Flip (flop)(in honor of McCain and John Kerry)

I believe all 5 have some merit. I have no idea which one is the true 'primary' factor.
...
All 5 do have merit. Usually when people refuse to acknowledge that, it has to do with their agenda.

I like the even-handed agreement that my descriptions have brought about, and I agree with Tom that disaggregating my (2) and (3) is a good analytic move.

But option 1 was "the racist option". I agree that the other four all have merit, but I framed the question as I did in order to begin by dismissing the 19th century theory of biological racism, so that we could all have that common ground.

I framed the question as I did in order to begin by dismissing the 19th century theory of biological racism, so that we could all have that common ground

The pace of moral progress is staggering.

But option 1 was "the racist option". I agree that the other four all have merit

Good point. I should have caught that when I posted, but I put the list together in my head while subconscuously dismissing #1--thought of the list as a unified visual entity due to the italics.

The pace of moral progress is staggering.

??

"It was simply stating a personal opinion--everyone ought to spend some time with people who spend almost every waking hour working with and on behalf of inner-city school children."

Not that I need to prove someone whose attitude is as cross as yours, but you might be enlightened to learn that for 17 years I have been an unpaid tutor at an inner-city high school in Oakland, helping college-bound students with their writing skills.

"It wasn't a personal attack."

Right. And Arki is a conservative.

The pace of moral progress is staggering.
??

Uh, as in: that's it? Our only common ground is the rejection of 19th century theories of biological racism?

"I've searched all the free online unabridged dictionaries I can find and have come up empty. Provide some kind of location for this word and I will bow to your vocabularly. Unless it's the OED 1847, then I might quibble."

You said you have WAY more lefty friends than I have, yet none of them has an unabridged dictionary? What kind of left-wing college town do you live in? Oh, wait. You don't live in a left-wing college town: I do. But of course, you hang out with WAY more lefties than I do.

For unbasedly, try Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1989 by dilithium press page 1538.

Someone should look up "vocabularly."

Bottom line: It was in the interest of both parties and all the individuals involved to maintain the status quo [in not seeing mass defections of the Dixiecrats to the Republicans]. There were no heroes here, only hypocrisy of the worst sort on everyone's part.

You sort of left out one constituency in the process: the voters.

Not exactly sure what you're saying here. It didn't seem to bother the voters that Eastland & Co. remained nominal Democrats, since what killed them off for the most part was death, not defeat at the hands of the Republicans. The Republicans picked up seats either by attrition, or by being lucky enough in a few instances to be able to run against racially moderate Democrats, like the one (Nick Galifinakis) whom Helms beat in his first campaign in 1972. The southern voters, being rational animals, were more than happy to vote for state and local Democrats as long as they held fast on racial issues, but as the national parties became more polarized and the Dixiecrats with seniority began to die off, the seismic shift on all levels began to take place. With all that seniority gone, the former Dixiecrat voters naturally gravitated to Republican candidates who (in the words of Helms's campaign slogan) were "one of us." There wasn't too much code in that coded phrase.

Uh, as in: that's it? Our only common ground is the rejection of 19th century theories of biological racism?

That depends on who "we" is. Having been through the wringer on race discussions here, I think getting any sort of beginning agreement is a good thing.

I think my statement and Tom's restatement also built off the presumption that the current inequities between racial groups in the US constitute a situation that needs to be changed for the better. That's progress in getting people together, too - no one's saying that everything is just fine.

I see your point, but I was just trying to be all nice and diplomatic. I finished my comps last week and I'm in a better mood than I have been for the last year.

I see your point, but I was just trying to be all nice and diplomatic. I finished my comps last week and I'm in a better mood than I have been for the last year.

I wasn't being critical so much as comical. I should think there's more common ground than that. Anyway, congrats on finishing up your comps (I assume successfully). On to the proposal, I assume?

Not exactly sure what you're saying here. It didn't seem to bother the voters that Eastland & Co. remained nominal Democrats,

]"Nominal" Democrats? They were Democrats.

since what killed them off for the most part was death, not defeat at the hands of the Republicans. The Republicans picked up seats either by attrition, or by being lucky enough in a few instances to be able to run against racially moderate Democrats, like the one (Nick Galifinakis) whom Helms beat in his first campaign in 1972. The southern voters, being rational animals, were more than happy to vote for state and local Democrats as long as they held fast on racial issues, but as the national parties became more polarized and the Dixiecrats with seniority began to die off, the seismic shift on all levels began to take place. With all that seniority gone, the former Dixiecrat voters naturally gravitated to Republican candidates who (in the words of Helms's campaign slogan) were "one of us." There wasn't too much code in that coded phrase.

Anybody catch Andy's sleight of hand here? With a couple of exceptions (Thurmond, Helms), racist voters voted for Democrats. They voted for local Democrats because local Democrats were racists. They voted for national Democrats because national Democrats had seniority. But according to Andy, this "proves" that racists were Republicans. Uh, yeah.

MATT: Something is happening to cause this. There are a few basic options:

1) The racist option.
2) The Republican / Libertarian option.
3) The Liberal option.

TOM replied: I mean, class and family structure is a very good predictor of future class, regardless of race.... I would add to your list that cultural structure plays a major role as well. The typical Asian work/study ethic has gone a long way to allowing those immigrnats to succeed, and the lack of black male family heads has sadly hindered black progress.

I second what Tom said. Culture is THE REASON for most black poverty in the U.S., today. If you look at black Americans who are middle income and higher, you would see a very different culture from lower income blacks, when it comes to things like intact marriages, focus on education, work ethic, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, alcoholism, respect for the law, etc.

I would add that societal racism -- especially when that racism is so mild as it is in the United States today -- does not hold back any group from economic progress.* It never has. Ever. Anywhere. However, legal racism can.** And there is a sort of racism in between legal and societal which can negatively impact a group, if the industry that members of that group would otherwise excel in is closed off to members of that group because the industry itself is prejudiced and naturally oligopolistic.

We had legal racism in the United States and clearly that had a negative effect on the welfare of many blacks, though not all.*** But legal racism ended quite a long time ago. Further, it never explained most of black poverty. I am not sure we can ever reverse the culture of poverty. But it is that culture which explains this obvserved economic failure.

* There are countless examples of hated minority groups which have been successful economically, despite societal prejudice against them.

** Legal racism can go beyond laws on the books. If a white person who would sell his business to a black person would be then beat up or killed by other whites and the law looked the other way, that is effectively legal racism.

*** American apartheid created some opportunities for blacks who made a living serving the needs of black customers who were not served by white businesses. With the end of legal racism, those businesses often suffered.

You don't live in a left-wing college town: I do.

For someone who gets pissed at a completely offhanded comment that it's likely (despite your insistence of my ignorance of "reason", that sentence quite clearly indicates I have no interest in stating so definitely, as I don't indeed know for sure) I hang out with more liberals than you, you sure drop a lot of definites regarding where I live. New York City doesn't really count as a left-wing college town, correct. Nor my time growing up in Clinton (Hamilton College), going to Vassar, working for the Claremont Colleges, or (on occasion) making a living as an artist the past 15 years, I guess. You've got me beat with the liberal community connections, you are far more objectively familiar with our attitudes about everything than I, and I really can't say otherwise as I do not know you. You win.

However, if living in Berkeley makes you this grumpy, I'd suggest moving.

Regarding Merriam-Webster's regular collegiate dictionary, neither the online nor the print version contains "unbasedly", nor is Webster's unabridged available without a fee payment online. However, I can't deny your assessment that it is a word, as I'm unable to check. I move around too much to carry that behemoth of a dictionary you cite. I don't necessarily doubt it, however, the unabridged dictionaries have a lot more words than collegiate ones. My apologies for stating otherwise. If it's passed out of the canon, though, I can see why, as it's is not a very good word and trips rather unpleasantly over the tongue. I'd advise against suggesting your students use it, as very few people will realize it is actually a word.

I'm sorry my typos aren't more hilaripus, JC.

