BREAKING NEWS:
Six Baltimore city police officers have been charged in the death of Freddie Gray, who was arrested on April 12, 2015 and died a week later. Here are the names of the police officers charged and the charges. The race of the officers was not provided:
Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., 45, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office.
Officer William Porter, 25, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Lt. Brian Rice, 41, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Sgt. Alicia White, 30, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Officer Edward Nero, 29, was charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Officer Garrett Miller, 26, was charged with second-degree assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
Showing posts with label race relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race relations. Show all posts
Friday, May 01, 2015
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Starbucks "Encourages" Baristas To Discuss Race Relations; What Can Go Wrong?!
Good Lord, I swear that Starbucks is doing everything in it's immeasurable power to discourage me from remaining a customer.
Really, I mean I don't care that there about 50 Starbucks in my hometown of Pasadena, California. For if the latest attempt at feasting on a festering social issue as race relations by having baristas write a message, "Race Together" and encourage customers to discuss their views on race relations continues, many customers will finally say enough is enough with the fricken social activism.
OK, OK, I get it. Starbucks' CEO, Howard Schultz, is a big liberal. And this is not his first foray into using Starbucks not just to make a buck but to do so on the back of controversial issues.
One thing we can all agree on is that race relations in the United States is at the lowest it has been in my 50 years of God's Green Earth.
Blacks against Whites.
Whites against Blacks.
Hispanics against Blacks.
Blacks against Hispanics.
Whites against Hispanics.
Hispanics against Whites.
And so on, and so on and so on.
So Mr. Schultz seems to think that if his mostly White, hipster crew of baristas (also known as coffee makers for the regular folks) just write a smarmy, sentimental message of "Race Together" and encourage people to talk about their "race journey" then he is in for a rude awakening.
Picture this scenario.
Some Black gal steps into a Starbucks in Urbanville, USA. Let's say her name is Azelia Banks. You know who she is, right? She is a a rapper. In an interview with Playboy magazine, she made it clear what she hates about the United States. It's us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll WHITE Americans! Here is the inflammatory comment:
"I hate everything about this country,"Like, I hate fat white Americans. All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, are these racist conservative white people who live on their farms. Those little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma -- that's really America."
Yeah, so Miss Banks steps into the Starbucks and makes her request. The young, White hipster with his beard and horned-rimmed glasses gets her order, probably all wrong, and writes the requisite "Race Together". Miss Banks reads it and, well I'm sure there will be an intellectual discourse that probably would include the police department of Urbanville, USA. And probably see the hipster dude carted off to jail for his trouble.
Somehow, I see this happening all across the United States. Not necessarily angry, but with many customers saying that their views on race relations are not the business of some barista at Starbucks.
You know what those customers care about? The barista getting their order right. They don't care if said barista is name the race group. The average customer is shopping their for a specific service.
COFFEE. And COFFEE related products. Maybe some FOOD to go with that.
The average customer is not going there for discussion on current events with a server and fancy title. Really, we are not.
I like Starbucks coffee. Yeah, so sue me. And I just want to get a large coffee most of the time when I partake going there. Maybe I want a large Frappacino. Oh, and since I am a simple guy, it's small, medium and large. Not Tall, Venti and whatever large is. I don't care who provided the coffee. I don't care if it is "fair trade", free trade or whatever. I do not care what Starbucks does in the community. I don't care what cause their management thinks I should care about.
I am there for a product. I am there to use the free wi-fi while I am enjoying me drink. If I have time to stick around.
It is so pretentious people like Mr. Schultz to use his angst and self-flagellation about race relations to all but force employees to start a "conversation" with someone on race relations.
What would happen if a Black employee wanted to start a race conversation with a seemingly nice White guy? What if it turned out that he was the local chair of the Ku Klux Klan and used this tender moment to explain to said Black employee why he and all Blacks are sub-human and if he had his way, they would all be shipped back to the African continent.
How about an Asian employee starting the conversation with a tatted-out, shaved head Hispanic customer? Yeah, somehow I don't think it would go all that well as there is already resentment in the area I live among non-Asians about their seemingly strong economic power over other race groups including Whites and, and ethnic Jews.
Oh, that would also be an awesome conversation. Any group suggesting that Jews have unfair advantages and that really, they control everything.
Do you see how such an idea is so bad? Do you, Mr. Schultz?
There is a place and time for any discussion. But not in such a way at a business that depends on goodwill to all people. All potential customers. To bring up such a alienating issue is beyond asking for trouble.
If this goes as well as I expect it will, Starbucks may lose a lot of customers. Customers that they should be listening to and not disrespecting.
What can go wrong with a Starbucks barista wanting to discuss race relations? Everything and anything.
