Racism is Alive and Well in America

[Soylent Brice]

first time secession talk happened was when Lincoln was elected. it was over slavery issues.

the next time secession talks have come up it happens to be during the first african american presidency.

coincidence?

nah.

it just goes to show you how deeply rooted racism is in this country. racism is alive and well, and this shit needs to be brought up in conversation everywhere, personally, M$M, etc.

to be quite frank, i'm beyond being appalled and actually quite angry about this. has this country really degenerated this much in the last eight years?

[Raineyb]

1. I fear that your well made point will end up sinking like a stone

But I'll gladly be the first kick and rec on it.

Regards

[Soylent Brice]

3. i think you're right too, but so it goes.

thank you very much for the K&R

[tbyg52]

2. I think you're right.

And then there's the immigration issue as well.

[Soylent Brice]

4. not too mention that it's like pulling teeth

to get states to enact hate crime laws, or even enforce them for that matter.

[pnutbutr]

7. why not just have laws

that cover all races for the crimes they commit?

[Soylent Brice]

10. ...

"All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp

[pnutbutr]

16. and what

laws against the crimes can't do that? How does tagging "hate crime" to the end of a charge change anything regarding the feelings of the community or people affected by it except by exacerbating the fact that they are different and must be singled out as different by a specific moniker applied to a common crime?

[Soylent Brice]

20. it's like i'm talking to a wall.

let's try again, more specifically this time:

"The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, LEAVING THEM FEELING ISOLATED, VULNERABLE AND UNPROTECTED BY THE LAW."

[pnutbutr]

26. If a crime

is committed and the perpetrator captured they will be tried for their crime. I don't see how that works differently or is less effective than sticking the term "hate crime" on the end of the charge. Any crime intimidates other members of a community. Joe gets shot to death in the street and everyone on that street is going to feel scared and intimidated no matter their race. As for being unprotected by the law without sticking the term "hate crime" to the end, that's just silly. The police either do their job or they don't.

[Soylent Brice]

32. do you believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, sometimes

the police don't follow through with certain crimes in certain... say... predominately "black areas" more so than they would in... i don't know... say... something equivalent to Bushies' gated community...

the difference between a crime and a hate crime:

a man is robbed and shot.

a black man is hung from a tree with a burning cross next to him.

do you really not understand the difference????

[pnutbutr]

35. I see

man is killed by gunshot

man is killed by hanging


If the police aren't doing their job, get on the fucking police to do their jobs, don't make up a tag to throw on the end of a criminal charge and expect it to change how the police operate.

[Soylent Brice]

42. i see. so what you're really saying is:

gotcha.

[pnutbutr]

50. hahahahahaha

that wasn't funny at all. I'm trying to say that racial differences should not be an issue regarding law and that by creating tags that put the differences in the forefront it makes the whole idea counterproductive to it's intended outcome.

[CBGLuthier]

75. You are so fucking wrong

That was very, very funny.

[TahitiNut]

56. Actually, it's apparent that you DON'T see.

Every rational, law-abiding person incorporates considerations regarding their personal safety into their behavior. We all, to one degree or another, think about what we might do that makes us more or less likely to be the victim of a crime. It's not about "blaming the victim" as much as it is about making choices that are in our own power to make. For example, to be less likely to be the victim of a robbery we might commonly choose to avoid carrying valuables, carrying large amounts of cash, or putting ourselves in situations that make help less likely to intervene. Likewise, women commonly choose more modest clothing and choose well-lighted areas, preferring to remain in the company of others whenever in public. There are many things that we can choose to do in going about our daily lives ... choices that don't excessively infringe upon our liberties.

We cannot, however, CHOOSE not to be black, or change our racial make-up. We cannot reasonably choose to change our gender. And, furthermore, we SHOULD not change our political or religious choices based on fear, since that corrupts the very nature of our civil society. After all, the very definition of "terrorism" is the creation of fear to cause people to modify their political or religious choices.

Thus, a "hate crime" is not only a crime against the single victim of any instance of that crime ... it is ALSO a crime against all members of the class of victim selected! It's NOT the same crime! It's a kind of social TERRORISM. Get that through your $%^&** skull!

:grr:

[pnutbutr]

62. you're right

my bad. "hate crime" is a good thing.

[Soylent Brice]

65. STANDING OVATION

:applause:

[conscious evolution]

121. It's a kind of social TERRORISM.

That says it all.
Its about terrorism.

