Cynthia McKinney website allows Racial Slurs

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

I haven't seen any apologies for his behavior. Only explanations. And YOU choose not to believe the explanation. Tell me, Ceci, do you believe me when I say I had never heard the term before? Or do you think I'm lying, too?

I believe you. I also believe Harte when he said he didn't hear the term while growing up in the South. But obviously a lot of others growing up in the South did hear this term and continue to get insulted by it. And they brought it up in letters, editorials and news reports about Tony Snow.

You and Harte are lucky people not to hear the term "tar baby". You are even luckier not to be insulted by it. To you both, that is one less term that will be used in popular speech to degrade people--whether it is used in a benign way or not.

It's all about life-experiences.

But the apologies? There were apologies (and apologists) for Mr. Snow's behavior not only my thread as well as this one.

Yes. Proof exists. You insist he knew about it even though there is no indication that he did. Your firm attachment to your position in the face of ZERO evidence is astounding. You have NO indication that he knew about the racial slur, yet you just know he did. And what if he did? What if he knew about it but thought it was safe because he wasn't using it 'that way'?

Is he still a racist? For what? And if he is, then all black people who use the N-word are racist too because they for sure know what that means...

By all due respect and your terminology of proving who's a racist and who's not, then usage of "tar baby" as well as the "n-word" are both indicators of racism. And the people who use it, by your meaning, are racists. That means Tony Snow and the Black people who use such derogatory terms are racists, by your logic. And they both deserve condemnation, by your terms.

Sure. I think it's possible she was singled out because of who she is. But once again, it's the hypocrisy that bothers people. (me)

Hypocrisy how? Because she described her experience of being "racially profiled" by the police? It happens to Black people all the time, every day. It has nothing about being snubbed. It has nothing to do with victimhood. It happens in malls, stores, on the street, at schools and even at public events. It's as if cops (sorry Semper) have nothing else to do with their time.

However, why people might think it is hypocrisy is because of the "race card" factor. Because some, if not most people who are part and parcel of being part of the dominant culture do not have to face the indignities of being stopped, searched and interrogated by the police because of their color.

Cynthia McKinney, by virtue of her position, shouldn't have to be stopped and roughly treated by the police. But she was. And she was criminalized and "racially profiled" again in the press and in the court of public opinon.

So what? Who owes you this? Why are you, Ceci, entitled to hear from everyone that Palast is a racist? If you know that yourself, why are you insisting everyone pour their hearts and opinions out to you? Who do you think you are? I don't understand why you think people must 'come clean' with their feelings about Palast simply because you require them to.

I don't think I'm different from anyone else who would like to know why people don't rake Mr. Palast over the coals. I'm not insisting people do it as well. I find it interesting that few people treat Mr. Palast as roughly as Ms. McKinney when concerning racism.

White on White racism exists just as Black on Black racism is out there. It's the treatment of White on White racism that fascinates me. For people who belong and have benefitted from a power system, White on White racism is something that isn't explored. It's usually White on Black racism. Or Black on White racism. But White on White racism is just as valid as the others. And I truly think that people are ashamed to attack members of their own race, or mistake it for classicism. But Mr. Palast's words were not classist. They were racist. And no one except for a few acknowledges it. I'm sure that it is probably mistaken when a White person calls another "white trash" as classist. But to me, that is just as racist as a Black person calling another the "n-word" .

The question is what do White people do about it? Claim victimhood on one another? Accuse each other of using the "race card" as they readily do for Black people? Or are they so ashamed that they don't know what to do? Again, White Shame comes up along with White on White racism. As well as White Victimhood.

Yes, I did. She could have edited it or asked him to change it. That's what I would have done.

And again, respectfully, I say if she didn't think what Greg Palast said was wrong, why should she? She was exercising her First Amendment Rights, wasn't she? Or perhaps, she didn't even consider that these words were derogatory.

Again, the same excuse and apologies for Tony Snow.

But judging from others, I'm sure someone will say that Cynthia McKinney--by virtue of her virulent racism, knows about the word "cr---r".

Care to provide?

Sure. I'm running out of space here, so I'll put it in my next post devoted to your questions.

WHY??? You're the only one who cares about that. It doesn't matter to me who's the bigger racist. That's the most childish thing I've ever heard. What would that prove? Why is this a McKinney VS Snow bout in your mind?

Would it somehow absolve McKinney if someone else is a bigger racist than she is? What's the point?

I'm glad that it doesn't matter to you who's the bigger racist. That's because you have a set of rules to define who's racist in your point of view. But it does matter to a lot of people who don't share the same criteria as you do. I don't share your criteria for defining racism. And I would like to find out.

It's not childish if a person has been exposed to really virulent racism in his/her life. And that goes beyond someone calling someone else a "tar baby" or the "n-word". Like I said before, racism is much more complex than your set of criteria. I accept how you judge racism. But I don't agree with it. Racism, to me, occurs on different levels--from the harmless to the lethal.

That is why I've always said that you can't simply call someone a racist. You can think that someone has racist tendencies. So, I amend my words about Tony Snow and Cynthia McKinney. They both have racist tendencies because they use only words. Ms. McKinney, by proving the degrees of racism, is not absolved from her words. But she hasn't terrorized a group of White people over them.

But someone like Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott are racists of a greater degree. They have actually used public policy to bar people of color from social instutions by implementing the law. And they both have been unrepentant about it. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. That means, he was part of a group that terrorized and intimidated people from going about their daily life. That moves from the psychological to the physical. Especially when denying Blacks and other people of color the right to vote, the right to live as well as the right to do their civic duties.

