In an era of Hope and Change we're a "Nation of Cowards"

[J.Q. Citizen]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/holder.race.relations/

The new Attorney General, Eric Holder, believes that in many ways we, as a nation have not progressed much from where we were 50 years ago. That's pretty much a lie.

Are things perfect in this country? Absolutely not. However, much of the racial unrest in this country originates from and is fomented by some of the very so-called leaders of the civil rights groups.

What a great message of unity we're getting from our new administration.

But hey, at least I read this article eh?

[chipper]

Phil Graham states that America is a "Nation of Whiners" and doesn't have to wait long before his political career is all-but gutted.

Eric Holder calls us a "Nation of Cowards" and won't have to wait long before the media defends his statement as "inciting change," "encouraging discussion," and, perhaps worst of all, "true".

[JaneBlow]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/holder.race.relations/

The new Attorney General, Eric Holder, believes that in many ways we, as a nation have not progressed much from where we were 50 years ago. That's pretty much a lie.

Are things perfect in this country? Absolutely not. However, much of the racial unrest in this country originates from and is fomented by some of the very so-called leaders of the civil rights groups.

What a great message of unity we're getting from our new administration.

But hey, at least I read this article eh?

Good job, J.Q. I have to complement you on reading the article. But take a closer look, if you will, please. Holder said, we "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but "On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad."

Do you disagree about the extent to which we are "voluntarily socially segregated" on the weekends?

I agree with Holder. I have recognized exactly what he is referencing here in McKinney and I am inspired to reach out to friends at work that I've never spent time with socially.

It's one thing to talk about unity. It's another to inspire change.

[kmcgraw5]

Good job, J.Q. I have to complement you on reading the article. But take a closer look, if you will, please. Holder said, we "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but "On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad."

Do you disagree about the extent to which we are "voluntarily socially segregated" on the weekends?

I agree with Holder. I have recognized exactly what he is referencing here in McKinney and I am inspired to reach out to friends at work that I've never spent time with socially.

It's one thing to talk about unity. It's another to inspire change.

I would respectfully disagree, especially about, McKinney; but then I can only speak about my experience in McKinney. We have more people of color moving into our subdivison, especially blacks. My children have as many friends of color and play sports with kids of color than ever before, especially blacks. We also have black frinds with which we socialize occasionally, albeit not every weekend. Our church has seen an influx of people of color lately, but especially blacks; even though I think to a certain degree the Untied Methodist church has always been seen as a lily-white denomination (although the AME church has been a part of the UMC for years, albeit as separate churches). We even have a black worship minister who goes by the name of D-MAC, who is truly a gift from God; and we are getting ready to go to two services being led by him because our alternative sanctuary is no longer big enough for one service. Our youth minister is also Filipino and has been instrumental in growing that service as well (not to mention our youth program). Granted, our congregation is still vastly predominantly white, but I think that speaks volumes about a bunch of conservative, Christian white folk being able to embrace, trust, and love these extraodianary men of color, not mention our new members of color as well. I admittedly don't know what things are like in the rest of the country (although I suspect they are vastly different from Holder's narrow-minded picture), but I think McKinney is definitely an exception to his view. That's why I'm proud to live here and wouldn't want to live anywhere else!

[J.Q. Citizen]

Good job, J.Q. I have to complement you on reading the article. But take a closer look, if you will, please. Holder said, we "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but "On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad."

Do you disagree about the extent to which we are "voluntarily socially segregated" on the weekends?

I agree with Holder. I have recognized exactly what he is referencing here in McKinney and I am inspired to reach out to friends at work that I've never spent time with socially.

It's one thing to talk about unity. It's another to inspire change.

Yeah, I pretty much vehemently disagree Jane. But, just to make sure I'm not imagining things, I'll ask my neighbor Fransisco, or perhaps my neighbor Julio a couple of houses over. Possibly difficult discussions because their English isn't all that great but that's always been part of the fun. I guess the first thing I should do is find out who allowed them into our neighborhood. Perhaps, I'll ask Mary, the black friend of my girlfriend's mother with whom we spent a considerable amount of time before she moved. Of course for most of them, I'll have to wait until the weekend because that's about the only time I see them due to hectic schedules. Now, it's never come up very often with the first two, possibly because it's easier to talk football or help with a project over a beer than it is to discuss more complex philosophical issues, but these kinds of things come up all the time with Mary. She's actually fond of commenting on how well I tan for a white boy but her tan is still better. She has commented that she believes things are much better than they used to be. Of course, she may not have the right world experiences with which to judge this situation. After all, she's young and lived most of her life in an area not conflicted much by racial strife....well, as long as late 60's is considered young and Detroit is considered racially neutral. The thing is, before she had to move back home due to family issues, she often commented on how comfortable she was in McKinney.