However, if living in Berkeley makes you this grumpy, I'd suggest moving.

Next UC over: I live in Davis. I've never lived in Berkeley, though I lived in the ghetto in West Oakland* (in a building full of painters and sculptors), right next to the Berkeley-Emeryville border for years. That is where I got my start volunteering for a college prep program at McClymonds.

"You've got me beat with the liberal community connections, you are far more objectively familiar with our attitudes about everything than I, and I really can't say otherwise as I do not know you. You win."

I never presumed anything about you. It was your obnoxious presumptuousness about me and my life that caused me to be grumpy.

* I know it doesn't fit its national reputation, but Oakland has a large concentration of artists, particularly in its industrial neighborhoods which have been converted into lofts in the last 30 years.

I would add that societal racism -- especially when that racism is so mild as it is in the United States today -- does not hold back any group from economic progress.*
...
* There are countless examples of hated minority groups which have been successful economically, despite societal prejudice against them.

This is a bizarrely binary argument. That some groups have succeeded despite prejudice (your words) in no way shows that prejudice is meaningless. It shows that it isn't determinative, which is a crazy claim that no one was arguing.

How do you account for the heritability of class? That is, your parents' class is a very good predictor of yours. In order for your argument to follow, I'm guessing you have to claim that economic structures are not discriminatory, and that it is a CULTURE of dependency and false consciousness that creates whatever inegalitarianism that exists?

In other words, you find, unlike Tom, that the history of economic oppression of African-Americans has no lasting economic effects because no economic differences are a function of history, but rather a function of personal choice and bad choices made because of dependency and false consciousness. Unlike Tom, you embrace only the libertarian and social conservative explanations, and utterly dismiss the liberal economic and sociological points of view.

But legal racism ended quite a long time ago.

That is both highly debatable and highly subjective, as your word choice demonsrates. What do you consider "quite a long time ago" in this context?

Culture is THE REASON for most black poverty in the U.S., today. If you look at black Americans who are middle income and higher, you would see a very different culture from lower income blacks, when it comes to things like intact marriages, focus on education, work ethic, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, alcoholism, respect for the law, etc.

As I said in my long education post, our society is structured in a way such that family remains a trump card. No one really denies that unless they have an agenda. Different kinds of families, of course, can lead to success, but some type of stable family is usually crucial. But if we assume your statements to be true, they ignore the questions of why a higher percentage of blacks have these problems with "culture" that lead to poverty than whites do, since in all likelihood your formulations of "culture" apply to some degree to most low-income folks.

What do you consider "quite a long time ago" in this context?

44 years in the South. Longer in most other parts of the U.S.

Not exactly sure what you're saying here. It didn't seem to bother the voters that Eastland & Co. remained nominal Democrats,

"Nominal" Democrats? They were Democrats.

As if I were denying their formal affiliation. As if that were the point. As if I hadn't explained all this in #1592. Thurmond, Eastland & Co. were in open rebellion against the national party on the most important issue of the day. They were "Democrats" in the same sense that Lowell Weicker and Jim Jeffords were Republicans in the last years that they were affiliated with the Republican Party. IOW in name only.

It didn't seem to bother the voters that Eastland & Co. remained nominal Democrats, since what killed them off for the most part was death, not defeat at the hands of the Republicans. The Republicans picked up seats either by attrition, or by being lucky enough in a few instances to be able to run against racially moderate Democrats, like the one (Nick Galifinakis) whom Helms beat in his first campaign in 1972. The southern voters, being rational animals, were more than happy to vote for state and local Democrats as long as they held fast on racial issues, but as the national parties became more polarized and the Dixiecrats with seniority began to die off, the seismic shift on all levels began to take place. With all that seniority gone, the former Dixiecrat voters naturally gravitated to Republican candidates who (in the words of Helms's campaign slogan) were "one of us." There wasn't too much code in that coded phrase.

Anybody catch Andy's sleight of hand here? With a couple of exceptions (Thurmond, Helms), racist voters voted for Democrats.

Absolutely true, on the state and local level. But on the national level, beginning in 1964, they (quite rationally) voted for the one candidate (in 1964) who voted against the Civil Rights Act, or (in 1968) for the candidate who stood in the schoolhouse door, or the candidate who pledged to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court.

Obviously not all of those voters who voted for Goldwater or Nixon were racists, but the vast majority of racists who didn't vote for Wallace voted for both of them in November. To believe otherwise is to believe that they voted against their own instincts.

They voted for local Democrats because local Democrats were racists.

Let's just say that if anuy of those local Democrats had voted for civil rights bills, they would have quickly been out of a job.

They voted for national Democrats because national Democrats had seniority.

Which was of course one of the major selling points of those Dixiecrat candidates. A vote for them was a vote for keeping the "niggger-lovers" off the committee chairmanships. As long as there was a Democratic majority in congress, the Dixiecrats were far more effective opponents of civil rights causes than any freshman Republican could ever have been, no matter how sympathetic. This is all pretty elementary stuff to anyone who knows the first thing about mid-20th century American political history. Apparently it's somehow escaped your attention.

But according to Andy, this "proves" that racists were Republicans. Uh, yeah.

On a national level, that's exactly how they voted. I suppose you think that they voted against their own racial beliefs. And I suppose you think that it's a pure coincidence that the five most hardcore states of the Old Confederacy---with severely restricted black suffrage---were the only five states outside Arizona to vote for the one candidate who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If that was a coincidence, my friend, it was the Mother of All Coincidences.

"This is a bizarrely binary argument. That some groups have succeeded despite prejudice (your words) in no way shows that prejudice is meaningless."

I never said it is "meaningless." I said that in spite of very strong societal prejudice against a hated minority, that minority can still succeed. This is true in many countries where there is a hated minority. (If, for example, you ever travel to Indonesia or the Philippines, you would see how terribly hated, yet wealthy the Chinese are.) As such, the prejudice alone cannot hold back the minority.

"It shows that it isn't determinative, which is a crazy claim that no one was arguing."

You sure seem eager to call me crazy. I don't know why. I agree that prejudice is not determinitive of economic outcome for a minority group.

"How do you account for the heritability of class?"

If you mean class where I would use culture, I concur that much of culture is passed from one generation to the next.

"That is, your parents' class is a very good predictor of yours."

Agreed. Unless you make a big change in your life that causes you to take a very different path from your parents. If, for example, your parents are poor dirt farmers and you move to a city and learn an industrial trade and make a good living, your class (or culture) will diverge greatly from that of your parents and thus the trajectory of your children will be very different than it would have had you stayed on the farm.

"In order for your argument to follow, I'm guessing you have to claim that economic structures are not discriminatory..."

I never said this. However, I don't think racial discrimination within our "economic structures" cause black poverty.

"... and that it is a CULTURE of dependency and false consciousness that creates whatever inegalitarianism that exists?"

No. I never said or implied this. Culture of dependency? What are you smoking? False consciousness? What is this -- neo-Marxist babble?

I'm not worried about inegalitarianism.

"In other words, you find, unlike Tom, that the history of economic oppression of African-Americans has no lasting economic effects..."

Whoa, brother. Slow down. I never said this at all. I am amazed at your strange conclusions based on nothing.

I fully believe that the culture of poverty that is widespread among black Americans (though far from universal) was inherited going back to slavery and later oppression. That culture has a lot of positives and many negatives. They need to figure out how to get rid of the negatives.

"... because no economic differences are a function of history, but rather a function of personal choice and bad choices made because of dependency and false consciousness."

You are a good example of garbage in, garbage out.

"Unlike Tom, you embrace only the libertarian and social conservative explanations, and utterly dismiss the liberal economic and sociological points of view."

Again, your presumptuousness is amazing. You would do well to ask people what they think, rather than trying to stuff everyone into some narrow box which you can then kick around.

I fully believe that the culture of poverty that is widespread among black Americans (though far from universal) was inherited going back to slavery and later oppression. That culture has a lot of positives and many negatives.

