Posted on 12/09/2009 3:33:51 AM PST by Zakeet
Appalachia is very economically liberal. I don’t know where you’ve been for the past few years.
Appalachia is very economically liberal. I don’t know where you’ve been for the past few years.
All well and good. But why are liberals so hostile to what should be a major constituency?
Well, we seem to have heard the blacks doing all the whining for about forever as long as I am alive, so what really must happen if you are accurate is that whitey needs to get in their adversaries’ faces, vent, and tell them to STFU and GROW UP.
I dont want to hear about slavery from anyone who hasnt been an actual slave, and they dont exist anymore. I dont go around throwing the Holocaust in peoples’ faces, nor did I live through it. (And sadly, it will become as distant a memroy as Pearl Harbor, as less and less survivors remain).
But if we’re going to get “past it”, then “victims” need to stop bringing up ancient history, especially since the people they are bringing it up to are NOT the perpetrators of their complaints, nor of their antagonism.
I beg to differ, but Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head with the NFL. The NFL’s always looking for ways to pander to the black community. A running, athletic, exciting quarterback is more likely to sell jerseys and Phatheads to a market that spends more money on celebrity endorsements than most other ethnic groups.
Your ideas on conservatism do seem sheltered, I’m sorry to say. The Democratic party wouldn’t have found any favor with any of today’s or yesterday’s conservatives. Conservatism as we define it here on FR are a unique mesh of socially and fiscally conservative pragmatic war hawks. I don’t know what you think of conservatism, but your idea of conservatism isn’t what it is. It’s a philosophy based on equal opportunity without equal outcome.
As much as we bash modern black culture and it’s rampant amoral anti-intellectualism, the mainstream view on this board is that anybody anywhere can raise themselves from any level whatsoever. We simply just dislike modern black culture because it teaches generations of hard working youths how to keep themselves dumb and hoping for other people to support them.
I can also explain some of the racism on this board. A while ago, stormfront.org targeted this board to try to rile up social conservatives on this board. Much like the stormfronters, we hate the anti-intellectualism and crab in a pot mentality of black America. Unlike the stormfronters, we believe anybody, anywhere and anyhow can succeed, given enough hard work. For us not to believe so would be to tell the Democrats and other liberals that they’re right. They’ll probably stalk me and try to harass me, but in the end, it’s a messageboard filled with ignorant, sheltered, functionally literate intellectual infants. Screw ‘em.
Re: Michael Steele:
Most everybody on this site wanted Ken Blackwell, another black man, to be the GOP leader. We hated Steele from day one and preferred Blackwell, not because of color, but because Steele seemed weak willed and couldn’t rally the GOP base. Blackwell could. A few skeptics thought Blackwell was an AA case, but everybody here thought he would be the guy that would right the ship based on his steadfast views.
Racism and conservatism are not compatible. Conservatism believes that anybody, anywhere, and anytime, if they work hard enough, can become self sufficient. Racism teaches that people are different from birth. If people are disadvantaged from birth, then there’s no reason why they should work hard and rise to the top and it would be cruel to let them try to do something that’s beyond their talent. Actually, many racists that are on the Democratic party’s side do believe that about blacks and other minorities and pander towards them for that VERY same reason. They think we’re idiots that need to be led around like a child or a severely intellectually disabled person. I say otherwise.
Because liberals think they’re better than everybody else. Why do you think they’re so damn patronizing towards blacks?
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always get Paul's vote. Simple as that.
I won't get into all the religious thing, but suffice it to say, these blacks sure ain't the American blacks of my youth by ANY stretch of the imagination when it comes to religion.
Nam Vet
Such as?
A running, athletic, exciting quarterback is more likely to sell jerseys and Phatheads to a market that spends more money on celebrity endorsements than most other ethnic groups.
Favre's jersey is the number one seller.
Do you deny that throughout recent history, white athletes have been elevated based on separate criteria? In other words, white athletes have often been elevated based on being "hard working", "smart", etc. whereas black athletes have traditionally been elevated based almost entirely on raw talent. A "hard working" or "smart" black athlete lacking in raw talent was and is generally out of luck.
Re: Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, and McNabb. I’ve seen few blacks outside the Upper Midwest own a Favre jersey but I’ve seen many outside the Upper Midwest own a Culpepper jersey and many outside the South own a Vick jersey, because their style of play is usually marketed towards black youth heavily.
Mobile black quarterbacks are always marketed towards the inner city markets because those quarterbacks’ play tend to sell the most in the inner city. It’s because in inner city high school systems, immobile pocket passers are at a premium due to so few students that are large enough, strong enough or talented enough to play offensive line (Remember, nutrition is poorer in the inner city and you need all 3 to play any offensive line position to protect a pocket passer) so most inner city high schools use the option offense or put their fastest player at quarterback. Both offensive styles require a mobile quarterback that has few if any reads, which leaves less strain on the quarterback. In turn, the best mobile quarterbacks go onto the college ranks, where again, due to there being more demand for large, strong and agile offensive linemen than supply, these quarterbacks succeed, all the way up until they reach the NFL. These black quarterback’s flash and speed market themselves well to inner city purchasers, who identify with the mobile black quarterbacks and buy those players jersies, t-shirts, etc. However, because of the limited offenses these players played in, they can’t make the reads that pocket passers can make. Examples of that would be Daunte Culpepper and Michael Vick. Both players made up for their lack of field vision by using their legs to salvage broken plays.
