I recall crude racist stereotypes being deployed by Democrats against black Republicans, and the vicious contempt that Democrats have displayed toward black people who don't line up with what Dems think they should all believe.
Also, pretty much any criticism of Obama, on the same policy grounds for which white Democrats are also critic…
I recall crude racist stereotypes being deployed by Democrats against black Republicans, and the vicious contempt that Democrats have displayed toward black people who don't line up with what Dems think they should all believe.
Also, pretty much any criticism of Obama, on the same policy grounds for which white Democrats are also criticized, was said to boil down to "They just don't like having a black man in the White House." (Never mind that Obama's mother was white.)
Republicans opposed the ACA when it was primarily white people who were pushing it through Congress -- and Dems said the opposition was all down to Obama's race.
It really is true that the cry of "racism" became a lazy way to beat down any opposition to Dems, even if the issue wasn't about race at all. And it's true that reflexive charges of racism are bound to make some white people more hostile to those calling them racist no matter what.
Then there's the noxious idea that white people are all intrinsically disposed to be racist while non-white people cannot possibly be racist. It's a flagrantly racist notion itself, and it's false. And there are the double standards and set-asides that have objectively disadvantaged white people in some situations.
It's true that some people really are racist -- but they're not all white. It's also true that the "everything is racist" insanity has been very damaging to race relations, and so has the insistence that racism is the entire guiding philosophy of the GOP (so any non-white Republicans or conservatives must be race-traitors or dupes).
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you need to examine a number of your assumptions.
Your first paragraph demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the historical debate that has been ongoing in the African American community for the last 200 years. So yes, intramural debates among the black community can get quite viscous and don't improve when white liberals start ignorantly parroting them.
Your comment on Obama's mother was just weird, now if you were European I could understand but anybody who grew up in this country understands how race works in this culture.
You may have had a good argument but to be honest I tuned it out at the "Mother" comment.
Everyone is "racist" to a greater or lesser degree, white, black, brown, yellow, purple... whatever. Same thing with sexism/genderism.
The question is to what degree and how is it expressed.
Accusations of racism are prevalent because, well, racism seems to be pretty prevalent. Same with sexism.
And the illusion of a raceless society or a sexless society is exactly that, an illusion. It runs into the obstacle of human nature and habit.
Democratic use of racism is similar to GoP use of socialism--except the Democrats actually have a sounder basis (because apparently the GoP doesn't actually know what socialism is).
The use of racial slurs against black GoP simply highlights how ingrained particular perceptions of race and how we interact with it are.
Human nature and habit seems to dictate that we are “identitarians”; we seem to have a human need to identify with our group, and “group” gets defined ever finer, especially if there isn’t an obvious handy out-group. Russians and Ukrainians have so much in common culturally and historically, but now they are busy killing each other and calling each other Nazis. The massacre in Rwanda occurred between two groups with differences that are invisible to outsiders. Same with the two factions of Islam. It’s seems insurmountable, but I guess we have to try, if we value civilization.
One of the more interesting stories in this regard that I have seen (that highlights the inanity of it) was in an Episode of Babylon 5 (a 90's science fiction TV show, one of the better ones).
Every so many years, one of the alien races (the Drazi) has this thing that happens--and it was causing a LOT of problems (mostly violence) on the Babylon 5 station. When the station personnel investigated they found that it was a fight between two political factions: purple and green (harkening back to the byzantine chariot race team riots).
How were the factions chosen? It wasn't a question of ideology or policy. They lined up and grabbed a scarf out of a bin of mixed scarves--if you pulled green you were green, purple you were purple. Two scarves were special.. whoever pulled the special scarves were the leaders of the faction.
It was both hilarious and yet a telling indictment of how we differentiate ourselves often on the least pretext.
I would have said Money trumps Race but it may amount to the same thing. Thinking of Katrina. It wasn't racism that killed; it was poverty, not having the resources to save themselves (or be saved).
I would argue that ambition and greed are independent of class, though usually aimed at "improving" one's socio-economic class--the problem in a lot of cases is that even if you get rich or influential, in the end you are still one of those "other people" to the group you are trying to become a part of.
I recall crude racist stereotypes being deployed by Democrats against black Republicans, and the vicious contempt that Democrats have displayed toward black people who don't line up with what Dems think they should all believe.
Also, pretty much any criticism of Obama, on the same policy grounds for which white Democrats are also criticized, was said to boil down to "They just don't like having a black man in the White House." (Never mind that Obama's mother was white.)
Republicans opposed the ACA when it was primarily white people who were pushing it through Congress -- and Dems said the opposition was all down to Obama's race.
