The idea that racism or prejudice is okay as long as it isn’t systematic is one I wouldn’t expect from someone with the philosophies you present yourself as having here on the forum.
What if I was elected to some local government post and took an anti-Scottish or anti-English position, is that okay because it doesn’t have a systematic nature in the history of the country?
Also, last I checked no one was claiming whites have suffered systematic racism, so I have to question how much fun you’re having with your strawman?
Most people in this thread are just speaking out against a publicly elected official espousing racist ideas. The fact that they are racist ideas makes them heinous whether they be against a long maligned and persecuted group or against a group in the majority like whites.
I’m guessing you just enjoy pointing out how good whites have it compared to blacks. Most whites don’t disagree, however that doesn’t mean we think it’s good to be the target of racism, either.
You’re missing my point. My hypothetical statement was racist. Just as Nagin’s statement was. I’m just saying that using Diogene’s reasoning, in which he says Nagin’s statement isn’t racist, you’d also have to say my hypothetical wasn’t racist.
I never said White people suffered. I said Nagin is a racist. But that was a nice attempt at a strawman, and I’m sure it works on some folks. You don’t have to target an opppressed group to be racist. Just look at Louis Farakhan. I’m not saying that Nagin is as bad as that, but it’s the same principle.
Nagin didn’t take an “antiwhite” position, That’s the point, He didn’t come close to advocating anything remotely discriminatory or racist. He did not say he didn’t want white people in New Orleans or that he wanted to treat white people differently than blacks. He just said he didn’t want the pre-flood population -along with it’s unique cultural heritage- to be displaced by gentrification. His declaration that “God wants it that way” are stupid, but I don’t find it vicious in the way that Pat Roberston is vicious, or chilling in he way that GWB’s war-whipsering Daemon is chiling.
He didn’t say anything racist. Show me a single thing he said to imply that one race was superior to or should be treated differently than the other.
Nagin seems to be pretty upset that a lot of Hispanic folks are coming in and doing a lot of the reconstruction work. He’s upset because they’re NOT BLACK. I’d say that is pretty racist. Maybe he can’t get laws passed which would favor African Americans above all other people, but I think that his attitude is quite racist. I am appalled by his attitude, just as I’m appalled by white people who have racist attitudes.
Between two people on a chat board, it doesn’t make a difference. Stupid is stupid is stupid.
But in the real world, there is the possibility of fallout after remarks like this. As I’ve said, these remarks coming from Nagin have less strength or danger of inspiring actions, than similar remarks coming from a white politician. I’d guess he knows that too.
In the end, it’s all about people not being killed or injured, inspired by something stupid someone else said. Hurt feelings or being offended are not on the top of my list of things to worry about. YMMV.
I did see your point.
In a certain context your hypothetical would not be racist. Ignorant or wrong, maybe, but not racist.
Originally, I was replying to the idea that there is no double standard for racism or racist remarks. I think there is a double standard. And I think Nagin realized that, and figured he could get away with saying things a white politician couldn’t (I’m not saying they were good things or smart things to say - that’s another story).
Should we pretend this double standard doesn’t exist when we discuss these incidents? I don’t see the point of that.
If God wants more Blacks than Whites to live in NOLA, then Blacks must have something over Whites. What is that something-- rhythm?
But if you’re correct, then, I wouldn’t be racist if I called for America to remain majority white? If I said that God wanted America to remain majority white? If I said that America wouldn’t be America if it didn’t stay majority white? You’d have no problem with that statement, since you have no problem with Nagin’s statement? Current immigration trends will make America minority-White at some point, therefore we must limit non-White immigration to ensure to that America remains majority-White. Nothing racist there, right?
I’m not sure about the first point here. According to Media Matters, the claim that Bush pleaded with Nagin to evacuate is groundless.
As far as the levees, Bush did indeed cut funding from levee projects.
