Cynthia McKinney website allows Racial Slurs

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

I am not out to prove anyone a racist. You are mistaken. I am just sharing MY definition of racism. We are all entitled to our opinion. And yes, I fully cop to setting the bar very low when it comes to racism as well as other forms of discrimination from one human being to another. I have very little tolerance for intolerance.

Same here. But that also is a question of life-experience and semantics as well.

Your accusations are incorrect. But as I have acknowledged, I set the bar very low.

You do set the bar very low. That is the problem. Racism in all its permutations is more complex than just "setting the bar". You can't just call someone a racist and expect them to reel back and explain their feelings. But like you have your opinions, you have to respect the opinions about others without judgement. Do you truly do this?

I grew up in Ohio and heard many racial slurs, some even from my family, and I NEVER heard Tar Baby. It's ok that you refuse to give Snow the benefit of the doubt, but I do.

Fair enough. Give him the benefit of the doubt. I accept that. But will you accept that I give Ms. McKinney the benefit of the doubt?

What could I possibly teach anyone? I do not assume to teach anyone anything. The only place I hear these words these days is on this board. I don't use them. My friends and I don't sit around ragging on black or white people. Race is minimal in my life.

Everyone has the potential to teach others from their point of view about life. That is what "denying ignorance" is all about.

I don't sit around ragging on White people or any race as well. But that's not what the discussion of race and race-relations is. It is talking about these issues calmly and trying to learn from them. We've done that before. And I believe that we can do it again if the effort is made.

Race should be minimal in all of our lives. However, race affects some of us more than others during our daily lives. You can see that from the comments here on the board.

Who cares? I'm not going to explore ignorance. I'm not going to feed racism. I have no interest in drawing the line deeper in the sand. The thought is ludicrous to me!

I'm sure it is ludicrous to you. But education about these things help others understand why these words are used in the first place. Further knowledge decreases the impact these words have on other people. And also, by knowing how they are used, it might remind someone in the future to be more judicious about using them when referring to other people.

That is the reason why I brought up the notion of vision.

What indication do you have that I've 'given up'? My continued postings to you? What have I given up, exactly? Changing your mind? I gave up on that a long time ago. Think whatever you want. I have no need for you to see things my way.

You said that you wanted to pull away from discussions of race. That is giving up. And that has nothing to do with you and me. In the scheme of things, I know I can't change your mind as well. But, it is a question of tolerance. How much are you willing to tolerate of others' opinions even though they might disturb your world view? It's not just having a lack of tolerance for intolerance.

Opinions are great. People should own their opinions. But the greatness of that is that we teach others something about them even in the conversations we hold. And some people are willing to do more work on this end than others.

I think I do understand others. I just disagree. If you want me to agree with your judgments of Snow and McKinney, I'm sorry. I don't. But you're certainly free to have your judgments as I am to have mine.

Fair enough. I think I understand others as well. But are you willing to give me the benefit of the doubt? I am willing to do the same for you.

I am not attempting to get anyone to agree with me. Not even you. I accept your opinions. And I accept that you believe that I am able to have my judgements as well. I would like people to accept my opinions just as fairly as any other member on this topic. I ask that in the very least.









[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally quoted by notbuynit

I don't. She messed up and tried to make race an issue when it was so obviuosly not. I almost believe it was preplanned. She isn't all that smart. I also don't see Dr. Rice attacking an officer of the law over something stupid. Do you???? Seriously, do you think Dr. Rice would do that???? I think she's smarter than that. Ms. McKinney and I obviously aren't. I was atleast impared tho, not that that did any good, kinda made it worse. I believe the two took different paths to power. We'll leave it at that. I'm not a hater, I'm just real.

How can you see the entire career and education of Ms. McKinney just because of this one incident? And why does everyone assume that Ms. McKinney is stupid? Do you know about her degrees? Her credentials? Did you ever see her resume? Did you follow her career? Or is it a gut feeling based on an "altercation" with a cop that a grand jury decided not to indict?

Dr. Rice, like any of us, is capable of doing the unthinkable. Just because she does have the protection of those in power, the public does not truly know what she could be capable of. With that being said, Dr. Rice's credentials are out there. It is no mistake that the Republican party would tout them repeatedly. That is why, I think, some people are more tolerant of Dr. Rice's mistakes than any other Black in a high position.

