Racism

Saucy · Sep 14, 2017

It seems more and more lately, people just want to call those who disagree with them names.

Here are some facts:
-Slavery was started by black Africans, not whites.
-It was white Americans who ended slavery
-No black person in America today was ever a slave.
-No white person in America today is a slave owner (not saying human trafficking doesn't happen, but you know the context I'm speaking).
-Twice as many whites are shot and killed by police than blacks.
-When I mention that more whites are killed, they turn and say, "Yeah, but blacks are only 13% of the population!" When you consider that blacks lead nearly every statistic for crime, it's a no brainer. For example, blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 52% of all the murders in this country!
-If you want to know why there are so many blacks in prison, see above.

I find it funny, that even when Obama was in office, no one cared about the statues. The KKK has been holding rallies, burning crosses, and even holding demonstrations across the country since the beginning. It's all about identity politics. I saw someone on Twitter yesterday say that because Trump is a racist, if I support Trump, I'm also a racist. That's the tactic the left plays to get people to hate Trump. They call him a racist without any basis for doing so. They compare him to Hitler and every horrible thing that's ever existed on this planet.

So, they demonize the other side. They go after the things we hold dear, make them into racist or bigoted images, try to shut down free speech, take away our voice and our opinion, and try to shut us down because they think we don't deserve a voice. They're just bored and angry, so used to getting their way about everything that they can't handle the fact that someone disagrees with them or votes differently than they do. You can look all over and see smug celebrities and leftists acting like they're better and superior than the right, and they're not.

We're all just trying to make it in this world. Whites don't really think about color for the most part. When I go out, I don't look around for "white" stores and "black" stores. I just go shopping. There's a wide variety of people there. I don't pay any attention to it. I smile at whites and blacks and Hispanics and Asians and everyone else when I pass them. It's no big deal and it's not something I even think about. I don't know anyone else who feels different about it.

Wilhemena · Sep 15, 2017

A question that has been on my mind is why is okay to make one race feel guilty for their color and not another race because then that is called racism? Do you see where I'm coming from on this?

tango · Sep 15, 2017

Josiah said:
I saw a little on TV about Hilary "reflecting" on the reason(s) for her loss in the election last year. It was really a litany of how everything and everyone was to blame but her.

But I lost count of how many times she stressed her gender. "I don't think many could accept that a president might wear a dress." Several references to her gender; she tried to blame much of the reason for her loss to sexism. Ironically, the sexism appears to ME to be entirely, wholly, completely on her side. SHE seems to be the one who all during the campaign and now after seems to be obsessed with the issue of gender. During the campaign, she tried to use it to her advantage (it's time for a WOMAN president) noting that more women vote than men, now she's using it to her advantage to "dodge" blame for her superficial and unfocused campaign's loss.

Rev. Dr. MARTIN LUTHER King, Jr's famous speech that Americans CLAIM to embrace but actually hate. "I dream of the day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart." Delete "color of their skin" and insert "gender" and it's the same dream, same point. Yet our American culture (especially the Left) seems headed in the exact opposite direction, OBSESSED with gender, race, color, language, ethnicity.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

.

That's one thing that really troubles me about the whole issue with Hillary as a presidential candidate, and about many of her more vocal supporters. It's all about her gender - we had a golden opportunity to elect a woman to the highest office and we blew it, and therefore we demonstrated our innate prejudice about a female President. Except that's not the case at all - people who didn't vote for Hillary weren't saying they didn't want a woman to be President, merely that they didn't want that woman to be President.

Curiously the people who insisted the only reason not to vote for her was sexism didn't say the same about Sarah Palin in 2008. I wonder why it was OK to be sexist when the Republicans fielded a female candidate, but not in 2016 when the Democrats did.

As you say, things like race/gender/orientiation/identity etc don't matter until it's advantageous to make them matter, and then it's all about the chance to elect the first ever (group) president. In many ways I really hope that the next Republican presidential candidate is openly gay or transgender or something, just to make the fringe elements of the Democrat party implode trying to figure out how to discredit them.

Perhaps if the Democrats had teamed up with Jill Stein, or fielded someone like Elizabeth Warren to be their candidate, things might have been different.

Albion · Sep 15, 2017

You're right about the sexism hypocrisy, but never doubt the ability of the Left to ignore its own past and come up with something new the voters are supposed to be outraged over.