That type of racism is far more violent and harmful than saying words. And the people who actually deny others rights and cause them harm, are probably the true racists because they have acted on their views. Their actions have really terrible reprocussions.

That's the point.







































[edit on 6-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally quote by jsobecky

You owe BH an apology for that remark. She is one of the most reasonable, patient members of ATS. She has gone out of her way to try to discuss things in a reasonable manner with you, and this is how you acknowledge it?

BH, it's none of my business, but if I were you, I'd walk away from this. You have way too much to offer in the way of enjoyable discourse to waste your time like this.

Indeed she is. And I am very sorry for saying that to her. She is one of the most patient, kind and wonderful members of ATS. And I have apologized to her many, many times whenever I have used "my sarcasm" as well as "my accusations".

I'm also sorry that she finds our discussions frustrating. I find them spirited, insightful and interesting. But unfortunately, I am not given the same leeway.

I have even quietly put up with the fact that everyone laughed while I felt "niggardly" was a poor choice of words and found it not funny.

So much about my "controlling" character.

But yes, I do extend my most humble apologies to her because I am a caring and kind person. And despite what she thinks of me, I still think of her very highly and wish she would forgive me. I already forgive her.

And most of all, I consider her a friend.

Just remember, Mr. Author, that I am also doing this as a courtesy to you and your thread. Because if I didn't think highly of you despite how we treat each other now, I wouldn't.


As another part of my extended courtesy, I will give you a piece of advice. There will be people who will continue to speak to me. And those who don't. One topic doesn't determine the sum and total of all my experiences here. So you are sorely mistaken. People come and people go. Time goes on. People change.

But the people who are truly genuine and kind stay regardless of the topic because they value the friendship more. And they continue to be more forgiving of others despite their faults. And they continue to ask questions and work on that friendship.

Unfortunately, others are not so forgiving because they only value someone's sentiments because of a single thread or an issue. They are not worthy of friendship because they are too thin-skinned to see past the comments made. They rather condemn than try to understand.

However, this is not a popularity contest. This topic is not meant to be one. And I already know that I wouldn't make friends because of the stands I take. That's par for the course and I expect it. But for those that continue to speak to me regardless, I am thankful for them. For those who don't, that is their problem. Not mine.

Race is just one issue I happen to care about and will keep on discussing it regardless. I already know that it isn't going to be pretty.

I too have had enjoyable conversations on other threads and blogs with people who see that I am more than a representative of a singular issue. Some people can't. And I'm sorry for that. But then again, that is their problem. Not mine.

This thread was started by you, not me. You're the one "screaming about race" now.











[edit on 6-7-2006 by ceci2006]

BH, you asked about the racism and Tony Snow. Here it is. Some might think he's telling the truth. Others might not. But his comments are there also so that people can judge for themselves. I suspend judgement.

The Washington Post:

The Fifth Visit
For instance, Peter Wallsten and Joel Havemann write in the Los Angeles Times: "His voice is quiet and authoritative. Even critics concede he has a talent for articulating policy issues and political philosophy. What has set Snow apart, however, is his penchant for making his points by walking close to the line in areas where others play it safe, including race.

"In 1991, Snow, then a speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, defended some ideas of Louisiana gubernatorial candidate David Duke at a time when Republicans were trying to distance themselves from the former Ku Klux Klan leader. Snow suggested that Duke was espousing some good conservative ideals, including family values and opposition to welfare dependency.

"In 2001, Snow wrote a column defending another former klansman, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), for his use of a racial epithet. . . .

Quotes from Tony Snow's columns. Read them and see what you think.

Race-baiting industry is dead
Had she [Hillary Rodham Clinton] proceeded to distribute fried chicken and watermelon, she would have achieved perfect condescension.

Tony Snow using the term "whitey". An example of White on White racism.

Remembering the Jean D'Arc of the Civil Rights Movement
Kambon livened a debate about race relations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by blaming whitey for everything....

The Dems' Black problem
Second comes the fact that the war on poverty itself degenerated into a vast insult against black Americans. Poverty programs assumed that blacks lived naturally in a state of poverty, lawlessness, ignorance and cupidity — and that there was nothing blacks themselves could do about it. The culprits, after all, were "root causes" such as slavery. In other words, black Americans couldn't conquer hardship without white help.

The TRUTH about Kwanzaa
Nobody ever ennobled a people with a lie or restored stolen dignity through fraud. Kwanzaa is the ultimate chump holiday -- Jim Crow with a false and festive wardrobe. It praises practices -- "cooperative economics, and collective work and responsibility" -- that have succeeded nowhere on earth and would mire American blacks in endless backwardness.

Our treatment of Kwanzaa provides a revealing sign of how far we have yet to travel on the road to reconciliation. The white establishment has thrown in with it, not just to cash in on the business, but to patronize black activists and shut them up.

The New Segregationism
As horrid as this may seem, no institutions do more to advance the cause of separatism than elite colleges and universities. The egghead class has made a fetish of segregationism, splintering the humanities into black studies, gender studies, gay and lesbian studies, and other nonsense -- thus giving the impression that such differences betoken cultural superiority. Leftist academics use speech codes to discourage what they consider white racism while simultaneously praising anti-white bias as a spur to multicultural tolerance. Students, taking the hint, have set up black and Hispanic student unions and grabbed university funding for clubs that celebrate highbrow Jim Crow rituals.

