April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Grassroots | Main | The accidental bonds »

Jan 17, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

justcorbly

Nice piece, Ed. Steve Ford wrote about Reid, too, in today's N&O.

Spag

"Never mind that Lott, who had a history of palling around with neo-segregationists, got canned after saying we'd all be better off if paleo-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president"

Really? Is that what Lott said? He actually referred to Thurmond in 2002 as a "paleo-segregationist" and stated in a serious manner as opposed to honoring an old man on his birthday that he wished Thurmond would have won back in 1948 for his "paleo-segregationist" views? I missed that part of Lott's presentation.

I am also assuming that you are now willing to assign the actions and views of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright to Barack Obama since he "palled around" with them for years, and it is now safe to label Obama a "communist radical" with terrorist sympathies because of his associations. Or are you holding Lott to a different standard?

Bill

If you don't think skin tone is important in this country try to get a job with the post office. Skin tone is worth about 15 points.

Andrew Brod

Subtract points from Spag for reading comprehension. Ed never said that Lott called Thurmond a paleo-segregationist.

Subtract more points from Spag for failing to give up on this infantile need to justify the unjustifiable. An honorable conservative response would be to say there's no defense for what Lott said and that Lott's remarks didn't represent conservatism. Spag has repeatedly chosen a different approach.

Spag

Just give Andrew an "F" for not understanding the arguments.

Ed implied that the reason Lott made his remarks about Thurmond was because Thurmond was at one time a segregationist and for no other reason. Ed's purpose was clearly to imply that Lott was endorsing Thurmond's position on segregation from 1948 even though the word "segregation" never came out of Lott's mouth (54 years later) and Thurmond changed his views over that period. Otherwise Ed could have left the word "paleo-segregationist" out of his description.

Didn't Ed offer an alternate explanation for Reid's remarks that allude to something other than Reid being a racist? Isn't Ed merely trying to justify the unjustifiable? It's okay for liberals to do this to defend their own or attack their enemies, but "subtract" points when conservatives do the same. That's the Andrew Brod version of fairness and consistency.

Along those lines, I suppose Andrew has no beef with my points about the fairness of considering Obama a Communist with terrorist sympathies who does not love his country based on his much deeper and longer associations with people who have those views. If he did, I'm sure he would offer that alternative explanation in his comment.

For the record, I don't think Reid really meant anything racist with his remarks, but I also don't think Lott was endorsing segregation. Unlike Andrew and his ilk, I try to be objective about the "gotcha" game because of the unfairness that it often results in. Very often my "outrage" is admittedly phony to make a point.

It doesn't really matter who is right or what is right about Lott's remarks when you play the game of "gotcha". He may be 100% correct. My argument isn't really about defending Lott (whom I have never liked), it's about playing the game the way liberals play it and under their rules.

As usual liberals like Andrew want it both ways. That is just dishonest, but par for the course for liberals when the "gotcha" game they invented forces them into intellectual dishonesty to avoid the trappings of the rules they created to attack and destroy others.

justcorbly

>>Subtract more points from Spag for failing to give up on this infantile need to justify the unjustifiable.

Indeed. Assertions like Spag's just convince people like me even more that white racism is a core component of conservative appeal.

Not that I'm accusing Spag of racism. I've never met they guy, and I've no reason to think that. But, if you are white, and think being white is really important to you, and that the country was really intended to be a place for white people, then it's hard not to be a conservative. After all, conservatives are trying to preserve white dominance in a country that won't be dominated by white people in a few short years.

Spag

Yes, it was conservatives who made reference to Obama's skin color, not liberal Harry Reid.

If you are angry that America hasn't turned into Sweden, believe that people should be judged by the color and tone of their skin, and are off the medications for the weirdness that has plagued you all your life, it's easy to be a liberal.

How dare Spag assert a double standard is in play. What a racist.

justcorbly

>>...Ed's purpose was clearly to imply that Lott was endorsing Thurmond's position on segregation from 1948 even though the word "segregation" never came out of Lott's mouth (54 years later) and Thurmond changed his views over that period.

Oh, don't be silly. Thurmond was a segregationist in 1948 and Lott said we would have been better off if Thurmond had been elected in 1948.

>>If you are angry that America hasn't turned into Sweden....

Not a completely bad idea.

