Very Clear to me, I agree with it.
Thank you very much.
Jim
Wow, that is dismissing a lot of history. Please think about the oppression of Irish, Polish, Jewish and Italian immigrants to this country. I could write a 5000 word post on racism towards these groups. All are considered “white”. While it is not as long and not eased up sooner this oppression definately existed. The many stereotypes still exist.
You’re welcome! For what it’s worth, I’m basically cribbing a definition from the book Racial Formation in the United States, one of the clearest examinations of the issue that I’ve read. The author rejects other theories of race, e.g., the colonialist theory, before arriving at the formation I offer (although the author was talking primarily about race, not racism). I’m sure I don’t say exactly what the author did, but I’m heavily influenced by that book.
Daniel
Bob Loblaw you are digging deeper and deeper. At one time pretty much everyone has been subjected to oppressive treatment in this country regardless of national origin. Hell there was a point in time where the Irish where treated worst than and considered lower than the African-American. Now of course the Irish weren’t considered white at the time, but that’s another thread.
I object to the characterization of my posts as “sarcastic.” The venom in my posts to both duffer and yourself were not sarcastic. I meant every word.
Well, I suppose I could follow every post from Left Hand of Dorkness with “Ditto,” but that seems excessive. He seems to have the logic part of the thread covered pretty well. I’m just here for the abuse.
Incidentally, I’m white. Is it your contention that the color of my skin makes me immune to oppression from society?
This, too, is another trap.
Miller, you’re a mensch! 
Bob, what you describe as racism, I’d describe as racist oppression. It’s useful to distinguish between the two, for a few reasons.
First, racist traditionally has the meaning I’ve ascribed. If you redefine it to deal only with oppression, you confuse people for no real reason.
Second, sometimes it’s important to point out behavior that’s racist without really being oppressive. The business I mentioned before, wherein you criticize a conservative columnist based on the color of his skin? That’s not especially oppressive, since you’re just a crank on the Internet; but it is racist. I like being able to make that distinction.
Third, it allows us to discuss racism with people (like myself) who consider race to be a giant granfalloon: it’s entirely a social construct with no objective biological significance*, and it’s one whose significance is historically rare, and whose significance arose out of a specific social institution, and it’s one that, in my opinion, we’d all be much better off without. Advocating loyalty to a group based on skin color is offensive and stupid in my opinion, but talking about racism is neither offensive nor stupid. Let the word be one that leftists like myself can use.
Daniel
- Yes, black people are likelier than white people to suffer sickle cell anemia; but when we discuss race, that’s almost never why we’re talking about it.
LHoD: just wanted to apologize if I stepped on your toes. I know you’re fully capable of defending yourself but these chimps really got under my skin. I hope you took no offense from my conduct.
And now I return to the shadows of lurkdom.
Third door on the left.
(you knew it was coming, didn’t you?)
Well, I’ve been reading up on Rev Al. I was fairly neutral about him. I thought he did more good than bad.
I still haven’t seen convincing proof he incited the riot and fire. It does appear he was probably capable of attempting to stop it and failed to try. This lowers my opinion of him.
The Tawana Brawley case stills sounds like a well-done hoax by a foolish young girl. Rev Al got caught up with it and over reacted in much the same way the Cable News channels were slyly accusing the Runaway brides Fiance of killing her, when she was just a stupid, selfish git.
The trouble she went to, to fake this incident was fairly extreme and initially it looked real. I still maintain some doubts to whether it was a hoax. I know I am in the minority opinion here.
Rev Al jumped at the opportunity to take up this cause and he definitely was playing the race card at will. In the past Rev Al has also publicly used many racist terms but I believe he has not done so and has actually mellowed and become more reasoned of late. His statements about Katrina did not appear too extreme to me. I was mighty angry about the response to Katrina that week.
In balance I still think Rev Al tries to do good, but I do have to lower my opinion of him a bit.
Here is one of those horrible things he said about Katrina (sarcasm intended)
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS01/510300319/1002/NEWS
Isn’t this actually true?
Nope third door is Insults, 2nd door Arguments. Abuse was door 5. 
I saw Charlie’s Angels 2, Full Throttle. You are undoubtedly one of the Black Irish. But seriously, I can’t with any certainty spot the trap. 100 years ago (and maybe not that long ago) Irish were subject to all the same kinds of oppression black people were, but to a lesser degree. I thought the movie Gangs of New York captured some of the flavor of it well. And a helluva performance by Daniel Day Lewis made it worth the admission price all by itself. (Leo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz did fine too, but not in the same league. But I’ll give DiCaprio that league for what he did in Aviator.)