Originally posted by ceci2006
You do set the bar very low. That is the problem.

It's not a problem for me. And it's never been a problem for anyone until I started discussing race with you. If it's a problem for you, then it's your problem.

But like you have your opinions, you have to respect the opinions about others without judgement. Do you truly do this?

NOBODY does that. I do not have to respect other's opinions any more than I have to respect their religions or other beliefs. I accept that they have their opinions. I respect their right to have and express their opinions, but I do not have to respect their opinions. Without judgment.

Some people have the opinion that all gay people should be killed. I do not respect that opinion and I have serious judgments about it.

And anyone who claims they don't make judgements on dissenting opinions is lying. (in my opinion)

But will you accept that I give Ms. McKinney the benefit of the doubt?

Accept it? Of course I accept it. I'm not in the habit of denial. I disagree with you but I know how you feel. Who am I to say that I don't accept how you feel or what you think?

Everyone has the potential to teach others from their point of view about life.

And I don't hold back my point of view. That's pretty clear. If people learn from something I say, fine, but I don't go about trying to teach people things. That's the quickest way to turn someone off. I'm not going to think that I have something to teach people or an education to impart. That's totally arrogant, in my opinion and turns me away faster than anything.

You said that you wanted to pull away from discussions of race.

With you. I meant with you. I have discussed race calmly and reasonably with many other people and it's a favorite subject of mine. Just as feminism, religion, politics and gay rights are. But I find discussing race with you to be extremely frustrating, as illustrated and explained in the race thread.

But are you willing to give me the benefit of the doubt?

I don't know what you mean by that. I would need to know specifically what that question means to answer it.

I would like people to accept my opinions just as fairly as any other member on this topic. I ask that in the very least.

You've got that. People disagree with you and argue with you but that doesn't mean they don't accept your opinions, they just disagree.

I'm not sure you're seeing the difference between accepting an opinion, agreeing with an opinion and respecting an opinion. You seem to be using the terms interchangeably and they mean something very different to me.

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

And I don't hold back my point of view. That's pretty clear. If people learn from something I say, fine, but I don't go about trying to teach people things. That's the quickest way to turn someone off. I'm not going to think that I have something to teach people or an education to impart. That's totally arrogant, in my opinion and turns me away faster than anything.

I am highly expressive in my point of view as well. But I do think that in conversations, people do share things in order to make a point about a specific issue. The Cynthia McKinney issue is not immune from this.

I truly do believe that everyone has the potential to impart their wisdom and experience to enlighten others. We are all teachers on one topic. We are also students on others.

Well, I am not like other people when it comes to turning away from a learning experience. I don't think it is arrogant. I truly do appreciate it when others do take the time to explain things and bring proof to back up those claims.

So really, when it comes to teaching others about life experiences, it is a question of power. Not a question of being able to learn something new from someone else. Are people willing to be humble and listen to others in order to extend their thinking about a topic?

Who else is "high on their petard", I wonder?

But I find discussing race with you to be extremely frustrating, as illustrated and explained in the race thread.

I don't find it frustrating to discuss race with you. I am simply happy that others are willing to hash out these issues about race with me, regardless of race. There are a lot of people who don't want to talk about race and will get angry about anything regarding race. You at least take the time to sort out the issues. I respect you for that. And like I mentioned before, race is an emotional topic. But sometimes, you have to take the emotions out of it in order to get the crux of the argument.

The argument here is whether Cynthia McKinney is guilty by the association of Greg Palast's words. Different people have their opinions on this. That is interesting. It is also fascinating that just this thread unleashed people's contributions about "double standards","identity issues", "color bias against words", the treatment of different Black dignitaries when such words are used as well as "Anti-White" racism. To take a moment and consider these things fills me with awe. Not anger.

And that is more thought-provoking than having five pages of accusing Ms. McKinney using the "race card" and being racist.

People put into a discussion what they want to get out. And if they truly want to learn from others about this issue, they'll ask the questions. If not, you get what you pay for.

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure you're seeing the difference between accepting an opinion, agreeing with an opinion and respecting an opinion. You seem to be using the terms interchangeably and they mean something very different to me.

If it is a questions of semantics, please do teach me the difference. However, I do mean what I say. I do try to understand people as you do. I do respect the right to others' opinions as I would hope they would mine.