Modern conservatism began when people like Nixon decided to go after white voters after the Democrats passed the civil rights legislation of the 1960's. They looked at George Wallace's campaigns and saw their path to victory.

cheripickr

"white racism is a core component of conservative appeal."

He just rested Spag's case even better than Spag did.

justcorbly

>>"...white racism is a core component of conservative appeal."

He just rested Spag's case even better than Spag did."

How so? Do you deny that Nixon, et al, deliberately targeted white people turned off by the civil rights initiatvies of the 1960's?

Do you contend that white racism is a thing of the past?

You know, I'm over here in Wake country, where conservatism recently took over the county school board. Someone aat a board meeting accused the consevartives of leveraging racism and was cut off by a conservative member who accused the speaker of being insulting, as if racism was something confined to history.

Spag

And he admits the part about turning America into Sweden. I wrote before that when these people say they "love America" they are full of crap because the America they love doesn't exist and the one that does they keep trying to turn into something else.

bubba

"He just rested Spag's case even better than Spag did."

That's what endears him to me. He's so dependable in that regard.

OT: Is italic now the default type for comments here?

justcorbly

You know, CP, et al, I've said this before but I will say it again. Racism is as much a part of the human condition as the urge to take what we want by theft, or the urge to overeat or drink too much, or the urge to resort to violence to protect our possessions. If we were different, there would be no need for the Ten Commandments or a multitude of laws. We want to do all the things those laws prohibit. Without the laws and the religious sanctions. that's how we would behave.

Racism is part of human nature, regardless of skin color. Always has been and always will be. Just as some of are prepared to recognize the need to avoid acting out of our other base emotions, some of us our able to recognize when racism raises its head and avoid behaving accordingly. Others, not so much.

justcorbly

Spag, what's wrong with Sweden?

cheripickr

I assume that the Nixon administration fits most people's definition of the past, so it's odd that you choose that example to support your assertion that white racism is such a powerful movement today.

All I know is that when most Americans are content to leave past racism in the past and you are unable to convince anyone that it is a core component of a political philosophy that 40% of America identifies itself with, a lot of people, particularly you, will have a huge void of purpose to fill. You should start preparing yourself for that dreaded day. It could be coming a lot sooner than you think.

cheripickr

"Racism is part of human nature, regardless of skin color. Always has been and always will be."

So what's the point in continually hashing and hashing and rehashing it then? Sounds to me like you've pretty much concluded there's not much anyone can do about it anyway. I think we've got plenty much "awareness" coming out our ears. Or do you have some other helpful solutions you'd like to propose to actually lessen it? I think you'd be happier keeping it around. It makes a nice bludgeon, doesn't it?

justcorbly

>>"All I know is that when most Americans are content to leave past racism in the past and you are unable to convince anyone that it is a core component of a political philosophy that 40% of America identifies itself with..."

If most Americans are, indeed, content to leave past racism in the past, then they are failing to recognize that racism is an inevitable part of human nature, which has not changed since Cro-Magnons left Africa. To argue that racism is a thing of the past is to argue than greed, lust, etc., are things of the past.

There's much more wrong with conservatism than it's roots in the racism of the 1960's and 1970's, but it wouldn't exist in its present form if not for white resentment and fear of the expansion of democray that took place at that time.

We are all racists. The difference is that conservatism offers a refuge that tells people that it is OK to be a bigot, while the rest of us recognize the moralvimperative to challenge ourselves and our assumptions.

cheripickr

"conservatism offers a refuge that tells people that it is OK to be a bigot,"

Source, please.

cheripickr

The next example you find an example of a conservative in a position of power espousing racism as a "core component of its appeal, please point it out to me.

justcorbly

>>""conservatism offers a refuge that tells people that it is OK to be a bigot,"

Source, please."

Voting patterns.

Tens of millions of white Americans would be upset if a non-white family moved in next door, or if their kids attended a non-white school, or if one of their kids married someone who wasn't white. A lot of them would keep their mouths shut these days, but their views would not change. Conservatism, from its podiums and from its pulpits, offers a refuge to those people, and leverages their fears for political advantage, rather than telling them to confront themselves.

