Posted on 12/09/2009 3:33:51 AM PST by Zakeet
According to allies of President Obama, all opposition to Obama's policies is driven by racism. "We think all of it is!" shouts Gwen Dawkins, a Democratic "activist" from Michigan. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) explains that "As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is." Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) agrees, stating that "There's a very angry, small group of folks that just didn't like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency. With some, I think it is [about race]." As Jimmy Carter famously stated, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."
Apparently, racism must be spreading like wildfire. According to a Gallup poll released this week, only 47 percent of Americans now approve of President Obama's job performance. Only 42 percent of independents approve. In the white community, according to a Nov. 24 Gallup poll, his approval rating has slipped from 61 percent in January to 39 percent. In the black community, his support has actually increased, from 90 percent to 91 percent.
The fact is that it isn't the racism of the white community that explains President Obama's plummeting job approval -- the skyrocketing deficit, unemployment rate and inflation take care of that.
It's the racism of the black community that explains his approval rating's continued buoyancy.
How can blacks truly approve of Obama more highly than they did when he was elected? The black unemployment rate is 15.6 percent today, as opposed to 11.9 percent in December 2008, over 50 percent higher than the white unemployment rate. There is no rhyme or reason to the continued support for a man who has driven the economy off the rails.
But there is racism.
President Obama fulfills the three requirements to receive the approval of the black community: he is black; he is not currently having sex with a white woman; and he is liberal. And he receives the lifelong and unwavering loyalty of the black community for it.
By contrast, the black community hates another prominent half-black man. This half-black man happens to be a political independent who has sex with white women. His name is Tiger Woods.
What part of the typical black experience has Obama shared? Coldwater flat? Gangs at his high school? Epithets on the street (in Hawaii?) Not enough to eat? Ghetto teachers who expect no performance because of color? Violence on the street at his home, and drugs used and sold openly? Poverty and despair? Has he ever had to rise at 4am to walk to the bus just to keep a job? Black people in this country work twice as hard as us if they’re going to succeed; that is unless they’re handed everything by rich white grandparents and foreigners of dubious intent.
There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency.
Well DUH!
Ya think?
There was a group of black folks who didn’t like it when GW was president. Did that mean THEY were racist?!
I was and still am VERY ANGRY that BHO is president and it does not have a damned thing to do with the color of his skin. It has more to do with his EVIL BLACK HEART and plans to destroy this country which he is well on his way in accomplishing!
There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency.
Well DUH!
Ya think?
There was a group of black folks who didn’t like it when GW was president. Did that mean THEY were racist?!
I was and still am VERY ANGRY that BHO is president and it does not have a damned thing to do with the color of his skin. It has more to do with his EVIL BLACK HEART and plans to destroy this country which he is well on his way in accomplishing!
A heartfelt Amen to every word you posted.
Except that I don’t believe that they really think we’re responsible for their plight or that we are to blame for our ancestors, I thin k they really know the truth, but will never let it go because it’s too convenient an excuse for their failures and too good a peg for all their blame-casting. If we gave them everything we have tomorrow and all the power, we’d all just be living in another Haiti or at best another Detroit within a few years. Look at Zimbabwe and South Africa-it took no time at all. The socialist version of “equality” —take everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
This is really easy: Obamarx’s “social justice” programs (health care, cap and trade, and all economic plans) are a simply about transfers of wealth aka “REPARATIONS”.
Wealth isn’t even the primary target, or they would do more to create their own(God knows they have enough special opportunities for doing so). Wealth is merely the means to power, and this app 12% of the population will never be satisfied with fair representation, they want 100% of the power to enact “payback” upon whitey. It would be better for all if they raised their own standards, instead of lowering everyone else’s, but if they could, they wouldn’t, because that would mean forgoing the vengeance.
Yes, but blacks are the “useful idiots” in this game, because most of them could care less about communism or any other ism per se, it’s about getting back at whites.
