It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The racist mindset of liberals, black or white

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by LizardSlicks
 


What rights are blacks denied today?

That is a serious question. In the US, the major civil rights battles were fought in the 1960s by very brave individuals. Now African Americans can purchase any home, anywhere that they can afford. They can go to public schools for free. Affirmative action is alive and well so that any qualified African American can find a job.



But you are racist if you support affirmative action by the OPs 'logic' (I used the term very loosely).




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
A bit off topic, but anyone claiming to be a libertarian needs to understand the origin of the term, and why so called neo-libertarians are anything but.


As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!


anarchism.pageabode.com...

Neo-libertarians support capitalism, which is an authoritarian and hierarchical economic system. It is liberty only for the wealthy. So it is not libertarian at all. You are simply being played, just like the Russians were played when the government claimed to be communist.

True libertarianism is anarchism, and anarchism supports a socialist economy, worker ownership. Anarchism came from socialism, they were the revolutionary branch of socialism. That is why anarchism is also called 'libertarian socialism'.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

“Libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57


edit on 5/10/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
My grandpa was a fairly conservative kind of guy. It always seemed odd to me that he was a democrat.


That is because you are confused. The terms liberal and conservative were not used in the same way as they are now.

Also as I said in my other post, liberal and conservative are not political opposites, democrats can be conservative and republicans can be liberal. It is stupid to be one or the other on all issues, it puts you in a box easily controlled.
You follow what you're told as a liberal or conservative.

I know people who call themselves liberal, or conservative, will simply adopt the point of view of their "side", instead of thinking for themselves. It makes you closed minded and defensive instead of critical thinkers.

It's how the two parties divide the voting public and gain support.




edit on 5/10/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Racism is not about political affiliation, its the wrong thinking that if human body has different color skin we are somehow "different" human beings. Its so stupid.
If you ask why this thinking continues its because it hasn't been corrected it has been used over and over as a control mechanism for power and to start wars.
I live in a country where the "leaders" & govt use race relations whenever their policy gets loud objections, then they set the people against each other by using the newspapers to print lies (and racism).
Divide and conquer.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I'm still never quite sure what people mean when they say "liberal" - George Bush Sr didn't coin the term, but put its use into common play as meaning Big Spending, Big Government, only to spend the next 12 years as VP and President during by far the greatest percentage explosion of government ending in the history of the US. Then Clinton was a liberal even though he slowed down the rate of expansion, then Bush Jr was a MASSIVE liberal, followed by, yes, Obama, the MASSIVE liberal.

I suspect, however, since both Dems and Reps for the past 33 years have both been extreme fiscal libbwrals, that the term is used to indicate big government taking away people's right to choose...well, that would be another fairly equal split, as both Dems and Reps have actively sought out, and achieved goals of controlling people's freedom to live and do as they wish (without doing harm to others.)

It seems the only slants on what "liberal" and "conservative" mean are:

A) which rights and freedoms each seeks to curtail, control, or eliminate

B) whether one is a bigger fan of the massive debt increases we have undergone since the tax code was altered to drastically shift the tax burden away from the top 0.5% earners in the esrly 80's, or one wishes to go back to the individual wealth-limiting progressive tax rates of the past where the extremely wealthy paid a much larger share of income over a certain number than they do now.

I honnestly don't understand how either one of those would affect one's view of race relations, but would be interested to understand where that link lies - however, as my experience has been absolutely nothing like yours, I tend to think that maybe the issue lies more in your choice of friends than anything else. I know an awful lot of people - I probably have more acquaintances at every level, from close friends, to more casual friends, to associates, white, black, Dem, Rep, etc., and of them, I know 2 people whom I would consider racist at all. That's 2 out of probably the 200-300 people I know best. So yes, despite my wondering how you arrived at the "racist mindset of liberals" thing, its obvious to me that you are projecting your experiences with scumbags - both black and white, onto a population at large which is nothing of the sort.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Everyone (black, white, latino, purple..) is racist.


I agree with this. I knew some white girls back in college who only dated black men. I consider that racist to the core.


Truth is stranger than you think.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Anyone who calls themselves Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or Conservative, should just make it easier on themselves and tell everyone the truth.. You're followers. I wish people would stop following, and start thinking.