Even to the extent that Holder is right about the lack of total social homogeny between the races, don't you think that "coward" was an extreme choice of words? I mean, couldn't he have conveyed the gist of his message without inviting racial divide? I agree with Chipper. Let a Republican like Phil Gramm say that we're a nation of whiner's, a statement with which I agreed at the time, and watch the attacks that follow. Let the guy involved with the pardons of Marc Rich and the FALN terrorists, not exactly a moral high ground, say something controversial and we're given an infinite number of reasons why he has a point.

[chipper]

Calling us a "nation of cowards" also ignores a major discussion of why certain noticeable rifts exist between races (to the extent that they do exist). Often it is not an issue of differences in race, but rather of differences in culture. Many Chinese-Americans find a kind of unity in shared asian cultural roots; many Indian-Americans find similar unity in their own unique culture; many blacks may find a cultural unity in their collective history, family dynamics, interest, and forms of entertainment which may differ from those of other demographics not because of skin tone, but because the cultural norms with which they have grown accustomed.

Expecting us all to act like we come from a united history with the same understanding of the world and with the same cultural expectations and comforts is neither realistic nor healthy. The many cultures in the United States which are preserved no doubt encourage rifts that appear racial in nature. But these same cultures are why the United States can claim to be more diverse than any other country on the globe--and all the better for it!

[kmcgraw5]

That's a very astute observation, Chip; and right on the mark, I suspect...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Calling us a "nation of cowards" also ignores a major discussion of why certain noticeable rifts exist between races (to the extent that they do exist). Often it is not an issue of differences in race, but rather of differences in culture. Many Chinese-Americans find a kind of unity in shared asian cultural roots; many Indian-Americans find similar unity in their own unique culture; many blacks may find a cultural unity in their collective history, family dynamics, interest, and forms of entertainment which may differ from those of other demographics not because of skin tone, but because the cultural norms with which they have grown accustomed.

Expecting us all to act like we come from a united history with the same understanding of the world and with the same cultural expectations and comforts is neither realistic nor healthy. The many cultures in the United States which are preserved no doubt encourage rifts that appear racial in nature. But these same cultures are why the United States can claim to be more diverse than any other country on the globe--and all the better for it!

Excellent point Chipper. And it begs the question, how can we celebrate uniqueness and individuality when we're apparently all expected to behave in exactly the same manner?

[JaneBlow]

Calling us a "nation of cowards" also ignores a major discussion of why certain noticeable rifts exist between races (to the extent that they do exist). Often it is not an issue of differences in race, but rather of differences in culture. Many Chinese-Americans find a kind of unity in shared asian cultural roots; many Indian-Americans find similar unity in their own unique culture; many blacks may find a cultural unity in their collective history, family dynamics, interest, and forms of entertainment which may differ from those of other demographics not because of skin tone, but because the cultural norms with which they have grown accustomed

I think this is just another way of saying we are "voluntarily socially segregated" because it's uncomfortable to break out of our comfort zones.

You say, it's not healthy to "act like we come from a united history with the same understanding of the world and with the same cultural expectations and comforts." Why not? Why can't we appreciate each others cultures and comforts? That sounds very healthy to me.

[JaneBlow]

Excellent point Chipper. And it begs the question, how can we celebrate uniqueness and individuality when we're apparently all expected to behave in exactly the same manner?

You miss the point, J.Q. It's not about becoming the same. It's about understanding each other. How can you understand someone you don't know? How can you know someone you only interact with at work?

I am proud that you and Kevin spend so much of your leisure time with your black and Hispanic friends. But I don't think that is representative of what's going on in the rest of the country.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I think this is just another way of saying we are "voluntarily socially segregated" because it's uncomfortable to break out of our comfort zones.

Let's assume for a second that your analysis is exactly correct. Being reluctant to break out of a comfort zone does not a coward make.