If the next Republican presidential nominee turns out to be a woman, the Dems will say that she's also something else that they've selected from their bag of deplorable classifications--racist, nationalist, wealthy, or whatever else seems most saleable at the moment. If you notice, there has been absolutely no hesitation so far on their part to savage prominent Republicans who happen to be gay or transgendered or from an ethnic minority, etc.

tango · Sep 15, 2017

Albion said:
You're right about the sexism hypocrisy, but never doubt the ability of the Left to ignore its own past and come up with something new the voters are supposed to be outraged over.

If the next Republican presidential nominee turns out to be a woman, the Dems will say that she's also something else that they've selected from their bag of deplorable classifications--racist, nationalist, wealthy, or whatever else seems most saleable at the moment. If you notice, there has been absolutely no hesitation so far on their part to savage prominent Republicans who happen to be gay or transgendered or from an ethnic minority, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised, given that attacking Hillary Clinton could only be due to sexism but it apparently wasn't sexist to attack Sarah Palin. Evidently Not Being Racist trumps Not Being Sexist. The bit that I find surprising is that Hillary seems genuinely confused why people dislike her, despite the way controvery seems to stalk her at every turn. If she was the kind of squeaky clean candidate who had made a couple of mistakes it would be more understandable but it often seems like it's just one thing after another after another with her, to the point that even if some questions are answered in a way that should make them go away all that actually happens is more questions rise to take their place.

Not being hugely familiar with the history of US politics the only high profile female candidates that come to mind are Sarah Palin and Jill Stein. When Sarah Palin was announced as the VP candidate I remember the concerns that she would have strong appeal to the hardcore party faithful but little appeal to centrist and floating voters (but apparently they aren't sexist for having doubts about her). I don't remember Jill Stein complaining about sexism hampering her electoral hopes. For that matter when McCain/Palin lost in 2008 I don't remember any accusations of sexism to explain their defeat.

Perhaps what is needed is a list of "minority characteristics" to see how many of them can be ticked between the two names on the ticket.

tango · Sep 15, 2017

On another note, I had to chuckle at the experiences of a lady I knew some years back who took part in online political discussions. She had absolutely no time for Barack Obama at all and frequently criticised his political stances. She drew a lot of flak for being racist (because racism is the only reason to oppose Obama, obviously). That was always good for a laugh, and she took great pleasure in letting the people who accused her of racism know that she was black.

Albion · Sep 15, 2017

tango said:
I wouldn't be surprised, given that attacking Hillary Clinton could only be due to sexism but it apparently wasn't sexist to attack Sarah Palin. Evidently Not Being Racist trumps Not Being Sexist. The bit that I find surprising is that Hillary seems genuinely confused why people dislike her, despite the way controvery seems to stalk her at every turn. If she was the kind of squeaky clean candidate who had made a couple of mistakes it would be more understandable but it often seems like it's just one thing after another after another with her, to the point that even if some questions are answered in a way that should make them go away all that actually happens is more questions rise to take their place.

Not being hugely familiar with the history of US politics the only high profile female candidates that come to mind are Sarah Palin and Jill Stein.

I don't know if much can be said about the standing of Jill Stein, who is the leader of the Green Party that has no chance of winning the presidency, but it's not a vague or general complaint to point out the hypocrisy of the Left on this matter of sexism.

The examples are actually numerous, but unfortunately we all tend to forget as time goes by. In addition to Sarah Palin (and her daughter), there was Michelle Bachmann, who was briefly the leading contender for the 2012 GOP nomination, Betsy DeVos, now the Secretary of Education, and even Condoleeza Rice. More recently, there have been ugly and absurd attacks upon the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, and the first lady, Melania Trump, over something as contrived as a choice of some article of clothing. None of this concerns differences of opinion on political issues; it's all hate, and the women have been the targets even more than the men.

tango · Sep 15, 2017

Albion said:
I don't know if much can be said about the standing of Jill Stein, who is the leader of the Green Party that has no chance of winning the presidency, but it's not a vague or general complaint to point out the hypocrisy of the Left on this matter of sexism.

The examples are actually numerous, but unfortunately we all tend to forget as time goes by. In addition to Sarah Palin (and her daughter), there was Michelle Bachmann, who was briefly the leading contender for the 2012 GOP nomination, Betsy DeVos, now the Secretary of Education, and even Condoleeza Rice. More recently, there have been ugly and absurd attacks upon the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, and the first lady, Melania Trump, over something as contrived as a choice of some article of clothing. None of this concerns differences of opinion on political issues; it's all hate, and the women have been the targets even more than the men.

