The racism that still plagues America

[Freewill]

The truth is, in my opinion, that people are controlled most easily through fear. Blacks have been fed a line of fear that the big bad party that freed their grandfathers from slavery is going to put them back in chains.

I'm black and I can tell you no one thinks that. I mean, thats IF you ask a black person. If you dont then you'll come up with something like you have above.

Good for you but that didn't stop Biden from making that exact statement.

The Divisiveness I've shown was started when Lincoln said slaves should be free. Since then any mention about blacks and whites have been "divisive". Because "divisive" really means that someone disagrees with you. Thats why they applied that to Lincoln.

Some of the animosity from the ending of slavery can be a little bit understood when one considers that the industry at the time was worth billions. That was taken away by Lincoln and who isn't gonna complain about that?

As a black person I would like you to tell me what the party of Lincoln has done to harm you personally and do you think they are out to harm you today?

Huh, he did help Africans. Kudos. What does that have to do with blacks here? I agree he had a diverse cabinet but what does that mean? It means he had a diverse cabinet not anything more or less

Just showing that republicans are not racist by nature or act.

Dont forget old people and white women who use hyphenated names. Wait, why did you forget those groups? It seems you only apply the stupid label to blacks. Weird....but no racism tho. Right?

NO, the point I was making is that is what the liberal left does in my opinion. I don't know you but you certainly seem smart and certainly seem like a person who could work their way up the ladder, if so desired.

There are, but apparently you dont think they are "stupid" only the blacks because you're being fair. Not divisive...fair

Not true.

There you have it, at least he admitted there are racist in repub circles. How he determined that all the racist have no power is rather perplexing. Almost like he made it up.

Of course there are racists republicans/Democrats/Independents and they come in a rainbow of colors. The point is they hold very little power in any of those political divisions. Yoo Hoo we have a black president. Do you really think that if Hillary would have been elected and did exactly as Obama has done she too would not receive the wrath as has Obama?

 

[ClosedCaption]

There you have it, at least he admitted there are racist in repub circles. How he determined that all the racist have no power is rather perplexing. Almost like he made it up.

Why wouldn't he admit there are racists in some repub circles? There are more racists in Dem circles. How is acknowledging the issue is bipartisan claiming racists have power on the right? The fact that there are some racists on the right doesn't mean they have power on the right.

to answer your question: Because whenever someone says there is its denied or the right says its all in blacks heads.

How you determine more racist in Dem circles is rather perplexing. Almost like you made it up. Because you did.

Reword that question and I'll be happy to answer. I dont understand it as it is

I'm asking how he "just knows" that racists have no power? Thats all. I imagine he'll quote me and instead of explaining how he knows he will opt for either name calling or changing the subject

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why racism is still rearing its face?

Stupid shit like this thread.

Outside of Obama's recent remarks and dumb threads like this I have not noticed race suddenly being a national issue. You asses on the left stir up this shit every time you need to change a subject or energize dumb Americans.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Whites have always blamed blacks for being divisive. Which really means if you dont agree with them.

Abe Lincoln experienced it first because he had the nerve to suggest slaves should be free. Which was a "divisive" stance at the time

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."[98] The speech created an evocative image of the danger of disunion caused by the slavery debate, and rallied Republicans across the North.[99] The stage was then set for the campaign for statewide election of the Illinois legislature which would, in turn, select Lincoln or Douglas as its U.S. senator.[100]

So when they say Obama is being divisive. Its that he was born black which is, in itself, divisive.

The people they dont consider divisive are the blacks that not only agree with them but will also take a dump on their own people. Shitting on blacks, because they are black, is not divisive. Its seen as a virtue to many whites.

O is divisive and some of it has to do with him trying to lecture us on racism...which is a total farce but this is what one would expect from an inept and incompetent president.

They said the same thing to Abe Lincoln. For the same reason

 

[CrusaderFrank]

what would compel us to assume that we are beyond the legacy of our racial conflicts?

With the race baiter's we have in DC,relations have been kicked back years,this has been done by people like yourself.

People like Sharpton and Jackson need to keep racism alive in order to have a job. Many blacks are now seeing through their lies and dumping them.

But we still have a very racist president who is determined to punish the country for racism of 100 years ago, and to blame all of his failures on the fact that he is half black.

Is that not the worst form of racism?

They piss people off with their baseless claims of racism as real hatred is being done against us(knock out game, etc). This makes people hate and does nothing to end racism. Both sides need to agree that violence against one another is just wrong.

It would surely be wrong if it was white on black.

^ Sock talk

 

[JakeStarkey]

The comment that "people are controlled most easily through fear", which we see expressed daily here those so most controlled by fear, the far right reactionary wing nuts.

