Obama says US racism 'not cured,' makes point with epithet

[sdanielmcev]

Slightly off topic, but a good primer for those that can't seem to remember history.https://peoplestrusttoronto.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/irish-the-forgotten-white-slaves/

[sdanielmcev]

And for those of us that don't agree with the Stalinists here on TV, (because, of course we are haters because we don't agree with their liberal agenda):http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

[Publicus]

When obama stops inviting Rev Al Sharpton to the White House; maybe he can be taken a bit more seriously when he speaks of racism. This administration has done more to harm race relations than any other in modern history.

Over the last 6 and 1/2 years the most prolific racists in America has been none other than B.H. Obama and Eric Holder ... both racists on steroids...

OTT.

The president is not a racist.

Neither is Eric Holder a racist. He was in fact one of the handful of longest serving Attorneys General despite the fast and furious tea party Republicans in the House.

The marginal right invents and creates this line of pulp fiction as the reactionary Mary Shelley created her godless Dr. Frankenstein to try to distort modernity and scare people away from it.

Prez Obama's approval rating in his 7th year as prez is now above 50% which is indeed rare in a president's seventh year. The president's approval rating went even higher this week on the strength of a 5% increase among whites and his exceeding 90% again among blacks (91%). Prez Obama is thus doing a Reagan and an Eisenhower besides among 2nd term presidents.

Place me among the 37% of all Americans and the 40% of all whites who see racial discrimination as a "Somewhat serious" problem.

Place the marginal right wingers among the 9% of all Americans and the 12% of white Americans who see racial discrimination as a "Not at all serious" problem. Put Clarence Thomas among the 2% of blacks along with Dr. Ben Carson the politically wacko neurosurgeon retired running for Republican president.

It's also revealing that the reliable and credible mainstream pollsters don't waste any resources of time or money on the bogus matter of black racism against whites. That is because the matter is, well, standard marginal right wing extremist gross overstatement.

[Gecko123]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, wella big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

The far out right are among the groups of fahlang who have migrated to Thailand but the rightists angrily and bitterly self-deported from their native country because it had changed so much socially and culturally, to include its politics and government.

These right wing ideological puritan pilgrims have sought out the comfort of a quaint feudal society unaffected and unimpacted by 21st century demographics to include immigration to their country especially. The far out right wingers who remain in their native country are too invested to leave, both personally in respect of family and economically and financially in respect of professional career, but they have found an internet home where they can post among fellow traveller racial dogmatists.

The hard core rightists abroad are extreme and harsh in their hostility to modern developments back home and against the ascendant groups that increasingly dominate their society. So the embittered right wingers are aggressive, loud, forceful, dogged and determined to howl against the new majority and mainstream home front.

Many among these sour right wingers are not uneducated or illiterate. They are simply and plainly strident reactionaries of the first order who seriously and profoundly reject diversity, multi-culturalism, religious tolerance, racial, gender or marriage equality, equal justice under law, the black president -- the whole nine yards. It is in fact a great relief to the reactionary right that they have no woman of either political party to support for president.

A lot of them seem to see themselves as "freedom fighters", using the Internet as a battlefield in a crusade to restore a bygone America when the voice of the white male was the voice of god, women never advanced beyond the Mad Men era, and people of color had no authority over anything beyond a mop.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/torraine-walker/dont-feed-the-race-trolls_1_b_7091716.html

Do you ever stop spreading your hatred? Stereotypes and nothing more. Not even on topic.

I thought Publicus gave a very compelling answer to the question I posed. How do you explain the phenomena described in my post?

Edited July 1, 2015 by Gecko123

[sdanielmcev]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, wella big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

The far out right are among the groups of fahlang who have migrated to Thailand but the rightists angrily and bitterly self-deported from their native country because it had changed so much socially and culturally, to include its politics and government.

These right wing ideological puritan pilgrims have sought out the comfort of a quaint feudal society unaffected and unimpacted by 21st century demographics to include immigration to their country especially. The far out right wingers who remain in their native country are too invested to leave, both personally in respect of family and economically and financially in respect of professional career, but they have found an internet home where they can post among fellow traveller racial dogmatists.

The hard core rightists abroad are extreme and harsh in their hostility to modern developments back home and against the ascendant groups that increasingly dominate their society. So the embittered right wingers are aggressive, loud, forceful, dogged and determined to howl against the new majority and mainstream home front.

