White Racism

[Crumbled_pavement]

Maybe purity tests for GOP candidates ARE needed.

Yes, yes, please. We need that. It doesn't make sense to run watered down conservatives. Let's run the purist conservatives possible.

Gooo Colbert!

[Detroitnerd]

Why is that ?

I consider myself to be progressive, and I knew Obama would be a disappointment, but he's been awful.

Forget the kabuki show you get on the news. On almost every position on an issue that would be of importance to a progressive, Obama has been on the other side.

Prosecuting Bush-Cheney for war crimes? No.

Closing Gitmo? No.

Ending torture? No.

Ending the wars? No. Instead we have several new ones.

Ending the drone program? No, it has been expanded.

Pushing for repeal of PATRIOT act? No. In fact he has worked to codify and expand the intrusive powers of the executive.

Pursuing criminal charges against the banksters who wrecked the economy? No.

Pursuing regulation of the banks so they don't wreck the economy again? No.

Nationalizing the banks for pennies on the dollar? No, instead we're allowing the fed to print trillions of dollars to offer the banks while millions of Americans lose their homes.

National health care? No, instead we got this monstrosity that was written by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies to better their bottom lines.

Strong opposition to the Republican governors in the Midwest working to outlaw unions? No.

And now, is he going to save Social Security from the Republicans? No. He's going to use the CPI to weaken Social Security.

If you look at every issue and see that he's already conceding before he's begun negotiating, that he's sticking to the Bush-Cheney playbook internationally and institutionalizing it, that he's there at the beck and call of the bankers but AWOL when Americans need him, you realize he's just another servant of power.

But he's an even more effective servant of power because he's managed to convince to many of you that he really cares about you but that he's beset by a tough opposition and really insurmountable obstacles.

I don't believe it. If anything, Democrats are better at delivering to the goods because Democratic voters go to sleep when they have a president in the Oval Office. If a Republican were to do what Obama has done, they'd be screaming bloody murder. Instead, because Obama is the president, they say, "Well, my goodness, he's trying SO hard. Why, I can't think of any president in the past few decades that's had more obstacles to overcome!"

Bullshit. He's one of them. Both parties are aligned with the super-rich and you have no voice. You delude yourself.

Now, add to all this that Obama is black and you have a certain segment of the population, of all races, that wants to see a transformative figure where, really, there simply isn't one. But people have been waiting for that moment so long that they can't see what Obama really is.

On the race tip, one thing Obama has done for me is show me who are the black leaders of conscience. I applaud the black commentators who've seen through the mythology and understand who Obama is and what he's really doing, including Cornel West and Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report.

[Detroitnerd]

I think it's sort of amusing [[and telling) that people post to a thread titled "White racism" and don't post anything about racism. Instead, they post about "liberulls" ... why is that?

[firstandten]

Detroitnerd I guess it depends on your expectations on what kind of president you are seeking. As much as I would like to see a progressive be president that person would not win. Say that a progressive with a agenda like you outline did win do you really think that he could implement that agenda given how our government is set up ? Obama is not, repeat, not a progressive and has never claimed to be. He is a Dem, a pragmatic Dem at that, but progressive no. Many of the progressive points that you mentioned he either never addressed nor made political promises to implement.
Now closing Gitmo was a promise he did make and did not keep. In hindsight I think he should have never made that promise because Ithink once he got into office he realized that closing Gitmo was not that simple. Many of the countries would not take there detainees back and some of those that would, the administration did not feel comfortable that they would be actually put on trial for their crimes.Some of the detainees just could not be released for they would just go right back plotting attacks against the US. Because some of the detainees were tortured you could not legally convict them. Plus the states where he wanted to send the worst of the worst did not want them. But in the grand scheme of things he didn’t want to use up his political capital trying to close the facility.
So while he may seem to be no better than Bush on national security issues I think he made a calculated decision that he was going to do everything in his power to make sure there were no orchestrated terrorist attacks on the US on his watch. That includes keeping Gitmo open using drones etc. While that may seem to you and I as an illegal abuse of power I’m betting that his admistration has not violated the 5^th amendment or otherwise broken the law. Because if something like a terrorist attack happened on his watch, his domestic agenda just went up in smoke.

[GOAT]

I will sum up thiswhole thread if that is ok? Racism exists in every culture; every culture uses some sort of racism when it suits then. Don't want to be like that? Don't be racist and evaluate each person on their own merits.