 

[Asclepias]

Racial problems are still around because the powers that run this country use these issues to keep the common people divided. They prey on the fear whites have for losing all the socio-economic gains during slavery and jim crow. Think about it. There always has to be a boogeyman to a good story....or distraction. All you need to do is look at history to see what is going on. They hide the fact that whites were enslaved for centuries in Europe as well as over here in the US for a short while. This is done to make Blacks think they are the only victims and whites think they are superior. They hide, lie, or omit facts about Black history to send the same message. Our schools teach us how to be working drones instead of businessmen and women. Its the few that are in control of this world that profit from this. Look around and think about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, racism from the far left and the far right is still alive.

and always will be. The media encourages it, obama encourages it, hollywood encourages it.

Racism is a normal human condition. What we need to do is accept it and then ignore it.

Indeed the far right and the far left encourage it.

 

[Zander]

Racism is an Industry in this country.....

 

[PredFan]

Racism is an Industry in this country.....

This^^^^

 

[Redfish]

Yes, racism from the far left and the far right is still alive.

and always will be. The media encourages it, obama encourages it, hollywood encourages it.

Racism is a normal human condition. What we need to do is accept it and then ignore it.

Indeed the far right and the far left encourage it.

the problem is that mainstream democrats = far left.

was not that way in the past, but it is today. see Coumo's recent remarks if you doubt it.

 

[Publius1787]

The racism that still plagues America

By 1984, when Ronald Reagan and George Bush beat Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro in the presidential election, many white Democratic voters had come to read their own party’s messages through what Edsall calls a “racial filter.” In their minds, higher taxes were directly attributable to policies of a growing federal government; they were footing the bill for minority preference programs. If the public argument was cast as wasteful spending on people of weak values, the private discussions were explicitly racial. For instance, Edsall quotes polling studies of “Reagan Democrats” in Macomb County—the union friendly Detroit suburbs that won the battle to prevent cross-district school desegregation plans in 1973—that presents poignant evidence of voter anger: “These white Democratic defectors express a profound distaste for blacks, a sentiment that pervades almost everything they think about government and politics. . . . Blacks constitute the explanation for their [white defectors’] vulnerability and for almost everything that has gone wrong in their lives; not being black is what constitutes being middle class; not living with blacks is what makes a neighborhood a decent place to live. These sentiments have important implications for Democrats, as virtually all progressive symbols and themes have been redefined in racial and pejorative terms.”

By 1988, these same voters had endorsed tax revolts across the country and had become steadfast suburbanites, drawing clearer lines between a suburban good life and the crime and crack-infested city. Still they were angry, as magazine articles chronicled the rising political significance of what would be known as the “Angry White Male” voter. George Bush, down seventeen points in the presidential election polls during midsummer, overcame that deficit with TV ads about murderous black convicts raping white women while on furlough. That and a pledge never to raise taxes seemed to be enough to vanquish Bush’s liberal challenger, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. What’s important to recognize in this transition is how as recently as twenty years ago, Americans’ social lives were very much embroiled in racial controversy—despite the obfuscatory veneer of colorblind language to the contrary. Our politics followed. The election of Bill Clinton represented a distinct centrist turn among Democrats toward Republican language and themes and away from rights, the “liberal” label, and the federal safety net. The question we might ask about our current race relations is, only a couple of decades removed from this political history, what would compel us to assume that we are beyond the legacy of our racial conflicts?

Great piece on how we got to where we are, and how it's not where we want to be.

You would read Salon wouldn't you? But the message is clear. According to you and your article, you cannot objectively have a conservative opinion without being a default racist. I'm sorry, objectivity cannot be racist.

 

[Asclepias]

The racism that still plagues America

By 1984, when Ronald Reagan and George Bush beat Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro in the presidential election, many white Democratic voters had come to read their own party’s messages through what Edsall calls a “racial filter.” In their minds, higher taxes were directly attributable to policies of a growing federal government; they were footing the bill for minority preference programs. If the public argument was cast as wasteful spending on people of weak values, the private discussions were explicitly racial. For instance, Edsall quotes polling studies of “Reagan Democrats” in Macomb County—the union friendly Detroit suburbs that won the battle to prevent cross-district school desegregation plans in 1973—that presents poignant evidence of voter anger: “These white Democratic defectors express a profound distaste for blacks, a sentiment that pervades almost everything they think about government and politics. . . . Blacks constitute the explanation for their [white defectors’] vulnerability and for almost everything that has gone wrong in their lives; not being black is what constitutes being middle class; not living with blacks is what makes a neighborhood a decent place to live. These sentiments have important implications for Democrats, as virtually all progressive symbols and themes have been redefined in racial and pejorative terms.”