This great leap backward has gone unchecked because storied civil-rights veterans champion the cause. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases in which heroes have become bitter and impatient with age. The old civil-rights movement relied on soul power and faith in American goodness. Its twisted progeny has a darker view of human nature, and thus tries to improve behavior by employing the methods of Bull Connor -- government muscle, applied indiscriminately. The president and his votaries evidently prefer thuggish liberalism to compassionate conservatism.
[...]
Unfortunately, the message hasn't filtered into educational and governmental offices. Today, in cathedrals of learning and citadels of power, our leaders unwittingly mimic their Deep South predecessors. They spend their days conjuring up scapegoats so they won't have to confess that the old ways (such as quotas, welfare and race norming) are an indefensible failure.

Hot air in the Windy City
SOME CHICAGO PARENTS wanted to oust a sixth-grade algebra teacher who asked the following questions on an algebra test, dubbed the "City of Chicago High School Proficiency Exam":

"Rufus is pimping three girls. If the price is $65 for each trick, how many tricks will each girl have to turn before Rufus can pay for his $800-a-day crack habit?"

"Johnny has an AK-47 with a 40-round clip. If he misses six out of 10 shots and shoots 13 times at each drive-by shooting, how many drive-by shootings can he attend before he has to reload?"

"Jose has two ounces of coc aine, and he sells an 8-Ball to Jackson for $320 and 2 grams to Billy Joe for $85 per gram. What is the street value of the balance, if he doesn't cut it?"

This is not a David Letterman skit. A living, breathing educator handed these and other questions to 30 kids at the Horatio N. May School, whereupon the obedient scholars did what children usually do in such situations. They gnawed on their No. 2 pencils, sweated out answers, peeked at neighboring desks -- and tattled on Teacher when they got home.

But as bad as the test was, the worst part of the story is that nobody seems to have considered the possibility that the teacher was pulling an imbecilic prank. In this age of condoms and outcome-based education, nothing seems too weird or far-fetched -- except perhaps a rigorous course of study in the basics.

Silent no longer: Clarence Thomas unplugged
What began as a crusade for equal rights under the law has soured into a big-money quest to impose racial preferences. A movement that once united Americans of every class and color has turned into an agent of segregationism, race-baiting and political intrigue. What arose as a populist cause championed by ordinary citizens has degenerated into cults of personality backed by corporate America and shielded from scrutiny by a cadre of enforcers and intimidators. "We Shall Overcome" has given way to "Show me the money!"

The grandees of the New Segregationism have maintained their authority through the raw and shameless use of force. The average hack employs two weapons: protests and killer epithets. If a white man runs afoul of the establishment, he gets tagged a "racist." Black iconoclasts get dubbed "Uncle Toms." These labels are the most corrosive and feared in the land, and the mere threat of using them has reduced strong men and women to gelatinous nothings.

By your logic, BH, Tony Snow uttered plenty of epipthets in his texts. He has spoken in a derogatory fashion about White and Black people. In your view, he is most definitely a racist just like Greg Palast. Please try to defend Tony Snow now.













[edit on 6-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
What has set Snow apart, however, is his penchant for making his points by walking close to the line in areas where others play it safe, including race.

That's just opinon.

Snow defended some ideas of Louisiana gubernatorial
candidate David Duke

He defended the few good ideas while not endorsing him. Duke is
undefendable as a person. Some of his ideas were worthwhile. Using
third person information doesn't cut it. Get the original text so that it
can be seen in full context.

In 2001, Snow wrote a column defending another former klansman, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), for his use of a racial epithet. . . .

While I was unable to find the entire column I DID find that Snow didn't
'defend' the man; what he did was explain the term 'white 'n-word'' in which
Byrd used to describe Bill Clinton. Again, you need to get the original
text so that it can be seen in full context.

www.bannerofliberty.com...
www.blackelectorate.com...

black Americans couldn't conquer hardship without white help

So which is it? Black America can do without welfare and without social programs
such as Affirmitive Action .... or they need it to help 'change the tide'?? If it is
supposedly the fault of white America that so many black people are having a
hard time, then it should be the duty of white America to help put things right.
Or are you saying that isn't necesssary now? Which is it????

Kwanzaa is the ultimate chump holiday

That's entirely true. It was made up in the 1960s by a criminal in California.
Many black Christians have abandoned worship of Christ at Christmas and
adopted this 'holiday' as all important. (more important than worshipping
the God of their faith - how sad).

www.freerepublic.com...

Quote from the criminal who invented it -

1978, Washington Post, (inventor) Karenga said, "People think it's
African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people in this country
wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas
because I knew that's when a lot of bloods (blacks) would be partying."

Who cares if corn isn't an African crop?
Who cares if our harvest's a month or two off?
Who cares if Swahili's not our mother tongue?
A lie for The Cause never hurt anyone!

no institutions do more to advance the cause of separatism than elite colleges and universities.

He's entitled to that opinion. Many share it.

Leftist academics use speech codes to discourage what they
consider white racism while simultaneously praising anti-white bias
as a spur to multicultural tolerance.

He's right again.

SOME CHICAGO PARENTS wanted to oust a sixth-grade algebra teacher

That teacher should be punished and/or ousted. Snows comments were
sarcastic. Again .. use the whole context and/or tone.

A movement that once united Americans of every class and color has
turned into an agent of segregationism, race-baiting and political intrigue.

True. Very true. It definately has major problems. He has the right to
lament that a movement that 'once united Americans' (HIS words) has turned
sour. You should be glad that he's pointing it out and that he wishes it was
a great movement once again instead of what it has become - corrupt politics.

You posted nothing that shows him to be a racist bigot.


[edit on 7/6/2006 by FlyersFan]

Good for you. But frankly, as I thought about this, I've made my peace with the entire thing. There's more important issues that need to be dealt with now that do deserve the time and attention that needs to be paid for it.