Obama being voted in (I hate saying that since voting counts for absolutely nothing) proves there are no racist liberals how? Is it racist if you're a black liberal and voted for Obama simply because he was black and the other guy wasn't?

I hate racists, but what I hate just as much is demorepubli-dumbasses.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


People are racist, not political parties. Some political organizations can be founded on racism; sure. But surely you can't believe that the Democratic party somehow is a host for more racists than the Republican.

Just like slavery, the past is the past and the Democratic party does not support slavery or racism.

I could argue that the Republican party is a host to more racists than the Democratic. They are against federal aid towards minorities that are oppressed through our highly competitive economy. The party is infamously in part represented by some extremely racist men.

I hope this isn't some undercover propaganda thread. That would be very unethical.

It is apparent that those who have disagreements with the OP are the more real of the bunch. Many of those who assisted in OP only presented banter "circle jerking" and no real points of substantial value.
edit on 10-5-2013 by On7a7higher7plane because: addition



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


That is what I would like to call "dangerous rhetoric".



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


This type of partisan perspective is exactly what's wrong with the American voting populace. Honestly I am appalled by that.
edit on 10-5-2013 by On7a7higher7plane because: addition



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Please tell that to minimum wage slaves in this freedom loving country called the USA.


To equate those who are willingly working in exchange for minimum wage pay with genuine slaves is doing further disservice to those unfortunate enough to actually be slaves. There's a fairly large difference between willingly working in exchange for pay, regardless of how low that pay is, and being forced to work for nothing while being horribly mistreated. The former has the option of walking away at any time, the latter is treated like property that can be used, abused, and thrown away when the "owner" tires of it or deems it to have lost it's usefulness.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Here is the way I see it: the majority of the racists who are black are liberals, while the majority of racists who are white are conservatives. I have seen it time and time again, and I am very certain this is relatively accurate. I was actually surprised to learn that I am not the only person who thinks that most of the racism today is reversed, where black is racist against white. But there are still racists on both sides, and in all political parties.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Everyone (black, white, latino, purple..) is racist.

This whole "Oh, I don't see color, I see the person, lol!" is bull#.

I find the people that are honest about their racism refreshing. At least they are open about it, They don't whisper about it behind closed doors (Did you see what that spic/'n-word'/honkey did?) and then trumpet in public how they are "color blind".


I believe this...and many races are actually racist and discriminate against their own race! I've seen Asians make fun of other Asians, black people making fun of darker black people or blacks born in Africa. If we could just admit that we are all different and sometimes those differences are annoying or there are things we don't like...I think we may actually all get along better!



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Jefferton
"like most liberals". Oh the irony of this thread.
Utter time wasting trash. But the irony. Oh my.


The reason why liberalism is even mentioned in the thread/ conversation, is because it is that same liberalism that was pro-slavery and perpetuates the sense of black victim hood, which is unhealthy for the entire world.


Now you're just plain lying. Please backup your specious claim that liberalism was pro-slavery. For that matter that it perpetuate black victimhood. It is the GOP that is trying to restrict voting in order to disenfranchise the poor and various minorities. It is the GOP in Michigan that has enacted laws that allow the governor to take over by fiat cites, schools and other communities, thereby disbanding the representative government that the local citizens voted for. This is happening in predominantly poor and African-American communities. So the GOP is continuing to make Blacks victims; it is not the liberals or Democrats who are doing so.

You claim liberals (Democrats?) are racist, or perpetuate racism? Ever look at the crowds at GOP national conventions or Tea Party rallies? There aren't many minorities to be seen. Now we have the very conservative Heritage Foundation coming out with a report, co-written by a person who is obviously quite racist, that says immigration is bad. This policy analyst wrote his PhD on the notion that Hispanics have lower IQ's than others and that these lower IQ's will be perpetuated for several generations. He has also written for an avowed White Nationalism (read White Supremacy) website based in Montana.

It is the GOP that continues to cater to racism. To claim the complete opposite and not to acknowledge such instances as I have cited here is either ignorance, delusion or mendacity on your part.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Good OP.

I agree, the Democrats are the party of racism. Before the turn of the 20th century, they were the party that drove hatred into many hearts so people would make an enemy of Africans. After the turn of the century they became the party that drives hatred into many hearts so people will make an enemy of Caucasians. Hate, a very powerful passion, keeps them in power.