Again? What the fuck are you talking about? I’m not a leftist. I’m not a radical activist. I have no screeds. I posted my opinion. If you disagree that’s fine, but I have no idea where you’re getting all this leftist cause business based on what I posted. Last night I was beginning to think that you and your friend FinnAgain were drunk or something, but now I just don’t know.
Thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about, but you said it better than I did.
I don’t know anything about your ethnicity. Let me first take slight issue with “Uncle Tom”: he was the hero of the story, and they guy he eventually killed was the bad guy. Uncle Tom was an accomodationist, but not a bad guy. Yeah, people use it all the time, I’d like those reading to know about the caveat. Then let me be roundabout.
I was sitting at lunch watching espn about golf. Is Tiger Woods a racist or Uncle Tom because he takes advantage of others’ sacrifice, yet says nothing to help any of his ethnic groups. I don’t think so. Yeah, it’s kinda irritating, but he’s entirely non-political. People have a right to be non-political. But it doesn’t sit quite right with me for a reason I have not put my finger on. Is that perhaps a prejudice on my part? Maybe. I know damn well I’m not color blind, and I try to correct for that failing without overcompensating by shutting up entirely.
Is a black conservative a sellout? An “Uncle Tom”. Mostly no. Generally no. I think Neibhur would argue that, and he’s thought it through. My inclination is that you can’t really judge till you have a lot more facts about a person. I used Sowell as an example because he is a prominent black pundit who goes with the conservative argument against black people every time I’ve read him, without explaining to his audience the nature and perniciousness of racism that I believe that every black person in this country knows in a way a white person can never know. The closest analogy I can explain to another white person is the way the odd kid out in grammar school was treated 40 years ago, that’s how black people are treated their whole lives, but not always openly.
But I would want to know before casting someone as a sellout, what they have done for the cause before I weigh what they’ve done against. I think Sowell regularly advocates against the common wisdom of the cause, but may do it for academicly rigorous reasons (which in my opinion is naive because I think economics is descriptive, not scientific, and that’s another thread, assuming his analysis is economic as others have said).
Then let’s compare George Will, pundit, uber white guy eastern establishment. Now I know a person who has personally worked with George Will in the most sensitive position, who is black. George Will would never, ever say or do anything overtly racist I am assured, and I believe it. Now my opinion from years of reading George Will is that he is obsessed with race and African Americans in a way that if you pulled out roughlyl 1 in 4 columns and made a book only of the ones discussing race questions, would look very disturbing. He is constantly telling black people what to think and do and not do. Of course, he tells every group what to think and do and not do, but the frequency he tells black people their business actually exceeds not only their demographic represenation, but all proportionality to the issue of race relations and without adequately listening sympathetically to the opposite point of view. I know a lot of white people like this. They tune out the point of view that society is biased against black people. They won’t listen to Jesse Jackson because he rhymes, or has his hand out, never mind that he is the best orator in either party, they suddenly don’t care for oratory. Same with Sharpton. Now Sharpton was talking a lot of trash over 10 years ago. He’s largely cleaned up his act. And if I had to pick anyone as a better public speaker than Jackson, it would be Sharpton. Look at his debates and interviews in 04! The clarity of his language is just scintillating. He can explain complex ideas simply and directly, without pause in full sentences and paragraphs with a fluidity no other public person has. This is a gift not seen since the Kennedy brothers (or arguably Reagan but he didn’t have complex ideas) and Sharpton is arguably clearer than the Kennedy’s ever were. Yet people tune the guy out.
I’ve made a complete ass of myself in this thread, being just as offensive as Sharpton according to some posters, yet they are taking me seriously and many openly say they would not do the same for Sharpton. I’m not as articulate. I’m insulting them much closer to home than Sharpton ever did. It’s because they don’t want to face the issues they fear Sharpton is going to bring up.
But let’s get back to if you’re a black guy in the GOP, do your friends laugh at you and think you’re a chump? If you’re Colin Powell, who is the most respected black policy guy in the country, well, the neo-cons most certainly do and did. The old school cons may respect you for personal achievement and be down with your acceptance of conservative logic, but when you’re gone they at least talk about why a black guy is with them politically. Maybe your friends are different, I obviously have no information relevant to your sitation. If they treat you with respect to your face, well, you know better than I that is an improvement over the days before Rosa Parks refused to move and before the days when the only black FBI agents were Hoover’s personal servants.