Really, I mean I don't care that there about 50 Starbucks in my hometown of Pasadena, California. For if the latest attempt at feasting on a festering social issue as race relations by having baristas write a message, "Race Together" and encourage customers to discuss their views on race relations continues, many customers will finally say enough is enough with the fricken social activism.
OK, OK, I get it. Starbucks' CEO, Howard Schultz, is a big liberal. And this is not his first foray into using Starbucks not just to make a buck but to do so on the back of controversial issues.
One thing we can all agree on is that race relations in the United States is at the lowest it has been in my 50 years of God's Green Earth.
Blacks against Whites.
Whites against Blacks.
Hispanics against Blacks.
Blacks against Hispanics.
Whites against Hispanics.
Hispanics against Whites.
And so on, and so on and so on.
So Mr. Schultz seems to think that if his mostly White, hipster crew of baristas (also known as coffee makers for the regular folks) just write a smarmy, sentimental message of "Race Together" and encourage people to talk about their "race journey" then he is in for a rude awakening.
Picture this scenario.
Some Black gal steps into a Starbucks in Urbanville, USA. Let's say her name is Azelia Banks. You know who she is, right? She is a a rapper. In an interview with Playboy magazine, she made it clear what she hates about the United States. It's us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll WHITE Americans! Here is the inflammatory comment:
"I hate everything about this country,"Like, I hate fat white Americans. All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, are these racist conservative white people who live on their farms. Those little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma -- that's really America."
Yeah, so Miss Banks steps into the Starbucks and makes her request. The young, White hipster with his beard and horned-rimmed glasses gets her order, probably all wrong, and writes the requisite "Race Together". Miss Banks reads it and, well I'm sure there will be an intellectual discourse that probably would include the police department of Urbanville, USA. And probably see the hipster dude carted off to jail for his trouble.
Somehow, I see this happening all across the United States. Not necessarily angry, but with many customers saying that their views on race relations are not the business of some barista at Starbucks.
You know what those customers care about? The barista getting their order right. They don't care if said barista is name the race group. The average customer is shopping their for a specific service.
COFFEE. And COFFEE related products. Maybe some FOOD to go with that.
The average customer is not going there for discussion on current events with a server and fancy title. Really, we are not.
I like Starbucks coffee. Yeah, so sue me. And I just want to get a large coffee most of the time when I partake going there. Maybe I want a large Frappacino. Oh, and since I am a simple guy, it's small, medium and large. Not Tall, Venti and whatever large is. I don't care who provided the coffee. I don't care if it is "fair trade", free trade or whatever. I do not care what Starbucks does in the community. I don't care what cause their management thinks I should care about.
I am there for a product. I am there to use the free wi-fi while I am enjoying me drink. If I have time to stick around.
It is so pretentious people like Mr. Schultz to use his angst and self-flagellation about race relations to all but force employees to start a "conversation" with someone on race relations.
What would happen if a Black employee wanted to start a race conversation with a seemingly nice White guy? What if it turned out that he was the local chair of the Ku Klux Klan and used this tender moment to explain to said Black employee why he and all Blacks are sub-human and if he had his way, they would all be shipped back to the African continent.
How about an Asian employee starting the conversation with a tatted-out, shaved head Hispanic customer? Yeah, somehow I don't think it would go all that well as there is already resentment in the area I live among non-Asians about their seemingly strong economic power over other race groups including Whites and, and ethnic Jews.
Oh, that would also be an awesome conversation. Any group suggesting that Jews have unfair advantages and that really, they control everything.
Do you see how such an idea is so bad? Do you, Mr. Schultz?
There is a place and time for any discussion. But not in such a way at a business that depends on goodwill to all people. All potential customers. To bring up such a alienating issue is beyond asking for trouble.
If this goes as well as I expect it will, Starbucks may lose a lot of customers. Customers that they should be listening to and not disrespecting.
What can go wrong with a Starbucks barista wanting to discuss race relations? Everything and anything.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
How Can We Have That Race Conversation With Twits Like James Clyburn?
You know, the attorney general, Eric Holder, once that that Americans are afraid to have a serious conversation about race.
So, I bring you Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC).
Congresstool Clyburn is fourth in the Democrat party leadership in the House of Representatives.
I do not know why Congresstool Clyburn was asked about the South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott (R-SC), who is running for a full senate term. But he was asked. And here is a real starter about that race conversation:
“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress.”
Get it?
It's not that he does not vote the party line. Its that he does not vote for or promote the race line.
The implication of Congresstool Clyburn is that for the most part, about 95% of that part, Blacks think and act exactly alike.
At least in South Carolina. And keep in mind that Sen. Scott is Black.
It does seem to be the case of voting patterns at least. It is estimated that well north of 90% of Black Americans did vote twice for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. And I do get the voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama, the first time. Second time, not so much. Democrats in general I do not get either. But that is not the point.