So enjoy raking Ms. McKinney over the coals and being an apologist for Mr. Snow.

Originally posted by ceci2006
they brought it up in letters, editorials and news reports about Tony Snow.

If anyone brought it up in these ways then they didn't bother to hear the
entire context of the word; they aren't well educated; or they just want to
cause problems where none exist because of some agenda of their own.

It's all about life-experiences

No. It's about BASIC education and the understanding of the many
different meanings of the term 'tar baby'. There are not different meanings
to the term cracker crat.

There were apologies (and apologists) for Mr. Snow's behavior

None were necessary. He didn't use a racial slur. He used a term that
had multiple meanings and he used it in an educated way. You don't
apologize for using cerebral english.

Cynthia McKinney, by virtue of her position, shouldn't have to be stopped

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? She shouldn't have to follow the same rules that all
others have to follow? She shouldn't have to follow the same rules that the other
elected representatives have to follow? WHY?

and roughly treated by the police. But she was.

No she wasn't. She was not 'roughly' treated at all. She broke the rules.
She was stopped. SHE handled it in a violent manner. NOT the police.

And she was criminalized and "racially profiled" again in the press and
in the court of public opinon.

No. She was not 'racially profiled' at all. SHE is the one that brought race
into the situation. SHE did. SHE played the race card and it bounced back
and smacked her in the face.

I don't share your criteria for defining racism.

You keep changing your definition. On the Tony Snow thread it was because
he said a term, which even though he said it nonracially, it has many meanings,
and some people find one of the meanings offensive. On this thread you claimed
McKinney wasn't racist because even though she was responsible for a racist slur
on her official website that represents her ... she did nothing against white people
physically or in congress.

But she hasn't terrorized a group of White people over them.

Tony Snow didn't terrorize anyone by using a multifacited term in a nonracial
manner. McKinney may not be terrorizing people by endorsing a racial slur on
her website, but then again no one called her a terrorist. She's a bigotted racist.
Then again, perhaps the non-black people in her district ARE terrorized by the
thought of having a bigotted racist such as her representing them in DC. Afterall,
how on earth could she possibly represent their best interests when she has such
vile feelings towards them??? She must, or she wouldn't be endorsing racial slurs.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Ms. McKinney might have brought up the fact that she was singled out by the police because she was? Five Times? And since she comes into that building everyday

Then she should know enough to follow the rules and bring her ID like everyone
else is expected to do. If she isn't bright enough to know that it will be required
of her upon entrance to the building, then how can she be bright enough to be
able to represent the people of her district in DC?

And she wasn't 'singled out'. Many other elected officials have forgotten their
ID from time to time. They were required to walk through the metal detectors
when they did. It's no big deal.

I pity the professionalism of the Capitol Police ...

He's already proven himself to be a coward for whining about
a "tap" with a cell phone. To make it sound more macho, he had to
put it in his police report as a "strike".

She broke the law by striking him. You accuse him of purposely changing
facts to fit a situation? Eye witness' back up his report. Your tone denotes
some anti-male issues. (anti-law enforcement as well?) I suggest counseling.

I'm sure if you were repeatedly harrassed by Black police ...

She wasn't harrassed. She was stopped as is legally required.
She knows the rules. She continually and knowingly breaks them
or pushes the envelope. Others follow the rules or suffere the
'consequences' as well. She wasn't singled out or harrassed.
ALL are required to follow the same rules.

Also - I wouldn't be forgetting my required ID time after time.

Psychobabble? I think not.

Then you are wrong.

"White victimhood"

Psycho-babble.

There is proof of accusations against Mr. Snow as being racist.
It's about time to see who is the bigger racist here again.

Someone get me an aspirin.

I will explain the difference for you about "white" and "black" victimhood.

Spare us. Either something and/or someone is racist or not. Tony Snow's
comments were not. McKinney's officially endorsed website is. That's all there is
to it.



[edit on 7/6/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by ceci2006
enjoy raking Ms. McKinney over the coals

Exposing her racisim and bigotry aren't 'raking her over the coals'.
It's exposing her for what she is... a racist.

and being an apologist for Mr. Snow.

His use of the term 'tar baby' wasn't wrong and therefore he has nothing
to apologize for.

Originally posted by jsobecky
BH, it's none of my business, but if I were you, I'd walk away from this.

I hear you, and I know you’re probably right. I just have so much to say, even if not everyone listens!

Originally posted by ceci2006
By all due respect and your terminology of proving who's a racist and who's not, then usage of "tar baby" as well as the "n-word" are both indicators of racism.

A. I’m not interested in proving who’s racist and who’s not. I think that's a waste of time and energy that could be spent in a positive way instead of separating out segments of society in their respective groups.

B. The use of a word does not necessarily indicate racism. It’s the meaning, the connotation that indicates to me a person’s intent.

Hypocrisy how?

As I said before: She played the race card (implying that it's NOT ok to be racist) then she allows the racist slur on her site (implying that racism is OK as long as it's against white people.)

Because some, if not most people who are part and parcel of being part of the dominant culture do not have to face the indignities of being stopped, searched and interrogated by the police because of their color.

If you hear nothing else I say, I would love it if you heard this. No, we don’t have to be hassled because of our color. But there are other aspects to personal appearance that cause people to be gawked at, singled out, hassled and suspected. We all deal with stuff in life. I’ve been with you, I’ve been beside you (figuratively). I’ve seen how people treat black people sometimes and it’s horrible. I’ve been hassled because of my color or because the color of the man I was with. But you’d do best to realize that being black is not a burden you carry around. You are not a black victim of this ‘dominant culture’. With that mindset you’ll go your whole life fighting a fight with your current tactics that you just can’t win! Racism towards blacks is a fault in some white people. It’s NOT about you and you can’t change them. Especially the way you’re going about it with the angry attitude you have.