I'll never understand how the allegedly most religious, most Biblically-literalist ethnic group in America can worship like right-wing snake-handling green-toothed hillbillies and then turn around and vote like wealthy northeastern secular humanists.
I don’t remember saying they care about Communism. The blacks are given enough free stuff to buy their votes. The Reds are then able to ram their crap down our throats.
Whites get angry because of the freebies. Blacks get angry because a lot of whites want that to stop. Whites get more angry. Before long we will have a shooting war. The Reds win. Checkmate.
I apologize for my frustration, but for years I literally believed that most American Blacks--particularly those from the South--were merely "rednecks of color" and that eventually the libs would take a position that they would balk at and finally draw a line in the sand. But there is no line anywhere, on any issue. And I don't understand it.
Most Black conservatives seem to be well-educated, secular, and economically-oriented. The Black counterparts of Ma and Pa Kettle, otoh, are across the board screaming lefties, and this simply doesn't make any sense to me.
Listen--I'm white trash. I grew up dirt poor, with no indoor bathroom. I know what it's like to live on the edge of the abyss. Lots of poor white folks to this day live on teh abyss. But for some reason, while they might be ripe for socialism as an economic doctrine, poor whites still refuse to go along with the Left's social/moral agenda while poor Blacks seem to be all for it.
Is there any enlightenment you can give me on this topic?
Please read my post #51.
Alan Keyes was my first vote for a Black Presidential candidate. Didn’t vote for the last idiot in the primary though I voted for him in both general elections.
I don’t care what race he is, what nationality he is, or if he even HAS a birth certificate. I just flat-a$$ hate the MF and every one who even flirts with the idea of approving of him for ANY reason. The SOB is almost as disgraceful as the mindless scum who cast enough votes to elect him.
I’m Afro-West Indian (With a chunk of Asian Indian and a bit of Sephardic Jew). Our Ma and Pa Kettles break Republican more often than our African American counterparts. But I grew up in a mainly AA neighborhood so I can probably give you some insight.
I think during the Southern Strategy, we (As in conservatives, not blacks) lost a lot of blacks that would normally vote GOP. Ever since then, the GOP was unfairly labelled as the party of the “racists” rather than the party for economic liberty. Jesse Hijackson and other race baiting commie preachers took advantage of the alienation from the GOP during the Southern strategy, and now we have the Tan Dog (coined by yours truely) Dems we see today. That’s the best I could really think of.
As I said, I've always been poor and I have poor relatives. There are lots of poor white folks down here in the rural South. The only thing is, the other stuff is still important to us. Why isn't it just as important to Blacks who supposedly share the same religion?
See my sig.
So when many do vote, they vote based on a perception of the parties and quite frankly, blacks view Republicans a people who are antagonistic toward blacks and that perception is powerful. That is why you have many black people who probably share easily 90% of the views of conservatives, yet vote Democrat.
As much as folks cite the history of the two parties with regard to slavery and Jim Crow, it is clear that the Democrats used to be the conservative party decades ago and it has historically been white CONSERVATIVES who have been the most openly adversarial toward blacks. A member of the KKK today or any white racist would be enormously more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat and no amount of references to Robert Byrd will change this fact. Republicans are far more likely to wave the Confederate flag and the truth is that most blacks are uncomfortable with that flag in a way that that, to a lesser extent, Jews are uncomfortable with the Swastika.
Go to any conservative message board like this one, and black bashing is a quite popular (this thread is an example). You are going to read far more negative generalizations about blacks from Freepers and other white conservatives than you will read from non-conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to embrace the notion of genetic intellectual inferiority of blacks which in essence places blacks at closer to animals than any other group of people. Conservatives are more likely to attribute any black success story to Affirmative Action when there is no concrete evidence of it. I have read folks on this site claim that Michael Steele is chairman only because he is black.