A lot of positives? Pardon me if I can't think of any positives about a 'culture of poverty'. Please enlighten us as to what those are.

44 years in the South. Longer in most other parts of the US.

Thanks for the straightforward answer. This, I think, is one of the sources of disagreemnt for me. I don't consider that time frame in this context to be a "long time."

Robin, even if it is not a long time (in the South), my larger point is that legal racial barriers don't explain most black poverty in the U.S. today. I don't say those discriminatory laws were or are "meaningless." They still linger with some effect. My belief, however, is that the cultural values and variables which grew out of the longer black history is the reason why black Americans generally don't do as well in our economy as Koreans or Jamaicans or Iranians or Egyptians.

I never presumed anything about you. It was your obnoxious presumptuousness about me and my life that caused me to be grumpy.

I have to say, it did not occur to me that my throwaway - and I'm sorry, but quite reasonable - supposition of my circle containing more left-wing elements than your circle was anything close to obnoxious, so I apologize.

It was just an aside to the point I was making that a majority of liberals do not go around continually crowing about how racist America as a whole is. Hell, I don't even do that. And I'm more liberal than just about all of them.

"It shows that it isn't determinative, which is a crazy claim that no one was arguing."

You sure seem eager to call me crazy.

The "crazy" belief that I'm referring to is not yours, but the belief that prejudice is wholly determinative. My point is that you merely showed that a crazy, stupid idea is incorrect. Straw men and all that.

"Unlike Tom, you embrace only the libertarian and social conservative explanations, and utterly dismiss the liberal economic and sociological points of view."
...
Again, your presumptuousness is amazing.

I am utterly at a loss. You said precisely that social prejudice is not a cause of racial inequities, and that the economic situation of African-Americans does not reproduce itself except through CULTURE.

Can you read over the posts on the last page and tell me if you find any merit in the liberal economic and sociological explanations that Tom and I laid out and found merit in?

"How do you account for the heritability of class?"

If you mean class where I would use culture, I concur that much of culture is passed from one generation to the next.

No, I don't mean culture. I mean class, the measurable economic situation of a person. Culture incorporates a wide variety of other things, which you have in part described. I wasn't referring to anything other than economic well-being.

My point is that it is a statistical fact that economic class is heritable - our parents' economic well-being is, on average, a good predictor of ours. Thus, the liberal economic explanation runs that becuase of this heritability of class, the effects of slavery and apartheid cannot wash out in a generation or two. Even if there were no discrimination at all in the present, or this present discrimination had no economic consequences, we still would see inequities that persist from historical injustice.

This is what I mean by "structures" - it's a way of agnostically referring to whatever it is that causes the heritability of class. I don't know what they are, but I can see their effects clearly.

I would submit that, in part, what you call culture is an effect of class. It surely is not reducible to economics, but the problems you attribute to CULTURE - breakdown in family structure, criminality, drugs - are found across lower class communities independently of race. They may be differentiable by race, but they are found more in lower class communities than richer groups. That suggests to me that there is something about one's economic class that leads to these unproductive behaviors, and not merely that these behaviors are the cause of one's future lot in life (though of course they are that, too.)

Thanks for the straightforward answer. This, I think, is one of the sources of disagreemnt for me. I don't consider that time frame in this context to be a "long time."

YMMV of course, but that's two generations, and in that time, huge strides have been made in this country with respect to eradicating racism. I frankly think that the progress that has been made in the last 40 years is close to the best amount of progress that could have reasonably been expected or hoped for.

EDIT: The necessary first step in this area was eliminating racism as an institution, and that has been done, and we're on to other challenges now. That's a huge gain.

"A lot of positives? Pardon me if I can't think of any positives about a 'culture of poverty'. Please enlighten us as to what those are."

You want to be enlightened? My, how sweet of you.

Well, just to name a few things which black American culture has produced in overabundance: great comedy; great dance; great music; great poetry; great food; new words and expressions; great clothing designers; athletic brilliance.... I could go on.

Before you jump off of your baby-chair and scream, "but that bad person said 'the culture of poverty' and now he is changing his words to 'black American culture,'" I should quote my exact words:

"That culture has a lot of positives and many negatives. They need to figure out how to get rid of the negatives." By that culture, I meant the whole of black-American culture, a part of which (for the lower income people ) is the broken families, teen pregnancies, low school achievement, high drug use, etc.

They need to figure out how to get rid of the negatives.

Obama on Nightline after the race speech:

MORAN: And I suppose some people might ask, is that giving an excuse for the expression of anti-American sentiments, simply because they come from a black person?

OBAMA: Well, it doesn't excuse it. It just describes a reality. And, look, I mean, I think it is very important -- and I tried to raise this in a speech -- for white America to understand that this anger is not based on nothing. The anger is based on slavery and Jim Crow and a history that continues to have powerful sway over our daily lives.

And I know that one of the most difficult things about race in this country is that white America is much more likely to say, "That was in the past, so forget about it. Let it go."

MORAN: They'll say, "I didn't do that."

OBAMA: "I didn't do it."

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Exactly. "So why are we focused on that?" And black America is saying, "The violence that was committed then under Jim Crow now expresses itself or is tied to the street crime that I'm having to deal with in my neighborhood or in my own family. The destruction of my great-grandfather's farm back then is directly related to the financial troubles I'm having now."

I mean, those connections are made in the black community. And so part of what we have to do is, on the one hand, the African-American community has to say to itself -- and this is our job -- it is to say that we can affirm and acknowledge that tragic history, but not be trapped by it, not be obsessed by it, not use this as an excuse or a crutch for our responsibilities in moving ourselves forward as a community, and individuals taking responsibility for their own success, and walking through the doors of opportunity that have been busted open for us.

***

.

But legal racism ended quite a long time ago.

What about drug laws and enforcement that disproportionately targets African-Americans? 1 In 9 Black men aged 20-34 in this country are in jail, and how many studies show that Black men are far more likely than White men to get convicted of similar crimes and to get longer sentences for similar crimes.

OBAMA: Well, it doesn't excuse it. It just describes a reality. And, look, I mean, I think it is very important -- and I tried to raise this in a speech -- for white America to understand that this anger is not based on nothing. The anger is based on slavery and Jim Crow and a history that continues to have powerful sway over our daily lives.

...

I mean, those connections are made in the black community. And so part of what we have to do is, on the one hand, the African-American community has to say to itself -- and this is our job -- it is to say that we can affirm and acknowledge that tragic history, but not be trapped by it, not be obsessed by it, not use this as an excuse or a crutch for our responsibilities in moving ourselves forward as a community, and individuals taking responsibility for their own success, and walking through the doors of opportunity that have been busted open for us.

Thanks for the quotes, Robin; I hadn't seen this before. I agree with Obama here. And he lays out what needs to be done, which is along the lines of what Bill Cosby and others have been talking about. The problem is that people like Sharpton and Wright are roadblocks to that.

And I know that one of the most difficult things about race in this country is that white America is much more likely to say, "That was in the past, so forget about it. Let it go."

I think Obama identifies the proper sticking point here. I think it's why some people seem not to be content with civil rights meaning equal treatment among the races -- because they feel that blacks put up with so much utter crap, for so many years, that "equal treatment" in effect dismisses that. I understand that sentiment, but I don't see what can be done about it -- affirmative action is wrong for the very reason that discrimination is wrong to begin with -- and I certainly don't think it's helpful for people to obsess over this.

OBAMA: Exactly. "So why are we focused on that?" And black America is saying, "The violence that was committed then under Jim Crow now expresses itself or is tied to the street crime that I'm having to deal with in my neighborhood or in my own family. The destruction of my great-grandfather's farm back then is directly related to the financial troubles I'm having now."

I mean, those connections are made in the black community. And so part of what we have to do is, on the one hand, the African-American community has to say to itself -- and this is our job -- it is to say that we can affirm and acknowledge that tragic history, but not be trapped by it, not be obsessed by it, not use this as an excuse or a crutch for our responsibilities in moving ourselves forward as a community, and individuals taking responsibility for their own success, and walking through the doors of opportunity that have been busted open for us.