The point is that people like Congresstool Clyburn make such an absurd, and quite frankly racist statement about a fellow Black American and the way that he does or does not vote.
But in the linked article, Roger Clegg of The Center For Equal Opportunity, he does make an observation about the likes of Congresstool Clyburn and the one-sided Democrat vote of Black Americans.
It's tribalism.
“It’s tribal. … It’s a step backwards from Martin Luther King’s dream [and from] maybe a couple of millennia. He (Clyburn) is saying that not only should individual African-American politicians not be allowed to vote their consciences or for what they think is the best policy for all their constituents, he’s also saying that individual voters are shackled to their respective skin colors and can vote only after asking themselves ‘What is best for my group.”
The tribalism is not unique to Blacks. Same can be said for Hispanics, the LGBT community, Asians, women. But for these groups, it is not as uniform as Black support for the Democrat party. It would really be news if an Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, or woman Democrat were to make such an absurd statement as did Congresstool Clyburn.
But it's what is the prevailing fact of the Democrat party. That Blacks will only get more of a piece of the American dream and a seat at the table if they are Democrats and vote Democrat.
So, if we are to have a serious conversation about race as the attorney general, Eric Holder, once said, how can we if it is not only so one-sided but one-sided to the point of the ridiculous.
The fact is that Sen. Scott maybe Black, but does not see everything through the prism of a Black experience. He is a man of the New South. A South that will elect him to a full term to the United States senate. Remember, Sen. Scott is running statewide. Congresstool Clyburn is a gerrymandered district so that he can win with relative ease. I think that Sen. Scott speaks more for the progress of Blacks than Congresstool Clyburn.
And what about the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself? How did he not win one but two national elections? Was it just on the backs of Black voters? Or just on a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, LGBT, women and labor unions? Did not some Whites vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama? Of course that is the case.
In general, Black Americans have made great advances in American life. Not just politically, but economically, in education and their general standard of living.
But there is no question that there have been horrible drawbacks.
It is a major drawback that up to seven out of ten child births among Black women are out of wedlock. And that Black women are more likely to have abortions than other groups. That Blacks are more likely than most groups to drop out of high school and thus never go to college. That Black men are more likely to spend a part of their life in jail. And yes, there is still some lingering of outright racism that reared its ugly head in the name of one Donald Sterling.
Not just electing a Black man to the presidency has even made a difference and in fact may have made the above worse.
So to have that honest conversation, especially among Blacks, why not two people like Congresstool Clyburn and Sen. Scott sitting down together and find some real common ground? Not just a photo-op session and play to their respective bases, but let it all hang out. Because I bet a dollar to a donut that they might just find out that they do agree on many things and can and should work together.
See, that is the conversation that needs to be had.
But if we have to vote our "race", then how can we expect people to talk to each other and not over each other?
So, I bring you Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC).
Congresstool Clyburn is fourth in the Democrat party leadership in the House of Representatives.
I do not know why Congresstool Clyburn was asked about the South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott (R-SC), who is running for a full senate term. But he was asked. And here is a real starter about that race conversation:
“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress.”
Get it?
It's not that he does not vote the party line. Its that he does not vote for or promote the race line.
The implication of Congresstool Clyburn is that for the most part, about 95% of that part, Blacks think and act exactly alike.
At least in South Carolina. And keep in mind that Sen. Scott is Black.
It does seem to be the case of voting patterns at least. It is estimated that well north of 90% of Black Americans did vote twice for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. And I do get the voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama, the first time. Second time, not so much. Democrats in general I do not get either. But that is not the point.
The point is that people like Congresstool Clyburn make such an absurd, and quite frankly racist statement about a fellow Black American and the way that he does or does not vote.
But in the linked article, Roger Clegg of The Center For Equal Opportunity, he does make an observation about the likes of Congresstool Clyburn and the one-sided Democrat vote of Black Americans.
It's tribalism.
“It’s tribal. … It’s a step backwards from Martin Luther King’s dream [and from] maybe a couple of millennia. He (Clyburn) is saying that not only should individual African-American politicians not be allowed to vote their consciences or for what they think is the best policy for all their constituents, he’s also saying that individual voters are shackled to their respective skin colors and can vote only after asking themselves ‘What is best for my group.”
The tribalism is not unique to Blacks. Same can be said for Hispanics, the LGBT community, Asians, women. But for these groups, it is not as uniform as Black support for the Democrat party. It would really be news if an Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, or woman Democrat were to make such an absurd statement as did Congresstool Clyburn.
But it's what is the prevailing fact of the Democrat party. That Blacks will only get more of a piece of the American dream and a seat at the table if they are Democrats and vote Democrat.
So, if we are to have a serious conversation about race as the attorney general, Eric Holder, once said, how can we if it is not only so one-sided but one-sided to the point of the ridiculous.