James Manning has urged whites to rise and riot in black neighborhoods. The majority of Freepers either applauded this or had no criticism of his statement. He is seen as a positive figure here. Rush Limbaugh injected race into sports commentary when it was totally unnecessary. You mention “rednecks”. What poor blacks and so called “rednecks” share is overridden by the fact that historically, so called “rednecks” (who tend to be conservative) have often shown antagonism toward blacks. Anti-government militias tend overwhelmingly to be composed of conservative whites and such militias have shared platforms with hate groups.
The Conservative Citizens Council an anti-black organization. Their name is self-explanatory. An Coulter feels that Halle Berry’s absent father represents black people. Pat Buchanon (former Republican Presidential candidate) writes “A Brief for Whitey” and tells a young black woman on national television to “shut up”. We can to on.
Who wants to attempt to bond with a group that routinely espouses negativity about you? It’s not so much about policy, but rather attitude.
This country was founded by white Christian men with rifles.
I appreciate the question. What you must realize is that overwhelming support for liberals has much less to do with policy than it does with perception. Often times, there whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House makes little difference in a person’s personal life. Generally, a poor person is no less likely to be poor under a Republic President because the President has little to do the steps that individual does to improve his or her own life. So it’s not like there is a major discernable difference no matter who is in office. That is one reason that more than half of blacks tend to not vote at all.
As I said, having lived the first twenty five years of my life without an indoor bathroom and with an old gin pipe for a chimney (how many people here even know what a gin pipe is?), in absolutely stereotypical white trash poverty (like all my relatives), I know all about this. Some of the most miserable days of my life were during the early years of the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Of course, Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it. It was simply being poor. Of course, I didn't have to worry about a government plotting to jack up our electric bill so high we couldn't afford to pay for it or cutting seniors' Social Security or euthenasing them. But life was hard. But at the same time, I voted for Ronald Reagan every time he ran (my very first vote was for Reagan in the 1976 Republican primary). I was a militant Republican and other than the social Darwinism thing (which I'm still no fan of), a militant conservative. And so were all my poor relatives, having descended from one of those families who fought for the Union in the Civil War.
My reaction to this part of your answer, while understanding it, is that being poor didn't make me a Democrat and I don't understand how poverty alone determines one's political affiliation.
So when many do vote, they vote based on a perception of the parties and quite frankly, blacks view Republicans a people who are antagonistic toward blacks and that perception is powerful. That is why you have many black people who probably share easily 90% of the views of conservatives, yet vote Democrat.
I used to believe that "many black people . . . probably share 90% of the views of conservatives" but it is this very belief that I now question. If this were so, would Black voters not have "drawn a line in the sand" somewhere amongst all this abortion/homosexuality/euthanasia talk? But no line has been drawn and "Black spokesmen" have often loudly aligned themselves with these forces, and those who have not certainly remain part of the Grand Coalition of the Left. So really, are most Blacks conservative? Are most Black chr*stians Fundamentalists (a term that has been turned from a theological term describing Biblical inerrancy to an ethno-cultural term for "racist rednecks")? After all, Martin Luther King Jr. was a theological liberal. Are any Black ministers even orthodox anymore, or is Black chr*stianity merely People's Temple writ large?
It is Black religiosity that confounds me most. How can one believe in G-d and support homosexuality or euthanasia? My impression is that one weakness of the Black church is that it split before the proto-Fundamentalist movement of the late nineteenth century and thus never developed the concept of a "millennium" or a literal messianic kingdom. Instead this miserable world is left to man's secularist schemes for betterment, and on top of that, if you do a lot of secular "good" you get to spend an eternity in Heaven as a disembodied spirit as a reward. (Confession time: quite the opposite of classical chr*stianity, I regard supernatural "earthly messianism" not as the source of Communism but its antidote).
Short question: is the theology of the Black church nowadays entirely secular "liberation theology?"
