-News-Hillary-is-just-going-after-the-Beyonc-Voters-who-want-free-birth-nbsp-control

    Here’s a good article clearly showing the Southern Strategy:

    When the Republicans Really Were the Party of Lincoln
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/180495/when-republicans-really-were-party-lincoln

  20. Black slave kids’ “freedom” was to be envied, because they didn’t wear shoes!
    Slaveowners were the worst victims of the system!

    (And they criticize us for “victim rhetoric”!)

  21. Two different reactions to race issue:

    1) All men are sinful, but God was in Christ who died for the sin of the world, not counting their trespasses against them.
    •Therefore, no accusation brought against us or our forefathers can discourage us. They were their own individuals before God, and our righteousness as individuals comes directly from God, not from the heritage (which is “the flesh”).

    2) All men are sinners, and God still holds all sin against man unless he gives something back to God, for all Christ did for him.
    •He aims to eliminate sin by “converting” people, and those converted have their sins “washed away” from their actual behavior. (Or, at least, they are striving for this, and “growing” towards it).
    •Those unconverted are by contrast still under divine judgment, both in the afterlife, as well as in this life, based on certain “promises” in scripture.
    •These promises include the “godly” ruling over them.
    •Our forefathers were converted (practicing) Christians.
    •They created a godly nation with good laws and outward morality.
    •There were some “problems”, but they are far outweighed by the good.
    •Therefore, any criticism of the race and/or class problems is a direct attack on their righteousness, and our heritage.

  22. Someone finally nails the whole “most black people are killed by other black people” distraction; this time uttered by none other than former mayor Guiliani.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rudy-giuliani-former-mayor-black-violence-reason-white-cops-ferguson
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/23/rudy-giuliani-ferguson_n_6207608.html

    Better player imbedded (YouTube):
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/michael-eric-dyson-exposes-giuliani-its-the-defense-mechanism-of-white-supremacy-in-your-mind/

    “First of all, most black people who commit crimes against other black people go to jail. Number two, they are not sworn by the police department as an agent of the state to uphold the law. So in both cases, that’s a false equivalency…drawn, which has exacerbated tensions deeply embedded in American culture.”

    This whole deflection about black-on-black crime, while having a lot of truth, is still not something that easily changed. Part of it comes from all the anger from what we’ve gone from in history, and then, it has become “cultural”, including pop-culture, when venues such as rap (which started out more “message” or at least “fun” oriented) was then transformed into the whole “gangsta” image, which now broadcasts everywhere as what it means to be young and black, basically “validating” the tendency to behave and also carry themselves in a way that evokes fear (which is a basic survival instinct now on overdrive); including all the rap ideations of fighting back the police.
    So it is very hard to get all of these kids and others to change. Just preaching at them, or something (whatever Guiliani and the rest of these detractors want) won’t do it.

    The police, and other institutions, on the other hand, are just that; institutions, that a person joins, and consists of laws/rules everyone must follow, and these rules can be enforced, or even changed if found problematic or outdated. That’s why there’s a lot of heat on police violence.
    (And as pointed out, those blacks who do kill and other crimes, get hunted down, jailed, or maybe even killed, and the rest of the community, who are usually the victims, also end up profiled because of them. Some of the arguments insinuate they’ve forfeited any rights to not be brutalized or profiled, because of these others. Again, one group is a loose knit “community” consisting of individuals, the other is a tight knit organization individuals must submit to).

    • Here [from FB] is ol’ Ted Nugent’s take on the situation (don’t be surprised if it makes the news at some point, like many other similar tweets by different figures).

      Here’s the lessons from Ferguson America- Don’t let your kids growup to be thugs who think they can steal, assault & attack cops as a way of life & badge of black (dis)honor. Don’t preach your racist bullshit “no justice no peace” as blabbered by Obama’s racist Czar Al Not So Sharpton & their black klansmen. When a cop tells you to get out of the middle of the street, obey him & don’t attack him as brainwashed by the gangsta assholes you hang with & look up to. It’s that simple unless you have no brains, no soul, no sense of decency whatsoever. And dont claim that “black lives matter” when you ignore the millions you abort & slaughter each & every day by other blacks. Those of us with a soul do indeed believe black lives matter, as all lives matter. So quit killin each other you fuckin idiots. Drive safely.

      It starts out with some of the points I allude to above. (like the whole “gangsta” image that has been perpetuated through pop culture.
      But it always comes down to generalizing and mocking the whole community (more in the comments, like “the welfare buildings were spared in the riots”), and taking this high “moral” stance by appealing to abortion even (like he’s really some kind of theologically conservative practicing Christian, especially with language like that!); but they insist they are “just telling facts” and are not racist.

      Another commenter mentions something about “respecting authority”, but these are the same people who have become virulently anti-government. (Because it supposedly coddles and gives everything to this race of “idiots”! But I guess only local authority is legitimate to them, but that distinction is not made there).

      In one discussion on FB, someone mentioned about us not knowing the facts the jury decided on.
      I’m sure what it comes down to is “if only he did what the officer said“. If the Diallo case was won on that (when the cops were plainclothes, and all Diallo did was move his hand in being startled), then that obviously is what figures here.

      Other comments, with a think a few memes even basically say “nice way to make the country think you’re not violent criminals”! But like George Jefferson said in his fictional reaction to the looting (which his son was joining in) in the aftermath of the King assassination, “I don’t care about ‘what the white man thinks’; what about what I think?!” This is basically how we (and including the message of rap in the heyday of the “gangsta” style) approach the issue. But others don’t see it that way, and we always lose.

      To tell them (as basically what Nugent is doing, and what the Diallo verdict said) to “just obey our authority, and do what we say (even if the officers are plainclothes; mind you!), then you won’t get hurt” will just come off to many as accepting inferiority, like slavery . (And it doesn’t help, that again, many of the people of Nugent’s ilk are the ones stockpiling weapons, and even threatening action against the government, under the premise that it is oppressing them).

      Here, BTW is some evidence in the case:
      Ferguson Grand Jury Witness: ‘By The Time I Saw His Hands In The Air, He Got Shot’
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-witness_n_6216508.html

      This article makes some good points regarding the law and “reasonableness” but like several other similar incidents, ignores that the most lethal part of the force was used after the more threatening physical contact, when he was further away and possibly even surrendering.

      http://www.policeone.com/ferguson/articles/7782643-Why-Officer-Darren-Wilson-wasnt-indicted

      (This article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bombshell-evidence-laid-death-michael-brown-article-1.2022689 shed more details that make it look like Brown really was threatening even as he was being shot, and the previous article basically dismisses all the witness claims as “conflicting”, and so was obviously operating off of the officer’s testimony. This article points out that some aspects of the officer’s story are hard to believe: http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side I’m sure many, such as Nugent’s fans, would love to fill in “he did it because those people are animals!)

      Here’s the whole scenario illustrated step by step:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-grand-jury-findings

    • Giuliani’s retort is “I saved more black people than Dyson”. (So then Dyson compares him to Archie Bunker, and Giuliani compares him to Sharpton).
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rudy-giuliani-lifesaver-not-racist-article-1.2022700
      It’s not about who saved more black people. Basically a criteria he made up out of thin air, (with the undertone of “yeah, I did a good thing for those problematic animals who need so much saving from themselves”) It’s about thinking some statistic justifies killing the people. They kill themselves, so let law enforcement kill them too.

      Here’s a good article from today:
      The Pathology of the Magical Negro Narrative in Mike Brown Ruling
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheena-c-howard/the-pathology-of-the-magi_b_6221448.html

      Further thought,
      It seems hopeless sometimes, because on one hand, people shouldn’t be doing these crimes, and then trying to fight the police on top of it (when you know you can’t win; it’s almost like some sort of death wish from being so angry and feeling hopeless), but on the other hand, the alternative then comes off like “behave and obey”, and that just “don’t sound right”, obviously, so understandably, most people like this ain’t havin’ it! But then on goes the cycle of the racists justifying this sort of thing!

      Really don’t know what the answer is, or what’s going to happen in race relations in the future.

      See also (from the summer when this first erupted): https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/racial-rhetoric-becoming-worse-it-seems/#comment-2025

  23. More on another side of the story:

    Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

    The Truth About The Ferguson Case That Some People Really Can’t Accept
    http://www.upworthy.com/the-truth-about-the-ferguson-case-that-some-people-really-cant-accept

    Nancy Grace Goes Off on Darren Wilson: ‘It Doesn’t Add Up!’
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-grace-goes-off-on-darren-wilson-it-doesnt-add-up

    Justice for Mike Brown: National Bar Association seeks federal charges against Darren Wilson
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/justice-for-mike-brown-national-bar-association-seeks-federal-charges-against-darren-wilson/

    Also, saw someone pointed out that the D.A.’s father was a cop that was murdered by a black male!

    Also, another one on making blacks “superhuman”.

    African Americans and ‘superhumanization bias’
    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/african-americans-and-superhumanization-bias-364232771976

    It’s ironic, because people really believe blacks are SUBhuman (not up to “par”, or inferior; at least behaviorally according to the statistics they cite, and some in comments in the aftermath of these incidents even state this), and that their own race or at least nation is superior, or the newer term “exceptional”.

    So it’s like both groups are “superhuman” in their own ways; one in morality, “culture” and “productivity”, and the other in brute strength. (Not necessarily bad in itself, but makes them “dangerous” when they are morally, culturally “inferior”).

    Another way they are like superhumans: in a quote from columnist Gary Wills regarding the oft cited belief that “blacks are taking over” Carl Rowan (The Coming Race War, 1996) points out: “Obviously, blacks occupy a large amount of psychic space, no matter what their numbers are. All in all, if blacks could really do what people are claiming, they would be superhuman, and we should yield to them as our natural leaders” (p.118-9).

    On the other side, another black guy preaching to blacks (similar to the one from last summer discussed in the link to the other thread, yesterday’s comment, above):

    Again, what he’s saying is basically true (and not as ‘saucy’ as the other guy, thank goodness); but still, you can’t just lecture a whole “race” of people into just “cleaning themselves up”. As much as I don’t like these sorts of things; it’s not about reason, and it involves many people, and you can’t reason them all into doing the right thing.