Many among these sour right wingers are not uneducated or illiterate. They are simply and plainly strident reactionaries of the first order who seriously and profoundly reject diversity, multi-culturalism, religious tolerance, racial, gender or marriage equality, equal justice under law, the black president -- the whole nine yards. It is in fact a great relief to the reactionary right that they have no woman of either political party to support for president.

A lot of them seem to see themselves as "freedom fighters", using the Internet as a battlefield in a crusade to restore a bygone America when the voice of the white male was the voice of god, women never advanced beyond the Mad Men era, and people of color had no authority over anything beyond a mop.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/torraine-walker/dont-feed-the-race-trolls_1_b_7091716.html

Do you ever stop spreading your hatred? Stereotypes and nothing more. Not even on topic.

I thought Publicus gave a very compelling answer to the question I posed. How do you explain the phenomena described in my post?

I think the article tries to make a mountain out of a molehill. Conversely on the other side of the coin are people like publicus who say anybody that disagrees with them are haters, racists, etc...

See, for me the thing is, I don't go near people that act like the article states. I don't see any of this hidden rage I'd say it is overt. On both far ends of the political spectrum. As per publicus' rant above. Who else here has done the same hateful rant style against against blacks on this thread? None. No one is hiding, that I can see, latent, or overt racism on this thread. But it is hard to tell because if anybody disagrees with a few certain posters the cry of racism, lunatic, hater, what have you fill the thread.

I don't care if someone calls me racist. I'm not. I don't like most of Obamas' policies. I've never met the man, so I have no opinion of him as a person. Does that make me racist? No. But to certain posters, and the author of your article I am. For no other reason than they have no other way to defend what they believe is their utopian dream. Sorry for being long-winded. In conclusion, look for yourself. Do you see anyone on here that said anything racist? Be honest. I see a couple of bigoted liberals. (See above answer to your question.) Hope this helps

[Publicus]

How is ggt's statement racist? I've got lots of black friends back home, and I can't think of one of them that would say that was untrue. I guess your black friends are racists. But, then liberals always have to make up stories to satisfy their personal objectives.

His post was definitely racist.

It's OK to say "nigger" when referring to the word. The OP opened that up, but ggt used "nigger" twice to refer to blacks. He was not referring to the word, he was referring to people.

It's this over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the issue.

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!!

Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive in your opinion, and why?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is! Derogatory comments and conduct toward individuals over a different race.

Take "hate laws" in the US.

Hate laws are applied virtually always against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent.

Hate laws are applied virtually never against conduct of individuals of non-European decent against people of European decent.

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotion out of the picture, and really look!!!

Can't edit this now, so had to rewrite it.

I'm tired of the rhetoric. I've lived too long and have seen too much to have most people explain their short-sighted notions of racism to me.

One problem is the over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the racism issue. Example:

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!! Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive to you in your opinion?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is, may not be a racist per se, but lacks the intelligence and human compassion to truly understand the nature of the beast, i.e., you drank the Kool-Aid passed down by your family and predominate culture, and probably at a young age.

Racism's base is grounded in the derogatory behavior and conduct toward individuals of a different race. Pure and simple. If I'm Japanese and refer to non-Japanese as “Gai-jin”, that's racist; if I'm Hawaiian, and refer to individuals of European decent as “Haole”, that's racist; if I'm a South Carolina man and refer to my black neighbor as “Nigger”, that's racist; if a Mexican refers to a neighbor of European decent as 'Gringo', that's racist; if a Thai refers of individuals of Middle Eastern or Indian decent as 'Kaek', that's racist. If deployed military refer to Arabs as 'Sand-Niggers', that's racist. And every pejorative that we personally are called by others not of our race, is racist too. To you 'get it'. Can you understand?

So why can't the majority of individuals in the world see this? Short answer: ethnocentrism, which is quintessentially racist.

But 'racism' in the liberal West is only in the realm of people of European decent against people of non-European decent. Take "hate laws" in the West:

Hate laws are applied virtually universally in Western countries against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent; Never against conduct of people of non-European decent against individuals of European decent. Why is that?

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotions out of the picture, and really look!!! Then ask yourself: why is this agenda to fragment and splinter the racial divide in the US, let alone other countries around the world, almost a universal political agenda, especially in the West?

It's this over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the issue.