As much as folks cite the history of the two parties with regard to slavery and Jim Crow, it is clear that the Democrats used to be the conservative party decades ago and it has historically been white CONSERVATIVES who have been the most openly adversarial toward blacks. A member of the KKK today or any white racist would be enormously more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat and no amount of references to Robert Byrd will change this fact.
Here I agree with you. While I do not share all the views of the early Republicans I am very aware that the historical ideology of the Republican party, like that of its Whig and Federalist forebears, is the Hamiltonian "loose constructionist" and nationalist position. Unfortunately, most conservatives have wholly embraced the Jeffersonian/strict constructionist/state sovereignty/"compact theory" position which is actually the traditional position of the Democrat party. As an old Civil War Republican I often find myself arguing with Jeffersonian Hamilton-bashers on this forum (which you can see for yourself if you want to devote some time to following my posts). I believe one reason for this is that the Republican party in the South is now made up of old unreconstructed Jeffersonian Dixiecrats who only came in during the Goldwater campaign. I am one of the few Southern Republicans whose Republicanism goes back to the beginning and predates the Dixiecrat takeover.
One cannot but wonder whom Charles Sumner or Thaddeus Stevens would consider a "RINO!"
Republicans are far more likely to wave the Confederate flag and the truth is that most blacks are uncomfortable with that flag in a way that that, to a lesser extent, Jews are uncomfortable with the Swastika.
As one whose ancestors fought against that flag (and they were Southerners, which made it much braver position than someone in Massachusetts), I can understand this. HOWEVER--what you must understand, and perhaps have never thought of before, is that the "unhyphenated" American white underclass is the one and only segment of the population that has no historical memory of having immigrated from somewhere else. We've just "always been here" (which is why we identify ourselves as "just plain Americans"). Everyone else is either "indigenous" (the "Native Americans") or else immigrants who brought with them a strong sense of identity with their mother countries. Even African slaves know they came originally from Africa and have a "Pan-African flag." Alone in American culture, the "redneck" has only one flag. Everyone else has two--the American flag, and the flag of the ancestral motherland. "Rednecks" don't even have a memory of being from somewhere else! We know we're not "indigenous" (indeed, we are blamed for the "genocide of the indigenous populations"). Yet we're not immigrants either; instead, we're "nativists" who oppress and terrorize immigrants as much as we did the "natives." What kind of situation is that to be in? Neither indigenous nor immigrant but the oppressor of both?
My ancestors were not Confederates, and I understand that many Confederate flag wavers identify with the principals of the Confederacy. However, I myself feel the need to join the entire rest of the American population by having my own ethnic flag and having a "motherland" somewhere across the water that my ancestors came from. (I honestly believe that if C.S. Lewis didn't have American "rednecks," or at least Anglo-Saxons, in mind as the models of his "Telmarines," he might as well have!) Personally, I deal with this in two ways: primarily as a Noachide and identifier with Israel, but also, secondarily, as an advocate of English independence from the United Kingdom. Like the Irish, the English cover the world. Unlike the Irish, though, the English have no ancestral motherland; instead they become "100% Americans/Australians/Canadians/etc." (in the UK itself they become "100% British" while the Scots and Welsh become ever more nationalistic). But I realize this is a pipe dream.
At any rate, I believe one reason for the Confederate flag is for poor Southern whites to have an ethno-cultural flag of their own, just as all other American populations groups have. I also believe (and this may strike you as especially wacky) that the liberal hostility to the Confederate flag would be transferred to any flag whatsoever poor whites adopted--even one invented on the spot with no negative connotations whatsoever. In fact, I believe that liberal multiculturalism requires one people who are stateless, non-ethnic abstractions in order to make everyone else's "beauty" shine forth. And I am not ashamed nor do I feel guilty for resenting this.
Go to any conservative message board like this one, and black bashing is a quite popular (this thread is an example). You are going to read far more negative generalizations about blacks from Freepers and other white conservatives than you will read from non-conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to embrace the notion of genetic intellectual inferiority of blacks which in essence places blacks at closer to animals than any other group of people. Conservatives are more likely to attribute any black success story to Affirmative Action when there is no concrete evidence of it. I have read folks on this site claim that Michael Steele is chairman only because he is black.