The fact is that Sen. Scott maybe Black, but does not see everything through the prism of a Black experience. He is a man of the New South. A South that will elect him to a full term to the United States senate. Remember, Sen. Scott is running statewide. Congresstool Clyburn is a gerrymandered district so that he can win with relative ease. I think that Sen. Scott speaks more for the progress of Blacks than Congresstool Clyburn.
And what about the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself? How did he not win one but two national elections? Was it just on the backs of Black voters? Or just on a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, LGBT, women and labor unions? Did not some Whites vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama? Of course that is the case.
In general, Black Americans have made great advances in American life. Not just politically, but economically, in education and their general standard of living.
But there is no question that there have been horrible drawbacks.
It is a major drawback that up to seven out of ten child births among Black women are out of wedlock. And that Black women are more likely to have abortions than other groups. That Blacks are more likely than most groups to drop out of high school and thus never go to college. That Black men are more likely to spend a part of their life in jail. And yes, there is still some lingering of outright racism that reared its ugly head in the name of one Donald Sterling.
Not just electing a Black man to the presidency has even made a difference and in fact may have made the above worse.
So to have that honest conversation, especially among Blacks, why not two people like Congresstool Clyburn and Sen. Scott sitting down together and find some real common ground? Not just a photo-op session and play to their respective bases, but let it all hang out. Because I bet a dollar to a donut that they might just find out that they do agree on many things and can and should work together.
See, that is the conversation that needs to be had.
But if we have to vote our "race", then how can we expect people to talk to each other and not over each other?
Monday, December 17, 2012
Sen. Tim Scott And The New South
Today, history was made as South Carolina's first Indian-American Gov., Nikki Haley, appointed the first Black senator from the state in Rep. Tim Scott (R-Charleston).
And it is reflective of the New South.
A South in which it appears that the once God-awful race battles have given way to some pretty amazing changes.
It starts with Rep. Scott.
He won his Republican nomination for South Carolina's first congressional district over the scion of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. The same Sen. Thurmond who desperately tried to block the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Tim Scott beat Sen. Thurmond's son, Paul Thurmond, in a Republican primary in 2010 and easily won outright election to the seat. In 2012, he has the highest vote percentage of South Carolina Republican congressional delegation in cruising to reelection.
And without a doubt, then Sen. Scott will win election to the seat of the retiring Sen. Jim DeMint outright in 2014.
And then there is Gov. Haley, the first Indian-American to win the governorship in South Carolina in 2010. She defeated a panoply of Republicans and was horribly dragged down by many of those that lost the GOP gubernatorial nod to then Mrs. Haley. She won a tough election campaign and has had her problems since being elected. But she should win reelection as well in 2014.
But imagine that the state that fired the first volley at Ft. Sumnter to begin the War Between the States, better known as the Civil War has an Indian-American governor and will have a Black senator. And both Republicans to boot.
It is indicative of what is the New South.
A South that has elected another Indian-American as governor in Bobby Jindal from Louisiana.
A South that has elected Cuban-American as senator Marco Rubio from Florida.
A South that has elected another Cuban-American, Ted Cruz, as senator from Texas.
A South that has elected all of the above under the banner of the Republican party.
The reality is that while the GOP is having trouble winning in areas of the United States entrenched by the Democrat party, they are winning the South and with candidates that as short a time as 20 years ago would have never been considered seriously.
I think that this is where the GOP starts in reaching out to those who have been for whatever reason, alienated from the party in recent years.
All of the above earned their stripes.
All those that have been elected fought in bruising primaries when they were told that they could not win.
Who can forget that the whole Republican establishment lined up to support that douchebrain Charlie Christ over Marco Rubio? Yeah, look how that worked out what when the actual Republican voters went with Mr. Rubio?
It amazes me that while the GOP is demonized for being racist, sexist, etc., etc., and yet have elected these fine people to high office.
It appears that the South has been ready for positive change and willingly electing people of color where the old timers off to the Glory are rolling in their graves.
It is really the New South and Gov. Haley and Sen. Scott are the positive developments of it.
And it is reflective of the New South.
A South in which it appears that the once God-awful race battles have given way to some pretty amazing changes.
It starts with Rep. Scott.
He won his Republican nomination for South Carolina's first congressional district over the scion of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. The same Sen. Thurmond who desperately tried to block the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Tim Scott beat Sen. Thurmond's son, Paul Thurmond, in a Republican primary in 2010 and easily won outright election to the seat. In 2012, he has the highest vote percentage of South Carolina Republican congressional delegation in cruising to reelection.
And without a doubt, then Sen. Scott will win election to the seat of the retiring Sen. Jim DeMint outright in 2014.
And then there is Gov. Haley, the first Indian-American to win the governorship in South Carolina in 2010. She defeated a panoply of Republicans and was horribly dragged down by many of those that lost the GOP gubernatorial nod to then Mrs. Haley. She won a tough election campaign and has had her problems since being elected. But she should win reelection as well in 2014.
