Cynthia McKinney website allows Racial Slurs

Well then, where is the real racism? Since others on this board have ventured to bring up definitions of "real racism" in other posts, what is discriminatory about Ms. McKinney's website? No one has truly explained this.

It is unfortunate that when there is a "derogatory comment" that is offensive to some of us that others of us "just don't see" the problem.

However, I did ask specific issues related to proving Ms. McKinney's racist attempts in legislation, public policy speeches and in official business regarding the government.

No one has yet complied to prove her virulent racism. And by your post, you are no different.

I guess we're in a "sticky situation", aren't we?





[edit on 30-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by jsobecky
... she has the responsibility...

Yep. It's her website. It represents her. It's her responsibility.

Well, this is the crux of the matter. IS it her site? Or is it a site dedicated to her?

If it isn't she has NO responsibility for it.

I'd hate to go to www.intrepid.com and find nothing but Bevis and Butthead material. I'm WAY funnier that that.

And I would implore, the poster above as well as the author, to fully investigate instances of "real racism". After all, what is posted on Ms. McKinney's website isn't an instance of "real racism".

Hey Flyers Fan, now you just get right on that, ya hear?

Remember, racial slurs aren't really racism. Unless Tony Snow is alleged to have made one.

Greg Palast can make racial slurs and they aren't racist, because he is a "tremendous and courageous journalist". It's just that he has a limited vocabulary.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by jsobecky]

It is funny to see the double standard between Tony Snow and Greg Palast as pitched by the author. Tony Snow, of course, is innocent. Greg Palast is sinfully guilty.

And yes, I find that you have read the "Double-Triple Screwing of Cynthia McKinney" entry on my blog. I did on my blog praise Greg Palast as "tremendous and courageous" because he is. He does excellent work. And he also is exercising freedom of speech in regards of what he is saying. As is Tony Snow.

But Tony Snow is simply a hack and an officially endorsed pundit for the White House.

Greg Palast has not taken a job as a pundit. He works independently on his journalism apart from the media machine.

But remaining within the guidelines of staying on topic, I still implore that the author find true instances of racism in Ms. McKinney's legislation, public policy speeches and official government work. I also request that he maturely and seriously take the quest of finding "real racism". Then maybe we all would support him in his campaign to eradicate the bigotry practiced by our congresspeople.

But I guess what the author demonstrates above is the only serious attention he is truly paying to this "epidemic" of racism within the Congress.

So much for serious thinking.












[edit on 30-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
what is discriminatory about Ms. McKinney's website?

What is 'discriminatory' about Tony Snow's comment? Nothing.
Yet YOU claim it's racism.

What is RACIST about McKinney's website? Plenty. The
terms were ment to be demeaning towards a group of people
based on their skin color. That's racist.

I guess we're in a "sticky situation", aren't we?

Nope. YOU are in denial. That's the only 'situation'.

Intrepid .. you are absolutely correct. Is McKinney or isn't McKinney
responsible for that website. Is it an official website? If it is, then
she is responsible AND it represents her. If it's just some website
run by hacks somewhere on the planet ... then she has nothing to
do with it.

JSO or Intrepid .... [email protected]
This is the contact info for that site. Why don't we contact and ask
if it is an official site of hers .. if she ENDORSES it ... if she visits
the office .. etc etc etc

IF it is an official site, or endorsed by her, then ask for a comment
from her about the racial slurs. Then ya'll can post back.

I'd do it .. but my husband wouldn't be happy about me putting our
email address 'out there'. What do you guys think? Good idea?
If the two of you ask, then we can look at the responses in a
balanced manner.



[edit on 6/30/2006 by FlyersFan]

The fact is subz's words are truthly apparent when you and the author make much ado about nothing. This is a tempest in a teapot.

When you find yourself truly disenfrachised by the system then you actually have a case. Until you argue that Ms. McKinney is barring you from going about your daily life, then you might have something there.

This time on this topic--especially when "screaming about race", I say to the poster above, the only delusional person is you.

But as others told me on the Tony Snow thread, grow a thick skin and find real instances of racism.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Well i see we have the usual band of suspects here on this topic.

The difference between the snow comment and the mckinney website comment is intent. Snow's comment was not intended to sound or to be racist. Mckinney's website comment was. Its all in the intent....but you know that already.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Intrepid .. you are absolutely correct. Is McKinney or isn't McKinney
responsible for that website. Is it an official website? If it is, then
she is responsible AND it represents her. If it's just some website
run by hacks somewhere on the planet ... then she has nothing to
do with it.