And I truly think that people are ashamed to attack members of their own race, or mistake it for classicism.

Think that if you will, but you are mistaken. I ‘attack’ people of my own race all the time. My husband and I talk about this. I have done it on this board. My Mother-In-Law is a Quaker and we talk about the way white people treat the Hispanic people here in our community and at the border. Think what you will, but you are wrong. You simply can’t put white people in a bucket and assume they’re all the same.

And the more you put “white people’ in a group and accuse them of something, the more YOUR racism shows. I know you didn’t say white people here but you have many times.

The question is what do White people do about it? Claim victimhood on one another? Accuse each other of using the "race card" as they readily do for Black people?

Well, if I see racism (by my definition) by anyone, I point it out. I lambaste the person. I come right down on them, regardless of their color. I have done a lot here in my community to help the cause of equality, to help out people in need, regardless of their color. I can’t speak for other white people because we’re all different. But please give credit where credit is due. You simply can't assume that white people don't do anything about racism. It's our problem, too.

Or are they so ashamed that they don't know what to do? Again, White Shame comes up along with White on White racism. As well as White Victimhood.

I really don’t think it’s helpful to explore this problem with all this “white this” and “black that”. We’re all people! We respond and react in a myriad of ways and it’s not always based on color, Ceci. I will never understand why you insist on separating people out by their color. That’s the single most damaging thing a person can to for the cause of racial equality that I can think of. Yet you do it incessantly.

Do you really think this whole grouping of 'white people' are so cold hearted and ignorant as to not see the problems that black people face? To me, it really feels like you hate white people. I know you say you don't, but I've been in many discussions with you and I'm getting just the opposite.

And I am very sorry for saying that to her.
…
So much about my "controlling" character.

So, you apologize and then turn around and stab again. This happens every time you apologize. Am I supposed to take these apologies seriously? Do me a favor and don’t waste your character limit. You have attacked and apologized to me so many times I can almost feel it coming. I’m sorry to be so harsh about it, but I’ve really heard it enough.

Ceci, I understand that you think Tony Snow is a racist. That's ok. I have read through the articles you left and I’d have to say that in context, I don’t see the same thing your seeing. He does discuss race, but as far as I can tell, his interest lies more in racial equality than racism. Yes, he uses racial terms, but in context, he doesn’t appear to be racist to me. Rather, he seems to try to be exposing racism. Regarding the school test story, he was ridiculing the teacher. He said:

After all, we deserve schools in which a test about drive-by shootings could not be considered anything but a joke.

I myself have used the same racial epithets (whitey) and so on to make a point about something racial when talking with my husband. I have said things like, “Our laws are made by a bunch of old, white men in Congress.” Meaning that the laws aren’t always good for everyone in this melting pot of a society we live in.

See B. in my first response to you in this post.

Some might consider that racist. I don’t. I know what’s in my heart. I know my concern is for all races and all people.

I can’t say for sure whether Snow is racist or not. But even if I did, it’s only my opinion. I’m only one person.

Originally posted by ceci2006
So enjoy raking Ms. McKinney over the coals and being an apologist for Mr. Snow.

And you enjoy doing exactly the opposite.

By the way, I could show you where I've been very understanding of McKinney's incident and critical of Snow, but somehow, I don't think that would make any difference to you. You'd still call me an apologist for Snow and unfair to McKinney...

You never explained how it is that I keep people from expressing their views and being heard. I'm sad that you feel you're not heard, but you can hardly blame that on me. I'm one of the ones who has heard you. I'm one of the ones who quotes out your posts and responds with care and concern to each one. I'm one of the ones who has hung in there for page after page after page. And these accusations of "judge and jury" and preventing others from being heard really make me think I've been wasting my time. I honestly don't understand how you could say that about me.

Benevolent Heretic, do you deny that institutional racism [a form of racism that occurs in institutions such as public bodies and corporations, including universities] exists within the United State's? Thus to place Black People and many other ethnic groups at a disadvantage?

Edit:
Take for example: American Journal of Public Health estimated that: "over 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same care as whites."

[edit on 6/7/2006 by Odium]

Absolutely not! In fact, I think racism exists in all walks of life.

I can't help but be really curious about what made you think that I might deny that.

I tend to think the example you gave of the American Journal of Public Health may be tied in with being poor. I mean, I think more deaths of poor people might be prevented if they had the same access as the wealthy to health care, insurance and so on. In other words if 2 people with the same insurance walked into a hospital, I don't think they'd turn away the black one because she was black.

Of course, the bigger question is why are there so many more poor black people than white people.

And I addressed that here:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

where I quoted from this source:

The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.
...
MM: What happens when you disaggregate the data by race?
Wolff: There you find something very striking. Most people are aware that African-American families don’t earn as much as white families. The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family.

So, I think the problem isn't just about being treated in the hospital, it's a bigger problem institutional and societal racism.

But you’d do best to realize that being black is not a burden you carry around.

I just find that very hard to believe. Although, I am not black. When my fathers side came to the United Kingdom and still to this day we get treated differently when people find out we are immigrants. Both from my experience in College and at work. So if institutions do treat people differently, due to colour it is very much a burden?