But I've learned from this thread how some White people feel about these words. I've also learned the different tolerence levels in concern to different derogatory words. I've also learned that "double-standards" are in place when considering who is racist and who isn't. I've also gotten from this thread that although there is not a scintilla of palatable proof against Ms. McKinney's racist intentions (except for using the "race card")in her official duties in government it is far easier to blame her than someone like Strom Thurmond or Trent Lott.

But I haven't learned (despite the obvious)what Ms. McKinney's education and work have to do with her "playing the race card" in her "altercation" with Paul McKenna. I also haven't gleaned why Dr. Rice is immune to making derogatory statements while Ms. McKinney is not. And no one has truly demonstrated where in Ms. McKinney's speeches, public policies and governmental work has she demonstrated her racism against Whites by espousing a segregationist approach barring them from social institutions. I also didn't get the answer why people are not incensed that Greg Palast said the words.

Off the topic, or no, these matters contribute to the character of Ms. McKinney and why she would post Greg Palast's article. They also correlate to the fact that because Greg Palast was the one saying the words, that he somehow gets an easier pass at saying them than Ms. McKinney.


One of the greatest mysteries about all these things is that the author has never admitted why he cares about posting this information about Ms. McKinney's website or his views about race in general. In other posts, he has blamed easily the efforts of Black dignitaries except for Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice somehow has been put upon a pedistal for him. What I would also like to know how this information about Ms. McKinney would contribute to his knowledge about race and furthermore, how he would attain the judgement of others about her without giving any knowledge or concern about race-relations himself.




[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Dr. Rice is a very driven, erudite, and strong Black woman. I agree with you about that. But I have to ask whether in this pursuit of being "accepted" by the Republicans, what is her position regarding the use of "derogatory words" by other folk? And has she publicly condemned Ms. McKinney for her actions?

Again it comes back to her being a black woman. Maybe she actually agrees with conservatives even though she goes against the black power mongers? Maybe she doesn't sell out? Ever thought of that?

If she were a white person, would you have asked that? Maybe we are all bigots in some way? Some haven't come to terms with it. Again, I and probably she is offended. I didn't feel it important enough to publisize my race. You did. You have decided in your mind, my race, stereotyped me. Take a guess at my race. Think softly because the hard thruth hurts.

She's the Secratery of State, does she have time to worry about whatsherface and her antics? I'm a little more worried about China, NKorea, Iran, Iraq, bird flu .... myself and I'm not even the SOS.

How does she react to the derogatory words uttered by not only her own race, but the other races?

I don't know Dr.Rice but I'm gonna take a leap and say she ain't no wuss. If she has something to say, I bet she says it.

I would be curious to know why her opinion (by virtue of being part of the Republican party) is taken with more weight than any other Black dignitary? Why does she get this shield of protection while Ms. McKinney gets attacked?

Ofcourse you mean by us and not the popular media. I'll say it's because she and yet another DUI Kennedy and I won't even start on Mr. Jefferson, are being protected by the media with the exception of Fox news and the radio. Then again, what shield of protection are you refering to. Dr. Rice is attacked every day and the popular media would love for something to stick so they could run with it. Lets be serious here. If you are accusing the media of being conservative then that tells me this is going nowhere because you're not being realistic. I can atleast admit that FOX and most of talk radio is biased.

And what if Dr. Rice says something derogatory about Whites? Would you still hold her in the same esteem? Or would you attack her in the same way as Ms. McKinney?

Yea right, Dr. Rice a bigot? Wouldn't happen but if it did and it would be front page forever, then yea, I'd have a problem with her. It's about principles. McKinney has none. She's a politician and nothing more. We must be careful of who we defend, might bite us later. I think I'm a little more secure than you. All I have is history and my gut to account for people and I hold Condi far higher than whatsherface. I think I'm a far harsher judger of people than you. I'm a tad more critical than you. Disagree?

Originally quoted by notbuynit

Again it comes back to her being a black woman. Maybe she actually agrees with conservatives even though she goes against the black power mongers? Maybe she doesn't sell out? Ever thought of that?

Maybe she has sold out? She was on the Chevron Board. They did name a tanker after her. The Bush family has oil interests. She did work for Brent Scrowcroff and the NSA. She also worked for George H.W. Bush. Yes, the road to power engages the casting couch with many men of power.