It's like being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but it's amazing how so many of Obama's critics seem so utterly unaware, or pretend to be unaware, of this side of Obama's message.

I think Obama identifies the proper sticking point here. I think it's why some people seem not to be content with civil rights meaning equal treatment among the races -- because they feel that blacks put up with so much utter crap, for so many years, that "equal treatment" in effect dismisses that. I understand that sentiment, but I don't see what can be done about it -- affirmative action is wrong for the very reason that discrimination is wrong to begin with -- and I certainly don't think it's helpful for people to obsess over this.

I don't think this entirely gets at the issue.

For myself at least, it's not so much a matter of revenge, but one of realism. Given what I outlined above - the heritability of class - I think it makes sense to have governmental interventions that attempt to root out these inequities more quickly. I certainly am open to more class- than race-based forms of preferences (I would probably want some hybrid form, as Obama suggested in a recent debate), but I think that it's simply a realistic reading of economic facts to suggest that there is a tension between "equal treatment" in terms of affirmative action and equal outcomes in terms of rectifying the inequities wrought by slavery and apartheid.

If you believe, as I have generally taken libertarians to think, that the heritability of class is more a function of governmental interventions rather than something to be beneficially altered by governmental interventions, you certainly will disagree with me, but I think that it's important to explain that supporters of race- and class-based preferences in affirmative action are motivated not so much by a desire for revenge as by a different social and economic theory that sees economic structures that extend into the present the effects of historical injustice, and believes that governmental intervention is a key tool for fighting back against these structures and the inequities they help to perpetuate.

It's like being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but it's amazing how so many of Obama's critics seem so utterly unaware, or pretend to be unaware, of this side of Obama's message.

Oh, I don't have a problem with this side of his message. It's why, as I said immediately after his speech, that his speech was good in a lot of ways. He said the same thing as above in his speech here:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

What I didn't like about his speech was that the Wright issue forced him to give it, and, yet, he ended up not adequately addressing the specific questions people had with respect to his relationship with Wright.

Then he compared Wright to Ferraro and told us his white grandmother was a racist.

Just to chime in after not having read the thread for a few days :) but Andy is exactly correct about the transition between the Democratic solid (white) South and the new Republican solid (white) South. One way to look at this is just to see where the black leaders have moved.

I mean, yes, obviously, the Democratic Party has a long, long tradition of racism, including, like, the Confederacy, which was one of their less humanitarian ideas.

And as a result, between Reconstruction and the New Deal, black office-holders in this country, and black patronage appointees, were almost always Republicans. Oscar De Priest (whom I recently learned about from an exhibit in the Memphis Civil Rights Museum) was a Republican Congressman from Chicago in the 1930s. Edward Brooke was a Republican Senator from Massachusetts in the 60s and 70s.

But increasingly, from the New Deal through the Kennedy/Johnson years, young black leaders started to affiliate with the Democratic party. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was in the same Congress, as a Democrat, with all the intransigent Dixiecrats. Powell was a Democrat because his activism was essentially labor activism in nominally integrated New York City. He went with the party of labor, which was the party of FDR, the TVA, rural electrification – this is a very complicated coalition, one that could include James Eastland on one wing and Powell on another. And when the party of labor became, under the Kennedys and LBJ, increasingly the party of civil rights, virtually every emerging black politician in the South became a Democrat. Is this some kind of coincidence? The Republican Party, after almost a century of being the natural party of African-Americans thanks to Abraham Lincoln et al., gained almost zero black voters after blacks won the franchise across the South. I wonder how that could have happened.

There has still only been one black Republican Representative since Reconstruction: J.C. Watts, who is from Oklahoma, which is only marginally Southern (and where he played quarterback at OU, which is close to Godliness as far as Oklahomans are concerned. Watts is kinda scary-conservative to me, but he would be a very powerful running mate for John McCain (and I am surprised I haven't seen his name more on the VP radar).

Given what I outlined above - the heritability of class - I think it makes sense to have governmental interventions that attempt to root out these inequities more quickly.

I disagree. Just because there is an "inequity" doesn't mean that "injustice" was the cause of it. A kid may have been fortunate to be born to wealthy parents, but one of the prime motivators of people who work to become wealthy is so that they can better provide for their children. I don't see why "inequality" of this type is inherently bad -- quite the opposite, actually, since wealth is a legitimate motivator for people, and so there _should_ be economic differences (rewards) for people that are motivated or intelligent or work hard or what not. I also don't think that inequality is simply a matter of luck and circumstance.

Rather than have such governmental interventions of the type you describe -- which IMO don't make sense in light of the fact that economic disparity is based on a number of different factors and not just "injustice" -- why not just work hard at removing any roadblocks to opportunity? People come from different backgrounds but as long as opportunity is there, I don't see the problem.

And as has been talked about, a key is culture. For example, there is a strain of thinking that permeates the black community that going to college is seen as "acting white." That is hugely problematic, and that's where comments such as those from Wright are simply not helpful.

Then he compared Wright to Ferraro and told us his white grandmother was a racist.

This is a complete misreading of what Obama said. These were his actual words:

I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Obama was not calling her a "racist" at all. He was merely describing cringe-inducing racial and ethnic stereotypes that she had spoken. This is a simple matter of fact, and was not intended in the slightest way to label her as "racist." Like many people of all races, her views were largely shaped by the circumstances of how she grew up and whom she was influenced by. It hardly makes her a racist by any real meaning of the term.

And I guess my more generic point here is that "racist" is one of the more overused words in the English language. It should be reserved for people who exhibit chronic hostility towards people of other races, who treat them differently (and worse) as a class than they do their own kind, and for people who habitually speak of people of other races in negative terms. There are an infinite number of points along the spectrum between real racism of the Dixiecrat variety and the "post-racial" sort of colorblindness that gets held up as an ideal. To lump large numbers of people into the "racist" category because they slip up once in a while isn't exactly the best way to advance the cause of humanity.

Andy, just to clarify, are you saying above that someone who merely says racist things is not necessarily a "racist" -- that they have to exhibit chronic hostility towards people of other races and treat them differently as well?

Anyway, I think "confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe" is the equivalent of saying "she's racist." You disagree. Fine. But calling it a "complete misreading" is a bit much.

Andy, just to clarify, are you saying above that someone who merely says racist things is not necessarily a "racist" -- that they have to exhibit chronic hostility towards people of other races and treat them differently as well?

The key word here is "chronic," but in addition to that I think you also have to take other factors into account. An elderly white lady who quite likely grew up hearing negative comments about black people and who internalizes them in the form of fear of black men in the street, and occasionally puts it into words herself---I wouldn't say that these two things by themselves put her into the "racist" category. Especially considering the way that Obama otherwise describes her treatment of him.

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world

Ray, words like that don't sound like someone describing a "racist" to me. Do they sound like that to you?

I guess that's what I had in mind when I said that you were "completely" misreading what Obama was saying. And I still do, although perhaps I shouldn't have put it in exactly that way.

And BTW it's a very rare "racist" who willfully raises a black grandchild, even without the degree of love that Obama testifies to. The more common reaction of a racist to the product of "miscegenation" is to disown both the child and his mother. If you want to see a real racist at work in interracial situations, try seeing both sides of the equation in Jungle Fever.

And I guess my more generic point here is that "racist" is one of the more overused words in the English language

.

Yeah. I have said about five times that one problem with race discussions--on BTF and in the world at large--is that we use a binary vocabulary to describe a spectrum of behaviors. That often stirs up resentments. "Racist" is about the most loaded word there is in American English today.

The problem is that people like Sharpton and Wright are roadblocks to that.

That is one problem, among many. I know you are aware of that, but I think given the definite article, it is worth noting. The stuff Obama is talking about is simple enough conceptually, but getting people to balance the two multifaceted realities against the complex backdrop of socioeconomic forces and actual human interaction and move forward is quite difficult.