But imagine that the state that fired the first volley at Ft. Sumnter to begin the War Between the States, better known as the Civil War has an Indian-American governor and will have a Black senator. And both Republicans to boot.
It is indicative of what is the New South.
A South that has elected another Indian-American as governor in Bobby Jindal from Louisiana.
A South that has elected Cuban-American as senator Marco Rubio from Florida.
A South that has elected another Cuban-American, Ted Cruz, as senator from Texas.
A South that has elected all of the above under the banner of the Republican party.
The reality is that while the GOP is having trouble winning in areas of the United States entrenched by the Democrat party, they are winning the South and with candidates that as short a time as 20 years ago would have never been considered seriously.
I think that this is where the GOP starts in reaching out to those who have been for whatever reason, alienated from the party in recent years.
All of the above earned their stripes.
All those that have been elected fought in bruising primaries when they were told that they could not win.
Who can forget that the whole Republican establishment lined up to support that douchebrain Charlie Christ over Marco Rubio? Yeah, look how that worked out what when the actual Republican voters went with Mr. Rubio?
It amazes me that while the GOP is demonized for being racist, sexist, etc., etc., and yet have elected these fine people to high office.
It appears that the South has been ready for positive change and willingly electing people of color where the old timers off to the Glory are rolling in their graves.
It is really the New South and Gov. Haley and Sen. Scott are the positive developments of it.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
How John Derbyshire Has Set Conservatism Back Decades-Unless We Conservatives Reject This And Now
Until today, John Derbyshire has been a contributor to the conservative fortnightly, National Review.
There is a reason why he is no longer welcomed at National Review.
It is for this horrifying piece he wrote for a webzine called Taki's Mag.
The piece that will be written about here is allegedly in response to what is known in the Black community as "The Talk". But I am certain it is not limited to the Black community. I think the Hispanic, the Asian and yes, Whites, can also have "The talk".
So, what is "The Talk"?
It is how parents speak to their children about how they dress. How they act. What other people will think of them. This is the article that Mr. Derbyshire linked that explains, in part, what "The Talk" is all about.
In and of itself, I think that it is a good thing. A lot about this has risen from the Trayvon Martin killing. And a big part of it was the fact Master Martin was wearing a hoodie. And yes, Master Martin was Black. I addressed that here in regards to the hoodie.
So, one would think that Mr. Derbyshire would address that with his children, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
His piece starts off negative about Blacks and how they refer to themselves. And seemingly yearning for the days when they were referred to as Colored or Negroes.
Friends, it does not get any better from there.
Oh, we should be nice and courteous. Us non-Blacks to Blacks. And Mr. Derbyshire does concede that gee, there are all kinds of Black Americans. But in the same breath explains that he knows of no Black who has been a Fields Medal winner.
Pssst! Until this, I had no idea what a Fields Medal was. I never heard of it. It involves math. And I am lousy in math. Maybe I am part Black?!
Sorry to digress.
The most grievous is the following from the piece. I warn you now that this is from Mr. Derbyshire, not your humble blogger.
(10) Thus while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense.
(10a) Avoid concentrations of Blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily Black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with Blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by a gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of Blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of Blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by Black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a Black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a White.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to Blacks in apparent distress, e. g., on the highway.
I mean, is this for real? Do non-Blacks really feel this way in general?
Now, I don't limit places that I may find myself to bad Black neighborhoods. Bad predominantly Hispanic ones. Bad predominantly Asian ones. And yeah, the bad White neighborhoods.
And since I attend sporting events, I guess I should worry. Oooh! There maybe. . .Black people there! YIKES! Be afraid, very afraid! You know. That is that whole concentration thing.
And, well I guess I should never, ever go to the beach or Disneyland. Maybe skip Magic Mountain. And does Knott's Berry Farm count too?! Never mind I would not go to said parks because I don't really like them. And they can cost a month's salary at the low end. Especially Disneyland. And yeah, I don't think Mr. Derbyshire finds "It's A Small World" a good thing.
As far as where one lives, some of that is not easy. I mean, the United States is being governed by a. . .BLACK POLITICIAN! Where shall I go now, Mr. Derbyshire?! You offer no escape! And BTW, what are you doing here?!
And being acosted by a "strange Black" on the street? Really? Has Mr. Derbyshire ever encountered a homeless person? Shockingly, a lot are not B L A C K. Shhh!
And yeah, I am going to pass by a person in distress just because they are Black. Because you know, they are gonna do something to me fo sure anyways.
OK, I guess there is the Blacks are not very smart meme.
There is a grain of truth to that.
But it nowhere near their fault for crying out loud.
They are the victims of the true Axis of Evil.