In the U.K. it is really bad. Black people are more likely to be placed in prison, when committing the same crimes as a white person. They are more likely to be stop and searched, then a white person and so on and so fourth. It very much is a problem, friends of mine who are black carry around with them even against there will.

Here is an interesting report on the Police and Institutional Racism.

Im pleased to see that this discussion has been moved to PTS where it belongs.

Direct and veiled racial slurs are often used by political candidates to stir up their political base. The fact that this tactic works says more about the american public than it does about the candidates and the message is depressing. We are a splintered nation and that does not bode well for the future of the usa. The politicians and their proxys are using these divisions to serve themselves rather than to serve the people. Sadly until we look inside ourselves and not allow this happen it will continue.

Context is everything

Here is what I mean when I say that we all would do best if we realized that being _____ (fill in the blank) is not a "burden" that we carry around. (And believe me, I have some words that apply to me that would go in that blank)

Let's step outside of the race debate for a moment here and use homosexuality, instead. Here's my advice to a gay friend:

Being gay is not a burden that you carry around. It's who you are. It's something to be proud of! It's part of the essence of you. Whoever is stupid and ignorant enough to put you down because you're gay has BIG problems. But it's their problem! You don't have a problem! You're a wonderful, intelligent, loving person and being gay is NOT something to be ashamed of or to carry around as a burden. Discrimination is the problem and it's other people who are doing that. You should do your very best to walk with your head held high and not carry other people's judgments against you as a "burden".

That's what I meant. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist. On the contrary. I know it exists. It's just not the black people who cause it. It's not their problem or their burden or their issue to fix. It's not their failing. The burden and the 'fix' belongs to those who practice racism and discriminate.

I hope that's clearer.

Okay I lied. And here I am again.

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
B. The use of a word does not necessarily indicate racism. It’s the meaning, the connotation that indicates to me a person’s intent.

Well, you didn't explain this before. You led me (and others) to believe it was the simple intent of someone saying the "racial epithet" as an indicator of racism. If you did, I would have amended my comments about Tony Snow and others yet again.

It pays to be clear when trying to describe the criteria of your "low bar" of tolerance for racism. That is a piece of advice. Not an insult.

Respectfully, you have no right to say whether I have anger against Whites or not. I did say that I have anger about victimization and how it is used, regardless of race. That is different than simply having anger against another race.

Rarely enough, I am angry at people but not because of their race. But I am not simply angry at White people. And no, I don't have an inherent racism against White people because I ask questions about race-relations. Please refrain from saying I don't recognize my own behavior of innate racism. Please stop saying that I am racist (here and elsewhere on the board). And please stop saying that simply because Blacks speak their feelings about race that means "they are angry at White people". It isn't the case. They are just speaking their mind like everyone else. (since you added "intent" to your list of critera: an observation, not an insult).

But frankly, I've said many times that I don't hate White people. Nor, do I have an anger against them. This is just a conversation like any other. And we're discussing White on White racism (by virtue of Greg Palast's comments), White privilege, White guilt, and White shame.

Despite what Harte said about my defense, I respect his approach to this subject. He does admit that there is more meat to chew on rather than accusing Ms. McKinney. But I am not angry at him. I thanked him. And I like his approach. I also like df1's comments about Ms. McKinney and partisanship. It is worthy to discuss his views. Not turn away and write it off as an "agenda".

I expect the author to chastise me once again, but I am going to say this regardless. Before it happens, I apologize for hurting your feelings.

When will you just stop personalizing the subject matter with other people's faults?

Now that happens. It's not an false accusation. It's a true fact.

You are truly wonderful. Even after this, I like you.

I said what I thought because that's how I perceive it. Nothing more. No racist intent behind it. I am still willing to read and consider other points of view. I reserve the right to answer, though.

I acknowledge my mistakes on this end as well. But I think it is valid to contribute my point of view regardless of your "assumptions" about my behavior. I don't like how you bring my behavior regarding my comments into this. Pretty much, I loathe it.

Please don't let your bitterness guide you. It's incredibly sad when you do this.

I'm sorry again, you find our talks frustrating. And I care about that. I will try very hard not to make them so. That means, I will be more considerate of your feelings and your words.

One of things you did do, however, is stray away sometimes from the frustration and explain your point of view. That I value. Especially when you say you care about people regardless of race. I do too. That is something we agree on.

But I hate it when you misconstrue my words and personalize it. I usually say when I am offended or not. I also say what I hate or not. And your treatment of my questions and personalizing it with assumptions of racist intent is what truly offends me.

As "my sarcasm" offends you, I will try not to use it around you because I care about your feelings. But on other posts, I reserve the right to use it whenever I please.

Is that being clear and direct at the person I am aiming for? Good. I hope so. Because usually, I speak in hypotheticals when I'm explaining concepts or things. It is not meant to hurt anyone. It is merely used as a point. It doesn't mean I don't want to confront people.

I know you'll never answer me again after this post as I would expect because it is probably filled with things that you find offensive.

I could just envision your answers now: (not an insult, just an observation)

"Why should I apologize?"

"Why should I care?"

"I AM NOT A VICTIM".

"That is YOUR problem."

"That is childish."

"Why should it matter to you?"

"That's is an false accusation."

"I find it arrogant to be taught. I just walk away."

"You have an inherent racism that you can't see. YOU are angry about whites."

"I am not that way. I have been very understanding of others on the board. I did debate with you here as well as on your own thread." (In this case, that you have. And as I said there, I appreciate and am grateful to you for it.)

I want it to return back to the old days in which we did kindly refer to one another and to just discuss things without insult. I'm extremely sorry for your bitterness. And again, I feel badly that you are feeling the way you do about me. But unfortunately, I can't make you change your feelings against me. And I'm not going to try.