[old guy]

Detroitnerd I guess it depends on your expectations on what kind of president you are seeking. As much as I would like to see a progressive be president that person would not win. Say that a progressive with a agenda like you outline did win do you really think that he could implement that agenda given how our government is set up ? Obama is not, repeat, not a progressive and has never claimed to be. He is a Dem, a pragmatic Dem at that, but progressive no. Many of the progressive points that you mentioned he either never addressed nor made political promises to implement.
Now closing Gitmo was a promise he did make and did not keep. In hindsight I think he should have never made that promise because Ithink once he got into office he realized that closing Gitmo was not that simple. Many of the countries would not take there detainees back and some of those that would, the administration did not feel comfortable that they would be actually put on trial for their crimes.Some of the detainees just could not be released for they would just go right back plotting attacks against the US. Because some of the detainees were tortured you could not legally convict them. Plus the states where he wanted to send the worst of the worst did not want them. But in the grand scheme of things he didn’t want to use up his political capital trying to close the facility.
So while he may seem to be no better than Bush on national security issues I think he made a calculated decision that he was going to do everything in his power to make sure there were no orchestrated terrorist attacks on the US on his watch. That includes keeping Gitmo open using drones etc. While that may seem to you and I as an illegal abuse of power I’m betting that his admistration has not violated the 5^th amendment or otherwise broken the law. Because if something like a terrorist attack happened on his watch, his domestic agenda just went up in smoke.

I have to agree on this one. He probably shouldn't have made that promise, but once you get into the mix, it gets a bit more complicated. You have to follow through with what works. All presidents learn as they they transfer from campaigning to leading. It's not a perfect process, but without compromise, we have nothing.

[Omaha]

Oladub – I will sincerely admit that I am not the best read or smartest person who posts to DetroitYes. I continually learn a lot about people by reading what is posted here. There are many useful and not so useful posts eagerly shared by members of DetroitYES!

I believe that all of us...are smarter than some of us. That is why I make a point of watching/listening to more than Steven. I also practice listening to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and old Papa Bear Bill O’Reilly. None of them are not able to break it down as well as Mr. Colbert. Although I love it when Steven and Papa Bear get together.

Your analysis of Wilson seems familiar. I heard a similar scathing analysis from Glenn Beck when he was tracing the roots of liberal thought in America. It was way too complicated for me, but I believe he too said that Wilson was Machiavellian.

Wilson had a Ph.D. and was the former head of Princeton University. Right there he appears LIBERAL. He was also a Southerner and a Democrat which puts him in a solidly conservative camp...at least in 1912.

Like Steven, I try to stay away from thinking of Democrats as Liberal and Republicans as Conservative. Each of the major parties have both philosophical strains running through their history.

Judging by the following quotes, Wilson was anti-capitalist, anti-free market and anti-Wall Street. These comments LIBERAL to me. .

“The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States.” Woodrow Wilson, Twenty-eighth President of the United States 1913


“Why, my fellow-citizens, is there any man here, or any woman – let me say, is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? ...This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.” President Woodrow Wilson, September 15, 1919 commenting on the U.S. involvement in WWI

What is amazing that Wilson, as liberal as he was, had a showing of "Birth of a Nation" at the White House! Some liberals think of this as a RACIST movie and a movie that promoted the growth of the KKK. That would make Wilson a RACIST and conservative in liberal eyes!

President Wilson also tinkered with hiring practices in the USPS. His actions limited what was an avenue to good paying jobs for African Americans prior to his election. Again liberals would call this RACIST.

Maybe both the screening of Birth of a Nation and the change in Post Office personnel policies weren’t racist…but PRIMARILY conservative. They appear consistent with another Southern Democrat, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. Here is part of a 1957 interview Russell gave to the National Review, an early magazine featuring conservative commentary:

“As you know…there are some communities and some states where the Negro’s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation. The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation. I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.”

Again, liberals might call this particular comment RACIST, but it may be just conservative.

Anyway Oladub, Happy New Year. May 2013 bring a serious raising of consciousness to all those who post on DetroitYES!

And anyone who wants to can join me as I wish the best to my beloved Nebraska Cornhuskers as they take on the Georgial Bulldogs in the Capital One Bowl! Don't you just love it when large corporations pay money and get Bowl Games named after them? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy insided. GBR!

[oladub]

Omaha, Best of wishes for your Corn Huskers. I appreciated the graciousness of the Corn Huskers allowing Wisconsin 70 points in the Big 10 championship game so that Wisconsin could participate in the Rose Bowl. We will both have a happier New Years [[not to be confused with the happy [[high unemployment) days of the Roosevelt era) should the Huskers and Badgers win.

[wolverine]

The real problem is ignorant people. People who don't leave their home to meet other people of different race, ethnicity, or belief. They never travel to other places or try different food.

The firsthand experience formulates one's understanding of other people. Without that they are ignorant and have skewed positions by what others tell them or what they can pull from media.