[northzax]

146. but isn't gang warfare also the same thing?

intended to intimidate a population into compliance through violence? and isn't the best response to any crime effective investigation and prosecution of those involved? the original intent of civil rights violation crimes (which have morphed into what we call 'hate crime' statutes) was to give the Feds another bite at the apple when the local jurisdiction fails to take action. (take Rodney Kind for instance, the local courts were unable to convict on what was so incredibly obviously a crime that the Feds took over. Because the crime charged was "civil rights' instead of 'assault' double jeopardy wasn't attached and the Feds could take another shot at the 'officers' involved. Two were convicted, as you recall.

how about another tragic celebrated case, that of Matthew Shephard? both of his murderers were arrested, charged, convicted and now serving multiple life sentences. If this wasn't a hate crime, I don't know what would be, but what would charging them with that, and adding another 50 years to their already unservable sentences, matter? Both will die in prison, did it honestly make a difference to the gay community in Wyoming that they were not able to be charged with a hate crime? and, to be honest, was their crime any more heinous for the motivation?

for premediated crimes directed at certain populations, we have federal civil rights laws and racketeering laws to put into play.

here's a thought. I work in a bar on a crowded street. last saturday morning at about 2:00 am, a man was shot not twenty feet from where I normally am standing at that time in the morning doing crowd control (it happened outside the bar and did not involve our patrons.) the shooting was because someone looked at a woman in the wrong way, and her 'man' took offense. these sorts of fights happen all the time, several a weekend, but gun violence is pretty rare (only a few times a year) Still, someone got shot because he looked at someone the wrong way. he was shot for being straight and talking to a woman. had he been gay, and talked to the wrong man, would the crime have been worse?

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Hate crime laws DO cover all races -

if a white commits a crime against a black BECAUSE he is black, it's a hate crime. If a black commits a crime against a white BECAUSE he is white, it's a hate crime. If a straight commits a crime against a gay BECAUSE he is gay, it's a hate crime. If an Arab commits a crime against a Jew BECAUSE he's a Jew, it's a hate crime. And so on...

Hate crimes are crimes of terror - not meant to simply affect the individuals themselves, but to strike terror into that individual's community. A white guy shoots a black guy in a fight outside a bar, it's a crime. It is between those two, only. A white guy shoots a black guy, then strings him up with a sign saying "Die N*****S", that is supposed to intimidate an entire community, and makes it a hate crime.

Hate crimes = Terrorism. That makes it a different crime than the actual assault, grafitti, or whatever.

[TahitiNut]

57. GMTA (See my post #56.)

:thumbsup:

[monmouth]

5. At my PUblix I have two AA women, one a manager, one a cashier, with

whom I often discuss politics. They know (I'm white)how much I love Obama and we discuss everything from Michelle and her clothes to the girls to the new dog, all in great conversation. Cashier asked me the other day what I thought about the tea parties, her manager was standing by. I stated it had nothing to do with taxes, none of those people made over 250K, it was all about a black man living in the white house. They were both stunned. I asked "what's the matter?" They both said they were surprised a white person would say it, even though they agreed with me. I told them they hurt my feelings, they should have known better. Whether I'm white, black or red, the truth is the truth and I call it the way I see it. We ended up laughing about it and they both apologized sort of. We decided we had to have a "girlfriends" time together and really chew the fat.

My point in this, they expected (I think,out of conditioning)that as white person I would never verbalize such a thought. They were wrong.

[Soylent Brice]

13. excellent example. had a similar conversation at work here last week.

this scared grab your guns a black man is in the WH mentality bullshit has to stop.

it's like most people in this country never climbed out of their primordial ooze.

[Hannah Bell]

114. i don't think that's it, so much. as i remember the freepers talking

about how clinton wasn't going to leave office, his concentration camps, etc....

what's different this time is mostly the economy & the bad news associated with it.

in my neck of the woods, most of the conservatives i know were thoroughly disillusioned with bush by the time he left office, & the general opinion of obama is he has more "gravitas" than bush.

but no one likes the bank bailouts. on other things they have varying opinions, but that's bedrock. didn't like bush's. don't like obama's.

[Raineyb]

59. I'm sure they were pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

Just going on how these things go on this board I'm sure their instinct was to keep that thought to themselves. It's the type of things that can, excuse the pun, color a relationship. I'm sure next time there will be no such surprise.

Regards

[monmouth]

72. Oh that's exactly what it was. I mean it's not as if we hang around

together, I am a customer and I'm white. But they both make me feel so comfortable in discussing all subjects, I was taken aback that they were stunned....LOL. A real circle jerk in a way. As I said we did end it with laughter and started to rag on repugs again, but as I said, the conditioning unfortunately is there. Racism is so awful but doubt it will be gone before I am. Have a great day.

[Sequoia]

108. You're not alone, I'd say the same thing out loud. And I do.

Where were the teabaggers when Bush gave out money to bankers? Thought so....in their basement typing words to Hannity and Limpy.

[laureloak]

120. Your claim to be white doesn't validate anything.

I'm white and I think Republicans are bitter that they were so overwelmingly shoved out of power.