You say, it's not healthy to "act like we come from a united history with the same understanding of the world and with the same cultural expectations and comforts." Why not?
Because, it is acting...pretending...it's not reality. Failing to recognize the differences, even if you choose to appreciate those differences, can lead to potential problems such as expecting or being expected to inherently understand some cultural nuance which it's unreasonable to expect in the first place. Recognizing that there are, in fact, differences is what allows us to account for and overcome those little differences.

Why can't we appreciate each others cultures and comforts? That sounds very healthy to me.
We absolutely can, but we need to recognize that there will always be fundamental differences or we won't realize what the problem truly is when the inevitable conflict arises. It is this fundamental understanding of the differences, particularly the more subtle differences, that will allow us to negotiate some that may appear irreconcilable.

[J.Q. Citizen]

You miss the point, J.Q. It's not about becoming the same. It's about understanding each other. How can you understand someone you don't know? How can you know someone you only interact with at work?

But you can't understand each other without recognizing and being aware that there are, in fact, differences. I would submit, from my own experiences, that most people who do not interact outside of work do so more due to personal differences than anything racial. Put another way, if you only associate, outside of work, with co-workers who are of your race then yeah, you've probably got some kind of racial issue on your hand. Otherwise, it's some other non-race related issue.

But I don't think that is representative of what's going on in the rest of the country.
Of course you don't.

[JaneBlow]

I will have to say that I regret Holder used the word coward. Now the discussion will center on this word and not on whether or not we are voluntarily socially segregated and why. That is a shame.

J.Q., your argument that being socially segregated is a desirable thing -- almost a celebration of diversity -- is designed to help you avoid change and completely ignores the fact that we do better. We can improve race relations by spending more of our leisure time together -- exploring what we have in common.

[McKinneyRes]

I will have to say that I regret Holder used the word coward. Now the discussion will center on this word and not on whether or not we are voluntarily socially segregated and why. That is a shame.

J.Q., your argument that being socially segregated is a desirable thing -- almost a celebration of diversity -- is designed to help you avoid change and completely ignores the fact that we do better. We can improve race relations by spending more of our leisure time together -- exploring what we have in common.

I am not sure why Holder used that word either or bothered to make those comments.. He needs to stick with things that pertain to the office of the AG.
I wonder if things happened behind the scenes with him getting appointed that led to this comment?

[J.Q. Citizen]

I will have to say that I regret Holder used the word coward. Now the discussion will center on this word and not on whether or not we are voluntarily socially segregated and why. That is a shame.

J.Q., your argument that being socially segregated is a desirable thing -- almost a celebration of diversity -- is designed to help you avoid change and completely ignores the fact that we do better. We can improve race relations by spending more of our leisure time together -- exploring what we have in common.

That was exactly my point Jane. He could have modified his wording a bit and still conveyed the essence of his message in a way that would have been destructive. However, another point was that HE will be given a pass whereas a Republican saying something similar but milder would be crucified.

I am not arguing that it is a desirable thing. I was saying that you are not recognizing the necessity of recognizing that there are differences. At most, it might be said that I was saying that a certain degree is inevitable. I don't dispute the benefits of sharing more and learning together. But, there will always be differences. And some of those differences will have to be recognized before they can be overcome. I am also saying that despite the intended homogenization of our culture, those who wish should be allowed to maintain whatever innocuous aspects of their culture that they wish and we should celebrate that diversity rather than expecting others to adapt to the particular aforementioned aspects. I'll try to come up with an example...not sure it'll work.

Say an Arab family emigrates here and moves into my neighborhood. I would welcome that because, among other things, they have great food. And say that, in their culture, showing the bottom of your shoe to them is considered an insult which pretty much makes crossing your legs in their presence an insult. Well, I cross my legs...my leg is crossed right at this moment. I would hope, that after any awkwardness is overcome and all is said and done, that before long, my new friend would introduce me to his friends as "This is my American friend who insults me every time he sits down"...smiling of course. Simply expecting all Americans to a)know that particular custom and b)adapt to it, is unreasonable. This is simply a difference that will have to be overcome. Similarly, I have been to the homes of some Asian friends and they have a custom of leaving shoes outside of the home. That's fine. It's a little weird at first but it doesn't require overcoming a lifetime of innocuous behavior to overcome.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I am not sure why Holder used that word either or bothered to make those comments.. He needs to stick with things that pertain to the office of the AG.
I wonder if things happened behind the scenes with him getting appointed that led to this comment?