That is the following:
Big Government.
Big Labor.
Big Business.
Big government conspires with big labor to keep Black youths in government schools in low-income areas and there almost no chance to get out. And while many Blacks vote Democrat when the Democrats really do not care about them except election time or to full-throat a victim hood story, I think this kind of piece kind of helps make many feel that no one cares.
In one of the parts I highlighted, Mr. Derbyshire did note about scrutinizing Black politicians. I do feel the leftywhore media ignored a lot of baggage of the Dear Leader, President Obama, that they would not have if he was a White politician. But where I part company is on two of the greatest members of the United States House of Representatives. They are Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina and Congressman Allan West of Florida. I wished that I could have good, decent men of their standing and character representing me in congress.
Now, there are some things that are stereotypes and generally spot on about any given group or even individual.
And I am honest enough to say that yeah, sometimes I myself fall into the trap of it. But not to just demean any given person and or group.
See, I think anyone can improve their lot in life. If one lives in the world of victim hood, there is always someone there to enable.
More than anything, that is what has happened to Blacks in America.
Keep these stereotypes out there, and it is a self-destructive cycle that will keep getting worse.
But what the above piece has done is set back conservatives decades.
Because by Monday morning, this will be topic number one all over the blogosphere, MSNBC, the Leftywhore media, you know, the usual suspects.
Well, I am not in this group that would call themselves "conservatives".
I am a Republican because I believe in the rights of and dignity of the individual. The only group that I care to want to see is the American group. I am first and foremost an American. The heritage I have while proud of it, is not what defines me. It is that I was blessed to be born in the greatest nation ever in the history of the world. Thus, I am an American.
I am a conservative because we need to break the Balkanization of this Great Land. When conservatives engage in propagating the continuing Balkanization of the United States, we have to totally and absolutely reject them.
And that is why I support Rich Lowry, editor at National Review for not only rejecting what Mr. Derbyshire wrote, but making him no longer a contributor at National Review or National Review Online.
I know that some will think that this is censorship, but it is not.
Poison like what Mr. Derbyshire wrote is what I expect from the other side. Not from one of our own.
There is noting wrong with open and honest discussion of such issues. But when it looks more like something written by a member of the Ku Klux Klan than one seeking open, honest dialogue, it has to be stopped.
Conservatives have been fighting this stereotype as long as I have been alive, 47 years. In the spirit of that, when one of our own commits this kind of grievous act, demeaning and degrading a whole group of people, we have to speak up. We can not just say it is OK to say, as fact, that Blacks are not so smart. That we should be afraid of them if we are not Black. I will not go on.
Now we must reject any of this "thinking" from the likes of Mr. Derbyshire.
I am one individual, but I reject it and will always speak out against this kind of hate from a "conservative" for it is hate.
There is a reason why he is no longer welcomed at National Review.
It is for this horrifying piece he wrote for a webzine called Taki's Mag.
The piece that will be written about here is allegedly in response to what is known in the Black community as "The Talk". But I am certain it is not limited to the Black community. I think the Hispanic, the Asian and yes, Whites, can also have "The talk".
So, what is "The Talk"?
It is how parents speak to their children about how they dress. How they act. What other people will think of them. This is the article that Mr. Derbyshire linked that explains, in part, what "The Talk" is all about.
In and of itself, I think that it is a good thing. A lot about this has risen from the Trayvon Martin killing. And a big part of it was the fact Master Martin was wearing a hoodie. And yes, Master Martin was Black. I addressed that here in regards to the hoodie.
So, one would think that Mr. Derbyshire would address that with his children, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
His piece starts off negative about Blacks and how they refer to themselves. And seemingly yearning for the days when they were referred to as Colored or Negroes.
Friends, it does not get any better from there.
Oh, we should be nice and courteous. Us non-Blacks to Blacks. And Mr. Derbyshire does concede that gee, there are all kinds of Black Americans. But in the same breath explains that he knows of no Black who has been a Fields Medal winner.
Pssst! Until this, I had no idea what a Fields Medal was. I never heard of it. It involves math. And I am lousy in math. Maybe I am part Black?!
Sorry to digress.
The most grievous is the following from the piece. I warn you now that this is from Mr. Derbyshire, not your humble blogger.
(10) Thus while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense.
(10a) Avoid concentrations of Blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily Black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with Blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by a gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of Blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of Blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by Black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a Black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a White.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to Blacks in apparent distress, e. g., on the highway.
I mean, is this for real? Do non-Blacks really feel this way in general?
Now, I don't limit places that I may find myself to bad Black neighborhoods. Bad predominantly Hispanic ones. Bad predominantly Asian ones. And yeah, the bad White neighborhoods.
And since I attend sporting events, I guess I should worry. Oooh! There maybe. . .Black people there! YIKES! Be afraid, very afraid! You know. That is that whole concentration thing.