The sea of faces I saw at Obama's election party were not black. You can thank your fellow white-man for their vote and join hands with them to make this a better country, else you can continue to draw a deep racial divide based on suspicion and hate. You have obviously chosen the latter.

[monmouth]

127. Get a grip okay??? You obviously missed my point..n/t

[laureloak]

136. I didn't miss your point at all, but you seem to have missed mine.

Why don't you stop with the posts that feed into racism. Anti-white racism is as bad as any other kind and that's what you spread in your post.

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. I don't see that at all.

How did the poster 'feed into racism' by acknowledging that racism is a primary - if not THE primary - factor behind the teabag protests?

The same racism that fed the Palin rallies, which, in my opinion, may have cost McCain the election - Obama only really pulled away in the polls AFTER the Palin rallies began. Palin kept the election from being close enough for them to steal again - which is why I hope she runs again in '12.

Early in the campaign Obama said we need to have a national discussion about race. Such a discussion will never come about if we are afraid to talk about it.

[TahitiNut]

130. The "divide" is no longer between black and white as much as it's ...

... between those for whom race matters a lot and those for whom race doesn't matter very much at all, except to inform the diversity of our experiences. Among the former there are the (hopefully) vestigial racists who joined themselves with the teabaggers. Thus, the "racial divide" is more and more relegated to those poor backwards souls for whom it matters too much. It just doesn't.

As a 65-year-old white guy who was often called a "n_____-lover," it's with joy and amazement that I've lived long enough to see a man elected where his race just doesn't matter that much. In other words, it's neither BECAUSE nor DESPITE his race ... but still there's a joy in my heart that we finally have a "colorful" President. It's about his talents and skills and the content of his character ... a dream coming true. It's with some degree of hubris that I take PRIDE in that. I believe it marks some degree of maturity in my nation ... of which I am a part.

[laureloak]

137. I see anti-white threads on here every day. Time to stop it. n/t

[pnutbutr]

6. hahaha

that's dumb. It's about the same thing it was before. States rights and limiting the power and scope of the federal government.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. States rights? Limiting power and scope of government?

Those were always pro-racism red herrings.

[pnutbutr]

11. srsly?

that's even dumber than the original post. Go bone up on your American history and come back when you've learned something.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. YA RLY.

It was used as a defense for slavery for many years, and then as a defense for Jim Crow for many years after that.

It was commonly promoted at various white power rallies: like klan rallies, George Wallace rallies, and tea bagging parties.

[pnutbutr]

18. maybe because it's

true. Wow! Who would have thought the civil war could have been about something other than slavery? Fucking redneck racist shitbags from the south only care about bringing back slavery and oppressing people of color. WTF! You stuck in ignoracetown or distortedhistoryville?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. You mean beside fucking redneck racist shitbags?

While there's fucking higher class racist shitbag revisionist historians.

So, pnutbutr, the Civil War was about slavery and racism, and the tea bag parties are just another white power rally.

[Hannah Bell]

78. it was about money & power. slavery second-hand to the money & power,

racism = distant third.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. It was about slavery, period.

The power and money of slavery sure, but all other issues revolved around the slavery.

And since the slavery was inherently racist, it was hardly a "distant third."

You never heard anybody complaining about the states rights to own white slaves, did you?

[pnutbutr]

84. omg

you're so right. You have said it enough times that it has now become fact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. Oh, it is a fact.

And your revisionist history that dates back to the 1920s and has since been discredited by most modern historians doesn't change that fact.

[pnutbutr]

88. srsly r u srsly

That's absurd.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. Look it up yourself.

What you're calling history and advocating should be taught in schools has been discredited for many, many years.

[pnutbutr]

92. by whom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. Do you own this book?

Not him. Pretty much everybody else.

[pnutbutr]

107. i dunno

can't see the pic

[Hannah Bell]

95. the slavery supported one faction's money & power. if not for the $,

no benefit to slavery.

slavery birthed racism, not the reverse. every elite creates a mythology to rationalize its mistreatment of the lower orders.

i never heard anyone use that argument because the mythology & its institutional supports were in place before the states were.

"Allen’s two essays provide us with a very cogent and useful account of the development of the structure of white supremacy in the U.S. He shows both how this system was consciously constructed by the colonial (“Plantation Bourgeoisie”) ruling class and what was the initial impact on the development of the white laborers. Contrary to the cynical view that racism is a basic to human nature and that there always have been (and therefore always will be) a fundamental racial antagonism, Allen show that systematic white supremacy developed in a particular historical period, for specific material reasons.