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world

Ray, words like that don't sound like someone describing a "racist" to me. Do they sound like that to you?

No, but, then, that's why I didn't quote that part of his speech in support of my assertion that he was labelling her a racist.

I think you're conflating two different issues: whether he loves her vs. whether he's labelling her a racist.

I also agree with what you say about her not being malicious in her [I believe racist] actions/comments. But I don't think that malice is a requirement for one to be racist. I referenced Al Campanis in an earlier thread; I don't think he intended to be malicious in his statements on Nightline -- but his statements were definitely racist.

And BTW it's a very rare "racist" who willfully raises a black grandchild, even without the degree of love that Obama testifies to.

But not a very rare racist who utters racial or ethnic stereotypes that make others cringe.

racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe

Interestingly enough, he doesn't say that these remarks are about African-Americans (in fact, the "or" seems to indicate that it might be more than one stereotype at work here). It's possible to be pretty un-racist about some groups, particularly if your grandson belongs to one, and utter unthinking remarks about some others. It just goes to show that people, even "typical" people, are complicated, which I think was Obama's point.

It always upsets me when these racial issues are discussed as if it was all about black Americans and their historic grievance. We have in this very campaign people trying to somehow smear Obama by always referring to him as Barack Hussein Obama - the Democrat response should be "As it happens he is neither Arab nor Muslim - but even if it were what difference would it make?" As it is they are quite happy to say no you fools, he's a good Christian, not one of those evil folks. And Obama himself (although I agree with him on many things) supports a protectionism that frankly borders on xenophobia.

Ironically, if many of the charges made against him by Obama's enemies were true, I would be much more inclined to support him. If he felt some kind of Islamic heritage or was proud of it, I'd like that. If he thought religion had no place in politics that would be fantastic. If he didn't mean his rantings against free trade that would be good (although I don't support lies either). If he was actually going to really cut back on the Second Amendment I'd be thrilled.

Thanks for the quotes, Robin; I hadn't seen this before. I agree with Obama here. And he lays out what needs to be done, which is along the lines of what Bill Cosby and others have been talking about. The problem is that people like Sharpton and Wright are roadblocks to that.

From what I've read, I'm not sure there's much if anything to distinguish Wright from Cosby from Obama when it comes to their respective messages about education and work ethic.

And Obama himself (although I agree with him on many things) supports a protectionism that frankly borders on xenophobia.

Examples?

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world

Ray, words like that don't sound like someone describing a "racist" to me. Do they sound like that to you?

No, but, then, that's why I didn't quote that part of his speech in support of my assertion that he was labelling her a racist.

Then what part of the speech were you referring to? IIRC he only mentioned his grandmother one other time, in this passage:

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

Nothing accusatory there. But then maybe there's another part of the speech that I've forgotten where he used the r-word in reference to her. I could simply be misremembering.

I think you're conflating two different issues: whether he loves her vs. whether he's labelling her a racist.

I also agree with what you say about her not being malicious in her [I believe racist] actions/comments. But I don't think that malice is a requirement for one to be racist. I referenced Al Campanis in an earlier thread; I don't think he intended to be malicious in his statements on Nightline -- but his statements were definitely racist.

And BTW it's a very rare "racist" who willfully raises a black grandchild, even without the degree of love that Obama testifies to.

But not a very rare racist who utters racial or ethnic stereotypes that make others cringe.

I guess what I'm saying is that plenty of people like Obama's grandmother and Al Campanis who often say things that are ignorant, but when they don't have that malicious intent that you mention, I don't think of them as racist. And it's obvious, when you read his words, that Obama doesn't see his grandmother that way himself. Which is not a bad trait for an African American presidential candidate to have, both if he ever wants to get elected, and if he wants to be able to reach out to the not-already-convinced if he actually makes it up Pennsylvania Avenue.

Maybe it's just that as a white person I'm too forgiving of my own, but then having spent God knows how many years in the 60's and 70's in all-black or mostly black pool rooms, I've heard more "whiteys" and "white motherf*ck*ers" than I could possibly count, and yet I never thought of any of those people as particularly racist, either. To me they were mostly just typical folks making typically ignorant generalizations about entire groups, and like Campanis or Obama's grandmother, there wasn't anything all that malicious about it---although it might have sounded that way if you heard it the first time or so.

Funny thing here, but even though I generally admire E-X's contributions on BTF more than just about any other Primate, the one thing I respectfully part company with him on is his oftentimes seeming indifference to the effect that the casual use of that loaded r-word has on the ability of people to hear each other. E-X sees it as a combination of honesty of expression and an opening attempt at real dialogue, whereas in my experience it usually serves much more to whack any such dialogue right at the kneecaps. There's plenty of room for honesty in racial discussions like this, but when it comes to face to face, the less the exchange becomes personal the better the chance of getting somewhere, at least IMO. And to me one of the best ways to avoid dragging these discussions down into the mud is by reserving the r-word for the truly unavoidable cases, of which neither Campanis nor Obama's grandmother are very good examples.

Nothing accusatory there. But then maybe there's another part of the speech that I've forgotten where he used the r-word in reference to her. I could simply be misremembering.

Huh? You quoted it yourself, in #1637. (He didn't use the word "racist," that's true, but, as you know, I never claimed he did.)

I guess what I'm saying is that plenty of people like Obama's grandmother and Al Campanis who often say things that are ignorant, but when they don't have that malicious intent that you mention, I don't think of them as racist.

Well, now I think we've finally hit on the reason for our disagreement about Obama's characterization of his grandmother.

And I think you'd be in the minority in stating that malicious intent is a necessary component of racism.

Campanis said that blacks "may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager." I think most people would see that as a racist statement; Campanis was saying that blacks weren't intelligent enough to manage. (He said this even though by all available evidence he liked blacks personally.)

You're really bending over backwards to avoid criticizing Obama, Andy.

Watts has been critical of the Republican party's 2008 presidential candidates because they "don't show up" for black voters:

“ Republicans want to say we reach out. But what we do instead is 60 days before an election, we'll spend some money on black radio and TV or buy an ad in Ebony and Jet, and that's our outreach. People read through that.[7]

EDIT: In 2004, he became a spokesman for National Grants Conferences, a group that offers through infomercials access to millions of dollars in government subsidies.

--From Wikipedia

McCain listening to Watts?

This was interesting:

Monday’s trip was the first time that Secret Service agents joined Mr. McCain’s campaign. It was unclear how many agents were assigned to Mr. McCain but it appeared to be a handful. “We do have an agent presence there now,” said Malcolm Wiley, a Secret Service spokesman, who declined to provide more details. The number of agents is expected to increase as the election draws closer.

Last year, Mr. McCain said he would reject Secret Service protection as an inconvenience and a waste of taxpayers’ money if he won the Republican nomination, but earlier this month he changed his mind and said he had to “recognize the inevitable.”

****

Yeah, I found that puzzling too, rr. What was up with that? Tough guy posturing?

Absolutely true, on the state and local level. But on the national level, beginning in 1964, they (quite rationally) voted for the one candidate (in 1964) who voted against the Civil Rights Act, or (in 1968) for the candidate who stood in the schoolhouse door, or the candidate who pledged to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court.

No, no. You've redefined "national level" to mean "president," and you've defined "beginning in 1964" to mean "in 1964." In 1968, they didn't vote Republican. In 1972, they did -- but so did everyone else on the planet. In 1976, they were back to voting Democratic. In 1980 and 1984 and 1988, they voted Republican -- but again, so did everyone else.

On a national level, that's exactly how they voted.

No, they didn't. We already established that. You attempted to explain that hole in your theory by citing seniority as your argument.

I suppose you think that they voted against their own racial beliefs. And I suppose you think that it's a pure coincidence that the five most hardcore states of the Old Confederacy---with severely restricted black suffrage---were the only five states outside Arizona to vote for the one candidate who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If that was a coincidence, my friend, it was the Mother of All Coincidences.