JSO or Intrepid .... [email protected]
This is the contact info for that site. Why don't we contact and ask
if it is an official site of hers .. if she ENDORSES it ... if she visits
the office .. etc etc etc

IF it is an official site, or endorsed by her, then ask for a comment
from her about the racial slurs. Then ya'll can post back.

I'll be glad to do it, FF, but I don't know if that's really necessary, because, at the bottom of the page is

© Cynthia McKinney 2006. All rights reserved.

www.cynthiaforcongress.com...

I may still do it, to see if I get an answer to a question about the racial slurs.

The problem here, Escromutus, is that Ms. McKinney did not say the alleged comments. Greg Palast, a white journalist did. Now where is the outrage against Mr. Palast?

For the record, the author is practicing guilt by association. And he does not deny it.

Go right ahead and write your letters. Please do extend your campaign to eradicate racism by writing letters to Robert Byrd and Trent Lott, by all means.

At the outset, I also suggest that people write letters to Tony Snow in the same spirit in trying to eradicate racism from all our government officials.

That is something, in all due fairness, that the author does not espouse. It also speaks volumes that he cannot find one instance of racism by Ms. McKinney barring Whites from a social institution in her legislation, public policy speeches or voting record. His silence is especially complicit in defining what is "real racism" in his methodology of calling Ms. McKinney a racist.

But then again, I'll be mighty curious to see the fruit of author's efforts as he goes against Ms. McKinney's website as well as the Georgia Congresswoman. It'll be like David battling Goliath, I suppose.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Ceci2006: Well, I think the following, "I see you didn't--as well as the author--find any legislation in which Ms. McKinney espoused barring White people from any social institution", is a rather narrow and confined category, though I never said she did that. Of course, that 95% of her staff are Black may be an indicator of some sort.

Another thing is that she has consistantly votes "Pro Choice." Let's see..... in 35 years over 42 million children killed. Around 52% of those were Black. Does that have anything to do with the issue? Probably not. I'd say she was racist against pretty much all races..... at least in that regard.

Well, zappafan1, then you have to argue whether the fetus has any life during the early stages of conception when abortion is allowed (that is until legislation changes).

Some people think so. Other people don't.

Sorry. No cigar.

The legislation I'm referring to when regards to Ms. McKinney affects the already living. Not the newly conceived.

And aborted fetuses regardless of race aren't barred from any social institution. Unfortunately, they are already dead.








[edit on 1-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Something to consider when trying to find speeches, legislation and public policies barring Whites from any social institution "supposedly sponsored" by Ms. McKinney (if there is any):

This is to add to zappafan1's answer to my question about Ms. McKinney.

Remember, during the time of Jim Crow, the courts, legislators and other dignitaries pushing the "Separate but Equal" cause, did not consider the pre-born as part of their mind-set when setting forth discriminatory practices against people of color. When the "Whites Only" signs were set upon buildings, for example, they were not concerned with those newly conceived and unborn. Instead, they used the laws to push prejudices against people of color who were already born and were living their lives withing the expanse of America--especially in the deep South. Those espousing such bigotry did not commit their racist acts of intimidation against fetuses. They did not deny fetuses the right to vote, for example. They denied people already here.

In the same way, if Ms. McKinney espoused in her public speeches, public policies or legislation in any manner banning Whites from social institutions--the White people in question were already born and living in their respective regions. Therefore, if she were to sponsor such prejudicial legalities, then her use of the law would discriminate against them as she brought forth such material to Congress.

This would not only be in the media, but also on record in the same way as Strom Thurmond and others in comparison have historically protested civil rights legislation on the House Floor, for example.


Keep in mind if she is as "racist" as the author says on her website, those very same beliefs would pop up in her speeches, legislation and public policies. Then her alleged "racism" would be found there as well--especially when pushing for laws denying White people from any social institution.






[edit on 2-7-2006 by ceci2006]

This would not only be in the media, but also on record in the same way as Strom Thurmond and others in comparison have historically protested civil rights legislation on the House Floor, for example.

"In the 1950's and 60's, Thurmond's political career extended from the days of Jim Crow laws, and South Carolina had strongly resisted any attempts at integration."

REPLY: This is a result of his being a politician and doing what politicians do... representing their voters wishes. While I disagree with any type of racism, I also disagree with "reverse racism/discrimination", which I'll mention at the end.