I think the most sincere case of a black conservative I have seen in my neck of the woods is Ward Connelly, the University of California Regent who led the way and provided the political cover for UC and then the state for the GOP to do away with all affirmative action. The guy is decent, smart and sincere in his belief that affimative action hurts more than it helps. He ought to be respected. (And yes, both white and black democrats have called him an Uncle Tom, which I think is wrong.) While his campaign was going on in California the GOP higher ups were knowingly chuckling at him behind his back while I was in the room and they knew who I was (no, you won’t get a cite), not all, but many. Today Ward Connelly can’t get the time of day from the GOP or the state dems. And that’s too bad, because he wasn’t right unless other barriers went down, and the GOP has refused to equalize school funding. (My personal view is that affirmative action is a temporary remedy, and the only remedy to generations of discrimination that peaked in the 1910s and 1920s, and that it could be useful for another 10 or 20 years at most.)
But can I provide evidence that would convince you they are laughing at you? No, not that would satisfy either me or you if I were in your shoes, I can only tell you what I see, and if you could sit with my white face for a few hours in those crowds, you’d be disgusted with some, disappointed in others, and pleased with a few. And what I see is that virtually everybody I know doesn’t want to be rude to another person’s face and everyone has their preconceived notions, some of which are unpleasant prejudices. I don’t want to be rude to people’s faces. I find I’m disappointed in myself later, because all I’ve gained is further access to see if it still goes on. It’s an outright relief to scream it out here.
Depending on the circumstances, when white folks are alone and talking about race (particularly middle aged and older, I don’t hang with many younger people), the best minorities can hope for are jokes that use stereotypes told by people who don’t want to be considered “racist”. But if someone has lost a job in a larger company, or didn’t get a job, it gets really ugly. So what do I do to stop such rudeness. Not a lot. I casually remind people that I’m a Democrat, or that we know so-and-so, and they aren’t like that. How much is one to spit in the ocean for a good cause?
Well, there is a stream of consciousness rambling that is as brutally honest as I can be with myself and others. I hope it gave you the answer you were looking for.
How would being black cause her failure as a national security advisor? It’s a skin color, not a mental condition. Her failing was in her ability to do her job, her basic competence. Her skin color or value as a person had nothing to do with it, that’s a false dichotomy. Are you saying no black person could do this job? I just don’t think that is true at all. I think her basic problem is that she is a Sovietologist in an administration that began 12 years after the Soviet Union fell and didn’t refocus her world view. She repeated many times after the event that no one could have predicted such an attack. And it’s fair to say no one would have predicted a commie attack of that nature. Well, many in government had predicted such an attack terrorists in general and Al Queda in particular: hijacked mulitple airplanes flown into buildings. She of all people should have recognized that her expertise was dated and brought in the right people and insisted that things be done to prevent terrorist attacks in the US. She was the national security advisor, and the buck stops on her desk and the President’s. I really can’t understand why she didn’t blow her brains out.
Good one. Yes, Sharpton does serve as a lightning rod, to draw attention to injustice. But man… I still expect more than results. I believe that the end does not justify the means. I expect more of those who seek the moral high ground. Perhaps not in their personal life, but in their professional.
That is why, for example, I like Barack Obama. Not for the color of his skin, but because the man is righteous. We need more righteous men. Men with dignity, men with intelligence and wit, men with honor. And I don’t care if they’re black, white, female, or gay. Or any mix of the above (and additions), even if they wind up blue from collodial silver.
I do believe Sharpton wanted the riots. I find it hard to think what he utters are anything but ‘fighting words.’ If he were truly revolted, he would change his message after the third riot, if not before.
If you believe he does not welcome them… from that perspective, I still find him flawed and undeserving, a liar and a corrupting influence. But not evil.
Yes, Sharpton’s been acting more and more reasonable as of late, as he tries to switch to the national scene.
I hear rumors of financial irregularities popping up more and more, and race-baiting less and less. But he cleaned up before, and then he backslid to his old ways.
I can’t trust that man. He says I have five fingers on my hand, I will look, then count to be sure.
On the other hand, I won’t insist I have six just to spite him, I will check. Best lies in the world are stuck in a core of truth.
Yes, but this world has all kinds and needs all but the outright evil ones (it has those anyway). Not everybody can be polite, even though he is more lately. On balance, we need people with his willingness to take on causes.
I like Obama too. He’s articulate and handsome and full of integrity. I’d love to see him run for President (or Vice President.) But as a politician hoping to put together a majority, he cannot take on issues like Sharpton or Jackson.