Admittedly Jill Stein is unlikely to ever win the presidency for as long as she is leading one of the minor parties, although it would be interesting to see if people in general voted Green in greater numbers if/when they had a male leader. Likewise it would be interesting to analyse some real numbers to see how McCain/Palin polled when compared to other tickets that didn't include a woman. Admittedly when Obama stood he had a lot more cross-party appeal than most first-time presidential candidates (I know a few people who identify as pretty hardcore Republicans who voted for Obama in preference to McCain) so the figures might be a little distorted, but it would still be good to have actual numbers. And of course since the trouble for Hillary was that the Democrat voters she so obviously needed didn't turn out to vote for her, perhaps the problem is that Democrats didn't want her as their president. Maybe the problem is that Democrat voters are sexist, because in general it's hard to imagine Republicans turning out to vote Democrat whoever was on the ticket.

Good points on the attacks on Melania and others. I don't recall a lot of hostility to Condoleeza Rice that wasn't at least broadly political in nature. It is an interesting observation that the Republicans (you know, the nasty sexist party) are the ones who put Condoleeza Rice (non-white woman), Madeleine Albright (immigrant woman) etc into the cabinet, and had a female candidate on the presidential ticket before the Democrats did.

Albion · Sep 15, 2017

tango said:
Good points on the attacks on Melania and others. I don't recall a lot of hostility to Condoleeza Rice that wasn't at least broadly political in nature. It is an interesting observation that the Republicans (you know, the nasty sexist party) are the ones who put Condoleeza Rice (non-white woman), Madeleine Albright (immigrant woman) etc into the cabinet, and had a female candidate on the presidential ticket before the Democrats did.

It pains me to undercut our contention, but Madeleine Albright was appointed by Bill Clinton and the Democrats nominated a woman for Vice President in 1984.

MoreCoffee · Sep 15, 2017

If you vote for a "minor party" maybe others will too and before long it will not be "minor" any more.

tango · Sep 15, 2017

Albion said:
It pains me to undercut our contention, but Madeleine Albright was appointed by Bill Clinton and the Democrats nominated a woman for Vice President in 1984.

I thought GWB put Albright into place... like I said I'm not hugely familiar with the history of US politics. Who did the Democrats nominate in 1984?

tango · Sep 15, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
If you vote for a "minor party" maybe others will to and before long it will not be "minor" any more.

It would be better to have a transferable vote system, so people can express a preference for a minor party without losing the chance to take a stance on which major party they would prefer. Given the endless chatter in the runup to the last election about how a vote for one party was effectively a vote for another (curiously Gary Johnson seemed to represent a vote for both the Republicans and the Democrats), it's surprising that more people don't seem to want the chance to express multiple levels of preference.

With your views on Mr Trump and the fact that an increase in Green votes would most likely be drawn predominantly from Democrat ranks, I'm curious to see you in favor of people voting for minor parties

Albion · Sep 15, 2017

If you vote for a "minor party" maybe others will to and before long it will not be "minor" any more.

That is what every minor party says, but the legal system is so weighted towards the two major parties that it's almost impossible. It's not completely impossible, but nearly so. I have read many complaints against the American system of government and find most of them to be in error or else to misunderstand something about it, but this particular point--which I rarely read anyone mention--really is a shortcoming in the system and not something that the founding fathers wanted.

Albion · Sep 15, 2017

tango said:
I thought GWB put Albright into place... like I said I'm not hugely familiar with the history of US politics. Who did the Democrats nominate in 1984?

That was Geraldine Ferraro, a congresswoman from New York.

tango · Sep 15, 2017

Albion said:
That was Geraldine Ferraro, a congresswoman from New York.

Trying to think to former presidents, I'm thinking she would have lost to Reagan/Bush?

tango · Sep 15, 2017

Albion said:
That was Geraldine Ferraro, a congresswoman from New York.

Trying to think to former presidents, I'm thinking she would have lost to Reagan/Bush?

Albion · Sep 16, 2017

tango said:
Trying to think to former presidents, I'm thinking she would have lost to Reagan/Bush?

That's right. It was the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, and the same reasoning was used in that case as was adopted later by John McCain. That is to say, both of these men knew that they were underdogs and felt that something out of the ordinary was needed in order to give them a boost. Hence, a woman for VP.