When people say that the Democrats are the party of hatred, this is what people are seeing and referencing. That said, ranking Republicans deliberately do not expose this. Any last reminisce of Lincoln's Republican party died with JFK, a small government Democrat. He was the true compromise, and for that, he was shot with a magic bullet and many have been passionate over the equivalent of professional wrestling ever since.

People always like to say religion has killed millions...umm, no, that's not true. Religion has been utilized by governments to kill millions. Governments raised armies and fought wars using religion to inspire. Same thing here, religion can drive passions, just like the idea of race. Religion is only bad when Kings and President's use it to drive hatred, just as race is only bad when Kings and Presidents use it to drive hatred.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
As far as slavery is concerned... Many are shocked when they learn the first slave master in the colonies was in fact a black man.

cofcc.org...



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I have to admit to not really knowing the history of American politics that well, but having done a little research this is the conclusion I came to. I admit I may be wrong in some details.

The truth of American politics is you have one party.

I'm sure you all know that there was the Democratic-Republican Party, and the Federalist Party?

The Democrats were republicans. Actually at the time they were the real republicans, because a republic IS a democracy. It's a representative democracy.

The party formed from the ranks of the republicans, much like liberalism formed from the middle, and upper middle classes, as a way to help the working class, in order to keep them from revolting, while maintaining a capitalist economy. The apposed nationalism, a national banking system, that the Federalists wanted.

After the Federalist party dissolved the demo-rep party split into two sides of the same coin. They split over their disagreement on expansion of agriculture, that used slavery, and industry that didn't. The south was mostly agriculture, and the north industry. The democrats weren't pro slavery anymore than anyone else, the disagreement was over expansion of industry, and agriculture. The southern dems wanted to expand agriculture, and the nothern dems wanted to increase heavy industry. The south obviously was well established in agriculture, they didn't want to change, and as capitalist economy requires they needed to expand.

I know there was more to it than that with other parties forming, the Fire Eaters(?), the Whigs etc.

So my conclusion, it really was nothing to do with racism, even though most people were in those days, it was about MONEY. Racism came about simply as a way to demonise Africans to justify slavery, the slave trade was nothing to do with race either. They were not enslaved because they were black, but simply because they were available. They would have used whites just as easily if they could, but it's hard to justify that to other whites.

BTW the British did the same in India, and Africa, demonised the natives to justify exploitation and colonialism.
AKA capitalist expansion, AKA globalisation, AKA NWO.

I would argue that neither side were any more or any less racist. Pro-agriculture, mostly the south, was labeled pro-slavery, by the north, for political reasons. Make sense if you think about it, they do the same thing in politics now, eh OP?


edit on 5/11/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I cannot stand people who whoop out their deck of race cards at the drop of a hat. Especially democrats who default to calling people "racists" if they didn't vote for or support Obama. LOL, as if I'm gonna vote for him because he's black like a majority of THEM blatantly did. Now THAT would be a race-based vote, and RACIST in and of itself.
edit on 11-5-2013 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Everyone (black, white, latino, purple..) is racist.

This whole "Oh, I don't see color, I see the person, lol!" is bull#.

I find the people that are honest about their racism refreshing. At least they are open about it, They don't whisper about it behind closed doors (Did you see what that spic/'n-word'/honkey did?) and then trumpet in public how they are "color blind".

you sir hit the nail on the ..
As a south asian indian, i find liberals and so called anti-racists more disgusting. these fools see racism and other isms everywhere because they all are full of them.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Please tell that to minimum wage slaves in this freedom loving country called the USA.


To equate those who are willingly working in exchange for minimum wage pay with genuine slaves is doing further disservice to those unfortunate enough to actually be slaves. There's a fairly large difference between willingly working in exchange for pay, regardless of how low that pay is, and being forced to work for nothing while being horribly mistreated. The former has the option of walking away at any time, the latter is treated like property that can be used, abused, and thrown away when the "owner" tires of it or deems it to have lost it's usefulness.
the so called slaves always had the option to rebel but they didn't, so it wasn't the fault of whites or anyone.
In nature, there is a winner and there is a loser and if the blacks lost, it was because they were inferior than whites.
You just cannot oppress your equals, can you???



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join