Here I agree with you 100%, and it might interest you to note that I have always thought it was a mistake to turn the crusades against welfare, affirmative action, and even busing into essential planks of the conservative platform. Why is it that atheist Randians are members in good standing of the conservative coalition, on the basis of "agreeing to disagree," but religious Blacks cannot be because of the above three issues? (Please note that I am much more in favor of the original affirmative action which was exclusively for the people who had been enslaved rather than automatically benefiting everyone who isn't a white heterosexual chr*stian male; and note also that the Black leadership have sold out on this issue.)
That being said, I would say--and this is not a defense--that many of such negative remarks are emotional outbursts and expressions of deeply and long-buried resentment. I would also point out one other thing that you seem not to have noticed: liberals are absolutely cruel and merciless to poor whites. They claim to love "the common man," yet they regard America's poor whites exactly as British imperialists once regarded "savage tribes from the interior." They claim to have compassion for the poor and sick and unisured, yet they regard the poverty of poor whites as an occasion of humor. And have you forgotten that when one of the Democrat candidates one year said that he wanted to appeal poor whites with Confederate flag stickers on their pickups who were just as in need of medical insurance as anyone else he was taken to the woodshed? Honestly, would liberals rather that poor whites not vote at all? Or maybe, if they really and truly believe we're the only thing in the world standing between them and their secular "heaven on earth" they'll actually try to kill us all one day? Wouldn't that be justified by perfection?
There is something else you must consider: these same liberal politicians who laugh at the poverty and ignorance of poor whites seem to regard poor inner city Blacks (and even rural Southern Blacks) as honorary left with intellectuals with IQ's well over five thousand. They are airbrushed free of any and all imperfection--basically dehumanized and turned into icons, cardboard cutout saints. And I must confess my own resentment at this radical difference in attitude towards people whom I (whatever other conservatives may believe) regard as being no different than myself.
All that being said, I readily acknowledge that many conservatives can be terribly thick-headed. Look at it for just a minute: who in American history comes closest to the model of today's hyper-chr*stian "theocratic" right wing extremist abortion clinic bomber? Why, John Brown! Yet many conservatives insist on regarding him as an arch-villain, the ancestral spirit of Ted Kennedy, and call him insane (which might have been true for all I know) because they insist on identifying him with today's Left Wing. And of course the liberals are every bit as hypocritical in the other direction, excusing John Brown because they apparently think he was an early example of a secular humanist revolutionary. Another example of this conservative (or at least neo-confederate) thick-headedness may be seen in their attitude towards the one group in the world that is treated exactly as they are in the States: Ulster Protestants (the Orange Orders, etc.). The situation of the two groups is practically identical, yet the "Southern nationalists" have decided to cast all their eggs into the "Celtic identity" basket and therefore they are allied with the ultra-leftist Celtic groups in the UK and Europe. Is this not self-defeating hypocrisy?
James Manning has urged whites to rise and riot in black neighborhoods. The majority of Freepers either applauded this or had no criticism of his statement. He is seen as a positive figure here.
Rev. Manning is a strange figure with an even stranger theology. However, lots of us po' crackers would like our turn to riot somewhere.
Rush Limbaugh injected race into sports commentary when it was totally unnecessary.
Not knowing what you're talking about (and not being that enamored of sports) I'll take your word for it. However, liberals and Blacks certainly have "injected race" in plenty of situations where it was never needed. Neither excuses the other, of course.
You mention “rednecks”. What poor blacks and so called “rednecks” share is overridden by the fact that historically, so called “rednecks” (who tend to be conservative) have often shown antagonism toward blacks.