Today's conservatives are the hiers of the conservatives of the past, people like John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Father Coughlin, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, et al. Those people were the enemies of American freedom, and so are their offspring.

cheripickr

"We are all racists...." See my 8:40 post above. Also, in response to your keen "moral imperative", which some of us so lack, what precisely are you doing to "challenge yourself and your assumptions". I try real hard, but I'm obviously failing. Although my moral compass may be wanting, maybe I can try to emulate your example.

cheripickr

"Today's conservatives are the hiers of the conservatives of the past, people like John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Father Coughlin, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, et al. Those people were the enemies of American freedom, and so are their offspring."

That's pretty scary to learn that 40% of Americans are by definition enemies of American freedom.

justcorbly

CP:

>>" So what's the point in continually hashing and hashing and rehashing it then?"

The same point as teaching our kids that taking what we want is wrong, or that hitting someone who upsets us is wrong, or that acting on our lust for the neighbor's spouse is wrong.

>>"... what precisely are you doing to "challenge yourself and your assumptions". I try real hard, but I'm obviously failing.

I didn't say I was succeeding, and I didn't say you were failing. I don't know you, and you do not know me. I said that people who are worried abut the end of white dominance of America -- an essentailly racist position -- find comfort and refuge in conservatism. I hold that it is historical fact that modern conservatism traces it roots and its political success to white fears of civil rights legislation.

>>"That's pretty scary to learn that 40% of Americans are by definition enemies of American freedom."

Yes, it is. Now you know why I worry.

justcorbly

To clarify, CP, I think we're all pretty much self-centered bastards. If we weren't, religion, morality and the law would not exist to try to modify our behavior.

I also think the wealth and power inevitably accrue to fewer and fewer people, and that human history is the story of people suffering under the dominion of the powerful few. I think the founders of our country recognized that government has usually been the key component of that dominating and oppressive force. However, I think that we, today, need to recognize that institutions other than the government can oppress and dominate us, that the individual efforts of each of us our not capable of resisting that kind of power.

Brandon Burgess

"Tens of millions of white Americans would be upset if a non-white family moved in next door, or if their kids attended a non-white school..."

--Maybe in Thurmond's day. I find it hard to believe that tens of millions of American's have only white neighbors and tens of millions of American children attend all-white schools.

"...or if one of their kids married someone who wasn't white."

--Maybe, but I wonder what the percentage would be. And what percentage of hispanic/asian/black/east Indian/Arabic/Jewish Americans would be upset if one of their kids married someone who wasn't like them. Are they also racists?

Is it possible that a greater percentage of whites are more open towards mixed race relationships?

Account Deleted

Corbly: Do you have any explanation for the current vice-chair of the North Carolina Republican Party?

justcorbly

Nowhere did I claim all consevatives are racists. I've said racism is a fundamental component of human nature, just as are greed, envy, jealousy, lust, rage and all the other unfortunate emotions that we all fall victim to at one time or another. Most of us learn as children to suppress those emotions and to avoid the behavior they prompt. E.g., we learn not to take what we want. We learn not beat up on someone who has angered us. We learn those things are immoral.

But, we have only recently begun to train ourselves and our children that discrimination based on skin color or ethnicity is, like greed, et al, a natural humam motion that must be contained and controlled, that behavior prompted by those felings is immoral. We've only recently begun to teach ourselves that assigning expectations to one individual based on their memberhsip in an ethnic group is immoral.

In the area of race, for some people those self-imposed controls are not as effective as they are for other immoral activity. Hence, we have people who, while sharing that emotion with all of us,, are unable or unwilling to avoid behavir prompted by it. So, we have people who display racist signs at rallies, and others who deny the signs are racist. We have radio personalities lwho imitate black dialect for destructive purposes, and then deny any racial component to their pitch. We have people lured in by nonsensical allegations that the president isn't a citizen, or was born in Africa, etc., etc., all of which are simple proxies for more traditional race-bating gambits.

During the 1960's and 1970's, millions of conservative Democrats abandoned the party because they opposed the expansion of democracy the party favored.(At the same time we saw segregationist whites launch private and often church-affiliated schools to avoid sending their kids to integrated public schools, a movement that provided the foundation for the thousands of private schools run by fundamentalist churches across the country.)

Conservatives and the GOP consciously and deliberately began to court those people, and continue to do so today. Conservativism provides a safe harbor for those people; conservatism does not encourage them to confront the way they avoid dealing with their attitudes toward race. Absent that refusal of so many people to challenge their own assumptions, conservative electoral success would have been, and still would be, considerably less.