And who are these "Black Power Mongers"? Care to make any suggestions here?

If she were a white person, would you have asked that? Maybe we are all bigots in some way? Some haven't come to terms with it. Again, I and probably she is offended.

I would. Because I would be just as curious to know. And I would check the records on the site of the Government Publishing Office (the Congressional Record) to find out.

I didn't feel it important enough to publisize my race. You did. You have decided in your mind, my race, stereotyped me. Take a guess at my race. Think softly because the hard thruth hurts.

In the scheme of things, I don't care. I do care more about people's views concerning this topic, however.

Lets be serious here. If you are accusing the media of being conservative then that tells me this is going nowhere because you're not being realistic. I can atleast admit that FOX and most of talk radio is biased.

You are the first person in a long time on this board to admit that FOX news is biased. But no, I was not referring to the media.

People in high positions get there and are afforded protection by other people in power. Most namely, the Bushes. Is that why we don't know what Dr. Rice is capable of?

Yea right, Dr. Rice a bigot? Wouldn't happen but if it did and it would be front page forever, then yea, I'd have a problem with her. It's about principles. McKinney has none. She's a politician and nothing more.

How are you sure that Ms. McKinney hasn't any principles? Have you read her speeches? Have you studied her work in a public policy or societal fashion? Have you looked at her credentials? Have you observed her in an academic setting?

People have written academic treatises on the behavior of another doing these things. They are careful to check their sources. They are also thorough when making such assessments.

We must be careful of who we defend, might bite us later. I think I'm a little more secure than you. All I have is history and my gut to account for people and I hold Condi far higher than whatsherface. I think I'm a far harsher judger of people than you. I'm a tad more critical than you. Disagree?

If you are far harsher in judging people and being more critical, more power to you.

But I agree with you about being careful of who we defend. History and time will prove whether any of us are right or wrong.








[edit on 4-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
You are the first person in a long time on this board to admit that FOX news is biased. But no, I was not referring to the media.

Although I don't really want to get off topic with this, I tend to think your remark might be a bit unfair. I think many ATS members think all MSM is biased in one way or another.
And FOX is certainly not alone in that regard.

In the spirit of not getting off topic, I am sorry because that remark was unfair. But, in the end, I do agree that the MSM can be biased. And there are studies about the media to prove this.

Now, I will stay on topic and try not to steer others off course.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
The argument here is whether Cynthia McKinney is guilty by the association of Greg Palast's words.

And I don't know the answer to that. I have already said I don't hold her responsible for the words of another.

Some people are going to hold her responsible, some are not. I think you should accept that.

If it is a questions of semantics, please do teach me the difference.

Accepting an opinion is simply understanding that another person feels a certain way. To not accept a person's opinion would be to say, "You don't feel that way." I accept that you think Tony Snow is a racist.

Agreeing with someone's opinion is pretty self-explanatory. You think Tony Snow is a racist. My opinion disagrees with yours.

An example of Respecting a dissenting opinion is if someone said they have lost the feeling of support for our troops because they disagree with the war so strongly. I disagree with them, but I can understand why they feel the way they do and I can respect their opinion. I could feel the same way under slightly different circumstances. It doesn't mean I agree, but I can totally see WHY they feel the way they do.

I do not respect your opinion about Tony Snow. There is NO WAY I can understand or come close to agreeing with it. I hold negative judgments about your opinion of him.

These are just my opinions about these words and how I use them. I just don't think they all mean the same thing.

But I've learned from this thread how some White people feel about these words.

And no one has truly demonstrated where in Ms. McKinney's speeches, public policies and governmental work has she demonstrated her racism against Whites by espousing a segregationist approach barring them from social institutions.

Can you demonstrate where someone has accused her of doing this? If not, then why should someone demonstrate it?

Racism may require that kind of behavior from you, but using the race card is enough for me to say a person is racist. Remember that bar-setting thing?

I also didn't get the answer why people are not incensed that Greg Palast said the words.

Probably the same reason people aren't furious about Dave Chapelle using the N-word. And I have told you that I feel the same about both. And to me, it doesn't matter what color the person is. Anyone using racial slurs I find to be distasteful and I don't like it. I try to stay under my 'bar' as much as possible.