“Up to the 1680’s little distinction was made in the status of Blacks and English and other Europeans held in involuntary servitude. Contrary to common belief the status of Blacks in the first seventy years of Virginia colony was not that of racial, lifelong, hereditary slavery, and the majority of the whites who came were not free”. Black and white servants intermarried, escaped together, and rebelled together.” (p.3)

A rapidly developing plantation system required an expanding labor supply. The solution was both to have more servants and to employ them for longer terms. A move from fixed-term servitude (e.g., 7 years) to perpetual slavery would be valuable to the ruling class of the new plantation economy. The question for analysis is not so much why there was a transition to chattel slavery but why it was not imposed on the white servants as well as on the Blacks. To analyze this development we need to understand that any method of exploiting labor requires a system of social control.

There were a series of servile rebellions that threatened the plantation system in the period preceding the transition to racially designated chattel slavery and white supremacy. Allen cites numerous examples. In 1661 Black and Irish servants joined in an insurrectionary plot in Bermuda. In 1663, in Virginia, there was an insurrection for the common freedom of Blacks, whites and Indian servants. In the next 20 years, there were no fewer than ten popular and servile revolts and plots in Virginia. Also many Black and white servants successfully escaped (to Indian territories) and established free societies.

Allen places particular emphasis on Bacon’s rebellion which began in April 1676. This was a struggle within the ruling class over “Indian policy”, but Bacon resorted to arming white and Black servants, promising them freedom. Allen says “the transcendent importance” of this revolt is that “the armed working class, Black and white, fought side by side for the abolition of slavery.” He mentions, but doesn’t deal with the reality, that Bacon’s cause was to exterminate the Indians. Allen’s focus is on the formation of chattel slavery, but it is a problem that he doesn’t analyze the other major foundation of white supremacy: the theft of Native lands through genocide.

The 20 year period of servile rebellions made the issue of social control urgent for the plantation bourgeoisie, at the same time as they economically needed to move to a system of perpetual slavery. The purpose of creating a basic White/Black division was in order to have one section of labor police and control the other. As Allen says, “The non-slavery of white labor was the indispensable condition for the slavery of black labor”. < 1 >

A series of laws were passed and practices imposed that forged a qualitative distinction between white and Black labor. In 1661 a Virginia law imposed twice the penalty time for escaped English bond-servants who ran away in the company of an African life-time bond-servant. Heavy penalties were imposed on white women servants who bore children fathered by Africans. One of the very first white slave privileges was the exemption of white servant women from work in the fields and the requirements through taxes to force Black children to go to work at twelve, while white servant children were excused until they were fourteen. In 1680, Negroes were forbidden to carry arms, defensive or offensive. At the same time, it was made legal to kill a Negro fugitive bond-servant who resisted recapture.

What followed 1680 was a 25 year period of laws that systematically drew the color line as the limit on various economic, social, and political rights. By 1705, “the distinction between white servants and Black slavery were fixed: Black slaves were to be held in life long hereditary slavery and whites for five years, with many rights and protections afforded to them by law.” (p.6)"

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/profiles/lwwch.html

[conscious evolution]

125. Georgias letter of seccession

specificly said it was about slavery.
I also remember reading where Jefferson Davis also said the same thing.

[JonLP24]

138. I thought it was about preserving the union?

Lincoln himself said something along the lines such as he could preserve the union even if it means not outlawing history. To say it's about slavery, period is flat out wrong. Though slavery was a major factor so I'm not disputing you there but it wasn't just about slavery.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

141. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union because the South seceded over slavery.

[ohheckyeah]

113. You're really arguing

two separate issues as one issue. Why the Civil War was started may have included factors other than slavery....monetary factors for instance BUT the monetary issues only came into play with the secession of the southern states. The reason for secession by the states was slavery. I'm a southerner whose great grandfather fought in the civil war so I don't have any bias against the south. The "state's rights" that were an issue was all about slavery. Had it not been for slavery the states wouldn't have butted heads with the federal government and to ignore that is at best naive and disingenuous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. Exactly - there may have been many other issues involved, but

only the basic issue of slavery gave impetus to rebellion and secession. Just as it had with the Texas rebellion 25 years earlier. Santa Ana was willing to grant limited sovereignty to Texas - it was a LONG way away from Mexico City, after all, but the Texans insisted on keeping their slaves which Mexican law had forbidden since 1820. The successful secession of Texas from Mexico was the impetus for the secessionist movement in the south.

It was ALL about their 'peculiar institution'.

[ohheckyeah]

133. Of course it was.

I was born and raised in the south and have lived most of my life in the south and I make no apologies for that but I also don't try and pretend the past was something other than what it was.

[Kalyke]

47. And since most of the men who fought in the Civil War didn't own

slaves, then states rights WAS their issue.

It may have been a strawman developed by the slavery-owning elite, but the average, non-slave-owning man still believed in states rights.

FAIL.

[pnutbutr]

54. history

learn it.

[Kalyke]

58. I think you would need to learn it.

Most of the men who fought in the Civil War were fighting or thought they were fighting for states rights. They weren't even rich enough to own slaves.