My personal opinion is that he may be a closet racist and that he's taking advantage of his new position to attempt to impact race relations. We'll see as the evidence comes in.

[JaneBlow]

I am not sure why Holder used that word either or bothered to make those comments.. He needs to stick with things that pertain to the office of the AG.
I wonder if things happened behind the scenes with him getting appointed that led to this comment?

He made the comment because he was speaking to an audience celebrating Black History Month. The Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division, so his comments were not completely from left field.

I think it is much more reasonable to assume he made the comments because he recognizes our need to talk about race relations than because of some unknown circumstance behind his appointment. That seems like a leap to me.

Maybe he thought it would be cowardly of him to not take advantage of the opportunities he has to be a catalyst for change. I think he could have chosen his words better, but I think his intentions were admirable.

When I first read the article, I was not offended, but inspired. It came as a surprise to me to find how offended many people were.

[JaneBlow]

My personal opinion is that he may be a closet racist and that he's taking advantage of his new position to attempt to impact race relations. We'll see as the evidence comes in.

You mean you think he wants to negatively impact race relations?

[JaneBlow]

I am not arguing that it is a desirable thing.

You imply that I think we should all behave the same and argue that we should accept our differences as good.

I am saying, of course we are different and that is good, but we can benefit by exploring what we have in common.

[J.Q. Citizen]

You mean you think he wants to negatively impact race relations?

I don't know yet. I clearly said I was waiting on the evidence. For example, if he advocates Affirmative Action then I would say yes. I mean the whole concept of a supposed leader of civil rights who intentionally creates an atmosphere that fosters racial tensions isn't without precedence. Just look at Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Sharpton do it because...well, if there were no racism, they would be out of a job. Farrakhan is just a whacko but he is still perceived as a leader by many in the black community. I perceived Holder's comments as being aimed at white people. I could be wrong but that was my perception. My jury is still out on this one.

[J.Q. Citizen]

You imply that I think we should all behave the same and argue that we should accept our differences as good.

I am saying, of course we are different and that is good, but we can benefit by exploring what we have in common.

Then we're not saying such different things.

[J.Q. Citizen]

He made the comment because he was speaking to an audience celebrating Black History Month. The Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division, so his comments were not completely from left field.

.

Just out of curiosity. Would it be considered acceptable to have a White History Month for us to celebrate?

[billspiz]

Its a couple of years old...however it holds up..but this from Clarence Page:

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2004

Black History Month was never intended to make people uncomfortable — unless maybe they ought to be.

Nevertheless, despite the best of intentions, a misunderstanding of what the month is all about can lead sometimes to a whopper of an embarrassment.

That’s sort of what happened recently at Connecticut’s Suffield High School when a group of sociology students decided to hang posters around the school to promote April as “White History Month.”

Shortly after they were nabbed, the five students explained to their upset principal, Thomas Jones, that, alas, it was all a misunderstanding, according to The Hartford Courant. The students had been assigned to “explore the effect of rumors.” They decided the posters would be a real nifty way to do that. Needless to say, their experiment triggered a lot of rumors, especially in the school’s small but understandably alarmed black student population.

The principal scolded the white students for their insensitivity and turned them over to a teacher who reportedly specializes in civil rights and cultural sensitivity issues. In this way, the school at large was able to turn the incident into what one school board official called a “teachable moment,” an opportunity to educate both offenders and the offended about differences in how the world looks through each other’s eyes.

Good for them. No long-term harm done, I hope. This particular high school poster flap is the most embarrassing incident related to Black History Month that I can recall since early 2001. That was when then-Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore revoked a proclamation declaring May to be “European Heritage and History Month.” The governor had learned to his deep dismay that the request for the commemoration had come from a white separatist group headed by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Such an embarrassment.

But you don’t need to be a klansman, past or present, to ask “Why don’t we have a White History Month?” I’ve heard that question quite a few times over the years. So have other black people I know. Some of us have come up with a list of appropriate responses to it, such as:

“Because every month is white history month.”
“Because white history has not been lost, stolen or suppressed over the years as much as black history has.”
“Yo’ mama!”
“History is taught so poorly in our schools these days that maybe we should have a white history month.”
“That’s right. I said, ‘Yo’ mama’!!!”

Now, now. We should all try to manage our anger at such moments. Such encounters reveal precisely what Black History Month was intended to remedy: an ignorance about history—black and otherwise. That’s why I oppose so-called “political correctness.” We need more dialogue, not less.