And, well I guess I should never, ever go to the beach or Disneyland. Maybe skip Magic Mountain. And does Knott's Berry Farm count too?! Never mind I would not go to said parks because I don't really like them. And they can cost a month's salary at the low end. Especially Disneyland. And yeah, I don't think Mr. Derbyshire finds "It's A Small World" a good thing.
As far as where one lives, some of that is not easy. I mean, the United States is being governed by a. . .BLACK POLITICIAN! Where shall I go now, Mr. Derbyshire?! You offer no escape! And BTW, what are you doing here?!
And being acosted by a "strange Black" on the street? Really? Has Mr. Derbyshire ever encountered a homeless person? Shockingly, a lot are not B L A C K. Shhh!
And yeah, I am going to pass by a person in distress just because they are Black. Because you know, they are gonna do something to me fo sure anyways.
OK, I guess there is the Blacks are not very smart meme.
There is a grain of truth to that.
But it nowhere near their fault for crying out loud.
They are the victims of the true Axis of Evil.
That is the following:
Big Government.
Big Labor.
Big Business.
Big government conspires with big labor to keep Black youths in government schools in low-income areas and there almost no chance to get out. And while many Blacks vote Democrat when the Democrats really do not care about them except election time or to full-throat a victim hood story, I think this kind of piece kind of helps make many feel that no one cares.
In one of the parts I highlighted, Mr. Derbyshire did note about scrutinizing Black politicians. I do feel the leftywhore media ignored a lot of baggage of the Dear Leader, President Obama, that they would not have if he was a White politician. But where I part company is on two of the greatest members of the United States House of Representatives. They are Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina and Congressman Allan West of Florida. I wished that I could have good, decent men of their standing and character representing me in congress.
Now, there are some things that are stereotypes and generally spot on about any given group or even individual.
And I am honest enough to say that yeah, sometimes I myself fall into the trap of it. But not to just demean any given person and or group.
See, I think anyone can improve their lot in life. If one lives in the world of victim hood, there is always someone there to enable.
More than anything, that is what has happened to Blacks in America.
Keep these stereotypes out there, and it is a self-destructive cycle that will keep getting worse.
But what the above piece has done is set back conservatives decades.
Because by Monday morning, this will be topic number one all over the blogosphere, MSNBC, the Leftywhore media, you know, the usual suspects.
Well, I am not in this group that would call themselves "conservatives".
I am a Republican because I believe in the rights of and dignity of the individual. The only group that I care to want to see is the American group. I am first and foremost an American. The heritage I have while proud of it, is not what defines me. It is that I was blessed to be born in the greatest nation ever in the history of the world. Thus, I am an American.
I am a conservative because we need to break the Balkanization of this Great Land. When conservatives engage in propagating the continuing Balkanization of the United States, we have to totally and absolutely reject them.
And that is why I support Rich Lowry, editor at National Review for not only rejecting what Mr. Derbyshire wrote, but making him no longer a contributor at National Review or National Review Online.
I know that some will think that this is censorship, but it is not.
Poison like what Mr. Derbyshire wrote is what I expect from the other side. Not from one of our own.
There is noting wrong with open and honest discussion of such issues. But when it looks more like something written by a member of the Ku Klux Klan than one seeking open, honest dialogue, it has to be stopped.
Conservatives have been fighting this stereotype as long as I have been alive, 47 years. In the spirit of that, when one of our own commits this kind of grievous act, demeaning and degrading a whole group of people, we have to speak up. We can not just say it is OK to say, as fact, that Blacks are not so smart. That we should be afraid of them if we are not Black. I will not go on.
Now we must reject any of this "thinking" from the likes of Mr. Derbyshire.
I am one individual, but I reject it and will always speak out against this kind of hate from a "conservative" for it is hate.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
The Sorry State Of Race Relations In The United States
I came across this seemingly shocking poll of Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi that indicates roughly about 30% do not like interracial marriage and also think that it should be illegal.
One thought I have is that I am not surprised. I am not surprised that many people do not like the idea of interracial marriage.
The second thought is why would anyone be that honest to suggest interracial marriage actually be banned?
But the third thought is the one I would like to ask.
Was or is this question ever asked of Democrat voters? I mean, is the party that once supported segregation and the very laws that banned interracial marriage and by extension sexual relations? Yes it is. And should Democrat voters not be asked such things?
And let me take that a step further.
How about asking these questions on racial breakdown? You know, lets see how Blacks feel about the subject. And Hispanics. Lets not forget Asians.
Let me relate that these groups are much more vocal in opposition to interracial marriage than many if not most Whites.
But why ask such things in the first place? Is it not meant to illicit a negative response? Of course it is.
After all, the only way to keep the race huckster gravy train going to point out such information as the above poll.