I'm sorry you somehow can't see that.

[pnutbutr]

64. yes

I guess I interpreted your post incorrectly. I thought the FAIL at the end was meant as a sort of sarcasm thing. So I guess you are agreeing with me about the states rights thing?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. The rights for states to own slaves was their issue.

[pnutbutr]

82. taxes

were a big issue

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Taxes were no major issue leading to the Civil War...

and despite the whining of the teabaggers, it's not really an issue to them either.

[pnutbutr]

srsly r u srsly

That's absurd as well.

[d_b]

105. lol

+juan

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. Obviously, as the vast majority of them have just gotten tax CUTS,

not tax increases.

[TahitiNut]

93. Don't make the common mistake of thinking the rationales given to the cannon fodder are ...

... the same as the rationales of the 'leaders' in going to war ... and don't make the mistake of thinking that there's ONLY ONE "reason," whether true or fictional. This is the common error in 'revisiting' the Viet Nam War, too. It's typical for powerful people to converge in promulgating wars, each for their OWN reasons - some seemingly altrustic and some baldly self-serving.

Furthermore, even though people that fight may do so for reasons that prove to be false, it does NOT bely either their virtue OR their courage in doing so. After all, Don Quixote WAS courageous! (Never forget that.)

How, after all, would the Confederacy get so many to wear the gray (and the stars and bars) if it was admittedly just so the wealthy could own slaves?? Many (NOT all) HAD to be given other reasons ... no matter the truthfulness.

Any statement that begins with "THE reason we went to war ..." is inherently false at the outset. There's NEVER just one reason for the coordinated behavior of such masses of people.


That said, it's naive in the extreme and sheer historical revisionism to proclaim "states rights" as the primary operative rationale for either the slave-owners or the ground-pounders of the Confederacy, many of whom were illiterate and almost totally unconcerned with the political niceties of our "Constitutional republic."

[conscious evolution]

126. Most of the men who fought

fought for the same reason so many join the military today- They had been brainwashed into thinking it was in their best interests to fight.

[Chisox08]

142. Slavery wasn't the only issue of the Civil War

It didn't become an issue until after the war began. The main issues that started the Civil War was the distrubution of tax dollers: the South was the donor states at the time, political power they saw that they had no say in the federal government once Lincoln got elected without carring a single Southern state and states rights. At the time Americans put state over federal gocernment. The North added slavery to recruit abolishonist and free African Americans to the war effort and to punish The South for seceding. Most Confederate soilders thought that they were fighting to protect their home state. The reason Robert E. Lee turned down the offer to lead the Union Army against the Confederates was because of his loyalty to the state of Virginia. Stonewall Jackson fought for the Confederacy for the same reason.

[Thothmes]

143. Taxes had little to do with the start of the Civil War

The Souths loss of political power in national affairs was much more influtential. By the early 1840, the poplulation center of the country had shifted north, with a corresponding increase in representation in the House. By the late 1850s, the number of slave holding states were outnumbered by the free states in the Senate, and with the loss of the 1860 election, the last pro southern office of Government went to the Republicans. the south feared, more than anything else that, inspite of the Dred Scott Decision, that the Federal Government would take action to limit or eventually eliminate the insititution of Slaver.

[RaleighNCDUer]

144. It makes no difference if they DID own slaves or not.

The entire culture of the south was built on slavery. Every farm, every business, was directly impacted by the fact of slavery. What they were defending was NOT states rights, but the slave culture that they were taught from infancy to be ordained by god. Those non-owners who fought for slavery are EXACTLY the same as those teabaggers fighting a tax increase on the wealthy 5% (the plantation owners) even though they themselves are getting tax cuts (competing in the marketplace against free labor). THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE DOING.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Careful with that.

Racists don't like having their mythologies challenged.

[conscious evolution]

123. Absolutely right

The only people in Georgia I ever hear spewing that shit are rascist rightwingers and libertarians.

[tbyg52]

15. Uh, you're kidding, right.....? nt

[pnutbutr]

19. not kidding

I'm srsly

[tnlefty]

22. Then where were these nuts during the past 7 yrs.?

You know when Dimson** expanded the size, scope and power of the federal gubmint? When he was illegally wiretapping? When he was shredding the Constitution and The Bill of Rights? When he was spending like a drunken sailor for his lied into war, while not much was done to help the citizens of the country?

That's how I know that those little teabagging teapartying frauds just might have another agenda/problem. Along with secessionists, but I knew that about the secessionists years ago.

[pnutbutr]

28. partisanship

They are standing up now and being more vocal. The white house and congress is in the hands of the democrats. It's hard to believe it has to do with race where there are so many more divides that separate them from us. Besides, grandly lumping them all into the class, racist, doesn't help anyone and only serves to show your own bigotry against a group of people different from yourself.