    Other news, is that Giuliani thinks some of the witnesses should be prosecuted, for “perjury”.

  24. Emory prof: Ferguson is about white rage
    http://www.myajc.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/ferguson-is-about-white-rage/njF5x/

    Tim Wise Pens Brilliant Editorial on Ferguson
    http://aattp.org/tim-wise-pens-brilliant-editorial-on-ferguson-most-white-americans-are-completely-oblivious/

    Think about how you would respond to the world if that world told you every day how awful you were, how horrible your community was, and how pathological your family. That’s what we’re telling black people daily. Every time police call the people they are sworn to protect animals, as at least one Ferguson officer was willing to do on camera, we tell them this. Every time we shrug at the way police routinely stop and frisk young black men, we tell them this. Every time we turn away from the clear disparities in our nation’s schools, which relegate the black and brown to classrooms led by the least experienced teachers, we tell them this. Every time Bill O’Reilly pontificates about “black culture” and every time Barack Obama tells black men to be better fathers, we tell them this: that they are uniquely flawed, uniquely pathological, a cancerous mass of moral decrepitude to be feared, scorned, surveilled, incarcerated and discarded. The constant drumbeat of negativity is so normalized by now that it forms the backdrop of every conversation about black people held in white spaces when black folks themselves are not around. It is like the way your knee jumps when the doctor taps it with that little hammer thing during a check-up: a reflex by now instinctual, automatic, unthinking.

    And still we pretend that one can think these things—that vast numbers of us can—and yet be capable of treating black folks fairly in the workforce, housing market, schools or in the streets; that we can, on the one hand, view the larger black community as a chaotic maelstrom of iniquity, while still managing, on the other, to treat black loan applicants, job applicants, students or random strangers as mere individuals. [i.e. the “good ones”] That we can somehow thread the needle between our grand aspirations to equanimity as Americans and our deeply internalized biases regarding broad swaths of our nation’s people.
    But we can’t; and it is in these moments—moments like those provided by events in Ferguson—that the limits of our commitment to that aspirational America are laid bare.

    Here’s one from two years ago (on Trayvon) I must have missed:
    http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2012/04/whiteonwhite_crime_it_goes_against_the_false_media_narrative.html

  25. More on “superhumanization bias”:
    http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/mhp–why-we-can-t-feel-black-men-s-pain-365305411817

    Crimes that have been too hideous to describe…that were unknown in slavery“.
    It’s obvious what this is about. “What we did wasn’t that bad compared to what they’re doing”. (So therefore, it was all the more justified to begin with!) It’s all about exonerating their past, and blaming the victims. Every thing in this issue comes right back to that.

    Why I can’t believe Darren Wilson
    http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/why-many-blacks-dont-believe-darren-wilson

  26. Jon Stewart Accuses Fox News Of ‘Racial Plagiarism’ During Ferguson Coverage
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/jon-stewart-fox-ferguson_n_6252582.html

    He nails conservative pundits on both “racial arson” and “victimization”, with clips of their own doing the same things.

  27. Here’s a good one:

    http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/2014/12/stages-injustice-against-black-people.html

    Stage 1: Another Black person is beat up, arrested or killed senselessly
    Stage 2: People are enraged by the injustice
    Stage 2.5: People are too tired to be outraged

    Stage 3: Smear Campaign and victim blaming
    Stage 3.25: Media asks “What did he/she do?”
    Stage 3.5: FOX News confirms that it’s THE WORST
    Stage 3.75: The “None of us were there” people

    Stage 4: What about Black on Black crime?

    Stage 5: Reminding us that “Not All White People”
    Stage 5.5: #BlackLivesMatter? What About #AllLivesMatter?
    Stage 5.75: And this is the part where folks let us know that they’re colorblind and they don’t really see race and “This is clearly not about race, YOU GUISE!” Nope. Not about race at all.

    Stage 6: Create a Twitter hashtag to unite the conversation

    Stage 7: People protest and are told to be calm
    Stage 7.5: Calling protesters rioters
    Stage 7.75: Quote MLK to call for peace

    Stage 8: You learn how the people you know really feel

    Stage 9: The killer walks free

    Stage 10: We get to work on dismantling the system brick-by-brick

    Especially points out in step 4:

    94% of murders that Black people are victims of are committed by other Black people. 83% of murders that white people are victims of is committed by other white people. WHY? Because we interact with people who are in our racial groups most often. People victimize other people who look like them.

    Also, ANY Black crime is HANDLED by the system. In fact, it’s OVERHANDLED. Our prisons are full of Black men and women who are in there for things as small as stealing candy bars. FULL. So please shut the entire hell up about this since even if it was a problem, it’s already being addressed. The system doesn’t like Black folks getting away with ANYTHING. So you ain’t gotta worry about that.

    Meanwhile, white people can cuss out a cop, wave a gun in their face, assault them but walkaway with probation.

    Another one that breaks things down:

    The Ferguson Masterpost: How To Argue Eloquently & Back Yourself Up With Facts
    https://neuronbomb.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-ferguson-masterpost-how-to-argue-eloquently-back-yourself-up-with-facts/

    Racial Incident Bingo

  28. The grand jury’s day is done
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/siegel-glasser-grand-jury-day-article-1.2035380

    Also, here was a good comment on a blog about filming police in an entry about cops roughing up someone; which of course is looking at it from the “black” angle, but then some obvious conservative decides to chime in with how “N_____s never stop playing the race card” (!!!) and are “Their to [sic×2] stupid” to realize it’s not color, but all about “HOW YOU F____ING ACT!!!!”:

    The first response jumped on his grammar, as showing he must be “stupid” too.
    The next one pointed out:

    Black folk may act a little eccentric and wild not giving a f___ about anything. Bluntness is a weakness also however it is not fair to say that we don’t know how to act. You don’t see us shooting up schools or movie theaters and drive ins. You don’t see us putting our kids on leashes in the mall. You don’t see us getting walked over and cursed at by our children ect. Both races has its faults and I am the first to admit that. People fail to see why a majority of black people feel that that though. If someone treated you bad your entire life you learn to think negatively of that whole group of people not just the one. Now pass this hatred and dislike down generation after generation, this happens on both sides. So dont say its NOT a color thing because we ALL know that it IS.

    This is definitely true, but I would still say we should try to rise above this thinking, and use some tact. It didn’t help that we had developed a sense of “intellectualism” through venues such as different philosophies (most associated with some form of Black Muslim ideology, including Five Percentism), and then how this greatly influenced rap at one point, though more “consciousness”, but then leading to a quarter century of this medium telling us that it is GOOD to be a “gangsta”, “thug”, “pimp” and even “cop-killer”; and then we promote this image through pop culture as what it means to be “black”, and this is what everyone sees.

    This had made it harder to prove we do not deserve this treatment (either the violence of police, or the neglect of the political system), and naturally, it is what people throw back at us, such as “you all kill yourselves; why don’t you do something about that?”

    The debate is whether the problem is “You act like animals, SO, we treat you like animals” (the defenders’ stance) or “We act like animals BECAUSE you’ve treated us like animals” (our stance).
    All of that may stem from the collective anger of this treatment, but if we could be “rational” enough when it comes to these philosophies making us “Gods” and the white man as “devils”, and all of this other “knowledge”, then we could have also directed some of that mental energy into finding ways to react differently. As it is, most of the violence rap glorified was the same stuff we see in the community, which was against other blacks; not even the “system” we claim to be acting out against, in doing it.

    Rap in its first four or so years was much better, exemplified by Grandmaster Flash’s “the Message”; still maintaining the tough “street” image of the time, but did not glorify the street lifestyle as something to be proud of (making us “strong” instead of “weak”). When they shortly afterward added “egotism” (talking “tough” and exalting oneself at the expense of others, regarded as “suckers” or “weak”), and then tried to put “consciousness” (or “realism”) back into it from there (this was when “old school” turned into “new”), that’s when it went downhill into a promotion of every negative image of the black community.
    The “hardcore” style that came from this by now has fizzled out (its proponents even declaring such “true” hip hop as “dead” and replaced by the lighter styles of today), but the damage has been done, as this image continues to be what everyone sees of black Americans.

    Still, we must keep in mind that it is much easier to tell a whole group of people what to do than to get all those who need to change to do so. So those who just want to isolate and scold the entire race are deflecting from the problems of their own system.

  29. Rush Limbaugh: Eric Garner Protesters Simply Ungrateful

    He’s the leader of all the complaints about how the nation is being destroyed, he’s not proud of the nation anymore, they’re losing all their freedoms, they’re the minorities now (already), and they’re being persecuted.
    This is the same thing I encountered when debating some far right Christians a few years ago. They tell YOU to be “thankful”, but they don’t have to be thankful.
    Same slavedriver “do as I say, not as I do” mentality. Only I have rights, not you; only I’m “entitled” to good things; how DARE you think you’re entitled to anything; and they don’t see the almost direct racism in this.


    An excellent speech on the current race news:

    Tim Wise Speech – “Racism, White Denial and Criminal Justice: Ferguson and Beyond,” 12/5/2014 – Lexington, KY
    http://www.timwise.org/2014/12/tim-wise-speech-racism-white-denial-and-criminal-justice-ferguson-and-beyond-1252014-lexington-ky

    10:ff spells out the almost unaddressed Diallo truth (since people always ask “what did the black man do to provoke the cop?”) “a bunch of cops roll up on him, NOT in uniform, NOT in a police car, and pull guns at him. What do you do when six guys roll up on you and pull a gun on you? You think they’re there to rob you, what do you do; you reach for your wallet ‘here, take my money’…”

    11:ff, white children play with toy guns and white adults walk around in some state with real guns, but don’t get killed like a 12 year old black kid, and then the cops lie about it; this is why black folks don’t trust cops

    13:ff superhumanization bias

    24:ff mentions the New Orleans guy who had his guns pointed at the officers, and was instructed nicely to “please drop the weapons, sir”, instead of killing him, and “take him without incident”.
    Mentions another incident in Pennsylvania (where the guy had already killed a cop and was on the run), and then Aurora (where he was loaded with ammunition), and said “every time white folks does something crazy like that, we talk about the killers better than we talk about black victims”. Ted Bundy “he was always so smart; so quiet”, etc.