"In the 1970s, Thurmond endorsed racial integration earlier than many other southern politicians. Thurmond also hired African American staffers, enrolled his daughter in an integrated public school, and supported blacks for federal judgeships."

REPLY: People sometimes change their outlook/beliefs through experience and education.

Keep in mind if she is as "racist" as the author says on her website, those very same beliefs would pop up in her speeches, legislation and public policies. Then her alleged "racism" would be found there as well--especially when pushing for laws denying White people from any social institution.

REPLY: Politically, "reverse racism/discrimination" is where someone promotes programs, policy, money or other things to the exclusion of other races, which McKinney does. Of course, this also is doing nothing more than representing her voters, as mentioned above, but the result is the same.

Ms. McKinney, as a proponent of the "Pro Choice" outlook, as are all those who hold that same mindset, are actually hurting the causes of their own races, as mentioned below:

"At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood."

[link] blackgenocide.org... [/link]

Since the facts of PP are not well publicized, I admit to my curiosity as to why so many people, of all races, continue in that mindset, considering that the majority of abortions are Black. A rather obtuse way of being "racist", but factual none-the-less.

Back on topic, I believe that her website is in fact copyrighted in her name, as some above has shown.

But Tony Snow is simply a hack.

REPLY: Well, a better description is that he's an employee of the white house, is well paid, and is paid by his employer to speak/work on their behalf, much as does anyone who works for someone else; as do you and I (although I have my own business, I still "work" for others.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 2-7-2006 by zappafan1]
mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 2-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally quoted by zappafan1

Outside source: "In the 1950's and 60's, Thurmond's political career extended from the days of Jim Crow laws, and South Carolina had strongly resisted any attempts at integration."
REPLY: This is a result of his being a politician and doing what politicians do... representing their voters wishes. While I disagree with any type of racism, I also disagree with "reverse racism/discrimination", which I'll mention at the end.

Outside source: "In the 1970s, Thurmond endorsed racial integration earlier than many other southern politicians. Thurmond also hired African American staffers, enrolled his daughter in an integrated public school, and supported blacks for federal judgeships."

REPLY: People sometimes change their outlook/beliefs through experience and education.

I agree that people can change as well. But not a lot of people might take your benign appraisal of Mr. Thurmond's behavior very well. This especially was the case when news surfaced concerning his death.

But the lack of belief in Mr. Thurmond's endeavors could equally be applied to the lack of concurrence with Ms. McKinney's implementations.

Why won't people take Ms. McKinney's apology truthfully when she made it on the House floor? She did have a change of outlook about her "altercation", but I find it hard to believe that those who simply dislike her would take her word for it.

Those that don't believe her will continue to say that she is "pulling the race card". Go figure.

Originally quoted by zappafan1

REPLY: Politically, "reverse racism/discrimination" is where someone promotes programs, policy, money or other things to the exclusion of other races, which McKinney does. Of course, this also is doing nothing more than representing her voters, as mentioned above, but the result is the same.

Ms. McKinney, as a proponent of the "Pro Choice" outlook, as are all those who hold that same mindset, are actually hurting the causes of their own races, as mentioned below:
Outside source: "At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood." End Outside source.
[link] blackgenocide.org... [/link]

Since the facts of PP are not well publicized, I admit to my curiosity as to why so many people, of all races, continue in that mindset, considering that the majority of abortions are Black. A rather obtuse way of being "racist", but factual none-the-less.

Nice try. But still no cigar. You are still doing guilt by association, pretty much in the same way as the author. Ms. McKinney may be Pro-Choice, but I think Margaret Sanger and she carried quite different views. For example, Ms. McKinney did not sponsor euthenasia. Margaret Sanger did.

Besides, being pro-choice means allowing others to make a choice whether to have an abortion or not. It is not physically performing the abortion. You immediately assume that being pro-choice means actually permitting the act each and every time. That is not always the case. So you are way off base with your claims.

I'd love to hear what you have to say about Bill Bennet's comments on abortion and Black People (on another thread, of course )

I know that you can't be moved to change your ideas, I just have this to say.

Ms. McKinney has never said that she hated Black people in her manner, speech, public policies or legislation. Then, she would be practicing "self hate" and have "identity issues" as she goes about her official duties. That is something she does not do.

And don't even go there with dragging Planned Parenthood into this.

Furthermore, you missed the fact that the Segregationists did not even consider fetuses when they created and supported laws barring people of color from societal institutions and civic duties. When they especially intimidated people of color, they did not even mention abortion. Instead, they were pre-occupied with people already here trying to take part in everyday life. To be blunt, they did not burn crosses on the lawns of fetuses. They did not lynch fetuses.