And yes, there are as many degrees of tolerance as there is racism. But they are not the sum and total possession by one person. They do not "control" how others think. That is why persuasion is important--whether doggedly or gentle.

I don't set out to control anyone here. I've said that many times. But you think so. That's your problem. However, I would like to persuade people to think differently. That is what I do. And I do it as a debate and intellectual exercise.

And I have a dogged pursuit of debate. That's what I like to do. I'm sorry it rubs people the wrong way some times. But I think that all issues people and issues deserve a very involved and proactive defense in light of the charges levied against them. And that means finding out and researching proof. That isn't bad, despite the unpopular stances sometimes taken. But I do it as i would be willing to do it for anyone or anything I care deeply about.

It does have to do with passion and tenacity.

But never had I said I was the walking textbook of race and race-relations. I don't want to be. And I certainly do not want others to think so. But I will contribute my insights and information about race and race-relations. And I will do the research it takes to be clear on issues. And if people take them, huzzah. If not, okay.

Btw, it's okay if you never speak to me again. I will be hurt and saddened because I am willing to work on this to make things better. But I will accept it because it is your feelings about the matter. I would even be willing to work on this matter so that we address each other kindly instead of this bickering that erupts all the time. U2U me if you want to work it out. If not, I accept it. I certainly wouldn't agree with it. But I would accept it.

Thank you for hearing me about how I perceive the issues regarding race. I am extremely appreciative that you have. I know you possess a kind heart. And it is that kind heart that I believe in the most when I think of you.


P.S. Thank you for your comments, Odium. You prove once again very even-handed in your approach.













[edit on 7-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
But you’d do best to realize that being black is not a burden you carry around. You are not a black victim of this ‘dominant culture’. With that mindset you’ll go your whole life fighting a fight with your current tactics that you just can’t win! Racism towards blacks is a fault in some white people. It’s NOT about you and you can’t change them. Especially the way you’re going about it with the angry attitude you have.

The other thing, BH, is that I don't see being Black as a burden. You might think I do. But I really don't. I am very proud of my race and of my race's achievements despite the "institutional racism" that occurs against them. Black people have done wonderful things in the face of utter opposition despite the stereotypes.

And White people have done wonderful things as well. I would highlight them. I love the Quakers. Especially their stance against non-violence historically, socially and politically. They are White, are they not? And as you tell from my signature, I respect and highly admire's Ben Franklin's comments about liberty. If I were angry at White people, would I not use his words to honor my signature?

I do these things to highlight instances of the different sides of racism so that people think and debate about them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I am not a Black victim of dominant culture. Nor I have said so. And I can use any tactic I want in a debate. It's not up to you to say so. I don't have an angry attitude about this. You are being patronizing here too.

I just will say this once again:

This is not about me. I did not make this topic about me. Other posters did it and treated it as such. Including the author with his back-handed comments. However, I simply asked questions and made proposals on how I see the situation. Other people criticized me by personalizing it (Centurion1211 was especially guilty about this). I simply did not start out this way on this thread. Nor am I trying to continue in that way. For that, I have other people to thank--especially with the admonitions and warns that "no one will ever speak to me again because of the position I take on this issue".

Your accusation that I'm making this topic about me is also offensive. Please stop. Believe me, I am not the only one (as proven by a few posters) who has defended Ms. McKinney and accused Mr. Snow of racism.

I am an contributor like anyone else to a thread. And that's all I see myself. Any personal attacks levied against me are by the posters in question. And there was a lot.

And myself for saying hurtful things to others, I admit I did this. And I'm sorry. But I never said that this thread was about me. You said it.

I'm just discussing the topic like everyone else. Why can't you just simply take that?

Again here, if I said I was angry at White people I would say so. I'm still answering your questions, aren't I? And I am not angry at you and will not ever be. For the most part, I still read and learn from you and find your comments highly valuable. And I do consider them even though sometimes I don't like them.

But I do take offensive by your comments said here about how you "perceive" my endeavors. I accept them, but I certainly don't like the insinuations you are making.

I'm sorry in advance. But I really don't.

Now I truly will step back and read the comments by other people (unless they address me).










[edit on 6-7-2006 by ceci2006]

However BH, if you are still talking to me at this point, I do have one more question about your comments. And if you do not decide to answer me, maybe someone else who believes in a "color blind world" (again an observation, not an insult) would.

How do you suppose we talk about race without identifying racial characteristics? Without "Black" this and "White" that no one would know what type of racism is being committed. Or in terms of racism (especially with the term of "Anti-White racism"--not an insult; an observation), without any identifying characteristics, how would we be able to identify who does what and how they do it?

What would you suggest in its place? Because it is simply weird to talk about race without identifying the race involved. Harlem Hottie has talked about this too, btw.

And about Ms. McKinney:

I know you've been understanding of the Georgia Congresswoman. And I do believe you. I've read the comments you've made.

But, I still don't understand why you assume that Ms. McKinney--when describing racial profiling--is accusing white people in general? She wasn't. She was accusing the cop of "racially profiling" her.

She was singling him out because he was a white cop practicing "racial profiling". That is not playing the race card. It was talking about harrassment racially by the Capital Police.

It is only the eye of the beholder whether she was playing the victim or not. Perhaps in her mind she was only relating how she perceived the event came across just as anyone else.

This is my question for people who espouse a color blind society:

What ever happened to equality in everything? That includes equality in taking people for what they are saying without any deviation. By applying the race card, that says to me that there isn't true equality--regarding what people say or what they do. And this is especially hypocritical for people who espouse a color blind society to accuse others of "using the race card".