    27:ff grand juries, trials, etc.

    32:ff the “why aren’t you upset about black on black crime” argument

    36: white cops who can live in lilly white suburbs come into black communities that they despise and protest and fear and act like they’re gonna be able to enforce the law equitably…

    40ff “unAmerican”. we’re the only country so narcissistic that we came up a word to describe any criticism with us; no “unSwedish”, “unAustralian”, “unEnglish ” unNorwegian”, “unCanadian”, etc.

    41:ff deals with higher crime rates in black areas. The data says that less than 3% of black males will commit a crime in a given year, so to profile the community you will be wrong 97% of the time. “I don’t care that you’ve got some actuarial table that tells me that if you stop a million black folks, you might find more evidence of crime than if you stop one million white folks”


    “This is the most concise, accurate, and simple-to-understand analysis of the collapse of Communism, the collapse of the Church’s theology of “original sin” the potential collapse of Capitalism, and a new way of thinking about all of these in the 21st century.
    Because of its length, I know many of you will not bother to read it. But, if you do, you will have much to think about…much.” (https://www.facebook.com/DrSteveMcSwain/posts/10152615279804671)

    Insights from Behind the Iron Curtain – by Bishop John Shelby Spong

    I made my second trip in the last two years behind what was once known as the Iron Curtain recently. There I saw the impact of communism that had been imposed by force of arms on these countries. I also saw what has happened since communism’s fall in the latter years of the 20th century. This salutary experience has thrown new light for me on the political struggles in the United States today. It has also forced me to come to some surprising conclusions.

    Communism, as an economic system, has never had any real appeal to me. I never could get past Marx’s anthropology, and his failure to understand human nature. The slogan associated with Marxism “from each according to ability and to each according to need” is, in my opinion, a design that works only with angels. For humans it is prescription for failure. Let me explain.

    The most powerful force in all living things is the drive to survive. Every plant, every insect, every animal and every human being shares in this innate survival drive. For most living things this drive is not conscious. Plants are not aware that they will inevitably seek both sustenance and water in the quest to survive. Insects are not aware that they will organize their lives in remarkably complex ways in the service of their survival. The higher animals all act with instinctual behaviors that aid their survival. None of these life forms, however, is conscious of these behaviors. Sub-human animals are also not aware that they were born, that they are alive or that they will die. These are the prerogatives only of that creature who has, in the process of evolution, passed from being merely a conscious life into being a self-conscious life. The self-conscious ones are the only living creatures who know how to say “I,” “me” and “myself,” or to contemplate their own mortality. Human beings alone prepare for death by buying life insurance, or making a will. So human beings, while sharing the drive to survive with all living things, are the only creature in which this drive becomes something of which one is aware. When we knowingly install our own survival as our highest value, we cannot escape being self-centered. Human beings are not by our nature altruistic creatures, we are self-centered, biologically driven, survival-oriented creatures. Communism never understood this. That was its fatal flaw.

    The Christian Church, on the other hand, understood this human characteristic all too well. Our mistake, unlike that of communism, was not our naiveté, but our relating to our biologically-driven reality in a moralistic way. Self-centeredness, the church proclaimed, was the universal sign of our “original sin.” This was the indelible reality left on our humanity by our fall from our original perfection into our present state of inadequacy and brokenness, from which no effort on our own part could ever deliver us.

    This ecclesiastical diagnosis assumed that there was a universal flaw in our humanity, to which the church offered the cure of salvation. Jesus, the church proclaimed, was sent to be the “savior of the sinful” and the “rescuer of the fallen.” The diagnosis was accurate about life’s self-centered reality, but wrong about the cause. The proposed cure, however, showed its invalidity when it did not result in human wholeness. It rather produced those strange divisions in human life between the “saved and the damned,” the “true believers and the heretics,” the “righteous and the faithless ones.” The competition for survival is ongoing.

    Communism, as a way of life, was devoid of any of this religious baggage. Its failure lay rather in its belief that human life could be perfected and that, if given the chance to escape exploitation, a willingness to share equally in both the wealth and the means of production would be born. Everyone would then give what each is capable of giving and in turn, everyone would take only that which they need. In this manner the classless society would be born.
    Communism did not work because it could not work. If there is nothing in it “for me,” then my survival needs are not met. There is, therefore, no reason for me to work hard to get ahead. If I do not profit from my labor, why should I bother to get up at night to deliver the calf born to a cow in the collective herd? Why should I care for the machinery of our collective farms? Why should I put my neighbor’s needs above my comfort? Communism never understood that human beings see themselves and their survival as their highest value. Building a just society is never the highest motivator of human behavior.

    On this recent trip to the Czech Republic and East Germany, I was in that part of the world where Communism had been forced on people by military power for almost 60 years. It was not popular. No one was sorry when it disappeared, yet I still found clothing styles that had a dull uniformity about them, and people who were gray and lifeless. I found expressions of human beauty and individuality still suppressed by what felt like a gigantic wet blanket that had been laid over all of that area for so many years. I found the poor would rather be poor, farming their one acre of land than to gain economic well-being by working in collective farms for the well-being of all. This system had collapsed because it had never understood human nature.

    In one sense, however, I think the death of communism should be mourned, not because it was ever right, but because it represented a challenge, a threat and a counter weight to a capitalist system that serves no master other than the accumulation of wealth. Capitalism, per se, has no social conscience. Karl Marx was dead right in his analysis of what would happen to an unbridled capitalism. Gradually over time, he wrote, all of the wealth of a nation would be in the hands of fewer and fewer of the people. The gap between the rich and the poor would become larger and larger until 99% of a nation’s wealth would be concentrated in the hands of 1% of that nation’s population. When the masses are then reduced to hopeless poverty, Marx theorized, a revolution would occur and the masses would overthrow and even kill the ruling oligarchy. Then the wealth would be redistributed; that was the communist’s dream. So if a capitalist society wishes to endure, and this is something that Marx never contemplated, it will voluntarily and legally pass laws which require the wealthy to share their wealth to create a broad and growing middle class.

    That is what happened in America with the passing of the graduated income tax in 1913. During the Great Depression in America, Franklin D. Roosevelt saved capitalism by spreading the wealth more equitably through government programs. He raised the percentages of taxes the wealthy had to pay, reaching to 94% on income over $200,000 a year in 1944. He raised the estate taxes that had been established in 1916. If the government enacts policies that will provide access for the poor into the wealth of the society, then communism will never come into power in that society. Among these government-sponsored services will be public schools and public libraries to offer the poor opportunities to be educated, to climb the ladder out of poverty and into success. The government must build parks, roads, highways, bridges and transportation systems so that a good life becomes possible for all. The government must see to it that people too old to work have money to live on and universal health care so that no one’s wellbeing can be devastated by a catastrophic sickness.

    All of this is to say that, in my opinion, the way to preserve capitalism is by law to make the capitalist invest his or her wealth back into the life of the society. Capitalism will be saved by forcing the wealthy to give up some of their wealth in order to give others the opportunity to gain wealth. Taxes are thus not confiscatory, but an investment in a more stable society. No one will be a conservative until they have something to conserve. Democracy will die unless the majority can force the minority to pay a fair share of their wealth in taxes. If the wealth of the nation becomes concentrated in the hands of the few, they will seek to preserve their power by manipulating the power of government so that it serves their special interests. They will spend billions of dollars to control the electoral process. They will try to make voting difficult for the masses. They will hire lobbyists to guarantee that those elected become beholden to them financially, voting always to protect their patron’s vested interest. They will oppose immigration for that usually means more of the world’s poor will be headed for our shores, making the wealthy an even smaller minority.

    I see ominous signs in our nation today. More than 90% of the money recovered since the 2008 stock collapse has gone to the wealthiest 1% of our nation. Business leaders increasingly see government regulations as offensive meddling in free enterprise, instead of providing a proper business atmosphere for the well-being of all. Of course, there is a proper balance between these forces. That balance today, however, tilts in the wrong direction.

    To say it bluntly, if capitalism is killed, it will be the greed of the conservatives that will kill it. If capitalism is saved, it will be the political liberals, who believe in education, health care for all, child care, worker retraining, Social Security and old age benefits, who will save it. That is not the common wisdom heard today in our current political discourse, but for those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear, that is what they need to see and to hear.
    ~John Shelby Spong

    The Religious Right made the same criticism of Marxism, but then fell into the same error themselves (ignoring the effect of man’s sinfulness on the “ideals” of capitalism), but then their whole premise is based on the notion of Christ eliminating man’s sinful behavior; which basically takes us right back to the same “man is good” premise of nonChristians including the communists.
    Only, it’s only SOME men who are good, because (according to the original Puritan Calvinist views) God unconditionally elected and regenerated them. (Then prosperity was also seen a a sign of election).
    Hence, America being “exceptional”, and other nations and people as inferior, and only deserving subjugation, in one way or another. So if the government would just leave business alone, these good, ethical people would finally share the wealth. Just like in slavery and civil rights. Instead of forcing equality, they should have left the “good people” alone to “work out” the problem, conservative Christians objected. (These the same ones condemning communism and “modernism”, and preaching that none are good; all have sinned and deserve Hell. Everyone but themselves and their forefathers, that is!)

    Yes, the conservative ideology, claiming to be the most “patriotic” will be the one to destroy it —while rather loudly blaming everyone else.
    The rich manipulating this system (and the Church as well, whom they’re playing like a “harlot”, as in Revelation) don’t care about this country or its principles. They’re only milking it, and that’s what the conservative “dittoheads” (looking to blame the poor and the left for everything wrong) refuse to see.