They also correlate to the fact that because Greg Palast was the one saying the words, that he somehow gets an easier pass at saying them than Ms. McKinney.

See D. Chapelle above.

One of the greatest mysteries about all these things is that the author has never admitted why he cares about posting this information about Ms. McKinney's website or his views about race in general.

I can't speak for him, I can only guess. But he's probably sick_to_death of being needled about his feelings on the subject. I would be, in his shoes. You are relentless in your pursuit of him to get him to 'admit' things, explain things and acknowledge things. He owes no explanation to you or anyone and is probably (wisely) staying out of the discussion. He has said how he feels. YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT. That's your problem.

Disclaimer: I don't know how he feels, but I know how I'd feel if you treated me the way you treat him. He might have taken this thread off his subscription and not looked at it again, for all I know.

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
And I don't know the answer to that. I have already said I don't hold her responsible for the words of another.

Some people are going to hold her responsible, some are not. I think you should accept that.

I do. But it shouldn't stop me from asking questions, should it?

These are just my opinions about these words and how I use them. I just don't think they all mean the same thing.

Fine. In this same fashion, I respect you making your opinions about how you portray my answers, but I don't agree with them. Especially about the emoticon ( ) concerning my learning about how some White people view derogatory words.

Now I find that offensive. But I accept your right to say it. Have I learned?

Can you demonstrate where someone has accused her of doing this? If not, then why should someone demonstrate it?

Because it helps prove whether Cynthia McKinney is truly racist or not. The further proof the better. It depends whether people truly care about her being racist, or jumping on the bandwagon accusing her of racism.

People who are truly committed to this would find it out and post it.

Racism may require that kind of behavior from you, but using the race card is enough for me to say a person is racist. Remember that bar-setting thing?

Fair enough. But, that says it all about having low expectations of people especially when it has to do with racist intentions. You are just the judge and jury. And everyone is definitely guilty. Don't forget to hang 'em high.

Probably the same reason people aren't furious about Dave Chapelle using the N-word. And I have told you that I feel the same about both. And to me, it doesn't matter what color the person is. Anyone using racial slurs I find to be distasteful and I don't like it. I try to stay under my 'bar' as much as possible.

So why are you waiting this late in the thread to say so? And who's the say people aren't furious at Dave Chapelle?

I can't speak for him, I can only guess. But he's probably sick_to_death of being needled about his feelings on the subject. I would be, in his shoes. You are relentless in your pursuit of him to get him to 'admit' things, explain things and acknowledge things. He owes no explanation to you or anyone and is probably (wisely) staying out of the discussion. He has said how he feels. YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT. That's your problem.

Oh, but I do accept it. I have never said that I didn't. But here again, I am still allowed to ask my questions about that. It plays into motivation. Motivation reveals a lot about people. Life-experience does as well.

And you have no idea how needled I feel especially on my "racism is taboo" thread when others have constantly demanded things of me. So don't even go there.

Defend the author if you must. But I ask in all fairness that you consider the nasty way he has treated me and other folk when talking about race. So, "the author" is not immune to being rude to myself and others here.

Please do re-read his comments on other threads. They are most enlightening.

And no, he is probably staying out of the fray because he is simply enjoying himself watching people bitterly argue without having anything to say for himself. It's a tactic that is sadistically and perversely done sometimes. And some thread-starters revel in it.

But above all, I accept your opinion about the author, but most certainly I don't agree with you. But it is a dissenting opinion, nevertheless.










[edit on 4-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Maybe she has sold out? She was on the Chevron Board. They did name a tanker after her. The Bush family has oil interests.

That's all I need to send someone to the chair. Oh gosh, maybe she's just a businesswoman? Can't have succesful black woman can we? She sure as hell didn't get there on her own merits!

And who are these "Black Power Mongers"? Care to make any suggestions here?

Not gonna answer because you know who I'm referring to. We all know who I'm referring to.

I would. Because I would be just as curious to know. And I would check the records of the Government Publishing Office to find out.

Truth hurts sometimes, that's life. Some of us live with it and some pretend to be something we're not to avoid the truth.

In the scheme of things, I don't care. I do care more about people's views concerning this topic, however.

Unfortuneatly I expected that. But it was important to you at one time, oh well things change. Over the years not days but whatever.

people in high positions get there and are afforded protection by other people in power. Most namely, the Bushes. Is that why we don't know what Dr. Rice is capable of?

