Rice on race: It matters and always has

NASHINGTO- Teddy Roosevelt, sitting proudly on his oil-W painted horse in the White House room with his name, must have been horrified at Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

As President Bush's national security advisor, she should have known better. She wasn't supposed to say that. Not in a White House peopled with conservative Republicans. Not to a group of black columnists representing major newspapers from around the country.

''Race matters in America,'' Rice said. ''It has, it always has. Maybe there will be a day when it doesn't, but I suspect that it will for a long time to come.''

For the record, Rice didn't stutter or backtrack at the end of her interview with the Trotter Group. Instead, she did something that black conservatives aren't known for: She publicly acknowledged the reality and validity of the race question.

Now before you right-wingers get your boxers in a bunch, take a breath. She didn't go Al Sharpton on us, pledging to support reparations. She didn't say that Bush would apologize for the U.S. government's role in the slave trade.

But Rice did increase her credibility with us by affirming her place in the continuing cultural and political struggle that black people in the United States are engaged in - and she did it on her own terms.

Black conservatives, take note: It's OK to admit that race is still a problem in this country. You don't have to sink into denial. The sky won't fall down. The ground won't swallow you up.

It doesn't mean that you have to join Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, take Congresswoman Maxine Waters to lunch or join the NAACP.

It's safe to take your heads out of the sand and face the truth: While the United States has made tremendous progress on race, it still has a long way to go.

The December 2002/January 2003 edition of Savoy magazine has an extensive article on a class-action discrimination lawsuit that has been filed against Xerox. The plaintiffs contend that sales territories are segregated, promotions are race-based and harassment can take the form of hanging nooses being displayed in some Xerox facilities.

Xerox denies any discrimination, but there is plenty of reason to doubt its denial. According to Savoy writer Marjorie Whigham-Desir, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismisses about 80 percent of the complaints lodged by citizens against employers believed to be discriminatory. But Whigham-Desir reported that the EEOC has affirmed the group and individual complaints against Xerox, finding that ''reasonable cause exists to believe'' the charges that the plaintiffs have made.

And in case you Bill Clinton-haters out there are wondering, this is the 2002 Bush EEOC, not that old, tired Clinton-era model.

So maybe Rice isn't alone in the Bush White House. Maybe the GOP is slowing veering away from the Republican Party of 1964, which dealt a fatal blow to race relations during the GOP Convention led by Sen. Barry Goldwater's Cow Palace Republicans in San Francisco. These Republicans were so hostile toward blacks that Hall-of-Famer and convention attendee Jackie Robinson said: ''I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler's Germany.''

At least we can take comfort in knowing that the Bush administration, whatever it's other faults may be, doesn't buy into the lies that have blocked qualified blacks from serving at the highest levels of government. Certainly, it's a good sign that Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell hold two of the top four slots in the Bush White House, a point not lost on Rice.

''I think it says to people that there aren't boundaries in which black Americans are not supposed to play,'' she said. ''I think that's an extremely important message to the rest of the world.

''I am African American and proud of it,'' Rice said later. ''I wouldn't have it any other way. I do not believe that it has limited who I am or what I can become.''

Conservative or not, I can respect that. And frankly, it's easier to respect people with whom you disagree when you know you share an appreciation for your common experiences. And so under Teddy Roosevelt's watchful, if skeptical gaze, Condoleezza Rice - a fan of Motown, Clarence ''Gatemouth'' Brown and Kool and the Gang as well as Brahms - gave and gained a lot of respect last week.

David Person's column appears each Friday on the Commentary page. E-mail: davidpe@htimes.com; phone 532-4362.

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership. Although Senate minority whip Thomas Kuchel initially managed the party's forces, it increasingly became clear to Democrats, Republicans, the press, civil rights groups, and the White House that Everett McKinley Dirksen was the key man in the entire civil rights legislative effort.

After criticizing H. R. 7152 in March, Dirksen began to work more closely in late spring with Humphrey and the civil rights forces to fashion a strategy that would secure passage of the bill. Dirksen organized Republican support for the bill by designating a floor captain for each of the bill's seven sections. He and the bipartisan leaders believed that five or six "swing" votes held the key to cloture and the end of debate. Almost all of these uncommitted senators were conservative Republicans from rural states without racial difficulties. Their constituents opposed the legislation because it involved expanded federal powers. The problem facing the leadership was how to enlist the support of these uncommitted senators.