  30. http://conservativetribune.com/jesse-jackson-race-baiter/

    Jackson finally answers the charge of being a “race baiter”:
    “You know Dr. King was accused of being a race baiter as he fought the forces of the south, as he fought the George Wallaces,” Jackson said on the program, “they called him a communist at the same time.”

    Notice how the conservative article blows right over this point. That under their political views, King was in fact described as these things, for the same reasons.
    As I have pointed out, the conservatives now all claim to own him as a good conservative who only wanted people to be “judged on the content of the character” (as if this was ALL he was fighting about; his whole mission essentially reduced down to a single statement).
    So the responses to Jackson all focus on how dare he compare himself to King. (I’ve never seen him as coming anywhere near King, but still, they should come clean with this pretense of being so in favor of him. If King’s ideology ⦅of integration and equality⦆ was “Communist” then, then has that changed?)

    They just don’t get it. It’s easy for them to romanticize King now, because we are almost a half century removed from him. They’re not thinking of the threat that their grandfathers felt when their beloved racial status quos were being overturned by him. It’s just splitting all evil onto someone else. “OK, King was good, and the racist Democrats were evil…but now, all of that has been fixed, and those still who still feel something is wrong are simply those trying to get something for free, —at the hand of the same Democrats, who have simply changed their ‘enslavement’ tactics— or justifying their uncivilized behavior, which is garnering the treatment they are getting (by police)”.

    Basically, the message of conservatives has essentially been that the black community has forfeited all rights to question any perceived injustice, because of their crime statistics. Police groups have even gone on to mock the “I Can’t Breathe” campaign with slogans of their own “I Can Breathe” and “Breathe Easy: Obey the Law”.
    And in all this, they want to place all blame for the racial tensions on Jackson, Sharpton, Holder, Obama, and now even Mayor DeBlasio (whom the police union is even shunning at cop funerals or deaths at the hospital. The union president is now dividing the city into “friends” and “enemies”! {“Pat Lynch, who’s the enemy in your NYPD union’s war? Police union chief Pat Lynch recklessly targets ‘enemies,’ including Mayor de Blasio“} http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-enemy-pat-article-1.2050367 Now, some people are taking this as indicating the start of an all out war against the kids on the street).

    These leaders have all been accused of “fanning the flames of race”, but what have they really said that fits this? Guiliani-era police commissioner Kelly blames DeBlasio for “setting off this firestorm” by “raising concerns over his son’s safety” and training him “to be careful when he’s dealing with the police”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/21/ray-kelly-bill-de-blasio_n_6362762.html

    Is this classic denial, or what? It’s not DeBlasio’s fault that there was a genuine danger for his biracial son. (And he’s telling him to “be careful”. Shouldn’t that make them happy, since in their view, black kids would be able to continue “breathing” if they just changed their behavior toward the police?)

    It seems like any defense of blacks or trying to express things from the black perspective is in itself seen as anti-cop and anti-white. We should instead be addressing “black on black crime” and nothing else, apparently. Until then, we should have nothing to say. This is the real “race-baiting”.

    Now, it looks like this is really escalating, as people are striking back, and both sides feel like it is “open season” on them.

    Here’s a couple of good articles from Slate on black on black crime I must have missed:

    Actually, Blacks Do Care About Black Crime
    You may not have noticed black protests against crime, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t happened.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/black_community_is_concerned_with_black_on_black_crime_suggesting_otherwise.html

    Rudy Giuliani Doesn’t Understand Crime As Well As He Thinks
    The former New York City mayor doesn’t know the first thing about the intersection of race and crime.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/rudy_giuliani_doesn_t_understand_crime_the_former_new_york_city_mayor_is.2.html
    Here is a good meme on today’s big news, of relations with the police:

    Stewart: you can have high regard for law enforcement and still want them to be held to high standards

  31. Yet another person trying to blame DeBlasio and Obama for all the unrest.

    Rep. Peter King: Obama Can Start Fixing Race Relations By ‘Giving Praise To The Police’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/peter-king-police_n_6367086.html

    Article points out how they have in fact supported the police.

    Here’s a video on the subject:


    (It’s all resistance to getting any civilian oversight on what they’re doing. They even went after Giuliani himself, who was well known to be their biggest supporter, and why he’s not now blaming DeBlasio, so he goes after Obama and the protesters instead!)

    And again, with the patronizing “done more for the black community”.

    Again, it is all summed up in that we have no rights to protest what we see as unjust treatment, until we clean up all of our crime first; or even for a white father of a black son to caution him about the police. I guess he should just be willing to die too, until the rest of the black community cleans up is act. (For they’ll NEVER kill him unless he was acting bad!)
    Any mention of this stuff is wrongful “fanning the flames”. The only people wrong here are the blacks themselves. Any mention is calling all cops bad or racist.
    Sounds like an oversensitive guilt conscience, to me!

    All of this has me thinking about the N word, which as I’ve mentioned, people see a green light to use, even while rebuffing charges of racism.

    The aim was at one point to neutralize the N word, by making it refer only to bad people instead of race. So it would become synonymous with “a-hole”. (On the positive side, blacks themselves have taken it to simply mean “guy”, which often bewilders people as to why they can use it on themselves).

    But the first concept is what I now see being used by conservatives (I presume, usually white) in comments, to refer to people they see as “violent”, such as now, the Ferguson rioters.
    I saw one commenter use it, and then clarify that “it only refers to those who act this way”. Yet, I notice, this is only being used on “bad” blacks, not usually other groups (though I’ve seen it used on Arabs, prefaced by “sand-“. So basically, any group conservative America sees as its enemy). They also use it on blacks they see as “blinded” by the liberals, whom they characterize as the modern “plantation”-masters (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-real-cause-of-all-the-hatred-toward-obama).

    So what’s happening, is that this has simply made it OK to use the word against blacks, acting in the way people have characterized, while automatically excluding the “good ones”. Still, it ends up still applied to the race as a whole. It’s a clever workaround to the censorship of the word as racist, so you can continue to slam most of the race, yet claim it is based on [moral] “fact” and not racism.

    People seem to be willing to take for granted now that the old racism of the slaveowners and segregationists was wrong (they just lump it in with the eternal evil of the “Democrat Party”, who’s simply changed their tactic, to be “nice” to us now, to keep us enslaved in a different way).
    But those old racists didn’t just say “we’re taking you as slaves and oppressing you, because we’re ‘bad'”. (There are no cartoon villains, like DC’s “Legion of Doom”, who own their evil and admit to fighting against “justice”). No, they too claimed a moral high ground, and cited “fact” (and often even Scripture) to prove that the blacks were being punished for being “bad”. All of this stuff about them being these morally subhuman, but physically superhuman beasts came from back then.
    So to take the word this way actually ends up exonerating the old slaveowners and segregationists, under the premise that the reason they used the word so much was because most of the people acted that way.

    Today’s critics of the race don’t even bother to check the details of the situation (just like them getting the whole party issue wrong and ignoring the deliberate switch of their side, from D to R, and not just the blacks switching from R to D). They think they can just split off and lump all evil onto a single party, and they shine as the good guys who the “facts” always favor.
    But that just furthers their following in the footsteps of their forefathers, whom while they may claim to renounce their [supposedly] “unjustified” racism, are really only diverting with that, and actually believe that they were right and we should return to their “values” and “principles”.

    And the ultimate conclusion is always, if this other “party” (or “wing”) is so bad for them, and we’re the ones really helping them (and “know what’s best for them”), then why do they stick with that other party? Because they just want “free handouts”, and that other party is giving it to them, at everyone else’s expense.

    People insist these criticisms are “culture not race”, but this is basically demonizing the same group of people under a different premise (and one that this time, any given individual can cross out of, but it does still end up tagged on a “race”, that contains this large group of people deemed as trying to get “freebies”, and “irresponsible”, and thus not up to “par” with all the good, hardworking folk).

    That’s what this “party” rhetoric is all about, and they can get to spout a classic racist stereotype under the guise of criticizing the other party and not the race itself, whom they’re actually trying to “help”.

    Add to this, the community’s lack of “family values” that leads us to kill each other, and the single parenthood statistics others will throw out there, and they’ve “proven” that we’re just “problem people” who deserve to be eliminated by the police, or other means. And it’s “fact, not racism”.

  32. End the NYPD Hissy-Fit
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jess-coleman/end-the-nypd-hissyfit_b_6393504.html

    De Blasio reduces crime between 66%-94% instantly as NYPD tries the Bunny Colvin Method
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/30/1354777/-De-Blasio-reduces-crime-between-66-94-instantly-as-NYPD-tries-the-Bunny-Colvin-Method

    Also, on the more “class” end of things, this is very interesting:

    http://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-states-u-s-is-really-11-nations-says-author

    “Yankeedom” in the Northeast and industrial Midwest was founded by Puritans and residents there have always been comfortable with a government that regulates and moderates. The communities of the Deep South in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and other states were founded by former West Indian plantation owners who wanted to recreate the society they were used to: government based on the sacrosanct rights of a few wealthy elite. “Greater Appalachia,” extending from West Virginia in a wide band to the northern half of Texas, was settled by people from Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. Those people were openly antagonistic to the so-called “ruling oligarchies” and upper classes, so they opposed the slave plantation economy, but they also distrust government. [I take it, this is more the “libertarian”/”populist” view]

  33. Is The Phrase ‘Playing The Race Card’ As Racist As It Sounds? You Bet It Is.
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/25/is-the-phrase-playing-the-race-card-as-racist-as-it-sounds-you-bet-it-is

    Shows the origin of this term

    Here’s a good article touching on how people treat the president:
    John Boehner Might Have Just Committed Treason
    http://www.forwardprogressives.com/john-boehner-just-committed-treason

    And during these last six years I’ve never seen such blatant disrespect shown toward a president as I have toward this one. I’ve seen many members of Congress not even refer to him as “president,” instead just calling him “Mr. Obama” or his name. I’ve seen Fox News continually call him “Mr. Obama” or his name instead of President Obama. They don’t view him as their president. A lot of it is also tied back to the ridiculous birther nonsense that came about when he was first elected. You know, back when a bunch of racist white conservative voters couldn’t mentally grasp that our nation had just elected its first African-American president so clearly they had to find a way to delegitimize his election.