But I think that is lost upon you when arguing Ms. McKinney being pro-choice.

Back on topic, I believe that her website is in fact copyrighted in her name, as some above has shown.

Yes, it is. And she is implementing her First Amendment Rights, just like you.

But what you are missing is that she did not make the comments. Greg Palast did.

By your logic, Mr. Palast might be the "self-hating" one if he used language that was derogatory against White people and people who espouse to "Whiteness" in general.

That is, if you really think what Mr. Palast said was offensive. And I don't see anyone taking up the cause to roast Mr. Palast over the coals for what he said. So subtly, this conveys to me pretty much the bias that others purport to fight. It is hypocrisy at its highest here. But that sad thing is the author and those who support him do not know it.







[edit on 2-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by subz
And the anti-Cynthia roadshow carries on.

I personally dont find the term "cracker-crat" offensive but I can understand why some people do. It is a racial slur but it came from a white journalist, Greg Palast, not Cynthia.

It's really quite pathetic that this is being used to some how paint Cynthia in a bad light.

p.s. I voted for this story even though I disagree with it, remember that voters

[edit on 28/6/06 by subz]

So, if someone was to post that her backers were "'n-word's", you wouldn't have a problem with that? If they removed it, as I believe they should, would that be a problem? What if that person was black? Still no problem? I know more black people that use the word than whites. I don't use it out of respect for black friends who are truly offended and don't use the word. Not that it matters.

Originally quoted by notbuynit

So, if someone was to post that her backers were "'n-word's", you wouldn't have a problem with that? If they removed it, as I believe they should, would that be a problem? What if that person was black? Still no problem? I know more black people that use the word than whites. I don't use it out of respect for black friends who are truly offended and don't use the word. Not that it matters.

Oh, therein lies the rub. You hit on a question of fairness--especially when offensive words reflect a color bias when used.

What would the author do if Mr. Palast mentioned the "n-word" in the piece posted on Ms. McKinney's website? Would the author still doggedly vow to write a letter to the Georgia Congresswoman?

Even though she did not say the offensive words in question, I still notice that no one has had a problem with Mr. Palast using words such as these in his article. Mr. Palast, I say again, is white.

Let's open this question to other posters who support the author in his quest to highlight this "sticky" problem.

I wonder if Mr. Palast were to mention the "n-word" in his article, would other people, outraged at the offense of his other words, be doubly incensed?

However, I am a pessimist. Probably not. It doesn't affect them as much.


I am glad that you have enough respect not to use that word around Black people, most namely your friends. However, I just have to ask one question.

Did you take a survey amongst all the Black people in the United States in order to reach your findings regarding their use of the "n-word"? How do you know that Black people frequently use it more than White people? I would certainly love to know how you came to that conclusion.












[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
However, I just have to ask one question.

Did you take a survey amongst all the Black people in the United States in order to reach your findings regarding their use of the "n-word"? How do you know that Black people frequently use it more than White people? I would certainly love to know how you came to that conclusion.

If I may answer that question ceci.

There is definately a double standard when it comes to the n-bomb. Through out pop culture the n-bomb is permissable but only when used by a black person. Just listen to any form of rap/hip hop and you'll hear it used liberally.

Heard the song Gold Digger by Kanye West? The n-bomb is in the chorus

I aint sayin she's a gold digger
but she aint messin with no broke 'n-word'

The word may or may not be censored depending on what medium you heard the song but Kanye has definately not been criticised for using that word.

Now if a white person uses that word there's hell to pay. There definately is a double standard when it comes to racism. As far as I am aware racism towards white people is perfectly acceptable in most Western countries. Infact its even considered funny.

Take Australia for example. Here the correct term for Aborigines is "Indigenous Australians" however the common name for European Australians used by Indigenous Australians" is "white fella". Do I find that term offensive? Not really, it all depends on context.

So why therefore is it completely taboo to refer to Aborigines as "black fellas"? It's a double standard because it seems to be assumed that any white person using a non-pc word automatically implies a racist overtone. That in and of itself is a racist attitude.

Getting back to the original story for this thread though, the terms used by Greg Palast were not the words of Cynthia McKinney. Therefore she should not be criticised for something some one else did. Even if they chose to post it on her website there usually is a disclaimer disavowing responsibility for what other people post on it.

Tempest in a tea-cup

[edit on 2/7/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
There definately is a double standard when it comes to racism. As far as I am aware racism towards white people is perfectly acceptable in most Western countries. Infact its even considered funny.