Would it have made any difference if the funds were not cut? Probably not. But clearly the administration had not provided the Army Corps of Engineers what they said was needed.
As far as God punishing the US for Iraq, sure it’s a reckless statement. I put more stock in that than I do Pat Robertson’s version of God’s wrath, but Nagin’s over the top here.
What Nagin said was stupid if only for that fact that if he was clearly trying to pander to the people he upset last week when he laid out his ideas for reconstruction. I get the feeling that he could care less if the city is a chocolate one or a vanilla one, honestly. He was only saying whatever he could to smooth over the feathers he’d ruffled, and he ended up slathering it on too thick (especially when he brought God into it).
But I don’t get the idea that a “chocolate city” is an anti-white concept. Washington DC and Atlanta are affectionately known as chocolate cities because lots of black people live there. Yet, plenty of whites (and other groups) are present too; that doesn’t alter the chocolate factor. I don’t perceive any connotations of racial seperatism when I hear of a “chocolate city”. But maybe that’s because I’ve lived in such cities all of my life.
Since there have been concerns that the more poorer subset of the NO community–which happens to be disproportionately black–will be displaced from the reconstructed city, I don’t think there is anything wrong with assuring folks that NO won’t lose it’s cultural-racial-ethnic makeup at the hands of gentrification. That’s essentially what Nagin was doing with his talk about chocolate.
It’s hard to be religious when certain people are never struck by lightning.
And Nagin’s explanation didn’t help him because it betrayed a completely erroneous belief that the racial composition of a city is any of the government’s business.
If Marion Berry can get re-elected, so can Willy Wonka…err, I mean Ray Nagin.
Just curious: If this issue was about class and not race, would your stance be different?
Race aside, should the government care if huge swaths of poor people are sweeped out of town by rich speculators? Why or why not?
What’s a “speculator”? Are they doing anything illegal? If not, then no, the government shouldn’t care except in as much as the poor people are thrown into the streets. If they have alternatives elsewhere, they should take advantage of those alternatives. Why should a city WANT to have poor people living there? Usually it makes no economic sense for poor people to live in expensive areas.
Investors. People who move into an area with an interest in making money and little else.
A lot of people have been thrown into the streets. The hurricane sorta had that effect.
I’m not arguing that the mayor should want poor people there, even though I do think as a * human being* he should care that a signficant portion of the pre-Katrina population has been uprooted from the place they called home and lack the means to bounce back. However, my question doesn’t have anything to do with that issue. I’m talking about PCness.
If Nagin had stood up and specfically addressed poor people with assurances that NO would still be their city (let’s say he said “Blueberry City” as in blue collar…yeah, I’m so lame), would offense be warranted? The implications of the statements (chocolate vs. blueberry) are the same; he is essentially saying that these populations are deserving of a spot in the reconstructed city by virtue of their racial and socioeconomic classification.
You wouldn’t have to - you’re confident that America WILL remain majority white, at least during your entire lifetime, if not IT’s entire lifetime. You’re also secure in your knowledge of plenty of majority white, economically diverse towns across the nation, run by whites themselves. But why jump down the throat of blacks when they voice the fact that they don’t want to be minorities 24-7?
That’s a silly argument, but change it to California if you don’t like America as an example. CA will certainly be majority non-White in my lifetime if it isn’t already.
Because caring whether your race is in the majority or in the minorty is always racist, under all circumstances. Besides, I’m not jumping down the throat of “Blacks”, I’m jumping down the throat of Nagin. To jump down the throat of “Blacks” for what Nagin said would be racist. And like I said earlier, I’m not personally offended by such talk, but I don’t think politicians who voice those types of opinions should remain in office. If it isn’t racist, is profoundly stupid.
Oh, please. PUH-LEEZE. That kind of attitude might be a very loose indicator of possible racism correlated with other attitudes/beliefs/actions but there’s no way I buy into that, paranoid as even I am. That’s contorting racism beyond meaningful definition.