It really is true that the cry of "racism" became a lazy way to beat down any opposition to Dems, even if the issue wasn't about race at all. And it's true that reflexive charges of racism are bound to make some white people more hostile to those calling them racist no matter what.
Then there's the noxious idea that white people are all intrinsically disposed to be racist while non-white people cannot possibly be racist. It's a flagrantly racist notion itself, and it's false. And there are the double standards and set-asides that have objectively disadvantaged white people in some situations.
It's true that some people really are racist -- but they're not all white. It's also true that the "everything is racist" insanity has been very damaging to race relations, and so has the insistence that racism is the entire guiding philosophy of the GOP (so any non-white Republicans or conservatives must be race-traitors or dupes).
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you need to examine a number of your assumptions.
Your first paragraph demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the historical debate that has been ongoing in the African American community for the last 200 years. So yes, intramural debates among the black community can get quite viscous and don't improve when white liberals start ignorantly parroting them.
Your comment on Obama's mother was just weird, now if you were European I could understand but anybody who grew up in this country understands how race works in this culture.
You may have had a good argument but to be honest I tuned it out at the "Mother" comment.
Everyone is "racist" to a greater or lesser degree, white, black, brown, yellow, purple... whatever. Same thing with sexism/genderism.
The question is to what degree and how is it expressed.
Accusations of racism are prevalent because, well, racism seems to be pretty prevalent. Same with sexism.
And the illusion of a raceless society or a sexless society is exactly that, an illusion. It runs into the obstacle of human nature and habit.
Democratic use of racism is similar to GoP use of socialism--except the Democrats actually have a sounder basis (because apparently the GoP doesn't actually know what socialism is).
The use of racial slurs against black GoP simply highlights how ingrained particular perceptions of race and how we interact with it are.
Human nature and habit seems to dictate that we are “identitarians”; we seem to have a human need to identify with our group, and “group” gets defined ever finer, especially if there isn’t an obvious handy out-group. Russians and Ukrainians have so much in common culturally and historically, but now they are busy killing each other and calling each other Nazis. The massacre in Rwanda occurred between two groups with differences that are invisible to outsiders. Same with the two factions of Islam. It’s seems insurmountable, but I guess we have to try, if we value civilization.
Class trumps race.
Any difference trumps cohesion.
If there isn't difference we will create it.
I believe this is an unfortunate truth. I have seen it happen in very small groups and it is simply shocking.
One of the more interesting stories in this regard that I have seen (that highlights the inanity of it) was in an Episode of Babylon 5 (a 90's science fiction TV show, one of the better ones).
Every so many years, one of the alien races (the Drazi) has this thing that happens--and it was causing a LOT of problems (mostly violence) on the Babylon 5 station. When the station personnel investigated they found that it was a fight between two political factions: purple and green (harkening back to the byzantine chariot race team riots).
How were the factions chosen? It wasn't a question of ideology or policy. They lined up and grabbed a scarf out of a bin of mixed scarves--if you pulled green you were green, purple you were purple. Two scarves were special.. whoever pulled the special scarves were the leaders of the faction.
It was both hilarious and yet a telling indictment of how we differentiate ourselves often on the least pretext.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=Awr9zQ2TOnBio1QCG.v7w8QF;_ylu=c2VjA3NyBHNsawN2aWQEdnRpZAMEZ3BvcwMx?p=babylon+5+purple+and+green&vid=49cf810a8d323c8702115fe66eab691a&turl=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVP.Sw7xacUJ1ot2L1NS0aKiegHgFo%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D360%26w%3D480%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAcBTOU7RvbU&tit=%26quot%3B%3Cb%3EGreen%3C%2Fb%3E.+%3Cb%3EPurple%3C%2Fb%3E.%26quot%3B+-+Susan+Ivanova+%3Cb%3Eand%3C%2Fb%3E+Drazi&c=0&h=360&w=480&l=131&sigr=xX6XS4idrXmm&sigt=l0lCzVYhMEsz&sigi=uIjywEyobYqq&age=1335047871&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=mcafee&type=E210US885G91648&tt=b
I would have said Money trumps Race but it may amount to the same thing. Thinking of Katrina. It wasn't racism that killed; it was poverty, not having the resources to save themselves (or be saved).
Yeah, and it was racism that prevented people from getting out -over that bridge. Racism that spread the "FEMA Camp" conspiracy.
Ambition and greed trumps race.
That's what I said! ;D
I would argue that ambition and greed are independent of class, though usually aimed at "improving" one's socio-economic class--the problem in a lot of cases is that even if you get rich or influential, in the end you are still one of those "other people" to the group you are trying to become a part of.
No, he means social-economic status.
Yes, what Terry said. Thanks Terry.