Agreed 100%. And this is my problem with any racial threads here. When people speak of racism, it's automatically assumed that it's racism by whites against blacks. And when people ("The Author" and I, for example) try to point out racism by blacks against whites, we have been set in our place.

It's like it's ok to be racist against whites, to use racial slurs against whites because they deserve it or something. I'm not too sure of the actual justification, but it's clear that some think that way. But don't even use a word that has at one time been used as a racial slur against blacks (unless of course you're black - then it's ok) or you'll be branded a racist. Ask Tony Snow, who as far as I know has never done anything to keep the black man down.

All I know is that I'm MORE racist now, after having been though some of these discussions than I was before. I am pulling back from the race discussions and I hope to completely pull out of them altogether. I used to feel that I had something to say about race, but now I'm just bitter about it all. I used to feel that I could make a contribution to the ongoing civil rights struggle, but now I don't even really want to.

Benevolent Heretic, I agree with your post as well.

However, the problem with this thread is that racism is being used as a weapon to discredit Cynthia McKinney. Now I know Cynthia McKinney played the race card in her defence of lashing out at the Capitol Policeman. That was not appropriate as far as I am aware. The victimization of Cynthia by the Capitol Police has nothing to do with her race, but her politics.

Now people rightly were annoyed she readily used the race card to get off from that sticky situation. But trying to paint her as a racist because of something some one else wrote on her website is a major stretch. She never said anything racist to white people, Greg Palast did.

Racism is still a problem, but its the inconsistant approach towards it from all sides that is ruining any chance of rectifying it. We either all agree that all slurs including racial stereotyping is not allowed, regardless of whether you belong to that race. Or we all agree that context is king. i.e. You can say anything but if its used in anything but a friendly manner you are liable to be called a racist.

To me, this thread detracts from the race debate because its trying to use accusations of racism to attack some one who is innocent in this case.

BH and subz, you both say some insightful things that I want to respond to.

Benevolent Heretic:

I hope that you don't pull out of discussions about race. There are many times that I am bitter about being set in my place as well. The Tony Snow thread is especially indicative lately of my bitterness concerning talks about race-relations.

But, I don't give up. I continue the discussion no matter how many times people have told me to "grow a thick skin" and "find an instance of real racism".

There will be people who "get it". And there will be others who will never get anything concerning issues about race. That's the way life goes. But if you can reach others who do try to understand and converse with you about race-relations, then it is a small victory.

You can't turn a deaf ear. You have to be determined to continue speaking even when it hurts you.

And believe me, I've been hurt too many times to count.

I continue to listen, learn and ask questions. That is why conversations about Mr. Palast and Ms. McKinney are useful. I think that sometimes there are people who don't even "appreciate" the irony in this entire discussion no matter what side of the fence they sit on.

I've told you before that I would never use such words against White people anyhow because it is simply disrespectful. And if Ms. McKinney said it in her post, I would be just as angry because the simple lack of respect.

But this is another thing to think about. I did ask about Black on White racism. I asked whether anyone could find Ms. McKinney guilty of barring Whites from any social institution in her speeches, public policies and legislation. I wanted to know. One person answered.

subz:

It's true that the words used by Greg Palast are indicative of what derogatory monnikers Black people say about White people.

But the problem is that a White male said it. I would understand if people grew angry at Greg Palast for saying it.

But I don't understand why people supportive of "the author" (He refers to me as "the poster" when he is not ignoring or saying something rude to me. So that is the type of references we use against each other now. He and I are barely on speaking terms as it is.) use guilt by association to penalize Ms. McKinney regarding the words of another.

I do know Kanye West's songs. And yes, I don't like it when he uses the n-word in them. There are plenty of words you can say other than the derogatory ones if you want to get your point across.

In fact, I don't even use the n-word and I'm Black. I have written posts on other threads stating my reasons.

But Greg Palast said the derogatory words in question. That is the true double standard here. No one is angry that he said it. Don't you find that interesting?

Now, do I like that Mr. Palast said the words in his article? No. But will I defend his First Amendment Right to say it? Yes.

I would hope that others would be just as considerate of me when defending my rights regarding freedom of speech.

However, I know the cynic in me when it comes to the defense of others' words and ideas. Some
people haven't defended me. And some people never will.

But, I truly think that this issue is a tempest in a teapot.

I am also glad that this conversation is taking place so we can understand each other about this issue.








[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]