Like McKinney? What is your fixation on Dr.Rice btw? Maybe the fact that a black person is so powerful and so close to being the President of the United States of America rubs you wrong? Which would be extremely wierd being that you are African American and all. Maybe because she would lead her way and not how you've been told how she should?

How are you sure that Ms. McKinney hasn't any principles? Have you read her speeches? Have you read about her work? Have you looked at her credentials? Have you observed hdemic setting?

I said my gut. My gut hasn't been wrong yet. It is after all a pretty big gut. My wife could back me up on this and she is never ever wrong.

But I agree with you about being careful of who we defend. History and space will prove whether any of us are right or wrong.

Space what? I almost agreed on this account but space what??? You talking aliens now or what? Maybe I'm misreading or something. Maybe I am an idiot and all, so what? We talking space and time continum or what?





[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Because it help proves whether Cynthia McKinney is truly racist or not.

You said:

Originally posted by ceci2006
And no one has truly demonstrated where in Ms. McKinney's speeches, public policies and governmental work has she demonstrated her racism against Whites by espousing a segregationist approach barring them from social institutions.

I'm asking where has anyone made these accusations? They haven't. Why should someone demonstrate something McKinney hasn't done to satisfy your definition of the word racist?

People who are truly committed to this would find it out and post it.

That's your opinion. And why should anyone be truly committed to proving something to you? It's pretty much impossible.

But, that says it all about having low expectations of people especially when it has to do with racist intentions. You are just the judge and jury. And everyone is definitely guilty. Don't forget to hang 'em high.

I said nothing about "low expectations".

You're going into your sarcastic mode and I have no intention of continuing this conversation with you.

Originally quoted by notbuynit

That's all I need to send someone to the chair. Oh gosh, maybe she's just a businesswoman? Can't have succesful black woman can we? She sure as hell didn't get there on her own merits!

That's your opinion. Not mine. You sure didn't ask me. You assume that's what I'd think.

Not gonna answer because you know who I'm referring to. We all know who I'm referring to.

Well then, don't bring up anything you can't back up. Black Power Mongers can mean a lot of things to different people. You can't assume what we know or don't because perhaps all of us do not think the way you do.

Truth hurts sometimes, that's life. Some of us live with it and some pretend to be something we're not to avoid the truth.

Because some people are willing to do the leg work to find something out while other people don't?

Maybe the truth does hurt when believing others opposed to finding things out on your own.

Like McKinney? What is your fixation on Dr.Rice btw? Maybe the fact that a black person is so powerful and so close to being the President of the United States of America rubs you wrong?

I don't have a fixation. And no, her status in the government doesn't bother me in the least.

But I do have the right to question her political motivations, do I not?

Just as you have the right to say Ms. McKinney is just a politician and possesses stupidity.

I just happen to ask why, that's all.

Which would be extremely wierd being that you are African American and all. Maybe because she would lead her way and not how you've been told how she should?

No. Dr. Rice certainly made it to the top. There's nothing wrong about achievement. However, people can question her credentials, her business practices, political acumen and relations with powerful people pretty much in the same manner as people question white politicians.

Or are white politicans immune from your scrutiny?

I said my gut. My gut hasn't been wrong yet. It is after all a pretty big gut. My wife could back me up on this and she is never ever wrong.

Some people use instinct. Other people use smarts and research. Both do the job in the same way.

Space what? I almost agreed on this account but space what??? You talking aliens now or what? Maybe I'm misreading or something. Maybe I am an idiot and all, so what? We talking space and time continum or what?

I corrected myself on the comment. I meant time and noted it above.














[edit on 3-7-2006 by ceci2006]

I'm asking where has anyone made these accusations? They haven't. Why should someone demonstrate something McKinney hasn't done to satisfy your definition of the word racist?

Because people keep on saying it topic after topic that Ms. McKinney is racist. And they never prove it. So, I asked someone to prove it to me through researching her speeches, public policies and governmental legislation.

And if there is no answer, there is no right to say she's racist if no one truly knows whether this is the case or not. I care about the truth. Do you not?

That's your opinion. And why should anyone be truly committed to proving something to you? It's pretty much impossible.