    Also kept forgetting to address:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/al-sharpton-blasts-appalling-oscars-2015-1

    I think this is straining at a gnat. Again, he’s not this loud when people are generalizing blacks as “takers”, or even rebuffing people calling him a “hustler”.
    And this occurring right as the controversy over a black James Bond erupts. The latter, even I believe is trying to capitulate too much; changing an existing character just in the name of “diversity” (I thought they had done the same thing with the black Green Lantern and didn’t like it until I realized there was an entire “corps” of Green Lanterns, and the original Hal Jordan was just one of them).
    So to complain about the Oscars when we are receive such accommodation elsewhere only makes it look like we’re falsely playing a “card”.

    • A year later, more complaints over a segegated Oscars. I was beginning to consider that maybe there’s something to this (“Straight Out of Compton” was said to deserve an award). But now, as Fresh Prince joins the protest, his former costar now gives the counterpoint:

      Aunt Viv from ‘The Fresh Prince’ calls out Will and Jada Pinkett Smith on Oscars boycott
      http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/01/aunt_viv_from_the_fresh_prince.html

      “First of all, Miss Thing, does your man not have a mouth of his own with which to speak? Second thing is, girlfriend, there’s a lot of s— going on in the world that you all don’t seem to recognize. People are dying, our boys are being shot left and right, people are hungry, people are trying to pay bills, and you’re talking about some… actors and Oscars. It just ain’t that deep.

      I find it ironic that somebody who has made their living and has made millions and millions of dollars from the very people that you’re talking about boycotting just because you didn’t get a nomination, just because you didn’t win? That’s not the way life works baby.

      You know some of us have got mortgages to pay, we got bills to pay, we have bigger s— to worry about than the Oscars.”

      She then goes into getting snubbed by him, when she tried to get the actors ont he show to stand together to get a raise. “Your response to me was ‘my deal is my deal. And your deal is your deal.’ Well, karma must be a b—-.”

      (Another big story seems to have been in the just released long awaited Star Wars sequel, a black guy being a lead character, which is a gain, yet it became a convtroversy to others. This is what people should be focusing on a bit more. As I always say, how are we going to keep asking for things, even if legitimate, when people still haven’t accepted that what we’ve already gained is legitimate or not unjust.
      Here also is an article on why Sanders is against “reparations”: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602).

  34. In light of all this ongoing reaction to a “race card”, it’s evident that conservatives are willing to concede that slavery [but not colonialism], segregation, and thus “racism” itself are wrong. (But then try to split them off to “The Democratic Party”).
    Yet they still believe their nation (as founded and defined, supposedly, by the Constitution) is “exceptional” (a euphemism for “superior”, basically), and that “cultures” are “better” and “worse”, with theirs as the “better”, and blacks (both tribal, and American) are “worst”.

    But then how is this any different from what the slaveowners and segregationists believed?
    There is this assumption that the [‘true’] “racists” of the past just believed and did all their evil without any justification, while the conservatives’ “better/worst” division is based on “fact”, not racism. That’s supposed to be the key distinction that separates their beliefs from “racism”. (And thus the past racism can just be lumped in with the same “Democrat” party that likewise does all of its ‘evil’; of “socialism” today, with no justification).
    But what they conveniently ignore is that the slaveowners and segregationists also appealed to “fact” –and it was the very same “facts” today’s conservatives use: of blacks being “dangerous”, less “moral”, including sexually, less intelligent, and lazy and thus trying to get things for “free”. They too even could pull out statistics, like comparing crime figures between the South and North when defending Jim Crow.
    There’s nothing new being said today. It’s the same thing, only today’s defenders of the old ways have faced a bigger backlash, and thus must go more into denial and surface disowning of racism.

    While the common archetype of backward civilization (and thus what’s tagged on blacks) is “the jungle”, when you listen to defenses of capitalism, or “objectivism” in general, which are often loudly thundered in a way blaming those who haven’t made it for their own plight; it’s clearly a philosophy of “survival of the fittest”; otherwise known as the philosophy of “the jungle”. “Survival” in “the streets” and the business world alike; this is what I was lectured on, and it was the same exact principles; differing only in the immediate means (whether physical fighting, or doing whatever it takes to enter and move up in career).
    So you can’t put down others as comprising “the jungle”, when your culture is operating off of the same human and animal survival mechanism; only a bit more sophisticated.

    All of this shows exactly what scripture teaches; that ALL have sinned. “none do good; no, NOT ONE!” It’s not “none except the chosen nation” (for it was precisely that “chosen nation” Paul and the Psalmist he was citing were addressing). It’s not “none except for the regenerate”, or “it was none; but now through faith in Christ and the regeneration of Spirit, a new nation (or “culture”) will arise that will do good”.
    Christ and the Spirit “regenerate” us through declaring us righteous apart from our works (both evil and the imperfect “good”).

    (see also: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/islamic-vs-christian-terrorism-controversy)

    In other news, you have this:
    Geraldo Rivera: ‘Hip-Hop Has Done More Damage To Black And Brown People Than Racism In The Last 10 Years’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/geraldo-rivera-hip-hop-racism_n_6701628.html

    “And I love Russell Simmons,” Rivera continued. “He’s a dear friend of mine. I admire his business acumen. At some point, those guys have to cop to the fact that by encouraging this distinctive culture that is removed from the mainstream, they have encouraged people to be so different from the mainstream that they can’t participate other than, you know, the racks in the garment center and those entry-level jobs, and I lament it. I really do. I think that it has been very destructive culturally.”

    This part, regarding the influence of hip hop is basically true (what I’ve said here: http:www.erictb.info/rap.html), but his mistake is to say it’s done more damage than racism. This is a common tactic of the FOX crowd and others, that diminishes others’ (or the system’s, at least) fault in the problem. Of course, everybody responding critically is going to dismiss the whole message based on this.

  35. So we see where this guy stands on race:

    Ron Paul: Congressional Black Caucus Opposed War Because They Wanted To Spend Money On Food Stamps Instead
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/ron-paul-food-stamps_n_6748508.html
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ron-paul-congressional-black-caucus-only-against-war-because#.xeaq5LwJD

    He, as a “libertarian”, is supposed to be one of the ones who wants to end the drug war out of concern for its negative effect on blacks. But even while saying that, it often sounds like it is betraying the same old overboard fixation on “blacks and their problems”, which of course is connected with and always leads right back to this judgment of the entire community as abusing public assistance. The whole premise is a patronizing “those poor people. Those awful authoritarians are ‘enslaving’ them through these ‘handouts’, and this is causing all of their problems. I’m really concerned about them, and know what’s best for them”.
    (So to a libertarian, the drug war is just something tacked on to this).
    But you’re making a negative stereotypical generalization of the people, and thus showing yourself ultimately hostile to them, just like the Right Wing you claim to be so different from.

    On Facebook (Huffpost post on article):
    “Ron Paul’s remarks should shock absolutely no one. This is the guy whose monthly news letter often times warned conservatives that black folks were looking to start a race war. ”

    “I used to like this guy but he’s just got crazier and crazier. ”
    “Did you like him prior to 1992 when he said ‘the L.A. riots only stopped because it was time for the blacks to pickup their welfare checks?'”

    On Buzzfeed:
    “I’m confused: you’re saying that if someone makes an assertion based on prejudice rather than knowledge, and then the statement turns out to be true, that person somehow retroactively becomes knowledgeable, rather than just prejudiced?”

    “Paul’s statement is based on lazy racist prejudices about black Americans and food stamps, obviously. The fact that the Black Caucus – just like other people – might think that the US shouldn’t go to war doesn’t actually change that. Paul attempts to connect objection to war with a stereotype about black Americans in order to belittle the position and pass himself off as a wise cynic. In reality, he’s a bit dim and gets by on misguided adulation.”

    Libertarianism claims to be anti-authoritarianism, but it’s not, really. It’s anti-government. It’s only concerned with threats to individual liberty that from the state, not to those from one’s fellow citizens.

    The Ayn Rand brand of libertarianism that so heavily influences both the herds of pseudo-intellectual fedora-wearers and to a large extent right-libertarian Republicans like Mr. Paul himself is one in which the government permits the strong to prosper at the expense of the weak.

    Remember: Ron Paul is opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it is “unconstitutional.”

  36. Now with the latest rounds of police violence and retaliatory rioting:

    http://mic.com/articles/116680/11-stunning-images-highlight-the-double-standard-of-reactions-to-riots-like-baltimore

    A friend posting this comments: “I’m torn on this. I am anti-violence, for sure. But the language used… ‘thugs’, ‘animals’, ‘pigs’. Well, it kinda sorta highlights the underlying issue.”

    My comment:
    Yeah, it’s a very difficult situation, because on one hand, I keep thinking “this just proves what the racists all think” (and also, people who vehemently disclaim racism, but claim to only be citing “fact”, yet arrive at the same conclusions about the “problematic” black community; and thus feel justified in hurling out all those terms).
    But these people obviously don’t care what anyone thinks, because of the anger, and feeling the system hates them anyway. (And the black community is heavily STJ, so the less conscious Fi reacts like that, where Fe ⦅whether preferred or unpreferred⦆ does care more, and would disengage if the discord can’t be resolved).

    So it ends up coming across as telling them to “behave” extra well (since we know the system is against them), but then that ultimately sounds like some sort of subjugation or slavery all over again (acknowledging inferiority/superiority, and thus justifying how the system has treated us), and the angry rioters certainly aren’t having that.
    Some have been responding like that. Like the parents humiliating their children in various ways for minor misbehavior [see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/latest-political-goings-on/#comment-2792 ] are the example of an ‘opposite extreme’ approach. But it ultimately doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

    So I don’t know what to tell anyone in this issue. Critics think all “good” blacks should be out there preaching these youth into line, and that would solve all the problems, but since they are still acting up, then we must not be doing what we’re “supposed” to, and hence, their blanket criticism of the whole “community” stands, and thus whatever the police do to any of us is justified, and none of us can complain until we clean up all these other people’s behavior (“all the crime in the cities”) first.