For example, when someone asks “Why is there a Black Entertainment Television network? Wouldn’t all **** break loose if somebody started a White Entertainment Television?,” simply respond, “There is. It is called ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox …”

Such questions can be a departure point for cross-racial, cross-cultural dialogue—a teachable moment, in modern education-speak. After all, when the late black scholar Carter G. Woodson dreamed up what was then called Negro History Week in 1926, he too dreamed of the day when it no longer would be needed.

He imagined a day when every student’s education would include such African-American figures as Crispus Attucks, who died in the Boston Massacre; Matthew A. Henson, who co-discovered the North Pole with Robert Peary, and Benjamin Banneker, the pioneer scientist who helped conduct the first survey of Washington.

It was important, Woodson felt, that African-Americans understand that we had more to our history than our victimization. In fact, there was a much greater all-American story to be told in how mightily many of our ancestors had triumphed despite adversity.

Woodson imagined a day when the contributions of people from various races, ethnicities and, for that matter, genders would be taught fairly and properly. Then Americans might move more swiftly toward a society where such differences would no longer matter.

Unfortunately, history seems to be given such a low priority in today’s schools that I sometimes wonder whether Woodson’s dream day is slipping further away.

As a parent of a 14-year-old, it seems to me that the schools are teaching quite more black history than they did back when I was a kid, but they’re teaching less overall history. The result is a deficit of knowledge about where we all have come from as Americans.

And, as the old saying goes, if you don’t know where you came from, you’re going to have a hard time figuring out where you’re going.

[kmcgraw5]

Good article.

[kmcgraw5]

He made the comment because he was speaking to an audience celebrating Black History Month. The Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division, so his comments were not completely from left field.

I think it is much more reasonable to assume he made the comments because he recognizes our need to talk about race relations than because of some unknown circumstance behind his appointment. That seems like a leap to me.

Maybe he thought it would be cowardly of him to not take advantage of the opportunities he has to be a catalyst for change. I think he could have chosen his words better, but I think his intentions were admirable.

When I first read the article, I was not offended, but inspired. It came as a surprise to me to find how offended many people were.

But that's unfortunate irony of his speech and this whole discussion; we just elected our first black president and he has just been appointed our first black AG. This would have been impossible and unthinkable in 1959 (and probably as recently as 1989). People are offended for this very reason, whether they actually voted for President Obama or not, especially because the majority of those who didn't vote for him, did so because of the ideology he stands for and not merely because he was black. We who do judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, are simply sick and tired of being called racists or having our country characterized as racist, when its clearly not...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Its a couple of years old...however it holds up..but this from Clarence Page:

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2004

Black History Month was never intended to make people uncomfortable — unless maybe they ought to be.

Nevertheless, despite the best of intentions, a misunderstanding of what the month is all about can lead sometimes to a whopper of an embarrassment.

That’s sort of what happened recently at Connecticut’s Suffield High School when a group of sociology students decided to hang posters around the school to promote April as “White History Month.”

Shortly after they were nabbed, the five students explained to their upset principal, Thomas Jones, that, alas, it was all a misunderstanding, according to The Hartford Courant. The students had been assigned to “explore the effect of rumors.” They decided the posters would be a real nifty way to do that. Needless to say, their experiment triggered a lot of rumors, especially in the school’s small but understandably alarmed black student population.

Well, that's all well and good Bill but you didn't really answer my question.

So, the black student population was "understandably alarmed" but no on should even be made uncomfortable about Black History Month. Interesting concept.

The concept that every month is White History Month is absurd at its core and on its face. If there is no celebration then there is no equivalency. If you base a program, a television channel or anything else specifically on the basis of race then you are, by definition, engaging in a form of discrimination and segregation almost to the degree of racism. Now, if one of the networks mentioned in this piece started their broadcast with "Now we're going to tell you about the white news", then he might have had a point.

I would submit that until all things designed to promote one race over another then we will reach a point beyond which we can never move further. Either everyone needs to accept, recognize and celebrate these self-evident differences or they need to be done away with. Either it is perfectly acceptable to have a White History Month, in which we can celebrate the achievements of those people who happened to be white or Black History Month should be abolished. Either BET needs to go away or WET (perhaps a better choice of acronym can be found) should be accepted. Either Affirmative Action needs to go away or it should be abolished. [yes, those are the only two options]

Yes, I fully realize the historical fact of inherently white dominance in this country. I also realize that to not get passed that fact is to engage in retroactive retribution in which those of us who do not ascribe to or condone the actions of our predecessors are to somehow be held responsible and punished for their actions. I don't see how that can possibly be beneficial to overall racial harmony. And keep in mind..those same predecessors who practiced slavery and other forms of racial discrimination are the same people who created the foundations that allowed for us to move forward.