There are two posts quoted above that are ultimate instances of over analysis and of over analyses.

The simple response is that we're not talking about "hate laws" as do the posts. The issue is instead "hate crimes" enforced by law and the courts of justice. This is because there are no "hate laws," but there are instead "hate crimes" that are addressed in the laws.

The post simply and strangely omits that hate crimes laws in the United States are based in the paradigmatic historic hate crimes. We have hate crimes because there are historically identified victims, principally blacks, gays, Jews as well as some other members of identifiable historically oppressed groups, such as native Americans among others. Blacks, gays, Jews have been and are historic targets of a persistent and recurring violent criminality due to their being identified by the hate crime criminals as objects of hate per se. They are therefore oppressed groups, i.e., groups in society identified as in special need of the protection of the laws.

Given US history as we unmistakably know it, no number of racially motivated assaults on whites by blacks, or on Christians by Jews in the US, or by gays against straights, could generate the same intuitive or specifically documented appeals that have produced the existing hate crimes laws. Hate crimes laws address specifically the identified social status or vulnerability of the specifically targeted groups that always have been targeted by perps of hate crimes throughout US history.

These are primarily blacks, gays, Jews, though not exclusively.

The concocted over analysis of the two quoted posts comes from those who reject this reality or who simply fail to recognize its obvious and apparent nature and character. After all, virtually all 50 states and the US Government have hate crimes laws on the books and SCOTUS since more than 20 years ago has upheld their constitutionality.

Yet the fringe on the right continue to carry on in their reactionary ideological eccentricities and, moreover, they claim they do it on the basis of reason and rationality.

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

My educated guess is the 5% of those blacks that don't believe racial discrimination is "not too serious" or "not at all serious" are members of the Republican party.

The rest of them are Obama Democrats.

Edited July 1, 2015 by chuckd

[Pakboong]

If I remember correctly, the 13th amendment only guarantees equal treatment before the law. The rest is pretty much up to us to work out on our own.

[chuckd]

If I remember correctly, the 13th amendment only guarantees equal treatment before the law. The rest is pretty much up to us to work out on our own.

The 14th amendment guarantees equal treatment.

The 13th amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude.

[Publicus]

If I remember correctly, the 13th amendment only guarantees equal treatment before the law. The rest is pretty much up to us to work out on our own.

The 14th amendment guarantees equal treatment.

The 13th amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude.

Jim Crow law.

Plessy v Ferguson, 1896 SCOTUS wrong decision against black Americans.

Blacks have been a protected class of the society since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and more recently, by hate crimes laws in virtually all 50 states and by the federal government. The hate crime laws have been upheld by SCOTUS since 1993.

SCOTUS itself hadn't always been right however, as in Plessy v Ferguson....

By a 7-1 vote, the Court said that a state law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between the two races did not conflict with the 13th Amendment forbidding involuntary servitude, nor did it tend to reestablish such a condition.

The Court avoided discussion of the protection granted by the clause in the 14th Amendment that forbids the states to make laws depriving citizens of their “privileges or immunities,” but instead cited such laws in other states as a “reasonable” exercise of their authority under the police power.

The lone dissenter, Kentuckian and former slave owner Justice John Marshall Harlan,denied that a state legislature could differentiate on the basis of race with regard to civil rights. “The white race deems itself to be the dominant race” but the Constitution recognizes “no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.” The Court’s majority opinion, he pointed out, gave power to the states “to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens.”

Following the Plessy decision, restrictive state legislation based on race continued and expanded steadily, and its reasoning was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954.

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson

That's under the police power.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Publicus

[sdanielmcev]

How is ggt's statement racist? I've got lots of black friends back home, and I can't think of one of them that would say that was untrue. I guess your black friends are racists. But, then liberals always have to make up stories to satisfy their personal objectives.

His post was definitely racist.

It's OK to say "nigger" when referring to the word. The OP opened that up, but ggt used "nigger" twice to refer to blacks. He was not referring to the word, he was referring to people.

It's this over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the issue.

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!!

Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive in your opinion, and why?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is! Derogatory comments and conduct toward individuals over a different race.

Take "hate laws" in the US.

Hate laws are applied virtually always against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent.

Hate laws are applied virtually never against conduct of individuals of non-European decent against people of European decent.

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotion out of the picture, and really look!!!

Can't edit this now, so had to rewrite it.