Equality is a part of being color blind, is it not? Or do people who want to practice a color blind society give lip-service to equality? Is it "Do as I say, not as I do," when it comes to calling for full racial equality in a color blind society?

And in Ms. McKinney's comments about Blacks and Whites, she was aiming her comments at specific figures and how she perceives they might view race.

And in the same way, Ms. McKinney, when she made those comments used racial epipthets too. But she was highlighting the racist intent of certain members of government. That includes her own political party.

In that regard, she is just as innocent as Tony Snow.

However, I do have something to say about Tony Snow and his comments:

Here too, it has to do with life-experiences and perceptions of race. Remember, at the top of the post (for all of those who criticized me over the Tony Snow comments), I said that I suspend judgment.

But here, I will say how I perceive Tony Snow's comments:

Tony Snow, in his misguided way, is "playing" at espousing racial equality. Mr. Snow--in his push for a color blind society--only attacks liberals and Blacks. He praises Blacks who are complicit with the dominant culture and patriarchy (i.e., Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice). The only Republican Black he has not liked and has readily attacked is Alan Keyes.

He is an "equal opportunity" attacker of race. He is also practices hypocrisy in the highest degree. If he truly pushed for a color blind society, he wouldn't say what he does.

For Blacks who question racism and talk about civil rights differently from his point of view, he has condemnation for. (But even he sees he would be raked over the coals if he attacked Rosa Parks especially at her death. So he treated her with kid gloves, opposed to civil rights leaders still alive. He's a hack, but he isn't dumb in that regard.)

For Whites who deal with civil rights (i.e. Morris Dees, for example), question white racism and try to work on race-relations he has condemnation for (i.e., White liberals).

But he supports Mr. Buchanan. He claims he doesn't support Mr. Duke, but still praises the ex-klansman for reaching out for his constiuency. The jury is out on that one. But it is one of the reasons why his columns have been found on sites supportive of Mr. Duke's views.

In support of a color blind society, he misses the fact that before and during the Jim Crow era, Black people and other persons of color did not have their histories, lives and politics validated. In slavery, Blacks, Native Americans and others of color certainly did not have anything about them validated except a monetary price.

The whites who supported people of color during this time (abolitionists, Quakers, freedom riders) also were at risk because they aided the cause of Civil Rights. And other whites who supported Jim Crow condemned them as well.

So at what time in history do Blacks, Asians, Latinos and Native Americans have the opportunity to share with others their culture, social norms, practices, holidays and life ways? And in a push for a color-blind society, who's culture do we as non-whites have to adopt? Who's cultural norms, holidays, languages, and social patterns is more important?

And who's culture, holidays, social practices, social norms, histories, and social mores should we adopt in order to have a "color blind" society?

In fact, who's culture, holidays, social practices and norms, social mores and histories is most important in a nation of immigrants?

And does that mean that all other races and their contributions socially, historically and politically to America must be ignored to have a "color blind" society?

A color blind society is easy to call for, but not that easy to achieve and enforce unless there are some ground rules.

These are questions also to consider when calling for racial equality and a color-blind society.

The reason why there are groups that support a particular race of color is to learn about race-relations, to pragmatically deal with the inherent racism in society and on campus; and to educate others about their race and culture. Tony Snow is wrong in his assumption about their activities. Who would advocate for non-whites if they face institutional racism on campus or anywhere else?

(And for those who might assume I would be against a "White Student Union" on college campuses, they are wrong. They too have to have one in order to discuss issues related to White culture. But it's on their backs if they are misconstrued by other folks.

More positively, there are German clubs, Swiss Clubs, Italian Clubs and French Clubs, among others. Why doesn't Tony Snow attack these groups as part of the "New Segregation" if he feels so strongly about racial equality? They are cultural and language groups, yes. But they still espouse White values and cultural norms. They too would qualify in his push for getting people to recognize the "new segregation" and espouse a "color blind" society.)

If he was so for equality, then he would not condemn anyone's cultural holiday regardless of what he thinks of it. And if he had to attack cultural holidays, why didn't he attack Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, The Obon Festival, St. Patrick's Day or Tet?

If he did believe in a color blind society and professed tolerance, he would not attack any race or their beliefs at all. Most namely Black people--regardless of which side of the aisle they stand. And he wouldn't attack White liberals (and George Bush) for their stances as well.

But he can't. And he is no better than the people he attacks.

So yes, by intent he is also a racist--by your criteria. He is not only racist against Blacks. He's racist against Whites. (not in an insulting way, an observational way).







[edit on 7-7-2006 by ceci2006]

from ceci_2006
This is not about me. I did not make this topic about me. Other posters did it and treated it as such. Including the author with his back-handed comments.

Don't even try that bs. How about comments such as, "So which is it? Are you a racist? Or a victim?"

And the one that you went back and edited:

"You made your bed. Now go lie in it".

Didn't think I'd catch that one, did you?

Well, in a new push by the three Amigos not to further political bickering, I refrain to answer.

So, it'll just be a mystery about what I'd say.

Have a nice day, Mr. Author.

Ceci,

My only observation on this diatribe is that if you are going to look at anything in an equal light. ie, was McKinney being racist, was the police Officer being rasict, you have to refrain from comments like this :

She was singling him out because he was a white cop practicing "racial profiling". That is not playing the race card. It was talking about harrassment racially by the Capital Police.

That, if I am not mistaken, is making an assumptive assertion about the Police Officer that has yet to be proven. Yet quoted as a fact.

Just an observation.

Semper