You're doing it again. You're pretending that one single data point is a trend. That's 1964 -- not "mid 20th century America."

What was up with that? Tough guy posturing?

That would obviously be a pretty negative way to look at it, and I kind of like McCain as a guy, so I'd think not. But it is an odd thing for him to say. As much as a lot of taxpayer money does get wasted, I certainly think providing max protection for any serious presidential candidates is important, and I think most people would agree.

As much as a lot of taxpayer money does get wasted, I certainly think providing max protection for any serious presidential candidates is important, and I think most people would agree.

I admit I'm almost shocked he hasn't had some SS protection since Iowa.

I know you have some appreciation for McCain, robin, so I hope you don't mind me saying that in all events, the sheer weight of lobbyist flesh surrounding him is pretty effective as a human shield. ;)

I know you have some appreciation for McCain, robin, so I hope you don't mind me saying that in all events, the sheer weight of lobbyist flesh surrounding him is pretty effective as a human shield. ;)

Yeah, but Obama is surrounded at all times by guilty white liberals begging him to forgive us, so that will keep him even safer than McCain.

Yeah, but Obama is surrounded at all times by guilty white liberals begging him to forgive us, so that will keep him even safer than McCain.

You're forgetting that McCain's protection is like a double-hulled oil tanker: outside the ring of lobbyists is the ring of reporters who have unfettered access 24/7.

Yeah, but Obama is surrounded at all times by guilty white liberals begging him to forgive us, so that will keep him even safer than McCain.

I bow to your superior width. I mean, superior wit.

To Pennsylvania!

[exeunt]

From what I've read, I'm not sure there's much if anything to distinguish Wright from Cosby from Obama when it comes to their respective messages about education and work ethic.

But there is when it comes to their respective positions about racism and anti-Americanism.

There has still only been one black Republican Representative since Reconstruction: J.C. Watts, who is from Oklahoma,

Gary Franks would be surprised to hear that.

And as has been talked about, a key is culture. For example, there is a strain of thinking that permeates the black community that going to college is seen as "acting white." That is hugely problematic, and that's where comments such as those from Wright are simply not helpful.

This isn't my experience at all. Pretty much all my kids want to go to college, but are not really sure which of the billion things flying at them from their teachers, occasional parents and peers are going to help them in accomplishing that goal.

It's not really that different from why while medical skills are not hereditary, about 60% of my wife's classmates have at least one parent who was/is a doctor.

Funny thing here, but even though I generally admire E-X's contributions on BTF more than just about any other Primate, the one thing I respectfully part company with him on is his oftentimes seeming indifference to the effect that the casual use of that loaded r-word has on the ability of people to hear each other. E-X sees it as a combination of honesty of expression and an opening attempt at real dialogue, whereas in my experience it usually serves much more to whack any such dialogue right at the kneecaps. There's plenty of room for honesty in racial discussions like this, but when it comes to face to face, the less the exchange becomes personal the better the chance of getting somewhere, at least IMO. And to me one of the best ways to avoid dragging these discussions down into the mud is by reserving the r-word for the truly unavoidable cases, of which neither Campanis nor Obama's grandmother are very good examples.

I actually just had a discussion with one of my friends who lurks here about this. There's two things at stake here:
1) It's different as a person of color. I don't mean internally--you might be a much better person on these issues than I, but society, especially ethnic majority society is going to react differently to you. That's why ethnic majority folks can often be more effective in educating each other on these issues.

What I mean is that it doesn't matter how intentionally I avoid anything having to do with the word "racist". Someone will invariable accuse me of "implying" that they are a racist or say "I'm playing the race card". It can even be in a discussion where they have first introduced the race issue or called Wright a "racist" and it's still me "playing the race card".

If minority people need to consider majority people's feelings when discussing race (which I strongly believe that they do) in order to get the best outcome, shouldn't the converse be equally true. America's racial strife is not a colored person's problem, it's an American problem, right?

2) The second issue is that I completely believe in the intelligence of the posters here. And I believe that you have the ability to get over your visceral disgust in order to address one of the most important issues facing our society. My problem is not the initial discomfort--if the problem is that I used the term "racist" without defining it, then I accept full responsibility and apologize, as I have already multiple times on the site.

It's the people who know the definition I am using and simply choose to be offended by it because they feel that the ethnic majority has suffered so much under the term and I dare not use it even if I have properly defined it, used academic sources and supported the need for the redefinition.

Then they make snide comments that obtusely and intentionally ignore that redefinition simply because I should have more respect as a person of color for the shattered feelings of majority folks over the use of that horrific term couched in centuries of oppression of ethnic majority folks at the hands of whiny, hateful minorities.

I understand your words of caution, but I hope you will respect my viewpoint. Those who cry "crazy minority reverse racist" using my screen name without me even entering the thread are no different from those feigning mock outrage at this comment by this candidate they weren't going to support anyway. They clearly aren't hearing anything I'm saying anyway as they merely refer to phantom quotes of things I never said that are the antithesis of my philosophy, "E-X who thinks everyone is a racist except himself".

I'm not here to talk to them. Even when I engage them, it's not for them. It's for me to refine my skills, tearing to pieces those who are supposed to be the best this society has to offer and it's for the friendly interactions and friendships I've developed with those like you who respond, often respectfully disagreeing and forcing me to deepen and move my positions.

It's not that I don't care about the people on the board, but they, for the most part are taken care of. They aren't trapped in a HS where they've had 3-4 teachers/year in some of their subjects, they've lost far beyond the normal allotment of friends and family members for an entire childhood in the last couple years, and they are finessing to avoid the constant atmosphere of violence and negativity.

I appreciate what you and others here have done--taught me, supported me and given me ideas for effective curriculum and materials. I hope this can continue.

But there is when it comes to their respective positions about racism and anti-Americanism.

Thanks for the non-sequitur.

Robin quoted Obama saying:

And so part of what we have to do is, on the one hand, the African-American community has to say to itself -- and this is our job -- it is to say that we can affirm and acknowledge that tragic history, but not be trapped by it, not be obsessed by it, not use this as an excuse or a crutch for our responsibilities in moving ourselves forward as a community, and individuals taking responsibility for their own success, and walking through the doors of opportunity that have been busted open for us.

You said you had never seen that before, compared it to Cosby, and then declared that Wright and Sharpton [???] were "roadblocks" in the way of getting that done. But what Obama said, and Cosby's comments in recent years on the same subjects, are indistinguishable from what Wright has been saying to his parishioners for decades as part of what he labelled his "Black Value System," including the need to focus on self-improvement through education, and to focus on increasing the productivity of the black work force so their neighborhoods could attract employers.

"It was simply stating a personal opinion--everyone ought to spend some time with people who spend almost every waking hour working with and on behalf of inner-city school children."

My personal opinion is that every poor kid from a broken home should spend a week living with successful, in-tact families where parents are clean of drugs, hold down jobs and are role models for their kids. These kids would get 100X more out of this experience than, say, suburban kids spent a week in the inner city learning that life does indeed suck for most there.

We seem to focus all of our efforts at educating "sheltered" people, when that is largely a waste of time and delays the help people need. Do people really think the key to improving life for the downtrodden is to better educate the "well to do" on the struggles of keeping a job when on drugs? That reeks of guilt only a liberal could appreciate. The secret is to teach those in the slums how successful people live life, not the other way around.

And don't waste my time trying to make the case that yes, indeed, there is something to be gained from learning life sucks for the poor and broken. You miss the point and only delay the help these people need. Liberals have a knack for excusing the culture of the inner city, instead of shaming those that make poor choices.

My personal opinion is that every poor kid from a broken home should spend a week living with successful, in-tact families where parents are clean of drugs, hold down jobs and are role models for their kids. These kids would get 100X more out of this experience than, say, suburban kids spent a week in the inner city learning that life does indeed suck for most there.