Yes it is my opinion. And some people are willing to do the research. And other people aren't. That's a fact of life on the boards here.

But I've found that people who really care about a topic here do the research. Why should this topic be any different?

You're going into your sarcastic mode and I have no intention of continuing this conversation with you.

I am very sorry about that. But sometimes, sarcasm is used to make a point. You do act as if you are singularly the judge and the jury. And when you have a low bar of tolerance for the intolerant, you do pretty much brand them without any expectation of change.

That's what I mean by giving someone the benefit of the doubt. You gave it to Tony Snow. Why don't you have the same standards for others?








[edit on 4-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by notbuynit
.......... It's about principles. McKinney has none. She's a politician and nothing more. We must be careful of who we defend, might bite us later. I think I'm a little more secure than you. All I have is history and my gut to account for people and I hold Condi far higher than whatsherface. I think I'm a far harsher judger of people than you. I'm a tad more critical than you. Disagree?

OK, I think ANYONE who is unrightly accused of being 'unprincipled' should have some defense, even if someone is quilty of one sin, they are not then to be considered guilty of all evils.........so bite me.

Being from Georgia, for years I've heard of Cynthia, and her father, who is also in politics. So you may not care for Ms. Mckinney's tactics, you ain't alone,( heck I'M certainly NOT her biggest fan). She has always been abrasive, outspoken and controversial......drawing fire from many directions. (Remember Zell Miller and his talent for tirade, from watching the Republican convention?? Well he went off on her pretty much that way YEARS ago, and more than once, as I seem to recall.)

She certainly seemed to have no fear of unpopular stances, even embracing them in the face of great opposition......I'd call that having principles.

She has over time, won some grudging 'respect' from some of those who were certainly not her fans.....( I have no links to support this, just telling you what I've heard with my own ears.......but she WAS re-elected to her seat by some of the same people that voted her out of it just a couple of years prior. )

The thing with the capitol guard was a mistake......I think she probably realized that, and she seemed rather 'cowed' and appoligetic toward the end. ( Fox did show that interview, right?? )

She's definately mellowing......trust me.
.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by frayed1]

Ceci,

You asked that someone do the research into possible racist attitudes coming from McKinney.

Here are excerpts from statements made by her.

"Quote": "I am absolutely sick and tired of having to have my appearance at the White House validated by white people," she said at the time. "McKinney"

"Quote": “TELL ME MY PEOPLE: IS THIS THE PRICE WE OPPRESSED CONGRESSPEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE TO PAY FOR SHOPPING WHILE BLACK?”*

"Quote": During a nasty 1996 congressional campaign with racial tension on both sides, she called supporters of her Republican opponent "holdovers from the Civil War days" and "a ragtag group of neo-Confederates." Never mind that her opponent was Jewish.

"Quote": And during the 2000 presidential campaign, she wrote that "Gore's Negro tolerance level has never been too high. I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time." Never mind that Gore's campaign manager was black.

"Quote": "My observation was that all those big, powerful white men in that book had women secretaries," said McKinney, with a slight, charismatic southern drawl. She said she found her way in through these women, who gave her access to the powerful men she needed on her side. "It was the sister connection that got me through," she said.

Now everyone can make the informed decision as to whether she brings up race or whether it is brought up against her.

It is only my humble opinion that if you do not want racism attached to your name, then you would avoid it unless confronted, much the way that Sec. Rice does. It seems that McKinney brings the issue up when things do not exactly go her way.

Again; Just my opinion.

Semper

Mckinney's political base is black people, so it is no surprise that she plays to her political base. White southern republicans and democrats both pander to their white political base. Both political parties and their supporters are grossly tainted with white racism and they have been tainted for years. Singling out one black woman as the focal point for a debate on racism is dishonest & partisan and it is just more of that same white racism. In the face of this systemic legacy of white racism, it should be no surprise that mckinney is prejudice in favor of blacks.

Time
As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

Liberalscum
For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator
Robert Byrd's outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the
"n-word," on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this
incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep
from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any
of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders
of the civil rights movement.

Self righteousness is reserved for the righteous and I see no one that qualifies on this thread.

Originally posted by df1
mckinney is prejudice in favor of blacks.

I'm glad to see this acknowledged. It isn't a surprise. It's clear.