I am well aware of this fact. I am also all-too-well aware of the fact that much of this antagonism has nothing whatsoever to do with Black political alliances but is based on old-fashioned unreconstructed racism. Yes, it still exists, and one shouldn't be labeled a "liberal" for saying so, though this doesn't excuse the Black community's alliance with G-dlessness (nothing excuses an alliance with G-dlessness--absolutely nothing). I am painfully aware of this phenomenon, just as I am painfully aware of traditional Black hostility to "crackers" and "patter rollers" (a prejudice actually inculcated by Ole Massa for his own purposes). But when are we going to cut the "you started it" routine and actually get down to talking about this stuff? When??? As Jim Goad (author of The Redneck Manifesto) has pointed out, poor Blacks and poor whites have never been natural enemies--it just seems that way! In fact, there is something terribly wrong with our whole political spectrum in which each side is made up of an alliance of poor religious people and intellectuals. Should not the poor religious people be in one group and the intellectuals in the other? Furthermore, as an old rasslin' fan I must confess to you that the eternal, never-ending hatred between poor Blacks and poor whites has about it the smell of managed conflict--"kayfabe," as the old carnie wrestlers called it. No, I'm not talking about an International Master Conspiracy as the anti-Semites and Birchites understand it. But people in power will do whatever they can to keep that power, and it seems to me that this antipathy between two peoples more similar to each other than any other two peoples on earth cannot but be benefiting someone (probably several "someones").
Anti-government militias tend overwhelmingly to be composed of conservative whites and such militias have shared platforms with hate groups.
So then is the New Black Panther Party or the Black Liberation Army "pro-government?" What's the difference other than "we can't let those bastards take over?"
The Conservative Citizens Council an anti-black organization. Their name is self-explanatory.
I know about the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor to the old "White Citizens' Councils." They are also fanatically anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. Maybe they will convert to islam and become "politically correct?"
An Coulter feels that Halle Berry’s absent father represents black people. Pat Buchanon (former Republican Presidential candidate) writes “A Brief for Whitey” and tells a young black woman on national television to “shut up”. We can to on.
Ironically, were it not for his anti-Semitism (and concomitant anti-bank ideology), Pat Buchanan would be a Hamiltonian breath of fresh air in an otherwise Jeffersonian desert. Unfortunately the man is a Nazi.
Otherwise, as you surely know, all the behavior you mention is mirrored on the other side as well.
Who wants to attempt to bond with a group that routinely espouses negativity about you? It’s not so much about policy, but rather attitude.
I'm not asking anyone to bond with anyone. No Black person has to like me or any other poor cracker, though I wish they did. My point is that Blacks are now politically allied with G-dless abominations. The moral failings of whites or conservatives is no excuse for turning against G-d A-mighty. All I am asking for is for a line to be drawn in the sand. It has not been. Instead the organized Black community either loudly endorses, or else silently accepts, all these abominations. Anyone who turns against G-d deserves what the Talmud describes as "burning in hot excrement." You want to dislike me? Be my guest. But why take your anger at me out on G-d A-mighty?
Every single human being has certain duties. For all the manifold and well-known failures of American (and very much Southern) whites, I have no patience or sympathy or understanding for people who make open alliance with the enemies of G-d. I don't care how poor, oppressed, or whatever one is, the enemy of G-d of all nations and ethnic groups is the lowest form of humanity (did you know that according to Noachide law one who hears another person, G-d forbid, blaspheme G-d's Holy Name in the presence of three other people, has the right to kill that person on the spot, without waiting for the niceties of "the law?").
I cannot help but suspect that religious Blacks are consciously and intentionally exempted from the opposition and opprobrium that faces religious whites. How would Blacks feel if they had to confront militant "gays" throwing condoms at them in their religious services? But I don't think this will ever happen.
Yes, I confess that I am only human, and deep inside I would love to see some cracks develop in the "Grand Alliance of the Oppressed," but this is not going to happen--not only because of the level of commitment across that alliance, but also because of the very things in the conservative community that you have pointed out.
G-d help us. Otherwise we're doomed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.