You mean, like the Fresh Air Fund in NYC. Which has only been around for 130 years.

Damn liberals. Always thinking of stuff more than a century before Beano attempted to fire a neuron.

Ray, here's what you said in #1634:

Then [Obama] compared Wright to Ferraro and told us his white grandmother was a racist.

Here's what you said in #1641, in context. The exchange begins with my quoting Obama:

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world

Ray, words like that don't sound like someone describing a "racist" to me. Do they sound like that to you?

No, but, then, that's why I didn't quote that part of his speech in support of my assertion that he was labelling her a racist.

But now in #1647 you're saying this:

(He didn't use the word "racist," that's true, but, as you know, I never claimed he did.)

I think that your words speak for themselves. I'll let those three posts settle their differences among them. Let me know when they pick a winner.

-----------------------


Absolutely true, on the state and local level. But on the national level, beginning in 1964, they (quite rationally) voted for the one candidate (in 1964) who voted against the Civil Rights Act, or (in 1968) for the candidate who stood in the schoolhouse door, or the candidate who pledged to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court.

No, no. You've redefined "national level" to mean "president,"

David, that is the common use of the term "national level," for obvious logical reasons. Presidents represent the nation. Senators represent states. Representatives represent local districts. But even more substantively, the only "national" election where voters across the country choose from the same slates of candidates is the presidential election.

and you've defined "beginning in 1964" to mean "in 1964." In 1968, they didn't vote Republican.

In fact, in 1968 Wallace won five southern states with 45 electoral votes and Nixon won six states with 66 electoral votes. Humphrey won one southern state: Texas, with 25 electoral votes. Absent the Wallace candidacy, it is highly unlikely that any of those five states that he won would have voted for one of the country's leading proponents of civil rights (Humphrey) over a candidate (Nixon) who was campaigning on a pledge to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, the South's all-time bete noire.

In 1972, they did -- but so did everyone else on the planet. In 1976, they were back to voting Democratic.

In 1976 the Democrats were running a Georgia governor, the Republicans were still feeling the Watergate backlash, and Ford's campaign, unlike Nixon's was almost wholly devoid of racial code words.

In 1980 and 1984 and 1988, they voted Republican -- but again, so did everyone else.

And by that time the conversion was pretty much complete.

The point is not that today's southern Republicans are the equivalent of yesterday's Dixiecrats---the South isn't static any more than anyplace else, and thank God for that. It's simply that the Dixiecrats are their lineal ancestors, and that the mass defections from the Democrats to the Republicans in the aftermath of the passage of the civil rights bills---first on the presidential level and then working its way down the line as seniority lost its grip---were primarily if not exclusively over the race issue. Everyone in the world outside of you and a few assorted hacks will acknowledge this.

Watts has been critical of the Republican party's 2008 presidential candidates because they "don't show up" for black voters:

“ Republicans want to say we reach out. But what we do instead is 60 days before an election, we'll spend some money on black radio and TV or buy an ad in Ebony and Jet, and that's our outreach. People read through that.[7]

It may be true, but at the same time, it's hardly unreasonable. Parties have finite resources, and it doesn't make sense for Republicans to spend money on trying to get black votes any more than it makes sense for them to try to get votes in Berkeley.

Bush reached out to black voters in 2000, and got the same 10% of the black vote that Republicans always get.

And don't waste my time trying to make the case that yes, indeed, there is something to be gained from learning life sucks for the poor and broken. You miss the point and only delay the help these people need. Liberals have a knack for excusing the culture of the inner city, instead of shaming those that make poor choices.

I would never make that case. It's far more uplifting to see that life doesn't suck for the poor under a strain that would break most.

Perhaps if you saw that you would know there are other options besides "excusing culture" and "shaming".

The point is not that today's southern Republicans are the equivalent of yesterday's Dixiecrats---the South isn't static any more than anyplace else, and thank God for that. It's simply that the Dixiecrats are their lineal ancestors, and that the mass defections from the Democrats to the Republicans in the aftermath of the passage of the civil rights bills---first on the presidential level and then working its way down the line as seniority lost its grip---were primarily if not exclusively over the race issue. Everyone in the world outside of you and a few assorted hacks will acknowledge this.

Yes, but the point is that this is the figment of your imagination; there simply were no "mass defections from the Democrats to the Republicans."

Well, Chip, you got me. I clearly said I invented the idea and you would have to be in a cave not to know this type of thing didn't exist, but you also would have to be ignorant to think the left cared more about this type of education than teaching "sheltered" people what it means to be from the hood.

Perhaps if you saw that you would know there are other options besides "excusing culture" and "shaming".

What the hell are you talking about X? You know of nothing about what I have experienced. You consistently open mouth and brand yourself as an ass, day in, day out.

E-X, it's too late to respond fully to what you just wrote, but I'd only say that my criticism was mostly a practical one. For the most part, I see the overuse of the r-word as a strategy doomed to failure, at least in the overall society, which is where I mostly operate. This isn't to say I can't understand or appreciate your perspective, and maybe using the term to include people who engage in ignorant comments that have the sound of racism is a way of getting them to confront themselves. But again, in my own experience that's seldom if ever worked. I gave up on that type of "conversion strategy" about 45 years ago, because I saw (a) that I was feeling too self-righteous for my own good; and (b) it was getting me nowhere in terms of winning anyone over.

But I'll read your post more fully tomorrow once I have time to digest it.

Yes, but the point is that this is the figment of your imagination; there simply were no "mass defections from the Democrats to the Republicans."

Well, David, if you look at those electoral maps before Goldwater, you'd have to conclude that it was either mass defections, or mass kidnappings combined with mass replacements with pod people. I'll let my fellow elitists consider that second hypothesis, but on balance I think I'll just go by the numbers.

But now in #1647 you're saying this:

(He didn't use the word "racist," that's true, but, as you know, I never claimed he did.)

I think that your words speak for themselves. I'll let those three posts settle their differences among them. Let me know when they pick a winner.

Andy, what in the world are you talking about? I never said Obama used the word "racist." I said the message he was delivering was that his grandmother was a racist. In particular, I said he "told us his white grandmother was a racist." That doesn't mean that I was saying he literally used the word "racist," as anyone familiar with conversing in the English language would know. (And what on earth would be the point of me asserting something that was objectively false?)

What the hell are you talking about X? You know of nothing about what I have experienced. You consistently open mouth and brand yourself as an ass, day in, day out.

I'm sorry that my assumption offended you, but since you put all your eggs in anticipating the wrong response, I figured that it was a safe assumption. Have a good one.

Andy, what in the world are you talking about? I never said Obama used the word "racist." I said the message he was delivering was that his grandmother was a racist. In particular, I said he "told us his white grandmother was a racist." That doesn't mean that I was saying he literally used the word "racist," as anyone familiar with conversing in the English language would know. (And what on earth would be the point of me asserting something that was objectively false?)

Exactly why I don't think it really matters. A man of color doesn't use the word racist, describes his grandmother in the most honest, open way, and is scolded for telling us "his white grandmother was a racist". I simply can't believe that if I used some more magical words, this viewpoint would be transformed into societal improvement.

Redefining racism as a social institution that we are all exposed to and act out when we don't act with intentionality, allows the vast majority of people agency to address racial problems free of judgment or historic guilt.

That some people will scream back because they are being "accused of being racist" simply represents either a lack of genuine desire to address the problem or a lack of interest beyond their own personal image. Nothing is lost.

And Obama himself (although I agree with him on many things) supports a protectionism that frankly borders on xenophobia.

Examples?

Are you serious? Pretty much every speech he makes Obama talks about the evils of NAFTA, free trade and "outsourcing." Even in the Wright speech that everyone here seems to love, he said:

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

In other words, don't be afraid of the people who don't look like you - be afraid of the people who don't look like you, and have the nerve to live somewhere else.