We all have our own definition of what we think racism is. Some, like me, set the bar pretty low. In other words, I find any racial remark or separation of the races potentially racist. Treating people differently because of their race, to me, is racism. It doesn't take much at all for me to judge someone (including myself) as racist. Others believe that only white people can be racist. Still others think a certain amount of racial tension and dislike is acceptable and not considered racism.

Some think the races should be treated differently. I do not. I think affirmative action, specialty magazines, Black History Month and all of these divisive signals actually feed racism. My goal (ideal) is to lose the defining line between the races and have it be no more important than the line between blondes and brunettes. I think holding onto the history of slavery and wearing it like a badge of anger and resentment is one of the biggest contributors to racism today.

And that's what I see in Cynthia McKinney. She's angry and resentful of white people.

To me, prejudice in favor of blacks constitutes racism. McKinney has indicated many times that she is prejudiced in favor of blacks. Playing the race card is a racist thing to do in my opinion. One doesn't have to hurt another race to be racist by my definition. If I sit in my home and talk down about Hispanics, I haven't hurt anyone, but I'm still a racist.

Yes, Trent Lott and those others are obviously prejudiced in favor of whites, nobody is denying that. They are racist, too.

However, this thread is about McKinney and pointing out that others are also racist does NOT absolve her from being racist by any means.

"They did it, too"! is not a very good defense, in my opinion.

"Proof" of McKinney's "true" racism is continually being asked for in this thread. Why, I do not know.

When I began reading through the thread, the intent of the O.P. appeared to me to be an attempt to point out a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of Representative McKinney. The Congresswoman, it was implied, is quick to cry racism when there may be some percieved benefit (escaping some of the harsher consequences of assaulting a police officer, for example) yet appears to not even recognize the very existence of racism on her own website, possibly due to her being blind to the very real existence of what's termed reverse racism.

This sort of thing is more indicative of hypocrisy than racism, at least that's how I took it.

Not really a surprise though, is it? What elected official in the halls of government is not at least somewhat hypocritical? That is the nature of politics, IMO.

That being said, I was forced to go to the Tony Snow thread myself to see what everyone had said over there, where I found the following externally sourced quote put up by Ceci:

The novels and writings of Joel Chandler Harris, especially his Uncle Remus tales, written from 1888 through 1906, looked back at the days of plantation slavery as a time of racial harmony in which happy and simple-minded blacks lived with respect and dignity as slaves. Thomas Nelson Page, whose early novels and short stories, usually narrated by elderly freedmen, portrayed, like Harris, a tranquil life in slavery where faithful blacks adored their masters and were cared for with affection and tenderness.

Now, I've not read Harris' other writings, but I'm not aware of any "look(ing) back at the days of plantation slavery as a time of racial harmony..." that appears in the Uncle Remus tales. The above article exhibits a certain amount of ignorance of literature, as does another article that was quoted in that thread regarding how the press, having heard Snow use the term, couldn't believe he used it and (apparently, to the author of the article anyway,) most members of the press didn't even know what he meant by it!

IMO, the term "Uncle Remus" is far more hurtful than "Tar Baby." These stories involve animal characters, almost exactly like Aesop's Fables, illustrating the foibles of the human condition, and perhaps showing methods that might allow one to escape the pitfalls thereof. I'm not aware of the racist use of the term Tar Baby. Although I've lived in the South my entire life, I've never heard it used thusly. The point of the tale was that the Tar Baby was sticky, it represented a thing you don't want to get involved with because you can't get free of it - much like what happened (or almost happened) to Snow after he used the term! (Now that's irony!)

Getting back to the Congresswoman, she is not my representative, hence I don't care what she does or thinks. I still have enough faith in the system to believe that if she doesn't do her job to the extent her constituency expects, then they will replace her. If she does, then they won't. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work, after all?

Is she racist? I couldn't say. Is she a hypocrite? Well, of course she's a hypocrite! Aren't they all?

And one last thing. Ceci - whatever others may say about you, they certainly must agree that you have not been niggardly in your defense of Congresswoman McKinney!!!

Harte

I may get "punished" for off topic here, but

Harte, that was uncalled for and NOT funny.

Ceci and I disagree almost on every topic, but she is one of the most informed and intelligent posters on here. She is also very well informed and compassionate in her discussions on certain topics and deserves more respect than that.

Semper