Bubba

"Nowhere did I claim all consevatives are racists. "

Really?

Perhaps you just think most of them are racists, but not all?

"... white racism is a core component of conservative appeal."

Tell us, corbs: What does "core component" connote?

justcorbly

Bubba, it means exactly what it says. I explained it at length. If I wanted to say "Every conservative is a racist," I would have said that. I didn't, because it isn't true.

You'd have some degree of my sympathy if I thought you honestly couldn't distinguish the difference between those two statements. But, I don't think that. I think you're just making stuff up.

cheripickr

No corbs, nobody's making your own words up, just quoting them back to you. You agreed in earnest with the obvious sarcastically made statement:

"That's pretty scary to learn that 40% of Americans are by definition enemies of American freedom."

Corbs: "Yes, it is. Now you know why I worry."

You can count me, Bubba, Brandon and Sykes in that 40%.

You're an off-the-charts extremist calling mainstream Americans enemies of America.

Don't expect your wild haymakers to go unchallenged.

justcorbly

Bubba, actually, there is little point to these tortuous dialogues. We differ not just on matters of policy, but on very basic and fundamental undestandings of history and the American purpose. I could prepare a roster of the things I believe and don't believe and I suspect it would be a mirror image of your list.

Compromise is only possible when opposing forces share a commitment to a broader objective. That no longer applies to people like you and people like me.

Brandon Burgess

Actually JustCorbly (if that is your REAL name), you've made some pretty exaggerated claims in this thread that demonstrate you aren't willing or are unable to take on such a serious discussion without making outrageous, unsubstantiated claims.

I'd still like to know where tens of millions of Americans live with only white neighbors and where their children attend all white schools and how they achieve these things when we have busing laws and affirmative action.

I'd also like to discuss how we are going to deal with all of the racist hispanics, montagnards, jews, arabs, and hindus who encourage their children to marry into their own race and religion under the guise of preserving cultural identity, when you have already cued us in that such beliefs are racist.

Notice I haven't belittled any social, political, or religious group you may belong to. I have not twisted your words or insulted your intelligence so I am expecting an honest response.

Either explain why you exaggerated your claims or answer my relevant questions. Otherwise I will assume that you are the kind of person who makes outrageous claims and then refuses to back them up, demonstrating an unwillingness to even seek out common ground.

I think my questions are justified in the quest to reach common ground regarding the broader objective of peaceful race relations.

justcorbly

You aren't mainstream, CP. Neither am I, for that matter. We're both too far out on our side of the spectrum.

I believe that if conservatives again control the country for any length of time, we will see the following:

-- Doctors and their patients imprisoned for performing and having abortions;

-- Financial starving of public education and tax revenue diverted to partisan religious schools;

-- failure to respond to global warming, causing the eventual flooding of coastal cities across the globe;

-- increased presidentail authoritarianism and the diminuition of representative democratic government;

-- armed vigilantes kidnapping, and shooting, both illegal and legal immigrants;

-- accellerated collapse of American health care, as costs continue to rise beyond the ability to pay;

-- accellerated demise of the middle class, as tax cuts coupled with corporate dominance of government transfer more wealth to the few and eliminate jobs that provide middle-class incomes;

-- increased reliance on military power to resolve diplomatic issues, and a contempt for the rest of the world that ill be echoed back twicefold.

It's of little interest to me what you or 40 pecent of the American people think. I am only interested in begin right, and I am convinced I am right anf you are wrong. If 99 pecent of the American people agreed with you, I would still say they were all wrong.

I realize that, from your perspective, that marks me as an extremist, much as the abolitionists of the ante bellum era were marked as extremists. But, history has vindicated them and condemned the majority who opposed them. In one hundred years, it will take the same condemning view of conservatism.

Roch101

"Source, please." -- CP

http://guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2010/01/diversity-and-good-decisions.html

Account Deleted

I see Joe has become "an other" for some people.

Here is what one leading conservative has to say about race and MLK's legacy.

Brandon Burgess

"...I am convinced I am right anf you are wrong".

--Justcorbly, I can not understand why you are engaging in discourse. Furthermore, I would guess that if you held a different worldview, your real name would've been posted here.

justcorbly


I don't use my actual name online to protect my privacy. Simple as that. In any case, there's no way for you to know if any name used online is real or not.