[tnlefty]

39. So it was partianship that kept them from giving a damn about

the country during those years and all of a sudden they've decided to care and now they want to call themselves patriots? Buncha cowards would be more of an apt description of them. Mindless cowards would be even better.

[pnutbutr]

40. that's a better

fit than calling them all racists.

[Soylent Brice]

44. don't believe anyone called them "ALL" racists.

but to deny racism was the major proponent is just plain ignorant.

[pnutbutr]

52. your going on speculation

pure speculation. Did any one of them mention Obama's race as an issue?

[stillcool]

60. Have you seen the signs from the 'tea-parties'?

Did you listen to what the Palin supporters had to say at her rallies? Racism is the underlying theme at every one of these events.

[pnutbutr]

66. no

I haven't seen the signs from the tea parties and WTF do Palin rallies have to do with this?

[stillcool]

68. They are the same people...

There are plenty of photo's available on the internet. Check it out! They're using the same slogans.

[pnutbutr]

71. found a

white slavery one. One.

[stillcool]

99. well I found a few that had to do with taxes

[tnlefty]

45. Maybe not all, just 98.9999999% are racially motivated.

Better now?

[Hannah Bell]

83. not about the puppets, but the puppetmasters.

same reason libs didn't call clinton on welfare reform, or telecom bill, or any number of things.

you keep giving "your guy" the benefit of the doubt.

but by the end of the bush presidency, i knew a heck of a lot of pissed-off conservatives....

[tnlefty]

119. I suppose we remember it a little differently. I remember

rumblings and questioning the welfare reform bill and greater rumblings on the telecom bill, both of which are nothing compared to the abuse of powers under BushCo**.

The pissed off conservatives that I know voted for Obama, didn't attend the local teaparty and think those folks are frothing nuts. :shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

23. you're a fool if you think that's what it's all about-

maybe you have the opportunity to live in denial, but you - alone- aren't America.

[pnutbutr]

29. oh please history buff

correct me. Tell me about the civil war.

[Bluerthanblue]

115. I'd be more than happy to

if I thought you were truly interested in anyone else's perspective.

My Great-grandfather fought in it. Two of his brothers died in it. I'm not ignorant about the history or the rhetoric.
It wasn't the cut and dried lesson you'd like to paint it as.

Sarcasm is not your friend.

[TahitiNut]

27. Wow. I was about to post the same thing.

But I was going to include :sarcasm: ... knowing that there are some imbeciles who believe this bullshit.

:wow:

[pnutbutr]

31. education in America

has really done a number on our youth. I knew they taught slavery as a major cause of the civil war in high school but I didn't know it had gotten this bad. Srsly, go read up on the history for yourself and learn something.

[TahitiNut]

34. Cute. So, anyone who disagrees with you is young and ignorant, huh?

:eyes: If it looks like a bigot, sounds like a bigot, and smells like a bigot ...

I lived in the Deep South in the 60s as an adult ... and the KKK was all for "states rights." I guess they still are, huh?

[pnutbutr]

37. thanks

for the support. I must still suggest you do some further reading on the civil war.

[Soylent Brice]

41. i feel honored that you

used your 1000th post to promote bigotry on a thread I STARTED!!!

:sarcasm:

[pnutbutr]

43. appreciate that

but what I said wasn't bigotry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. It's revisionist history with racial undertones.

Not unlike holocaust denial.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. If the issue was NOT slavery, why is it that only slave states turned traitor?

Some of the most stubborn, independent, ornery jackasses I've ever met were from the northeast - a long tradition of fighting federal infringement, taxation -

But Vermont never seceeded. Nor New Hampshire. Not even Maine.

Explain that.

[TahitiNut]

63. Coincidence? They were more "attuned" to Constitutional values and civil liberties?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[pnutbutr]

69. maybe

What ornery jackasses from the civil war were from Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. The ones that kicked racist South ass.

[pnutbutr]

87. racism, for the south only :rofl:

"Slavery in the South reinforced racial attitudes. That's for sure. But it's important to keep in mind that the northern part of the nation had slavery as well, and that some states were very slow in emancipation. New York and New Jersey in particular had very gradual emancipation laws. So that there are African Americans in bondage well into the antebellum era.

It's also important to keep in mind that the midwestern states, as they came into the union, some of them, passed black exclusion laws so that free blacks who wanted to leave, say, the mid-Atlantic and settle in the Midwest were prevented, as well as African Americans who might for one reason or another get their freedom in the South. They were prevented from moving into some midwestern states.

So it would seem as though the nation itself had an attitude that African Americans were inferior. And if you look at some of the laws that were in existence in the northern states, African Americans were not supposed to ride on streetcars; African Americans were not supposed to ride on steamers. The whole idea of Jim Crow and segregation of the races really originates in the North. African Americans couldn't vote in most states, even if they owned property. So the exclusion and the was already there.