    But we are still all individuals, and I have no way of controlling these other people’s behavior. It’s just unfortunate that they have to resort to these means.

    Edit:
    Eyewitnesses: The Baltimore Riots Didn’t Start the Way You Think
    Baltimore teachers and parents tell a different story from the one you’ve been reading in the media.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge

    Here, the issue is turned completely around, satirically:

    http://www.upworthy.com/he-shows-how-the-news-talks-about-black-people-by-talking-about-white-people-instead?

  37. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/toya-graham-hero-mom_n_7175754.html
    Dear White America: Toya Graham Is Not Your Hero

    “On a very basic level, the worship of Graham is built on a misunderstanding of her motivation. Many in the media have presumed she was furious at her son for taking part in a riot, and dished out the blows that police and pundits think young black men need to get them back in line. But that’s not what she says drove her.

    Young black men, like Graham’s son, are 21 times more likely than young white men to be shot dead by police. Graham was scared for her child.”

    http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/the_hideous_white_hypocrisy_behind_the_baltimore_%E2%80%9Chero_mom%E2%80%9D_hype_how_clueless_media_applause_excuses_police_brutality

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/racism-is-real-the-real-r_b_7172482.html

    Stop bringing up black on black crime. When Ray Ray kills Tyrone, RayRay goes to jail

    Baltimore: The Big Picture

  38. The Worst Conservative Media Reactions To The Baltimore Riots
    Right-Wing Columnist: Where I Live, “We Don’t Riot. We Shoot Rioters.”
    http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/28/the-worst-conservative-media-reactions-to-the-b/203446

  39. They’re finally going after the word “thug”!

    Soledad O’Brien Says Journalists Need To Stop Using The Word ‘Thug’ To Describe Baltimore Protesters
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/04/soledad-obrien-thug-baltimore-cnn_n_7204370.html

    “the word “thug” has become the new N-word”
    (That is, socially; just as “takers” had become the new N word, economically).

    ‘Thug’: A racial slur as incendiary as the n-word?
    http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/04/30/thug-racial-slur

    • A conservative response to this http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417905/why-left-wont-call-rioters-thugs-dennis-prager points to “occupy Wall Street” (which was a largely white movement) being called “thugs”, but then, that is the one exception, and they (as leftists) were for all purposes thrown into the same “takers” (recall, the other “new N word”) pot as the blacks (like the claim they’re all “living in their parents’ basement” and likewise “refusing to work” or whatever). So if “thugs” (and “takers”) is the new N word for blacks, then they’re also the new “N-lovers” or “white trash” for young white leftists.

      Meanwhile, they cited, but totally ignored the question: “Did she or anyone else at CNN use the ‘T’-Word when the Denver Broncos won the Super Bowl . . . or when the San Francisco Giants won the World Series?”

      Of course, this is referring to white rioting (which is not even mentioned there, making it seem the objectors are just throwing up some unrelated events).
      That’s telling, that when they do call whites “thugs”, it’s only Occupiers, but not rioting game fans! You’re just digging yourself deeper!

      Why is it impossible for the Left to blame black rioters for their looting, burning, and destruction — the latter including an old-age home in the case of the Baltimore rioters?

      One reason is that the Left does not divide the world between traditional notions of good and evil. Rather, it divides the world between white and black, rich and poor, and powerful and weak. One therefore sides with the non-white, the poor, and the weak.

      And the right uses those same divisions, casting those latter three groups as the “evil”, for a reason we will see in point 3.

      A second reason is that the Left rarely fights evil (it fights those who fight evil). It fights such things as inequality, fossil fuels, and an alleged “rape culture” on American campuses. But it doesn’t fight real evil (like rioters).

      One problem with the Right is that it often gets into this “good vs evil”, and these become hard categories, like in a superhero “universe” where the good are all good [no error can ever be admitted], and the evil all evil [no good points on their side can ever be admitted, and tho point them out is just another attack on “good” or “truth”); and it always assumes themselves to be the “good” ones and others to be the “evil”. As the Bible even shows, you end up denying your own evil or “sin”. Few apparently are aware of Christ’s statement : “If you [admitted you were] were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.”(John 9:41) And as we shall see next, the conservatives in today’s politics have been saying rather loudly and incessantly that they see, and blacks are blind, to the liberal liars.

      The ultimate proof; again, white rioting game fans are not included in this “evil category!

      A third reason is that the day even a third of America’s blacks come to believe that their problems are largely a product of poor cultural values, they will have become conservative and the Left will have begun to lose its most important demographic group. Those are the reasons the Left now opposes calling black thugs “thugs.”

      And this is what it always comes back to! Blacks just want “freebies”, and are thus too greedy and stupid to see how they are being “used” by these people “just trying to get votes”. Here we see the “all evil” who have no legitimate concerns, against the “all good” who have the superior “cultural values”, and thus the “truth” always favors.
      This is the language of the original subjugation that manifest itself as slavery, and then later discrimination. “Those people” have too many “problems”, and need to be chastised and corralled [in one way or another] before they pollute the nation. (You wonder where they think they get the authority to forever sit in judgment of some other whole “culture’s” behavior!)

      This is the racist stereotypical “division” we should really be going after now!

      (Here also is a good treatment of the “culture of Poverty” jargon: Culture as a cause of poverty has been wilfully misinterpreted http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/14/culture-poverty-poor-power-welfare-sanctions-cuts)

      When the term “culture of poverty” was first used by the anthropologist Oscar Lewis in 1959, it was seized upon as “evidence” that poverty is not caused primarily by an absence of material resources. This was never Lewis’s intention. In a 1966 essay for Scientific American, he wrote: “A culture of poverty is not just a matter of deprivation or disorganisation – a term signifying the absence of something. It is a culture in the traditional anthropological sense in that it provides human beings with a design for living, a ready-made set of solutions for human problems, and so serves a significant adaptive function.”

      This was wilfully misinterpreted by those who believed poverty could not be abated by throwing money at it (that sole remedy for all other social ills); it was absorbed into an ancient moral critique of the poor; identified in modern industrial society with chaotic, disorganised lives, absence of parental ambition for children, aversion to hard labour and a tendency to addiction.

      But the idea of culture as a cause of poverty has been tenacious; because it not only is readily assimilated to earlier ideas of “the undeserving”, but also lends a shimmer of scientific authority to ancient prejudice. It certainly animates the reformist zealots of Britain’s coalition government. This culture poses an anthropological problem, similar to that faced by imperialism when it confronted the “savage” societies of its overseas possessions. It requires colonisation of unorthodox or aberrant beliefs, and conformity with “correct”, universal values, which always coincide with those of the rich and powerful.

      Rather than a “culture of poverty” (which implies passivity of poor people), we should perhaps think of “the culture of the poor”. This culture does exist. It has not remained static, but is dynamic, and follows changes in industrial society.

      And an interesting take on the mother beating her son:
      Why Are Black Parents Helping Racist America Destroy Their Children? http://www.damemagazine.com/2015/05/04/why-are-black-parents-helping-racist-america-destroy-their-children

  40. Conservatives are now blaming the liberals for all the rioting in the past half century, arguing that there were no riots (among blacks) before the 60’s.

    http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/dr-thomas-sowell-why-obama-is-100-wrong-about-baltimore

    The rioting beginning in the 60’s was not caused by the Democrats, at least not the ones advocating liberal policies (remember, the Democrats had been the conservatives, opposing progress, and that liberal element of the party beginning to adopt Civil Rights legislation is what then began to lead to the much ignored Southern Strategy, where the parties were switched to the current affiliations).

    As this page history.com: The Civil Rights Movement shows, the riots had started because of the rise of Black Nationalism.
    All the anger of generations had boiled over, and even though Civil Rights were making great strides at the same time, there was still a lot of opposition (which seemed to pick up steam, then, as the opposition was losing ground and feeling more threatened) and some people then felt the more “peaceful” methods of protesting were not enough, and began erupting more violently.

    (This sort of dynamic was happening all across the board, including the rebellion of white teens against the old order of society as well at the same time, and the wars, etc. The things people are blaming “liberals” for were themselves just another part of this, not the cause, as you can ask then, what caused this “liberalism” to arise and take hold at the time it did, in the first place?)

    Trying to blame it all on one party’s policies at one time sounds a lot like the whole “blacks were happier and better off” under segregation (and the slavery advocates had said the same things a century earlier), “…and they were just ignorantly lured —by the promises of ‘free stuff’ by these liberals only using them for their own agendas” rhetoric that reduces the entire Civil Rights cause to evil motives on the parts of all but conservatives, who were always totally the good guys.
    It’s also to continue to blame “welfare” for everything (the poor are getting all the money, not the rich who have bought out the entire political system, and can take the money out of the country, and in many other ways pull strings).

    Sorry, but nothing is ever that simple and generalistic (and lopsided in favor of one group of humans), as all have the same sinful tendencies to advance themselves at others’ expense.
    (Some liberals may have had ulterior motives and there were many blacks who called them out on that, such as Malcolm X and the other revolutionaries, so again, their actions were not caused by the policies of these liberals).

  41. ‘American SHE DEVIL’: Twitter conservatives rage after Michelle Obama talks about racism
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/american-she-devil-twitter-conservatives-rage-after-michelle-obama-talks-about-racism

    All summed up by one of the tweets:

    “Oh my gosh @FLOTUS Please stop playing the victim. Start encouraging others. Stop the blame game.This is America!
    This nation is just too good to acknowledge any evil like that. So anyone who even mentions it is either a [false] “victim” or the true aggressor.

    Checking back on an old board to see what was going on in light of recent events, I found what was to be expected:

    I’ll address the root cause of the rage held in the black communities. It stems from the fact that the black communities are racist. They feel they are entitled to things that other hard working Americans are not. They feel they are owed something, instead of trying to earn something. It lies in the fact that black communities are violent and drug infested. It comes from a blame everyone else for their problems mentality.