So it's not just race. The same people are probably anti-other things....you name it

[Cincinnati_Kid]

To Omaha, "Birth of a Nation" is a racist film, so if you're saying most conservatists are racist, then I'd agree.

[Omaha]

Wolverine – I have to agree, ignorance is NOT bliss. "What you don’t know WILL hurt you"...over and over. Any conservative worth his or her salt knows that the best way to exploit the masses is to pit them against one another. We have SUCCESSFULLY done it over and over. Those who don’t learn from the past are DOOMED to repeat the same mistakes ad infinitum.

Ignorance on the part of everyday wage earners makes the rich…RICHER. To state the obvious, publicly traded corporations, the BIG DOGS in our economy, exist to maximize short-term profits for their owners.

“Let me say as a caveat that I have spent most of my life worrying about the next quarter’s earnings.” Norman Augustine, President, Chairman, and CEO Lockheed Martin Corporation, 1997

Heck, conservatives have passed a law that basically mandates this behavior on the part of corporate senior decision makers!

To do that, senior decision makers must keep all the costs of production as low as humanly possible. Labor costs are a prime example.

“There is no way of keeping profits up but by keeping wages down.” David Ricardo [[1772-1823), English banker and political economist in On Protection to Agriculture 1820

Employers like to use the “reverse auction” to keep wages low. The reverse auction gets the unemployed to compete with the employed and then “rewards” the jobs to the lowest bidders who can do the work…with the jobs.

The best way to get that competition working is to keep wage earners divided. Employers in the U.S. have historically EXCELLED at this. When it comes to workers, they have SUCCESSFULLY pitted free against indentured; free against slave; adult against child; men against women; white against “freedman,” brown, yellow, and red [[POC in general); native against immigrant; union against non-union; U.S. against offshore; and most recently private sector union against public sector union.

One of the more brilliant stratagems was to bring African American agricultural workers [[many of whom were share croppers) up North to work in factories during our World Wars.

“Are you happy with your pay envelope? Would you like to go North where the laboring man shares the profits with the Boss? Are you satisfied with your condition here? Has your family all the comforts they should have during these prosperous times or are you just making ‘Both Ends Meet’ while the other fellow is growing rich on your labor?” An ad put in Southern Newspapers by northern employers to attract black workers to the north during WWI.

Notice how the add says that up North the “laboring man shares profits with the Boss?” What a great way to imply that the employment relationship is gentler up North!

Employers were not limited to creating a black/white divide. They were also good at stirring division among newly arrived immigrants as well.

“We want you to stir up as much bad feeling as you possibly can between the Serbians and the Italians. Spread data among the Serbians that the Italians are going back to work. Call up every question you can in reference to racial hatred between these two nationalities; make them realize to the fullest extent that far better results would be accomplished if they will go back to work. Urge them to go back to work or the Italians will get their jobs.” Advice to anti-union spies used to end support for the steel industry organizing strike as quoted in the Interchurch World Movement’s Report on the Steel Strike of 1919.

During each World War, the result of putting newly arrived black workers in the North caused significant problems for both white and black wage earners. Competition for jobs, housing, and a decent standard of living can really stir up some hard feelings.

Close connection with white workers caused reactions that are commonly called RACIST. After the Civil War, our nation’s largest “civil disturbances” were the result of this northward immigration.

Thank goodness American history is NOT taught in a way that makes these connections obvious!

Unlike liberals and common wage earners, conservatives know the importance of SOLIDARITY. We study, know and revere our nation’s history. We understand the importance of the concept “united we stand, divided we fall.” If only 9 of England’s original 13 colonies had united, we’d be still speaking with an English accent, and drinking tea [[with our pinkies in the air) rather than mugs of steaming hot java!

An examination of our nation’s history also reveals that some labor unions were pretty good at practicing worker SOLIDARITY. Others not so much.

“Probably the greatest and most effective effort toward interracial understanding among the working masses has come about through the trade unions….As a result [of the organization of the CIO in 1935], numbers of men like those in the steel and automotive industries have been thrown together, black and white, as fellow workers striving for the same objects. There has been on this account an astonishing spread of interracial tolerance and understanding. Probably no movement in the last 30 years has been so successful in softening race prejudice among the masses.” W.E.B. Dubois, first African American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard, civil rights activist, historian, and author, 1948

So as a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, I am glad of the ignorance of which wolverine speaks. May liberals and wage earners always be bathed in the inability to learn from history. May “divide and conquer” and the “reverse auction” always deliver profits to the conservative owners to whom God in His infinite wisdom had given control of our political economy.