Robin quoted Obama saying:

And so part of what we have to do is, on the one hand, the African-American community has to say to itself -- and this is our job -- it is to say that we can affirm and acknowledge that tragic history, but not be trapped by it, not be obsessed by it, not use this as an excuse or a crutch for our responsibilities in moving ourselves forward as a community, and individuals taking responsibility for their own success, and walking through the doors of opportunity that have been busted open for us.

You said you had never seen that before, compared it to Cosby, and then declared that Wright and Sharpton [???] were "roadblocks" in the way of getting that done. But what Obama said, and Cosby's comments in recent years on the same subjects, are indistinguishable from what Wright has been saying to his parishioners for decades as part of what he labelled his "Black Value System," including the need to focus on self-improvement through education, and to focus on increasing the productivity of the black work force so their neighborhoods could attract employers.

Yes. And then Wright says that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by whites, and he calls the country the US of KKK A. That rather detracts from any message of telling people they shouldn't be "trapped" and "obsessed" by their tragic history.

I don't see what the problem is with what I wrote, exactly. Obama himself said that Wright's "anger" (Obama's word) is not helpful:

That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

Well, David, if you look at those electoral maps before Goldwater, you'd have to conclude that it was either mass defections, or mass kidnappings combined with mass replacements with pod people. I'll let my fellow elitists consider that second hypothesis, but on balance I think I'll just go by the numbers.

But the numbers don't support you, which is why you keep making excuses for why in fact they don't -- seniority, or "local," or whatever. 1964 proves nothing except that 1964 was an aberration.

I don't see what the problem is with what I wrote, exactly. Obama himself said that Wright's "anger" (Obama's word) is not helpful

And I don't see the problem with I wrote. If Obama's rhetoric on education and work ethic in the black community is indistinguishable from Cosby, it's also indistinguishable from Wright.

As for Wright's much nuttier statements: there's obviously no excuse for the US KKKA stuff. Anymore than there is for conservative pastors who blamed 9/11 on the US accepting gays into mainstream society. But does anyone have an actual transcript of the sermon where that rant appeared? I've never seen anything more than brief excerpts. I also can't find any quotes where Wright blames whites for the AIDS virus. I thought his nutty conspiracy theory was that it was done by the government. And on that, at least, he's little different from a lot of prominent blacks—and whites. Including, among others, Spike Lee and yes, Bill Cosby, who told CNN in 1991:

"AIDS was started by human beings to get after certain people they didn't like."

So nice, I'll play it twice:

Ray, here's what you said in #1634:

Then [Obama] compared Wright to Ferraro and told us his white grandmother was a racist.

Here's what you said in #1641, in context. The exchange begins with my quoting Obama:

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world

Ray, words like that don't sound like someone describing a "racist" to me. Do they sound like that to you?

No, but, then, that's why I didn't quote that part of his speech in support of my assertion that he was labelling her a racist.

But now in #1647 you're saying this:

(He didn't use the word "racist," that's true, but, as you know, I never claimed he did.)

I think that your words speak for themselves. I'll let those three posts settle their differences among them. Let me know when they pick a winner.

And now this new entry:

Andy, what in the world are you talking about? I never said Obama used the word "racist." I said the message he was delivering was that his grandmother was a racist. In particular, I said he "told us his white grandmother was a racist." That doesn't mean that I was saying he literally used the word "racist," as anyone familiar with conversing in the English language would know. (And what on earth would be the point of me asserting something that was objectively false?)

So now once again we're back to mindreading, and to claiming that a man who says this:

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world

is seriously claiming that the woman he's talking about is a "racist." And of course he must mean that, because Ray says so.

------------------------------

Well, David, if you look at those electoral maps before Goldwater, you'd have to conclude that it was either mass defections, or mass kidnappings combined with mass replacements with pod people. I'll let my fellow elitists consider that second hypothesis, but on balance I think I'll just go by the numbers.

But the numbers don't support you, which is why you keep making excuses for why in fact they don't -- seniority, or "local," or whatever. 1964 proves nothing except that 1964 was an aberration.

Well, I guess we're making some progress here, David. I notice that at least you're not citing 1968's "numbers" this time around. One of these days you might even google "southern strategy," so you can prove that it, too, doesn't exist, or never existed, or was invented by the Democrats, or something.

As for Wright's much nuttier statements: there's obviously no excuse for the US KKKA stuff. Anymore than there is for conservative pastors who blamed 9/11 on the US accepting gays into mainstream society.

You'll have to wait a long time before you find me defending the likes of Jerry Falwell. I agree with you.

I've never seen anything more than brief excerpts. I also can't find any quotes where Wright blames whites for the AIDS virus. I thought his nutty conspiracy theory was that it was done by the government.

Yes. By the "white power structure." And (before Andy complains), those are my words, not his -- but that's the clear reading I get from his comments. I don't think he was suggesting that the minority members of the U.S. government -- including the black members -- were the ones creating the AIDS virus to kill blacks.

Andy, I'm not sure what else to say. Once again, as is your habit, you proceed to quote from several posts to provide "context," when the context was always clear. I said that Obama was calling his white grandmother a racist. I didn't say he used the exact word. And you're focusing on a different part of the speech than I am, while refusing to acknowledge the portion I cited. So I don't think there's much point in continuing this particular line of discussion.

I will note that interpreting my statement, as you've done, to mean that I was asserting that Obama literally used the word "racist" to describe his grandmother is a bit bizarre. Note that I said: "Then he compared Wright to Ferraro and told us his white grandmother was a racist." See the word "compared" there? I wasn't suggesting that Obama literally used that word either; I wasn't asserting that Obama said: "I will now proceed to compare Geraldine Ferraro with Jeremiah Wright." So I don't really know what your point is.

[1675]
In other words, don't be afraid of the people who don't look like you - be afraid of the people who don't look like you, and have the nerve to live somewhere else.

That could be, but I see that statement more as him pandering to economic ignorance and wealth envy. Damn those corporations, always making profits! Won't somebody step in and introduce some legislation to hand me a piece of their pie?

You know of nothing about what I have experienced.

Ok, fill us in.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

In other words, don't be afraid of the people who don't look like you - be afraid of the people who don't look like you, and have the nerve to live somewhere else

Obama's statement is standard liberal protectionist rhetoric used in an attempt to get votes; you disagree--fine. But your interpretation is questionable at best and demonstrates little more than the depth of your bias.

I appreciate what you and others here have done--taught me, supported me and given me ideas for effective curriculum and materials.

Curriculum ideas from BTF?

In a five-paragraph essay, explain similarities and differences between communication patterns in the Obama thread and the play Twelve Angry Men. Focus on areas such as communication between people who disagree, the way characters resolve conflict, and how demographic profiles (refer to our vocabulary list from this unit if you forgot the meaning of "demographic") can affect interpretation of facts. Make sure that your thesis statement has three supportable points, one for each paragraph, and that you support your arguments with quotes from the the play and from the thread, using MLA format.

Extra Credit: Choose one BTF poster and write a 1-2 page "mini-biography" of him based on his posts. Focus on areas such as political beliefs, educational and professional background and communication style. Since most participants post anonymously, this assignment will require you to be creative. Refer to wikipedia.com for ideas about what to include and how to straucture the mini-biography.

Andy, I'm not sure what else to say. Once again, as is your habit, you proceed to quote from several posts to provide "context," when the context was always clear. I said that Obama was calling his white grandmother a racist. I didn't say he used the exact word.

A point which you clarified only when I quoted your words back to you. The distinction you're making isn't exactly obvious on its face, however much you seem to think it is.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept your explanation that "I said that Obama was calling his white grandmother a racist" is significantly different than saying that Obama "used the exact word."

But now to the substance of your claim.

And you're focusing on a different part of the speech than I am, while refusing to acknowledge the portion I cited. So I don't think there's much point in continuing this particular line of discussion.

Except that I not only acknowledged the passage you're referring to, I quoted it in full context the first time (#1637) I challenged your interpretation. You can scroll up the page if you think I'm making this up. But I'll quote it once again:

I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that m