    History shows blacks aren’t concerned with much other than a violent culture. Explains their fascination with guns, gansta rap, gangs, drugs, and riots.

    Don’t forget, they need the right people in office to continue to give them money in order to remain in slavery to the government that is really oppressing them. It is not white and black. It is putting something, anything their hands, BUT just enough to barely keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Then they can get cabin fever and all riled up at the right time in order to riot and blame it on anyone but themselves.

    This is the root of the problem from this side. They resent having “the race card” on them in a way that generalizes “racism” to all whites, but then they continue holding these stereotypes of ALL blacks (including now throwing the term back at the WHOLE “community”!) Notice, no distinction is made between the people as a whole, and either the rioters, or “the angry” ones among them, “the poor in the ghetto”, or especially kids (who are the main players the so-called “thug” culture and gangsta-rap, saggy pants, etc; it’s not the older people who are doing all that stuff).

    Yet, people keep making this blanket statement that “blacks just want free money and don’t want to work [like WE do] and that’s the WHOLE problem”. This is what it always comes back to.

    But how could you expect people to not be angry and suspicious of “racism” when you keep parroting stuff like this?
    What I keep seeing is “we’re totally innocent, and it’s all THEM”. It seems most here will speak favorably of the [“Republican-led”] and MLKing, but a lot of this stuff (including statistical “fact” on crime/”violence”, sexual looseness, etc) is exactly the same as what was used by those opposing progress back then.

    EVERY individual is responsible for THEIR OWN CHOICES. We seldom control our circumstances or even the injustices done to us. The “root causes” may well occur because of the sins of someone but the reactions are SOLELY the result of immoral, “thuggish”, and illegal activities by the people in question. It isn’t the fault of white people or any other group.

    By “address”, people usually mean more money poured into gov’t programs that have done far more to contribute to the problems than correct them. But your accusation is largely false. Many of us DO recognize and want to see the root causes addressed.

    Start with illegitimacy and single-parent homes… that is something that MUST be addressed but people outside the black community have little power to “force” a change. Virtually every problem in the black sub-culture relates directly to the disintegration of the traditional family. This has gotten MUCH worse sense gov’t began to step in during the 60’s…. to “help”.

    Gangs, violence, and crime. Again, personal decisions to commit the crime and personal decisions about how to react from the victims and community at large.

    Work ethic. Because the victim mentality has been so appealing to many in these oppressed neighborhoods, people have come to believe it is their right to be supported and even to “succeed” financially without hard work and sacrifice. For this reason, the hispanic communities are very quickly overtaking the black community not only in numbers but in economic status. Simply put, most Hispanics have a high sense of responsibility for their families AND a willingness and even hunger for work and opportunity.

    There are many, many reasons these communities continue to struggle and few of them have anything to do with white people not spending enough money to fix someone else’s problems for them.

    The problem here, is that people seem to want some sort of en-masse scolding, correcting, teaching, etc. of an entire “people”. It’s like you’ve caught a bad child doing something wrong, and aim to rehabilitate him, but that’s ONE person. We’re talking about millions of individuals, all different, and making separate sorts of choices. So to say “you just need to restore the family” is not going to do anything. You already have families working raising their children as best as they can. What do you expect them to do, (since it’s the whole “community”)?

    Then, you have the angry people themselves, and as should be obvious, they’re not going to listen to anything. (And not all of them are even trying to abuse the system. Many of the most angry, “revolutionary” types are so against the system, they don’t trust it to help the community. The Nation of Islam and others, from the beginning, have been preaching self-improvement, self-reliance of the community, etc. but unfortunately, had taken an anti-white stance (in an almost “tit-for-tat” fashion), and sometimes violence, and this is what has influenced certain elements in the community (not the whole community itself), such as gangsta rap.
    Yet because of the angry people and criminals, the entire community is seen as having no right to even protest police violence. The white NYC mayor was criticized just for warning his black son about the possibility of him falling victim. It’s like he should accept getting shot because of what others in the “community” do, until someone in the community waves their hands and magically fixes everyone else!

    (Still, what’s always glossed over, but was mentioned in the discussion’s OP, was the “riots” at sports games. So one group of people is seen as having no right to be so angry, but then we have the supposed “good” group [i.e. which the others always get measured by], rioting over anger at a more trivial event, if not just for fun).

    Regarding “family”; even though “the traditional family” may have LOOKED all nice and ideal in the 50’s and before; there was a lot of abuse and covered up sin (and I’m not talking about just the blacks, but the whites too. Remember, their kids rebelled too during that same time.
    And don’t forget, the Christians have long criticized “family values” dropping in the [white] culture at large. So how is this ending up getting tagged just on blacks now?)

    Also, we need to think about constantly tossing this “victim” term at others, when the same ones doing it are complaining louder than anyone elseabout taxes, their country being “destroyed” or taken from them, losing “all their freedoms”, etc. (yet most still have this “American dream”. What’s been taken from them is certain aspects of power. Yes, as one person said, the other side can increase their reaction as well, but it’s not just their opponents’ fault. There are very loud voices right in their own ranks screaming “victim!” “Stop them before they destroy us!” ⦅as well as “the hard truth is on our side”⦆. This surely is contributing to what we’re seeing going on).

    If Officer Goodson acted with depraved indifference toward Gray it had nothing to do with the color of either man’s skin. It has everything to do with the condition of the heart. White, black or brown skin does not matter when it comes to matters of the human soul. You are either with Christ or without; reconciled to God or adversaries.

    White men don’t enslave because they are white. They do so because they are sinners. Black men don’t loot stores and burn police cars because they are black men under white man’s thumb. They do so because they are under Satan’s curse.

    True, and so that’s why a lot of these generalizations are just as wrong as what you’re reacting to.
    And I hope “Satan’s curse” is just a synonym for “sinners”. That was my first impression, but then there are those out there who believe one group is under a “curse” (“for their old tribal worship”, etc) while the other group is seen as historically “Christian”, and therefore “blessed” and also less prone to sinful practices (and whatever sin does exist in that community has been always attributed to outside “forces”. Which now is exactly [yet another charge] being leveled at “the black community”; i.e. “always blaming everyone else”).

    And I think that’s the problem that needs to be addressed. This whole sense of “exceptionalism” that seems to make people unable to admit any sin in the nation (other than that, again, brought in by outsiders or defectors). I still marvel over someone there telling me years ago that I needed to “man up” because I complained about a $500 pair of glasses that turned out to be cheaply made. (I since found out there’s a name for stuff like this: “planned obsolescence”. Another example is these tech companies quickly putting out new versions of things, and making the previously ones useless, forcing you to upgrade).
    I’m the one getting gipped, but it’s my fault (basically, for not “taking responsibility” and “climbing the ladder” to make more money, then maybe I could afford to replace stuff like that over and over, as this line of thinking usually goes).
    The people putting out this stuff at ridiculous prices are completely innocent, and only following “the market”. There’s no sense of the dishonesty of putting out something that’s supposed to be good quality, but making it in practice inferior, so the unsuspecting consumer has to spend more on the same thing.
    (So even if you’re not “poor”, but still struggling, it’s all your own fault. But again, the same people saying this stuff are complaining about money also, but only taxes, and simply blaming it on leftists and other classes and/or races).
    It can’t be sinful, because this is the “Christian” system.

    Then, you had another person aghast at any criticism of the nation, as if the Bible itself or the faith were being attacked, and saying this rendered it “not worth defending”.

    All of this was when I realized the problem was this “exceptionalism” concept. So of course, people will only deflect all of the current criticism back at the people complaining. So you can call the “community” the true “racists”, but if you’re operating off of a premise of “exceptionalism”, where all wrong gets pointed at everyone else, then you’re still no better.

    In truth, if all are “sinful”, then all have some measure of blame. The onus for one side might not be simply giving reparations to the other, but surely, the exceptionalism has got to go, and people realize they are ultimately the same (made in God’s image, but marred with sin, and are prone to behave the same as anyone else, when the right circumstances are present) if there is to be anything other than back and forth accusation.

  42. “2006 FBI Report Warned Of White Supremacists Infiltrating America’s Police Force”
    http://thegrio.com/2015/05/12/fbi-white-supremacists-law-enforcement/
    http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/racism/fbi-warned-white-supremacist-police-force-report/

    This might possibly explain why the number of major incidents seems to go up after previous ones. You would think, after the attention given to one incident, there would be more diligence in offices and departments to not get caught up in an incident themselves. (Like in my field, whenever there is a rail crash, then supervision comes out in force making sure we’re doing right. I’m sure they will shortly be putting out memos and bulletins in the aftermath of the Amtrak crash). But instead, they seemed to get more bold and blatant after each incident.

    Here’s a couple articles on a recent white gang incident basically mocking/spoofing/satiring conservative commentary on black violence:

    White-On-White Crime Strikes Again In Waco
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/waco-texas-biker-gang_n_7307050.html

    Why Are White Gang Members Destroying Their Own Community?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/biker-gangs-shootout-waco_n_7305706.html

    Meanwhile, the other side will dispute this, using their own selection of statistics.

    All of this shows that all have sinned, which is something being forgotten from [religiously] the top down, when we get into comparing statistics (and media hype/spin) trying to prove another group has “bigger problems” than one’s own. (Let’s not forget the “rioting” over sports games; won or lost, which isn’t even a reaction to perceived injustice; “excuse” or not!)

    Even if statistics for particular acts might seem to make some look “better” or “worse”, all have the same problem (and some may be better at hiding their sin), and the back and forth is clearly a reaction to the other side accusing them. All men want to see themselves as “good”, despite their sin. To play along with this game is to prolong the problem. And those who claim to have the moral higher ground should even more be the ones to set the example, regarding “taking responsibility, instead of blaming”.