[Papasito]

[coracle]

I guess the originator of this thread is still living in his fantasy land inhabited by straw people and rizzos where WHITES are racists and he knows this for a fact because he is WHITE [[and we know he is because he tells us so often!!! - directly, and in Code); but of course he's not a racist; he's the enlightened one - it's the others who would prefer to live with Hitler that are the problem. [[I think some are picky and might prefer Sadam Husein or Stalin if there's a choice).
I must say that I have never read such shit as the opening post for this thread. It's yet another one of his persistent racist tirades written as pseudo fact. But we must remember he writes it from his WHITE perspective and he's the only one that isn't racist.

[Detroitnerd]

The real problem is ignorant people. People who don't leave their home to meet other people of different race, ethnicity, or belief. They never travel to other places or try different food.

The firsthand experience formulates one's understanding of other people. Without that they are ignorant and have skewed positions by what others tell them or what they can pull from media.

So it's not just race. The same people are probably anti-other things....you name it

Yeah, I actually observed ugly on-the-street racism [[or chauvinism or nativism or whatchamacallit) yesterday. Two fat white women were sitting on the steps of a public school with toddlers in tow. They yelled across the street at a Bangladeshi guy, "Why don't you go back to your home country!" over an over again. So that sort of white chauvinism is still alive and well and unashamed.

But then there's something else that isn't necessarily "racism." It's when the white community decamps, taking its resources and moving away. That's more catastrophic to a neighborhood than a few catcalls, and something that should be a part of any larger discussion about race.

[coracle]

The real problem is ignorant people. People who don't leave their home to meet other people of different race, ethnicity, or belief. They never travel to other places or try different food.

I like the idea wolverine if it can be achieved; because it might work. There are about 39 million blacks and 230 million "whites" including the "Two fat white women........sitting on the steps of a public school with toddlers in tow" [[and assuming the toddlers were also white). Mathematically the trend would have to involve every six whites to leave home to meet with one black or every black to leave home to meet with six whites [[or a combination). Quite a logistic problem. There would certainly be a lot of meetings going on. Anybody want to start it off with a meeting with Dn's two fat white women?

[coracle]

The question posed in your post #37 Papasito doesn't have a definitive answer because in the real world it could still depend in what color you are. But It's interesting that nobody has disagreed with the statement yet. Could it be that everybody agrees with it? As the expert on white racism what does Detroitnerd think?

[gazhekwe]

• 18 Things White People Should Know/Do Before Discussing Racism

Tiffanie Drayton & Joshua McCartherJune 12, 2014

Discussions about racism should be all-inclusive and open to people of all skin colors. However, to put it simply, sometimes White people lack the experience or education that can provide a rudimentary foundation from which a productive conversation can be built. This is not necessarily the fault of the individual, but pervasive myths and misinformation have dominated mainstream racial discourse and often times, the important issues are never highlighted. For that reason, The Frisky has decided to publish this handy list that has some basic rules and information to better prepare anyone for a worthwhile discussion about racism.

1. It is uncomfortable to talk about racism. It is more uncomfortable to live it.

2. “Colorblindness” is a cop-out. The statements “but I don’t see color” or “I never care about color” do not help to build a case against systemic racism. Try being the only White person in an environment. You willnotice color then.

3. Oprah’s success does not mean the end of racism. The singular success of a Black man or woman [[i.e. Oprah, or Tiger Woods, or President Obama) is never a valid argument against the existence of racism. By this logic, the success of Frederick Douglas or Amanda America Dickson during the 19th century would be grounds for disproving slavery.

4. Reverse racism is BS, but prejudice is not. Until people of color colonize, dominate and enslave the populations of the planet in the name of “superiority,” create standards of beauty based on their own colored definition, enact a system where only people of color benefit on a large-scale, and finally pretend like said system no longer exists, there is no such thing as reverse racism. Prejudice is in all of us, but prejudice employed as a governing structure is something different.

5. America has not “gotten over” its race-related problems. In American History class you learned about slavery and Jim Crow, but sadly you were taught that figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks eradicated an entire 200-year history of oppression, discrimination and segregation. Your history teachers and books tried close the race chapter on a high note, however the ongoing history of America’s systemic racism cannot be simply wrapped up and decorated with a “now we all are equal” bow.

6. Google is your best friend. Search: Black/White wealth gap, redlining, “White flight,” subprime mortgages and black families, discriminatory sentencing practices, occupational overcrowding, workplace discrimination, employment discrimination, mandatory minimum sentences and in-school segregation to start. Here are some highlights:

• The median wealth gap difference between a White family and a Black family is $80,000.
• 1 in 9 Black children has an incarcerated parent compared to 1 in 57 White children.
• A White man who has been to jail still more likely to get a job than a Black man who hasn’t.