Well if we are comparing Obama to Sharpton; of course Sharpton will look less than great. Rev Al has flaws; he has been deliberately confrontational and has in the past made some very questionable statements. Obama is a good candidate for higher office. Rev Al should never be in higher office but should keep pushing those in office to not forget that there still are inequalities that need to be corrected.
…This thread started with comments from a thread about a nearly perfect hero. Rosa Parks. Rev Al is not in a league with Rosa, neither am I and I doubt many here are. I think Rev Al has made much progress toward being less of a rabble-rouser. I believe he has largely, if not totally stopped Race Baiting. I believe he has largely done this because he has purposely moved on from the role of Angry young man to trying to achieve mature representative of the continued fight for equality.
…Did anyone here look at his platform for President? It is actually quite good.
These aren’t black issues; these are issues of universal equality. These are issues democrats are suppose to champion. Strangely enough I am republican (well disenfranchised) but I agree with everything on this list except #8. I don’t really think it is fair to blame Bush.
…Strangely enough I believe UHC would be great for small & medium businesses and overall great for the economy. The fact it would also help 40 million of the working poor is a wonderful bonus.
So I think Sharpton might not be the boogieman people are making him out to be.
BTW: I can’t comprehend how I became Rev Al’s defender here on SMDB. I just think a lot of the hatred directed at him is knee jerk and sound bite driven. I don’t make any claims he is a great man, but I do think the actual title of this thread is correct. Al Sharpton is a decent man is true. No claims of him being a saint or a hero. No better or worse than so many Politicians.
jrfranchi and E-Sabbath, I think you live in my neck of the woods. Do you recall an incident a few years ago, when the NYPD shot and killed an orthodox jewish man in brooklyn who was mentally unstable and waving a hammer? It was bad - six officers on the scene, and they couldn’t disarm him without killing him?
Sharpton offered to get involved, and the jewish community turned him down. Now, in a way I can understand that. But at the same time, wouldn’t it have been an opportunity to repair a bridge between the black and jewish communities? I admit that Sharpton, based on his past, is not the ideal candidate for that, but how often does an ideal candidate appear? Shouldn’t you work with what you’ve got for the greater good? Is it only Sharpton’s fault if the bridge remains unrepaired? Are some people offered redemption or forgiveness and not others?
Racism doesn’t begin to describe the problems within the NYPD. It is part of it, but not all of it. I’ve got stories of my own to tell, and I’m not black, or jewish, or fitting any popular criminal profile. So race based politics as usual hurts everyone in the end, and Sharpton isn’t the only guilty party within that problem.
By the way, jrfranchi, I notice your admiration of Rudy Giuliani. I’d say he was a very racially divisive influence when he was mayor. Do you agree, and if so, how does it affect your overall opinion of him? (if not I’d ask for your reasoning as to why not)
I do recall the incident; their turning him down did not surprise me. It was a nice gesture on his part but just from viewing this thread, it would be hard for the Orthodox Jewish leaders to accept his help, even if they wanted it.
I hope I can defend Giuliani. I greatly respect him and I really like his politics. To defend him, I need to know how he was racially divisive. The single biggest thing I can think of is he supported the police more than any mayor ever has. He also worked harder to clean up the police department more than any mayor ever has. His legacy that Bloomberg has continued is NYC is the safest large city in the USA. This is an incredible accomplishment. Way ahead of national average for improvements by the way and he leapfrogged over a dozen cities.
…I always remember speaking to some ladies from my Aunts’ neighborhood in the Bronx. She was a 50ish Black woman. This is her quote
Rudy reduced gang violence that disproportionately affected the black community. He did not go after Black gangs only; he went after all criminals. The Garbage industry was controlled by the Mafia forever, he got them out. He did the same for the Fish Market. He went after absentee landlords, including the city own tenements to improve rental apartments. He brought jobs to the city, for all residents. He gave the city back some pride and I think the city was more unified after he left then any time in my lifetime.
… I had a baseball discussion this week with a friend. He mentioned what a great job the Yankees were doing by getting 4 million seats sold. I argued that at least a million was because of Rudy. In the 70’s and the 80’s the South Bronx was a scary place. I went to games or the Zoo and there were fires burning blocks away. Crime was very scary; you didn’t feel comfortable about bringing kids to a game. Belligerent squeegee men accosted you on the roads and panhandlers at ATM machines and hotdog stands. All of this was bad and kept people away from the Bronx. Central Park had become a place not to go after dark.
…I think Rudy was a tough on crime mayor, which should not be interpreted as ** racially divisive **. So now I ask how was he racially divisive?
If I can find room to excuse Rev Al, and look behind the sound bites how could I not do the same for one of my heroes?