Again, I find it to be at best a shock poll rather than anything of reality.
In my own family, some of my nephews and nieces are in interracial marriages. My one niece lives in Florida and is married to a Black man. One nephew is married to a Korean-American and the other, his brother, is married to a Filipina-American.
As I write that, my blood boils because all I can think of is the fact that I am an American.
That is it.
An American. My heritage happens to be European, but I would have to relationship to family that might be in Edinburgh, Scotland where my maternal grandmother was from. Or where my paternal grandparents came from, Odessa, the Ukraine.
My race is American.
Yet everywhere I have to answer on many things what race best describes me.
And yet I can not write American anywhere.
Why is that? Why must we be categorized in racial groups that for many we really have no real anchor to?
Because it is to Balkinize the United States of America.
I am sure that a lot of people of all race groups feel the same as I do. But what are we doing about it?
One of the most nauseating things that was said about the Tea Party movement has been that we are a bunch of racists.
Yet the only people pushing the race issue at Tea Party rallies I was privileged to be at were Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs. Democrat Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs.
I saw many people of many heritages. Asian, Black, Hispanic, others that I do not know nor for the sake of this care. Because we are united in being Americans first and heritage second.
Even people that I know should know better ask me about why the Tea Party is racist. Of course none who asked ever participated or went to a rally. But are spoon-fed the race angle because, well, the leftywhore media has to make the Tea Party a negative.
Somehow, keeping taxes low, restoring eroding freedom and keeping the federal government at bay is a racist issue.
But to the left everything is now in the prism of race.
It is how they keep the above-mentioned groups on the Democrat plantation.
And that is why they need to demonize any opposition to their policies as race-driven.
And with the first Black American president, it seems tailor-made, right?
Yet this is probably the reason the chains are probably going to be broken.
Because Americans elected a Black to the presidency, we will not have a problem electing someone from another group. And many who have been on the plantation only because of race will say no more.
It is what has to happen.
Because if it does not, many people will take the above poll seriously rather than the shock value that it is.
One thought I have is that I am not surprised. I am not surprised that many people do not like the idea of interracial marriage.
The second thought is why would anyone be that honest to suggest interracial marriage actually be banned?
But the third thought is the one I would like to ask.
Was or is this question ever asked of Democrat voters? I mean, is the party that once supported segregation and the very laws that banned interracial marriage and by extension sexual relations? Yes it is. And should Democrat voters not be asked such things?
And let me take that a step further.
How about asking these questions on racial breakdown? You know, lets see how Blacks feel about the subject. And Hispanics. Lets not forget Asians.
Let me relate that these groups are much more vocal in opposition to interracial marriage than many if not most Whites.
But why ask such things in the first place? Is it not meant to illicit a negative response? Of course it is.
After all, the only way to keep the race huckster gravy train going to point out such information as the above poll.
Again, I find it to be at best a shock poll rather than anything of reality.
In my own family, some of my nephews and nieces are in interracial marriages. My one niece lives in Florida and is married to a Black man. One nephew is married to a Korean-American and the other, his brother, is married to a Filipina-American.
As I write that, my blood boils because all I can think of is the fact that I am an American.
That is it.
An American. My heritage happens to be European, but I would have to relationship to family that might be in Edinburgh, Scotland where my maternal grandmother was from. Or where my paternal grandparents came from, Odessa, the Ukraine.
My race is American.
Yet everywhere I have to answer on many things what race best describes me.
And yet I can not write American anywhere.
Why is that? Why must we be categorized in racial groups that for many we really have no real anchor to?
Because it is to Balkinize the United States of America.
I am sure that a lot of people of all race groups feel the same as I do. But what are we doing about it?
One of the most nauseating things that was said about the Tea Party movement has been that we are a bunch of racists.
Yet the only people pushing the race issue at Tea Party rallies I was privileged to be at were Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs. Democrat Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs.
I saw many people of many heritages. Asian, Black, Hispanic, others that I do not know nor for the sake of this care. Because we are united in being Americans first and heritage second.
Even people that I know should know better ask me about why the Tea Party is racist. Of course none who asked ever participated or went to a rally. But are spoon-fed the race angle because, well, the leftywhore media has to make the Tea Party a negative.
Somehow, keeping taxes low, restoring eroding freedom and keeping the federal government at bay is a racist issue.
But to the left everything is now in the prism of race.
It is how they keep the above-mentioned groups on the Democrat plantation.
And that is why they need to demonize any opposition to their policies as race-driven.
And with the first Black American president, it seems tailor-made, right?
Yet this is probably the reason the chains are probably going to be broken.
Because Americans elected a Black to the presidency, we will not have a problem electing someone from another group. And many who have been on the plantation only because of race will say no more.
It is what has to happen.
Because if it does not, many people will take the above poll seriously rather than the shock value that it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)