7. Then read some more. Google: Black Wall Street, Sundown towns, eugenics and forced sterilization, and Black voting prohibition.

8. Buy and read a book from a Black author. Some recommendations: W.E.B Dubois, James Baldwin, Frederick Douglass, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison, Alice Walker and Zora Neale Hurston would be a great start.

9. Realize that segregation is still rampant. Step outside and take a look around your neighborhood. Lacking people of color much? That is called segregation. It is not by chance, though sometimes by choice. [[Refer to “redlining” Google search.)

• About your neighborhood again: Displacing people of color much? That is called gentrification.
• Think about the schools you went to and the classes you had. Not too many minorities in either? [[Refer to school segregation/in-school segregation.)

10. Programs or initiatives that target systemic racism are not “charity.” We do not refer to the 200 years of free labor provided by enslaved Blacks as charity. Or the Black property stolen by Whites during the decades of state-supported terrorism? Or, say, the unfair banking practices that have completely decimated the Black middle class through foreclosures [[refer to subprime mortgages and Black families google search)?

11. Black on Black crime does not exist. There are countless White people committing crimes against White people, but “White-on-White crime” is strangely absent from the rhetoric reporting everything from elementary school shootings to world wars. Why should crimes committed by and against people of color be labelled any differently?

12. White people will not become the minority in America in the next 20 years. “Whites” were originally Anglo-Saxon Protestants [[WASPs). The definition of “White,” as a racial classification, has evolved to include “Whiter-skinned” minority groups who were historically discriminated against, barred from “Whiteness” and thus had little access to opportunity. Some examples: Italians and the Irish [[who were frequently referred to as n***ers in the 1800’s), Jewish people and more recently Hispanic [[George Zimmerman) and Armenian minority groups. Such evolutions, however, always exclude Blacks.

13. Hip-hop culture is no more dysfunctional than Wall Street culture. At its worst, commercial “Black culture” is a raw reflection of broader society. The caricatured imagery of drugs, money, and women are headlined most prominently by Wall Street, politicians, and media moguls but this reality never comes to reflect on White people. America spends more on weaponry than the most of the rest of the world combined but somehow it is the “violence” of hip-hop that is an exclusive pathology.

14. Black people are angry about racism, and they have every right to be. Anger is a legitimate and justified response to years of injustice and invisibility.

15. There are poor White people, but racism and discrimination still exists. The plight of the poor White midwest always makes a convenient appearance to deflect any perceived accusation of privilege or to derail conversations of racism. Racist American policy was never about securing the success of all White people, but rather about legalizing the disenfranchisement of Blacks and other people of color.

16. Silence does nothing. Blank stares and silence do not further this difficult but necessary conversation.

17. White guilt is worthless, but White action isn’t. One of the most immediate responses to racial discourse is that the effort is all about making White people feel guilty. Discourse about racism is not meant to stir up feelings of guilt, it is meant to drive people to action against injustice. During the times of slavery and the era of the Civil Rights Movement, both Black and White people played and continue to play instrumental roles in Black advancement.

18. Black people are not obligated to answer the “Well, what do we do about it?” question. Though many of us do and are not heard. The call for reparations in the form of “Baby Bonds” is a great idea. So is desegregating our classrooms and closing the school-to-prison pipeline. These courageous voices are speaking very loudly — it is time to start listening.

Tiffanie Drayton is a freelance writer focusing in race and gender issues and a proud New School University Alumna. Follow her on twitter @draytontiffanie.

http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-06-12/...ussing-racism/

[oladub]

Trying not to get involved with the rest of this, I was puzzled by the statement

• "The median wealth gap difference between a White family and a Black family is $80,000."

so I looked it up. The Census Bureau claims that for 2009 median family incomes by race were-
Asian $75,027
white $62,545
hispanic $39,730
black $38,409

On another site, I found this - "The median income for all families with children under 18 was just under $60,000 last year, up about 3% since 1990 after adjusting for inflation. But what might once have been considered the “typical” American family — a married couple, living together, with at least one child under 18 — has done quite a bit better: Their median income was $81,455, up nearly 16% from 1990." In contrast, "The median income for a family headed by a single mother was $25,493 in 2012.

The difference between black and white median family incomes, $24,136, is therefore less than between two parent and single parent families, $57,062.

25% of white children and 67% of black children are being raised in single parent families. [[source)

[coracle]

Kudos to Asians. Guess they don't need the other 17 points. Maybe we should read a book or two by Asian authors to learn something useful to all colors.

[MizMotown]

reparation. really?