McNabb, when Limbaugh made his comment, was having trouble making his reads and depended more on his legs to make up for a broken play rather than passing it to outlet receivers and it looked like he was going to be another Vick, Culpepper or even Randall Cunningham. Like the others, he was also heavily marketed to black youths. Turns out, he finally figured out how to make a read and is a halfway decent quarterback.
I can name some black athletes that were described as “Hard working” and smart. It just happens that most of them aren’t mobile NFL quarterbacks, who I described above, are not really known for having gamesense because of the limited offenses they played in.
In football:
EJ Henderson
Derrick Brooks
Warren Moon
Chris Claiborne
Ronnie Lott
Those positions (Quarterback, strong safety and middle linebacker) are probably the most cerebral positions on the field. You can’t be an idiot and play those positions, but those players are regarded as some of the smartest to either play the game or have played the game.
Basketball would include Chris Paul and Tony Parker
To play point guard, you really have to be a field general on the court. In fact, you’re not really winning a championship if you don’t have a good point guard. That’s what’s stymieing Lebron James.
Hockey lacks a lot of black players, partially because in the places that you would expect to find hockey players, there are so few blacks in those areas. (All of Canada, Alaska, northern Minnesota, North Dakota, U.P. Michigan, Upstate New York, Outstate Mass and the rest of New England)
But Grant Fuhr was probably the smartest player on the ice whenever he took the rink. To play goalie, you pretty much have to be the strong safety on the ice when the puck’s in your zone. You have to read defenses and adjust your body to whatever defensive attack you can see.
Also, there’s Jarome Iginla, who was at one time, the best player in the league.
Black athletes are perceived as smart in their respective sports by their fellow athletes and fans with some insight on how the game’s played. It’s just that black quarterbacks aren’t percieved as such, and it’s not due to race. It’s again, because of the offenses they’re used to playing. Warren Moon shattered that stereotype when he ran that gimmicky offense in Houston.
Speaking about black hockey players, It’s finally cold enough to play some puck today!
“I assure it can never be fixed by continuing to spend wealth on those who will NEVER be satisfied.”
Bingo!!
Please forgive the “poke,” but I’d really like your response to my post #60.
My post #71 was meant for you but, dodo that I am, was addressed to myself!
It doesn’t. That was my point. The tendency for blacks to vote Democrat is more so based on perception than issues. Who is in office has little overall effect on one’s economic condition. A poor person under a Democratic President will in all likelihood be poor under a Republican President. So many people vote based on perception and on tradition. Voting Democrat has become tradition with most blacks and most blacks simply see Republicans as being antagonistic toward them.
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?"
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3349.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2482588/homophobia_in_the_black_church.html
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?
I don’t think that this is true. As descendents of African slaves know that Africa is their place of origin (Africa being a continent), the group that you speak of know that Europe is their place of origin. You may not know the specific European ethnicity or region (though in all likelihood somewhere in the UK), similar to how most black Americans have no knowledge of the tribe or region of African they came from. It is even noted that Scots-Irish settled the southern USA and southern dialect evolved from the dialect of the Scots-Irish who settled the region.
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.
There is a Pan-European flag representing the Pan-European movement. Rev. Manning is a strange figure with an even stranger theology. However, lots of us po' crackers would like our turn to riot somewhere. If you look at most of American history, that is precisely where most of the riots have come from and unlike the modern black riots that take place within black areas, those historical riots have been cases of white rioters actually attacking black communities. We have never seen black rioters nearly totally destroy white townships.
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.
Your last sentence is the point. It’s wrong on both ends and many conservatives inject race while criticizing blacks doing the same.
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?"
There is no difference, but I was referencing specifically white anti-government militias and how they are predominantly conservative.
As for po' crackers rioting, so far as I know none of my ancestors are guilty of that (being Civil War Republicans and having to fight of the original Ku-Klux Klan and all). However, you seem to have missed my point. The Left anoints some groups as saints ("the thesis") and others as sinners ("the antithesis"). I'm tired of being a sinner. I'd like my own Communist national liberation movement now please. If the Irish, the French Quebecers, and the Basques have one, sure we can have one too.
Being from Europe doesn't pin it down enough. What country am I from? I have no idea, but I suspect I am what was once termed an "Anglo-Saxon." The problem with being "English-American" is that 1)historically, America was born in order not to be English (making Englishness the one and only truly "un-American" ethnicity), and 2)despite having a worldwide-spoken language named after it, there is no such place as "England." So I'm from a non-existent country. The Irish should know what it feels like!
While most American Blacks may not know which particular area or tribe they are from (other than perhaps being from Western Africa), I was of the impression that identity politics treats Africa as one single gigantic country with a single people.
Again, thank you for taking the time to answer.
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.