The concept of democracy seemed to be something in the nation at that time that was for white people. And it really relates to this concept of white nationalism, that no matter how poor you are, no matter what situation you're in, if you're white, then you are far better off than the wealthiest person of African descent. And people operated on that. And it affected the public schools. It affected every aspect of life in America. It affected immigrants coming in, because immigrants, especially the Irish, would come in and they would have immediately a higher status than African Americans who had been born there, whose generations go back to existence in the nation. And this, of course, created a lot of tension, because immigrants coming in would oftentimes be the people who took jobs away from African Americans. So while immigration became a form of economic and social mobility for whites, it became a form of degradation for African Americans."

Margaret Washington
Associate Professor of History
Cornell Universiy

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Oh, I never said is was only in the south.

There were racists fighting for the North. Just like there were anti-semites fighting for the Allies in WWII.

But the South? Inherently racist.

[pnutbutr]

91. you =

inherently bigoted toward the south as a collective group of states and people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. Not at all.

I think the Nazis were bad people, I don't have a problem with modern Germans or Germany.

[TahitiNut]

102. "So that there are African Americans in bondage well into the antebellum era."

I find it exceedingly strange that an Associate Professor of History would misuse the term "antebellum."

:eyes:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i2987.html

[pnutbutr]

109. she was referring to northern states

in that context which did free slaves for the most part during that time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

129. I think she was using it correctly if you correct the punctuation in

that sentence - she was referring to the '...gradual emancipation in NY & NJ, so that there are...' Rather than '...gradual emanicpation in NY & NJ. So that there are...'

IOW, saying that there were some who remained slaves into the 30s & 40s, even though slavery was abolished in the 20s in NY & NJ.

Can't imagine there were a whole lot of them, though - when the slaves saw most their local brethern free and knew their own freedom was just a hike away, most of them probably did.

[NorthernSpy]

51. Then explain the Fugitive Slave Act.

Southern politicians were opposed to "states' rights" for as long as they had the votes to force the federal government to dance to their pro-slavery tune.

It has never been about states' rights: not then, and not now. It has always been about how the most reactionary faction in American society still feel entitled to getting their way, even when they're outnumbered and outvoted.

[TahitiNut]

70. Let's not forget the "Missouri Compromise."

"States rights"?? Yeah... right. :puke:

[WeDidIt]

94. States don't have rights

States have powers, and only those not granted the feds under the constitution nor limited to the states by the constitution (much of what's being called "state's rights" are limited due to the 14th amendment)..

People have rights

[pnutbutr]

98. limited only in regards to

citizenship and the rights afforded to citizens.

[WeDidIt]

100. And powers delegated to the federal government

for example, the Georgia Sovereignty bill recently passed professed a "right" of the state to establish religion. That isn't a right, it's a power, and it's strictly forbidden to all levels of government via the first and fourteenth amendments.

[pnutbutr]

104. obviously

and technically unless a law is created that respects the establishment of that religion in GA then it is not unconstitutional. The state can say it has a religion but unless a law is created that specifically gives that religion preference for something, it is not unconstitutional.

[WeDidIt]

134. Wrong

Teh state cannot say it has a religion. Tahat act, in and of itself, establishes religion.

[pnutbutr]

106. obviously

and technically unless a law is created that respects the establishment of that religion in GA then it is not unconstitutional. The state can say it has a religion but unless a law is created that specifically gives that religion preference for something, it is not unconstitutional.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

96. The Declaration of Causes of Secession say otherwise.

[pnutbutr]

97. for which state?

They each had one. Some mentioned slavery, others didn't

[SemiCharmedQuark]

111. All four of them: Georgia, Mississippi, S. Carolina and Texas list slavery as their cause.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

112. Also, not every state that seceded published their causes.

[EOTE]

116. So after 8 years of trampling on states rights,

these assholes all of a sudden stop and say to themselves "These egregious abuses of power have gone on just long enough!" and decide to attend some Fox sponsored circle jerks? Why is it that these asses are only concerned about states rights when it has something to do with denying rights to others? Why is it that these same asses get oddly silent when states rights are under attack regarding marijuana dispensaries or when states try to provide rights to gay citizens? And have you really not seen the racist nature of many of the signs used at these rallies? Are you really that blind to the racism of the past and present?

[ieoeja]

140. "denying rights to others"

That is a very important point. There is no period after "to the States" in the 9th Amendment. It is a comma followed by, "or to the people," and the Federal government has since its early inception been the arbitrator on deciding when the rights of the people override the powers of the States.

[ieoeja]

139. Example?

Got any examples of Federal government actions vis-a-vis slavery prior to the Civil War that were anti-slavery?