[J.Q. Citizen]

but that's unfortunate irony of his speech and this whole discussion; we just elected our first black president and he has just been appointed our first black ag. This would have been impossible and unthinkable in 1959 (and probably as recently as 1989). People are offended for this very reason, whether they actually voted for president obama or not, especially because the majority of those who didn't vote for him, did so because of the ideology he stands for and not merely because he was black. We who do judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, are simply sick and tired of being called racists or having our country characterized as racist, when its clearly not...

exactly!!!!

[kmcgraw5]

Well, that's all well and good Bill but you didn't really answer my question.

So, the black student population was "understandably alarmed" but no on should even be made uncomfortable about Black History Month. Interesting concept.

The concept that every month is White History Month is absurd at its core and on its face. If there is no celebration then there is no equivalency. If you base a program, a television channel or anything else specifically on the basis of race then you are, by definition, engaging in a form of discrimination and segregation almost to the degree of racism. Now, if one of the networks mentioned in this piece started their broadcast with "Now we're going to tell you about the white news", then he might have had a point.

I would submit that until all things designed to promote one race over another then we will reach a point beyond which we can never move further. Either everyone needs to accept, recognize and celebrate these self-evident differences or they need to be done away with. Either it is perfectly acceptable to have a White History Month, in which we can celebrate the achievements of those people who happened to be white or Black History Month should be abolished. Either BET needs to go away or WET (perhaps a better choice of acronym can be found) should be accepted. Either Affirmative Action needs to go away or it should be abolished. [yes, those are the only two options]

Yes, I fully realize the historical fact of inherently white dominance in this country. I also realize that to not get passed that fact is to engage in retroactive retribution in which those of us who do not ascribe to or condone the actions of our predecessors are to somehow be held responsible and punished for their actions. I don't see how that can possibly be beneficial to overall racial harmony. And keep in mind..those same predecessors who practiced slavery and other forms of racial discrimination are the same people who created the foundations that allowed for us to move forward.

BTW, JQ, I totally agree with you on these points. But, I still think it was a good article... ;)

[billspiz]

JQ...I'm having trouble following...

I don't think Clarence Page stated that every month is white history month as an answer he supports ...I believe he gave that as one of the answers that people reply with that he states is wrong..

I personally don't know if there is a yes/no or black or white (no pun intended)answer to your question...my intent was to provide an article that I had read numerous times living in Chicago that I found relevant to the topic...I respect his journalism..

[kmcgraw5]

For example, when someone asks “Why is there a Black Entertainment Television network? Wouldn’t all **** break loose if somebody started a White Entertainment Television?,” simply respond, “There is. It is called ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox …”

If that's the case, then I do take issue with this part of it (and I think this may be partly to what JQ is alluding), as being in conflict with his prior argument. With as many shows that have people of color on all of these other networks, its a little bit disingenuous to say that these are all essentially white networks. But other than that, its still a good article...

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ...I'm having trouble following...

I don't think Clarence Page stated that every month is white history month as an answer he supports ...I believe he gave that as one of the answers that people reply with that he states is wrong..

I personally don't know if there is a yes/no or black or white (no pun intended)answer to your question...my intent was to provide an article that I had read numerous times living in Chicago that I found relevant to the topic...I respect his journalism..

Okay, first things first. I do agree with Kevin that this was a good article and had some valid points. However, to clarify the confusion, he states

“Why don’t we have a White History Month?” I’ve heard that question quite a few times over the years. So have other black people I know. Some of us have come up with a list of appropriate responses to it, such as:

“Because every month is white history month.”

I would humbly submit that this is an idea in which he believes.

[billspiz]

I would humbly disagree...he took a list of responses from other people and compiled a list...he generalized and used US in reference to blacks...

but this is irrelevant in the overall context of the message..I know its difficult for you to say it was a good article and just move on..

[J.Q. Citizen]

I would humbly disagree...he took a list of responses from other people and compiled a list...he generalized and used US in reference to blacks...

but this is irrelevant in the overall context of the message..I know its difficult for you to say it was a good article and just move on..