I'm tired of the rhetoric. I've lived too long and have seen too much to have most people explain their short-sighted notions of racism to me.

One problem is the over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the racism issue. Example:

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!! Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive to you in your opinion?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is, may not be a racist per se, but lacks the intelligence and human compassion to truly understand the nature of the beast, i.e., you drank the Kool-Aid passed down by your family and predominate culture, and probably at a young age.

Racism's base is grounded in the derogatory behavior and conduct toward individuals of a different race. Pure and simple. If I'm Japanese and refer to non-Japanese as Gai-jin, that's racist; if I'm Hawaiian, and refer to individuals of European decent as Haole, that's racist; if I'm a South Carolina man and refer to my black neighbor as Nigger, that's racist; if a Mexican refers to a neighbor of European decent as 'Gringo', that's racist; if a Thai refers of individuals of Middle Eastern or Indian decent as 'Kaek', that's racist. If deployed military refer to Arabs as 'Sand-Niggers', that's racist. And every pejorative that we personally are called by others not of our race, is racist too. To you 'get it'. Can you understand?

So why can't the majority of individuals in the world see this? Short answer: ethnocentrism, which is quintessentially racist.

But 'racism' in the liberal West is only in the realm of people of European decent against people of non-European decent. Take "hate laws" in the West:

Hate laws are applied virtually universally in Western countries against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent; Never against conduct of people of non-European decent against individuals of European decent. Why is that?

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotions out of the picture, and really look!!! Then ask yourself: why is this agenda to fragment and splinter the racial divide in the US, let alone other countries around the world, almost a universal political agenda, especially in the West?

It's this over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the issue.

There are two posts quoted above that are ultimate instances of over analysis and of over analyses.

The simple response is that we're not talking about "hate laws" as do the posts. The issue is instead "hate crimes" enforced by law and the courts of justice. This is because there are no "hate laws," but there are instead "hate crimes" that are addressed in the laws.

The post simply and strangely omits that hate crimes laws in the United States are based in the paradigmatic historic hate crimes. We have hate crimes because there are historically identified victims, principally blacks, gays, Jews as well as some other members of identifiable historically oppressed groups, such as native Americans among others. Blacks, gays, Jews have been and are historic targets of a persistent and recurring violent criminality due to their being identified by the hate crime criminals as objects of hate per se. They are therefore oppressed groups, i.e., groups in society identified as in special need of the protection of the laws.

Given US history as we unmistakably know it, no number of racially motivated assaults on whites by blacks, or on Christians by Jews in the US, or by gays against straights, could generate the same intuitive or specifically documented appeals that have produced the existing hate crimes laws. Hate crimes laws address specifically the identified social status or vulnerability of the specifically targeted groups that always have been targeted by perps of hate crimes throughout US history.

These are primarily blacks, gays, Jews, though not exclusively.

The concocted over analysis of the two quoted posts comes from those who reject this reality or who simply fail to recognize its obvious and apparent nature and character. After all, virtually all 50 states and the US Government have hate crimes laws on the books and SCOTUS since more than 20 years ago has upheld their constitutionality.

Yet the fringe on the right continue to carry on in their reactionary ideological eccentricities and, moreover, they claim they do it on the basis of reason and rationality.

Yes. The fringe. That .01%. There is a sale on tin foil hats.

Prosecution by hate crime is no more than social engineering, and solves nothing. Any violent crime is a hate crime. Your argument fails because, by omission, you foster an idea that the reverse cannot be true. If a gay kills a black, is that not hate? If a Jew kills a gay, is that not hate? Yet by your hypothesis, it cannot be. It is a bad law.

[Publicus]

You compulsively attribute to me things I never said.

And you fail to recognize what I did say.

I did say in my post you quote, that, Given US history as we unmistakably know it, no number of racially motivated assaults on whites by blacks, or on Christians by Jews in the US, or by gays against straights, could generate the same intuitive or specifically documented appeals that have produced the existing hate crimes laws.

Hate crimes laws protect everyone. The state and federal hate crimes laws were written however due to hate crimes throughout US history against blacks, gays, Jews.

I'd suggest you read the following but first you'd have to go to Oz to see the Wizzard to get yourself a brain....

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245

Federally Protected Activities

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;

a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;

a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/org/inclusive-community/federallaws.xhtml

Edited July 1, 2015 by Publicus