MennoSota · Sep 25, 2017

Josiah said:
Without a doubt, racism has been a part of the human experience for thousands of years..... there's often a tendency to look in the mirror and declare what we SEE to be superior to all others. The tendency to classify all humanity as "Us vs. them" is pretty deep seeded. And this took on a particularly horrible and disgusting form in the USA used to support perhaps the most radical (and evil) form of slavery.

But I think there's a lot of hypocrisy. Rev. Dr. Martin LUTHER King Jr. became an American saint with a speech that may be one of the 3 most quoted and admired in all American history, one centered in the point (to paraphrase), "I have a dream for the day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart." He dreamed for two things: Color blindness (a person's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language would be UNNOTICED because it's totally irrelevant) and that character, integrity, morality WOULD rather matter.

While I wasn't alive when Dr. Martin LUTHER King expressed this dream (or even when he was sainted and these words engraved into American conscience), it seems to be there's been NO PROGRESS WHATSOEVER in this during my 29 years. We are a culture absolutely OBSESSED with color, race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, language. And I suspect the political left (and their complete control of the press) is primarily to blame for this.

When I was in college..... in my work place...... there was/is a constant OBSESSION with outward things (and pretty much a complete disregard for character, integrity, morality). And I find few do this more than the American Press (which may be the most racist institution in our nation) and the Democratic Party. On and on and on and on and on..... constantly.... about people's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, language. I recall when Obama ran for president - first for the nomination and then for the office - the press couldn't seem to say one sentence about him without mentioning his race (to his credit, I don't recall Obama himself even once mentioning it, I hold him in esteem for that). I know of a folks who voted for him primarily (if not exclusively) because of the color of his skin. And when people disagreed with him or desired to change the topic to morality, character, etc. the charge of racism was not far away. And the press was OBSESSED with how many appointments to various positions were to women and "people of COLOR" and Jews with never a word about character, integrity, morality.

When we applied for the mortgage to our home, there it was..... lots of questions about our race, color, language, gender, ethnic heritage (we refused to answer all these but they were there). Why does it matter if we are white or black or green? If we speak English or Icelandic in our home? And obviously, not a word about the thing king dreamed we would care about: character in our hearts. When I applied for my job, that same long list of questions that prove an OBSESSION with racism, sexism, etc and not a word about character, integrity, honesty, morality ( answered these because we all know I would not have gotten the job if I had declined; racism/sexism being of super importance). Now, evidently my company was okay with a white, male, Germanic, blond/blue, English speaking bloat (cuz I got the job) but obviously all these things MATTER because they asked me..... and perhaps character, integrity, morality didn't because they didn't. Now, you may note that the company asked all this for profiling reasons and for diversity in hiring and to prove to our grant providers that the company isn't racist or sexist but obviously it just proves the exact opposite - about the company AND the folks who demand this information. My wife is a public school teacher... I can't begin to express the deep, deep racism that the liberal legislature and courts in the People's Republic of California have forced the local school boards into implementing. Truly sad.

When the Press goes on and on and on and on about "White" and "Black" and "Color" and "Male" and "Female" and "Hispanic" and so on, they are just perpetuating racism and sexism in our country - and working overtime to keep Rev. King's dream from advancing. And when the Democratic Party does this, it's simply serving a desire to divide us, "pigeon hole" and label people by the color of their skin and making THAT the issue that matters, all working against King's dream. And of course, NO ONE talks about character or integrity (that's immoral).

Sorry.

- Josiah

.

Josh, I think we need to recognize that racism is based in economics and power. We don't see racism ending because people will not willingly give up any economic advantage they can get. Look at the history of America and notice that poor whites had one advantage over black slaves. They had freedom and economic advantage. While slavery has ended, the clinging to economic superiority still remains.

Racism

Saucy

Active member

Wilhemena

Well-known member

tango

... and you shall live ...

Albion

Well-known member

tango

... and you shall live ...

tango

... and you shall live ...

Albion

Well-known member

tango

... and you shall live ...

Albion

Well-known member

MoreCoffee

Well-known member

tango

... and you shall live ...

tango

... and you shall live ...

Albion

Well-known member

Albion

Well-known member

tango

... and you shall live ...

tango

... and you shall live ...

Albion

Well-known member

MennoSota

Well-known member