By 1988, these same voters had endorsed tax revolts across the country and had become steadfast suburbanites, drawing clearer lines between a suburban good life and the crime and crack-infested city. Still they were angry, as magazine articles chronicled the rising political significance of what would be known as the “Angry White Male” voter. George Bush, down seventeen points in the presidential election polls during midsummer, overcame that deficit with TV ads about murderous black convicts raping white women while on furlough. That and a pledge never to raise taxes seemed to be enough to vanquish Bush’s liberal challenger, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. What’s important to recognize in this transition is how as recently as twenty years ago, Americans’ social lives were very much embroiled in racial controversy—despite the obfuscatory veneer of colorblind language to the contrary. Our politics followed. The election of Bill Clinton represented a distinct centrist turn among Democrats toward Republican language and themes and away from rights, the “liberal” label, and the federal safety net. The question we might ask about our current race relations is, only a couple of decades removed from this political history, what would compel us to assume that we are beyond the legacy of our racial conflicts?

Great piece on how we got to where we are, and how it's not where we want to be.

You would read Salon wouldn't you? But the message is clear. According to you and your article, you cannot objectively have a conservative opinion without being a default racist. I'm sorry, objectivity cannot be racist.

Objectivity is a perception not a fact. You being a racist would think something was objective that was definitely racist to someone else. You prove that frequently yourself with your comments.

 

[Publius1787]

The racism that still plagues America





Great piece on how we got to where we are, and how it's not where we want to be.

You would read Salon wouldn't you? But the message is clear. According to you and your article, you cannot objectively have a conservative opinion without being a default racist. I'm sorry, objectivity cannot be racist.

Objectivity is a perception not a fact. You being a racist would think something was objective that was definitely racist to someone else. You prove that frequently yourself with your comments.

And thus the justification for dispirit impact. No, objectivity cannot be racist no matter what the objective result.

 

[Asclepias]

You would read Salon wouldn't you? But the message is clear. According to you and your article, you cannot objectively have a conservative opinion without being a default racist. I'm sorry, objectivity cannot be racist.

Objectivity is a perception not a fact. You being a racist would think something was objective that was definitely racist to someone else. You prove that frequently yourself with your comments.

And thus the justification for dispirit impact. No, objectivity cannot be racist no matter what the objective result.

You don't set the standard for what is objective or not. Each person does that from their own perspective. Spare me with attempting to sound as if you actually know what you are talking about. Also please spare us all with your lame attempts pretending to be objective.

 

[Zagg]

There will be racism as long as two or more races inhabit the same polity.

 

[Publius1787]

Objectivity is a perception not a fact. You being a racist would think something was objective that was definitely racist to someone else. You prove that frequently yourself with your comments.

And thus the justification for dispirit impact. No, objectivity cannot be racist no matter what the objective result.

You don't set the standard for what is objective or not. Each person does that from their own perspective. Spare me with attempting to sound as if you actually know what you are talking about. Also please spare us all with your lame attempts pretending to be objective.

So you're saying that objective is subjective and subjective is objective? That's about as much garbage as your belief in cultural relativism.

 

[Asclepias]

And thus the justification for dispirit impact. No, objectivity cannot be racist no matter what the objective result.

You don't set the standard for what is objective or not. Each person does that from their own perspective. Spare me with attempting to sound as if you actually know what you are talking about. Also please spare us all with your lame attempts pretending to be objective.

So you're saying that objective is subjective and subjective is objective? That's about as much garbage as your belief in cultural relativism.

You must have a difficult time reading. I said objective is based on a persons perception. That wasn't too hard for you too grasp was it?

 

[Stephanie]

Anyone notice, Obama come's out saying his low approvals have something to do with his skin color.

And right on cue Salon comes out with this piece of crap about Racism

We are going to have this shoved down our throats probably for the rest of his term to take the focus off his failures, his administration like the Irs, Epa, etc rolling all over us...

people better wake up to what they are doing

 

[katsteve2012]

Whites have always blamed blacks for being divisive. Which really means if you dont agree with them.

Abe Lincoln experienced it first because he had the nerve to suggest slaves should be free. Which was a "divisive" stance at the time

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."[98] The speech created an evocative image of the danger of disunion caused by the slavery debate, and rallied Republicans across the North.[99] The stage was then set for the campaign for statewide election of the Illinois legislature which would, in turn, select Lincoln or Douglas as its U.S. senator.[100]

So when they say Obama is being divisive. Its that he was born black which is, in itself, divisive.

The people they dont consider divisive are the blacks that not only agree with them but will also take a dump on their own people. Shitting on blacks, because they are black, is not divisive. Its seen as a virtue to many whites.

Yes, Lincoln did in fact take a stance against slavery......in order to preserve the union and move into the future towards the industrial age, not because of any humanitarian endeavor. The slaves being freed was just a consequence of that business decision.

Here is another quote by him that does not get publicized much. Especially since he is remembered as "The Great Emancipator".

"I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal.... We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable"

(address delivered at Washington, D.C.; in Roy P. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume V, pages 371-375).