  43. Here’s a statement directed toward “the black community”, in the context of the “Tao vs te” (nature vs integrity) topic: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/solar-vs-lunar-in-gender-dynamics-and-individuation/#comment-3102

    In the area of current race issues, “te” says that we should all be equal, and blacks should not have to be “extra good” (which is like a virtual admission of some form of inferiority).
    But then whites, including cops and others are operating off of Tao (nature), when they approach the black community with fear and hypervigilance (leading to a focus on their “violence”, which for the cops will make them more likely to shoot, even when not really necessary).
    The black youths committing crimes (and then blaming white “racism”) are also following nature. (i.e. the cause and effect dynamic that has led to the current cycles of poverty and crime for many).

    So we can [essentially] demand they develop the integrity to not color the whole race or “community” with the images of these young criminals and thus stop shooting black kids, but we have to realize that we cannot make people develop integrity, so it’s more realistic to expect them to keep following nature.
    So we can try more to develop integrity and not act solely on nature.

    Otherwise, when both sides follow pure nature, then the outcome will be set by nature, and nature favors the powerful. Meaning, we’re ultimately not going to “win”. The cops (as well as corporate interests, etc.) have more power. Even with some advocating our causes in the seats of power (i.e. liberal govt.) there can still always be backlash, and as long as people keep acting the way they do, new generations can always be swayed to the old sentiments.

    Just think of the “soft” kid in the street, and how we tell him, no matter how “unfair” it is, “it’s a ‘jungle’ out there”, and the strong survive. They get the respect from the tougher kids, win the girls, etc. “That’s just the way it is” (i.e. “nature”)
    Well the entire black community is in the same position in America. The people doing this stuff in the street can’t keep saying “l don’t care what the white man thinks; it’s his fault I’m killing other brothas in the street” and expect them to stop shooting and demonizing us.

    I was moved to write this after seeing yet another story conservatives post about black crime, this time some guy killing a black girl somewhere (the whole premise being “where’s the outrage from Sharpton, the media, etc.?”), and the conservative news site comments begin with someone posting a picture of a hanging as the “solution”. (Now tell me it isn’t white supremacists infiltrating if not running these sites, hiding behind what looks like an issue of “fairness” in the media).

    It’s like the actions of both side just provide justification for each other, and we’re getting nowhere in the “discussion”.

    • This one makes some good points I can agree with:

      Black People Should Stop Expecting White America to ‘Wake Up’ to Racism
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/11/black-people-should-stop-caring-what-white-people-think.html

      We can remove flags and symbols all day, but it's the hate in people's hearts that needs to be removed

      Much harder to do, and we should realize that we cannot legislate or force this part of it. I do feel that sometimes the opposition to the flag does get into an attempt to remove the hate from people’s hearts as if removing the flag in itself will remove the hate. (Instead, it just stokes it all the more, by perpetuating the people’s persecution complex).
      In my perspective, we could do a lot to answer the charge that “the black community” as a whole is just a “leech” on society, which is what drives a lot of this “hate” (and yet is disguised as “hard fact, and [thus] not racism”). We’ve ignored a lot of that rhetoric, and then think we can just force them to do the right thing. —Which then only builds their case that they are the oppressed ones.

  44. A Growing Divide on Race
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/23/us/race-relations-in-america-poll.html

    Even the Times associates this with Obama (not necessarily a causative effect, but still something too easy for Obama’s objectors to take and say “SEE?!!!”)

    I would say the racial divide was stirred by a black man achieving the highest office in the land, which further confirmed fears of many people of having their country “taken” more and more away from them, and them going from majority to minority (in which they already fear revenge will be exacted for slavery and oppression).
    This was clearly evident in people expressing fears that a black president will mean blacks will “start acting up”, which then began to be expressed at every disturbance caused by blacks, which were then hyped up even more, (under the premise the media always ignored them).

    So they have stepped up a lot of their rhetoric (recall, I thought things were going pretty well too, and from the ’80 campaign to the ’12 campaign, I was repeatedly shocked by the sentiments I saw on not just conservative news articles, but most importantly, the comments). One can no longer say deep racist sentiment is just a “fringe element” (and I’m not just talking about opposition to government programs for minorities; I mean stuff like wanting lynching brought back, and calling the people “apes”).
    So of course this is going to stir up black resentment (and complaining of “racism” as well. Which the other side just uses to say “see, they are never happy; they always want more; what they really want is free stuff from us and they’re using ‘racism’ as the excuse!”)

    And around and around it goes!

  45. DONALD TRUMP BOASTS OF INCITING HATRED AGAINST INNOCENT CENTRAL PARK JOGGER DEFENDANTS
    http://kstreet607.com/2015/10/20/donald-trump-boasts-of-inciting-hatred-against-innocent-central-park-jogger-defendants/

    “And yet, here we have Donald Trump boasting about his involvement in this dreadful miscarriage of justice, as if it confirms he’s always been a true conservative.
    Come to think of it — maybe it does.”

    As for this issue, as it was going on, I had believed they were guity. They confessed to being in the park “wilding”, which took from the title of the popular Tone Loc rap, and was basically going out and doing mischief, like possibly robbing, assaultin, and raping. This is what made even me figure, they probaby did it. It really looked like it. So you know conservatives will all think so.
    What I was always taught was not to be somewhere you don’t belong, messing around or whatever, because if something happens, you might get blamed for it. This had nothing to do with race, but figured in any situation. (I ended up hearling the loudest protests against conservative bias, in their favor, from Ann Trip and Joe Brag, back on KISS-FM. I mean, they railed on an on about that one, lumping it in with all the systemwide “racism”. It was like the only really loud liberal responses to situations I was hearing back then. By the time we got to Diallo, I had fallen away from the station, and I had really wanted to hear them tear into that one.
    This also somewhat reminded me of the old Bernhardt Goetz case. I had thought those kids deserved it, because kids like that love to terrorize “weak” looking men, whatever race. So I wasn’t thinking of the racial difference, but because of that, it basically became an issue of black solidarity).

    But then then that part of it does not figure at all, except on the conservative side, who’ll of course use it to dog whistle about black’s (the whole “community” as a monolithic entity, as usual) denial aof “personal responsibility”.

  46. See this, and like the text written for the shared post, figure “good for him!”, but in the comments, it becomes all about bashing those in debt, for simply “wanting to be given everything” while they “party the whole time” in college; and how they [the commenters] took similar steps as this guy.

    “Everyone can do this. It comes down to what you make happen and the choices you make before you do it.
    Either you work for it or you dont.
    Personally I choose to have a child young so instead of attending school I worked my button off. I learned everything I could and moved up. It was not easy but it can be done.
    It is all about what you want and how hard to go for it.”

    “Not everyone. Only those who have no desire to rest on their laurels and let someone else do it for them.”

    “Yea but your getting to e rare this type of independence is unusuall [sic] now it’s easier to sit back & scream for someone else to do it or for the lender to forgive the loan, I’m certainly glad to see there are some willing to help themselves, good luck to you in your future achievements.”

    So this is “rugged individualism” in all it’s glory. Everyone should do this, or they deserve to be in debt for life. (Just read in Wise’s Under the Influence, how a bank executive who just received government bailouts, then said regarding those who suffered from this “Suck it up and cope, buddy”. Yet this is who people look up to and see as having such “character” and “dignity”, and thus “deserving” everything, while they then lie and say the poor are the ones getting everything ⦅not just that they don’t deserve anything, but are getting far more than just anything, to the point of being the main problem in the economy⦆).

    Again, you can see why there was Western-based slavery in the first place, because those people laying around the jungle while Europeans worked hard building modern civilization forfeited their freedom. And any attempt to remediate that is encouraging laziness and “dependency” and destroying this great civilization. We see here the entire basis of all the dog whistling rhetoric. It’s the same exact superiority complex, whether it’s acted out the same or even directed at other races or not!

    One person, in opposition points out “If he went to community college that means taxpayers still subsidized a good portion of his tuition. It’s funny how 13 years ago a Republican decided to send 18-year-olds to fight a bullshit war in Iraq and that was okay but when a Democrat wants to send 18-year-olds to college we all lose our minds.”

    Another just retorts “he turned his way how many kids don’t take advantage of having that education when there is bright you’re an idiot trying to degrade what he did”.

    Another one says

    “You have ‘got your stuff together’. What do you attribute it to? Just plain self knowledge? Parents raising you to value money? How was your childhood? What helped you make good choices? Congratulations- you deserve the best in your future.”

    To which someone says “None of that BS. HARD WORK and ‘where there is the will, there is a way.'”

    I notice most of these commenters seem like those older people, and probably in less populated areas, when/where it was easier topull onesself up. No one thinks of that, or the other factors this last commenter points out. It’s just a cold “I did it, so there’s no excuse for anyone else”. This is the height of “ego-inflation“. Ego thinks it owns all of consciousness, and so determines for everyone else what is right, based on their own experience and ability, and is infallibly “RIGHT”. the evidence, is that it ALWAYS comes back to this comparing with others, negatively. You’re nothing without all the other inferiors below you.
    The guy in the meme looks young, but still, if he was able to do all of that, then again, “good for him”

    All of this obviously is more of the rich-supporting ideology, which they themselves pass down to middle class people who aspire to that (but blame their inability to rise all the way on those under them getting “free stuff”). Wise, who I’ll review soon, shows how this was actually the same mindset of 19th Century England Dickens was portraying in A Christmas Carol; it’s exactly what made Scrooge the way he was (hence, Wise calls this “Scroogism”).

    What just occurred to me,
    If the whole point of your “success story” is just to compare with those less fortunate and pass judgment, and not to express gratitide for being given at least the the physical and mental health to be able to do that stuff, something is definitely wrong. You’re in fact the one “envying” what you think they’re being given or trying to get for “free”. (just like the “vineyard workers” of Matt 20. It even brings to mind Rom.1:21-2 “neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools“. While certain elements of this passage I believe get overused in applying to modern people today rather than the original context of the specific people Paul was referring to, there is a parallel here).

    Again, “For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7)

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Grossly Lopsided Nature of Conservatives’ “Discussions” on Race | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: