Racial differences of opinion

US News & World Report ^ | 9/16/05 | Michael Barone

[flixxx]

Racial differences of opinion

Here's an uncomfortable subject: Why do black Americans see some issues so totally differently from the way nonblack Americans see them?

The obvious examples before us are the polls that show large majorities of blacks saying that the Bush administration slowed relief to Katrina victims because so many of them were black, and large majorities of whites saying just the opposite. (Pause for factual note: Most Katrina victims, of course, were white: Orleans Parish has a black majority, but the other Louisiana parishes and the Mississippi and Alabama counties hit by Katrina have white majorities.) Here are results from a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll conducted September 8 to 11.

Just your best guess, do you think one reason the federal government was slow in rescuing these people was because many of them were black, or was that not a reason?

(snip)---((table did not reproduce well))

I am reminded of the polls taken immediately after O.J. Simpson's criminal trial, which showed that a large majority of blacks thought he was not guilty and a larger majority of whites thought he was guilty. At the time, I wondered whether black respondents really believed he had not killed his wife or whether they were just expressing something in the nature of solidarity with him. Looking at results like these, I wonder something similar: Aren't these black respondents just expressing their dislike or even hatred for George W. Bush, rather than embracing the absurd position that the federal government would move slowly to rescue people because many of them—many, not most, as Gallup was careful to ask—were black?

[flixxx]

I try to read Barone's blog every day or so...this is the most recent but the one below (in the link )on Roberts and Schumer is insightful also...

[hombre_sincero]

There is something to say about WHY the DNC promulgates the nannmy/mammy/slave mentality --- it accounts for many votes that do not/cannot hink for themselves and definitely cannot survive by themselves without their "Masters" in black robes.

Interesting name thos activist judges took, isn' it? MASTERS!

[Archidamus]

They also vore for 'Rats, 'nuff said.

[Right Wing Assault]

Many blacks don't even think when surveyed. They just give the automatic answer - whitey's fault, racism. To think about it and give a reasoned answer would be traitorous.

Essentially an irrational response. Until they (that majority) can realize that that is not helpful to them nor impressive to whites, they will continue to look silly and childish.

[flixxx]

""Many blacks don't even think when surveyed. They just give the automatic answer - whitey's fault, racism. To think about it and give a reasoned answer would be traitorous.""


I wouldn't go that far...I just think the survey's suggest a dislike of Bush that comes out regardless of how or what question is asked.

[Mike Darancette]

the polls that show large majorities of blacks saying that the Bush administration slowed relief to Katrina victims because so many of them were black, and large majorities of whites saying just the opposite

It is the culture of victimization as taught by black leaders and Democrat ward healers.

It's easier to bang your tin cup and screech "Help Me" and then claim racism no matter what is done, than to take charge of their lives.

[Right Wing Assault]

I just think the survey's suggest a dislike of Bush

It's not Bush. This has been going on since Bush was a toddler.

[rdb3]

They also vore for 'Rats, 'nuff said.

You're brought many things out concerning American blacks numerous times as of late (here, here, here, here, and here for example). But it isn't really saying anything.

What's your real point?

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[rdb3]

In the thirty's and forty's when a white man told a black man to go around back to the restroom or to go to the dinner two blocks over it was more often than not a courtesy and not a overt act of Racism. The responses to social inculcation are almost reflexive at times.

Racism on whose part? The person who said it, or, the society in which it was said?

I'd say that I was surprised that someone would defend anything regarding Jim Crow. But I'm not surprised anymore.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[ladyjane]

I think it is a legitimate question. Why attack him?

[rdb3]

I think it is a legitimate question. Why attack him?

Of course, you think it's legitimate. And I didn't attack him. Look up the word "attack" and you'll see what I mean.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[ShadowDancer]

In the thirty's and forty's when a white man told a black man to go around back to the restroom or to go to the dinner two blocks over it was more often than not a courtesy and not a overt act of Racism. The responses to social inculcation are almost reflexive at times.

Okay, that is just plain ridiculous.

[kublia khan]

I was not defending Jim Crow in the least. I was responding to the article that presents the question of why Black's and white's respond in such different ways after being presented the same evidence and question. My contention is that a person be they black or white can be so influenced by the culture in which they grow up that the reaction to certain social situations produces a reflexive response that is not based in either logic or reason. I honestly don't understand how you could read what I wrote and draw the conclusion that I was defending Jim Crow. Can anyone help me to see this connection?

[ladyjane]

I don't have to look up any words.

Again I ask, why attack a fellow freeper. From your post it also looks like you are stalking him.

I don't know anything about the other poster but there is a rule that you don't bring arguments from other threads into a current thread.

Obviously it also means you don't bring grudges from 5 other threads into the current one.

[okie01]

In the thirty's and forty's when a white man told a black man to go around back to the restroom or to go to the dinner two blocks over it was more often than not a courtesy and not a overt act of Racism.

If you really believe that, you're a pea in a pod with Robert Byrd.

[Congressman Billybob]

On most subjects, most FReepers are both thoughtful and well-educated. Sometimes they are downright brilliant. That said, the level of knowledge is not the same in all subjects. There is, apparently, a great deal more ignorance here on the subject of racial relations in the US, than most subjects.

Your comment below the italicized quote is perceptive. I still remember the only time in my life I saw segregation in a commercial establishment. I went into a nondescript liquor store in Birmingham, Alabama. There was a counter across the whole shop, with a single counter wall-to-wall in front.

I said what I wanted to buy. The clerk just stood there. Finally, he pointed to a stripe down the face of the counter in the middle. One side had a small sign that said "white," the other a small sign that said "colored." I had not even noticed the stripe or the signs. I was on the "colored" side. There was zero difference between the left and rights sides. The sole purpose in that establishment was to tell the "coloreds" that they belonged separate from the "whites."

I agree 100% with you. Something like that, or mentions of something like that, are never a "courtesy." They are an affront. They are intended as that. They have no other meaning.

On behalf of the thoughtful people on FreeRepublic, I apologize for the offense from Freepers who ought to know better, but who don't.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "A Bad Constitution -- Won't Get Ratified, Can't Work"

[rdb3]

From your post it also looks like you are stalking him.

Step up out of my face with that BS. Stalking? You must be crazy.

I don't know anything about the other poster but there is a rule that you don't bring arguments from other threads into a current thread.

And now you want to mention rules. How nice, noble, good, clean, and wholesome.

If only all of the rules are followed. But since they are not, I have removed my sword from its sheath. If you don't like it, TOUGH!

Deal with it.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[rdb3]

I was not defending Jim Crow in the least.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[wimpycat]

Racism on whose part? The person who said it, or, the society in which it was said?

I'd say the society in which it was said, taking that particular example at face value. I call it 'institutional racism', as opposed to racism of conviction.