- US Supreme Court overturned northern bans on slavery
- US Supreme Court overturned ban on slavery in territories
- Federal law permitted state law enforcement to operate in other states when chasing escaped slaves
- Federal law required all citizens to partipate in slave recapture (you could ignore an escaped a murderer, but not an escaped slave)

And on and on. The only anti-slavery action I know of taken by the Federal government was the ban on importation.

So if the South really did believe so strongly in States Rights, why didn't they just stop using the Federal gov't to stamp out the rights of the Free States?

Are you seriously suggesting that the South seceeded on behalf of the rights of the northern states? Was the Civil War the equivalent of checking themselves into rehab to stop themselves from continuing their abuse of the northern states?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. What I like about these threads...

is that they're like little games of "Spot the Racist."

And it's usually pretty easy.

[Soylent Brice]

17. and BINGO was his name-o.

:thumbsup:

[barbtries]

30. lol

making my point. because the racist will deny it to the friggin death.

[AspenRose]

46. They can't help themselves.

They may try to resist, but the pull and attraction is just too much.

[Raineyb]

53. Indeed. n/t

[Froward69]

12. degenerated???`

NO it was always there... bubbled up from time to time. but now it is rearing it's ugly head. the Bigots always thought they were the majority.

[Peace_Sells]

21. racism

Racism is part of it but the media's demonizing of the word liberal and calling obama a socialist terrorist is part of it too. Alot of these teabaggers hate black people. But alot of them also hate liberals. But race is certainly a big part of this.

[TahitiNut]

33. Once upon a time, many thought that a synonym for "liberal" was "n_____-lover."

I guess it's still true. :puke:

[raccoon]

49. I believe you're right. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. i completely agree. nt

[barbtries]

25. caveat:

alive and SICK. racism is sick. i know it continues to thrive but that just proves to my mind that as a society we are sick. in so many ways, and racism is one big way. it is not acknowledged by too many to be dealt with productively imo. on a thread here recently i related a story in which a person with whom i was engaged in conversation betrayed his own racism, by a choice of words. several people, DU'ers, jumped on what i said and insisted that it was not a racist comment on the man's part. yes, it was. yes, it was, and that so many people failed to even perceive it as what it was i find troubling.

racism, war, poverty, corruption. a general hardening of the heart. just gotta keep on speaking up and acting on love - thank you for posting.

[datasuspect]

36. no shit?

well i'll be damned.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. me too

[cbc5g]

67. I guess you forgot the vermont secessionist and alaska secessionist movements

that have had support while whitey was in charge. But go right ahead and make shit up.

[Fendius]

110. Was going to say same thing

Vermont and Alaska have both drawn up initial plans to secede. VT i believe before Bush even...

[Bluerthanblue]

118. I haven't forgotten, but there is

a big difference- Vermont has been a renegade state for quite awhile- (in a non-violent way) The town of Killington voted to secede from Vt. and become part of NH- :P The kinds of 'secessionist' sentiment I'm hearing more and more of just lately- involves veiled threats of violence, is being pushed by those who advocate arms resistance, and who are forming groups to promote their agenda.

It's ugly, and it's growing.

[hfojvt]

124. when was Vermont?

You are not talking about 1788 are you, or whenever Congress declared that Vermont was to be disbanded and Washington vetoed it with a signing statement?

There was certainly talk after 2004 of the blue states joining Canada and leaving Jesusland behind, but I am not sure how serious that was, or, for that matter how serious this is. The map certainly got posted often enough on DU.

There is a Hawaii independence move too, although I am not sure how strong it is. The Nation wrote an article less than two years ago saying that Hawaii should not be part of the US.

[Maru Kitteh]

79. First thing I said when I heard secession - "Who knew one black man in a white house could

be so scary?"

You're absolutely correct.

[mudesi]

81. No Shit. K & R

[Two Americas]

117. I agree

I think that what you say has merit and is an overlooked and ignored subject.

While it is probably true that had Rice or Powell been elected on a Republican ticket, for example, the same people attacking Obama would be supporting them, that does not mean that there cannot be racism behind their attacks on Obama now.

I think that all of us should always ask "is Obama being held to a different standard than a white person would be in the same circumstances?"

We should not assume that all criticism of Obama is driven by racism, but nor should we fool ourselves into thinking that racism can not be a factor in some of the criticism.



...

[Taverner]

122. You forgot the second time was actually in the mid sixties during the Civil Rights struggle

And that bolsters your OP

[butterfly77]

128. I always wonder why..

some have a fit anytime someone brings up racism when, they know damn well it exists..

[Odin2005]

132. It's the violent last gasp of bigotry against African-Americans

Among folks my age (early 20s) I notice little racism, what what racism exists is aimed more towards Hispanics and Middle-Easterners then African-Americans.