Oh, I thought you were maybe looking for feedback on the ideas expressed in the article. I didn't realize that you were discouraging discussion of this particular article. Perhaps whenever that's your intent, you should post a disclaimer as you did with your Roe v Wade comment.

It was a good article.

[J.Q. Citizen]

So, what about the idea that if you don't support the stimulus, it's a slap in the face of African-Americans?

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he was insulted when the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state, which have large black populations, said they might not accept some of the money from the $787 billion stimulus package.

“These four governors represent states that are in the black belt. I was insulted by that,” he said. “All of this was a slap in the face of African-Americans.

Well, if he thought he was insulted then, he should see what I'm thinking about him right now.

[kmcgraw5]

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he was insulted when the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state, which have large black populations, said they might not accept some of the money from the $787 billion stimulus package.

Wow. Someone should tell that to the poor white folk in the hills of W. Va. and N.C. I guess they're not nearly as poor and disenfranchised as the blacks in S.C. Or the native americans on the reservations that don't have casinos yet. Maybe they should all move to S.C. so the blacks there can all feel better about themselves... What an idiot...

[kmcgraw5]

http://www.rogermaynard.com/images/p2008/obamatax.gif



Now applicable to Obama's stimulus plan, as well. But then, I suppose this is racist, too...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Wow. Someone should tell that to the poor white folk in the hills of W. Va. and N.C. I guess they're not nearly as poor and disenfranchised as the blacks in S.C. Or the native americans on the reservations that don't have casinos yet. Maybe they should all move to S.C. so the blacks there can all feel better about themselves... What an idiot...

So long as we have people like this playing the race card every chance they get, I don't believe we will ever get past a certain point in race relations.

[billspiz]

I'm not condoning Clyburn's remarks, but don't preach innocence on the GOP side..its happens there are well...its a problem beyond political affiliation..
Republicans Play the Race Card


By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:32:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg!
E.J. Dionne writes today of how Bush and Republicans have played the race card both with respect to Alberto Gonzales and social security privatization. They want it both ways: No affirmative action, but every minority Republican nominee should get confirmed because otherwise it would be an insult to minorities everywhere.

Whenever a liberal raises concerns over whether a conservative initiative might damage the rights or interests of, say, African Americans or Latinos, that liberal is accused of being "politically correct" and playing the race card -- usually, just to make the sin sound really awful, off "the bottom of the deck." But increasingly, it is conservatives who are using political correctness to sidestep hard issues.

Recent example: Utah's Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch told Senators that "Every Hispanic in America is watching." Example two: Bush on social security:


African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people," Bush said at a White House Conference on Social Security in January. "That needs to be fixed."

Republicans also pulled out the card for Miguel Estrada:

To reject Estrada, said Sen. Charles Grassley, the normally mild-spoken Iowa Republican, "would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere."...Hatch neatly mixed the ideological and the ethnic. If Estrada were rejected, Hatch said, it would close the door to any nominee who was, "number one, Hispanic, number two, Republican, number three, possibly conservative and, number four, may have some ideas of his or her own."

Dionne says the practice dates back to the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas:

The new conservative political correctness actually goes back at least to the battle over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's nomination. When Thomas was fighting charges that he had sexually harassed an employee, he declared his opponents guilty of a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves." Whatever you thought of the mess that surrounded Thomas's nomination, could he have chosen a more racially charged metaphor?

A few noticed the blatent hypocrisy regarding Estrada:

This was too much for House Democratic Caucus Chairman Bob Menendez. "Republicans and Senator Hatch in particular can't have it both ways," Menendez said at the time. "They can't blatantly call for the end of affirmative action by characterizing it as a quota system while, at the same time, demanding that we support all Hispanic nominees simply because they are Hispanic."

[billspiz]

so JQ is right (yes I'm saying that)..."having people like THIS play the race card"...the THIS can be both parties...we can continue to find examples of both and continue this forever...we still have a race issue

[J.Q. Citizen]

so JQ is right (yes I'm saying that)..."having people like THIS play the race card"...the THIS can be both parties...we can continue to find examples of both and continue this forever...we still have a race issue

I agree.

In this case, however, I simply chose the first prominent example that arose following the comment by Holder.

So, what do you think? Should we do away with Affirmative Action? And minimum wage while we're at it?