And, how do you connect that with my "worldview"?

I'm "engaging in discourse", such as it is, because some people here advocate politics that anger and frighten me. If nothing else, it helps me put my thoughts into language, albeit often typoed language.

Account Deleted

Here is how some conservatives in North Carolina are honoring Dr. King today.

Grant

I nominate Brandon Burgess as Poo-Bah of Parley, Master of the Buckhounds and Lord High Everything Else.

cheripickr

Wow, that was a good one Roch! You're really coming along nicely! Now next month, let's shoot for more statements and fewer questions, then in March, maybe even paragraphs.

Roch101

Jeff S., I'm not sure what you mean, but it's clear that one of the most popular local spots for staunch conservatives is a place where statements of prejudice and bigotry abound and are never refuted by the conservatives who participate there. But, in fairness, that's only one blog. Conservative you has, on occasion, called out intolerable bigotry and other local conservatives will as well. Still, that bigotry is so easily accommodated at Guarino's is not meaningless.

justcorbly

And good for them, Jeffrey. If more people had been willing to honor him 40 years ago, maybe he'd still be alive. Now if they'd only understand and adopt King's political message.

Account Deleted

Roch: What specifically in the post you linked to qualifies as the evidence CP was asking for?

Roch101

I argue that in the thread itself, Jeff.

cheripickr

I'll say this much for JustCorbly: I learn more about what he believes and why in one post than I learn from Roch's "arguments" in a year.

Roch101

CP, for the last time: no, I will not go out with you.

Bubba

"Still, that bigotry is so easily accommodated at Guarino's is not meaningless."

The imagined bigotry that you talk about on a regular basis is always meaningless.

Brandon Burgess

Grant, I think it is important to recognize the mistreatment of some individuals compared to the tolerence of others.

The only difference between Bubba and Justcorbly is their political persuasion. Both commenters are unshakeable, usually unwilling to meet half way, usually speak of their opposition using generalizations, hyperbole, and stereotypes. Both commenters blog under pseudonyms to protect their identity, yet only one of them is consistently harassed by having their real name posted when it has been made clear by both Corbly and Bubba that they prefer to be addressed by their pseudonyms.

Corbly has made some outrageous claims about "tens of millions of Americans". One being that it is bigotry that motivates white folks to encourage same-race relations. It bothers me that Corbly doesn't acknowledge the racist tendencies of hispanics, asians, blacks, arabs etc.. who promote the same behavior under the guise of preserving their culture.

Either all of these demographic groups are bigots, or there is nothing wrong with preserving your culture, unless you are white. Corbs has ignored the main point by refusing to engage in discussion about his comments.

Don't you guys call that "hit and run" commenting style?

I am still searching for the areas in which tens of millions of Americans live with only white citizens and their children attend "whites only" schools.

I am trying to meet Corbly half-way here, asking Corb to teach me. Corbly sees no point in that. So I guess I can either accept Corbly's "statistics" or I can just be "wrong".

Brandon Burgess

And before you ask, my take on the "preservation of culture" is this: A jewish woman and a hispanic man should have no problem passing on their cultural identity to their mixed race offspring, unless of course their culture elevates one race over another.

In fact, it is my belief that there is a greater percentage of white people who are open to mixed race and same sex relations when compared to the rest of America.

While I acknowledge that Justcorbly's undocumented statistics may be accurate, I can not accept them. And I think it is important to acknowledge the progress white folks have made when it comes to tolerance.

White folks realize that imperialism and domination are wrong. I'm not sure that there is a more self-conscious and self-critical race than white folks in America.

Spag

"...statements of prejudice and bigotry abound and are never refuted by the conservatives who participate there."

Once again in Rochland, if you don't agree with his views you are factually wrong. If you oppose busing because you don't think kids of any color should be on a bus for two hours or because it poses undue hardships on the minorities it is designed to help, etc., then you hate black people. If you don't agree with Roch, you are a racist.

CP, Brandon, Jeff, et al, there is no point in even engaging in a dialogue with these people. They are far Left extremists, probably have deep personal issues that have to be addressed with medication, and are VERY angry right now and throwing a tantrum that the great majority of Americans disagree with their world view and have once again rejected their agenda.

There isn't going to be any logic in their statements, much less arguments. All they are going to do is call you names and make demands. It's like arguing with children.

The comments to this entry are closed.