By working with Dirksen to swing key votes and by marshaling public opinion and constituent support for the civil rights measure, Senate leaders moved forward with the legislation.

Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Gee, Hyde Park is VERY expensive, dear, and while it has some nice places to live, it wasn't where I wanted to live. Washington Heights, when I was growing up, was mostly filled with white, Jews, of European ancestry. The northwest side of Chicago ? As in Wrigkeyville, perhaps ? It just might interest you to know, that now, you can't buy anything there, much under $400,000, for even a " fixer upper.

As for the other places, I don't choose to live in a slum and since I could and can afford better, I did. Obviously, for all of your preening and dropping of your " pedagree ", your ancestors , not only didn't leave you any of their couth, nor money. :-)

I told you, that where I lived wasn't an " ALL WHITE ENCLAVE "; but your reading comprehension isn't quite up to snuff. Yes, NOW , my closest neighbors are white; however, that wasn't always so and our country club, here, has members of ALL races and religions. So does this town ; my immediate neighbors ( and there aren't many ), just happen to be white. If a black or Asian couple moved in nextdoor, I wouldn't have a fit; unless they were damned Liberals or someone like you

Look up the word " preddjudice " ; the meanings are varied and many. You still fit the bill. LOL

Hermann the Cherusker wrote:

"For all the supposed non-Racist whites here, lets get an honest answer to a couple of questions. Would you have a problem with your white daughter marrying someone of a different race, especially a black man? Would you have a problem moving to a middle class all black neighborhood? Or with your neighborhoods suddenly becoming 50% black as a bunch of middle class blacks moved in?"

docmcb: you gave this reply: Answers: No, not if he were a Christian. No, and no.

and I say: DITTO!

and To: Hermann the Cherusker

As a matter of fact I'd rejoice if he had the character of Walter Williams, J.C. Watts or Colin Powell - character, I'm not talking about the money or power - they are just examples we will mutually recognize. Now if they were like Jesse Jackson, who cheats on his wife, then not only NO but HELL NO - why? it has nothing to do with a man's skin color, but his individual unique character. I would discourage my daughter from marrying a white fella if he was like Slick Willy or any other liberal fruitcake philanderer and fornicating cheat. So, are all black men cheaters? Are all whites "saints"? Hell no, and no one but God knows exactly how many and which ones are what really matters - of good or bad character - cheating sacks of horse hockey or worthy of my daughter, and in the end, "there can be only one" when it comes to marrying my daughter, which means that every other man, be he white or black is REJECTED, and that equally. Which just goes to show if you make a decision based on skin color alone you're a racist - and you in fact just did, asking / baiting us to make such a weak-minded and lazy decision. See, to true Christians and Conservatives, the skin is really transparent, and in that way shouldn't matter - we all bleed red and we all die. It should be seen past: "man looks on the outside, and God looks in the heart"... to the inside where it counts. "It is not what goes into a man that corrupts a man, but what comes out" and the pharisees were great looking on the outside but they were "white-washed sepulchers full of dead men's bones" and a sepulcher can be painted any color, it still is rotten to the core. So if liberals could quit focusing on the skin, and consider each person uniquely for his or her own merit - character, conduct and behavior, then we'd be truly evaluated for who we are, not who you or anyone elsethinks we are, based on what you or they heard and chose to believe what someone else said. You yourself are a victim of stereotypical prejudice as you assume the honest answer to your questions before you know the answer - you yourself are prejudging. And just because a selection of persons ever answers a certain way on any question, never gives you the right to "assume" and pass judgement on the rest of the group or any one individual who hasn't yet answered. You may suspect in your own mind, but you should always verify what you believe to actually be truth before you preach it. You poor hypocrite. Conservatives and persons who call themselves Christians who pursue Christ and acknowlege they are wrong when found in opposition to His teachings (the base definition: a follower of Christ) who say as Paul said "neither Jew nor Gentile, bond or free, etc." but all brothers and sisters, never purport otherwise to separate and judge by "unchangeables" (things we don't choose) like race, ethnicity, gender, (notice I didn't mention sexual behavior -it's not preference, either you commit sodomy or you don't), because God alone controls these unchangeables and to oppose Him or find fault with His handiwork is, well, to be blunt, stupid. So, you've proved your racist bias by asking us to make a decision on racist premises! Why should we make decisions based on race without knowledge of real factors? That's called pigeon-holing and entrapment - testimonies of a weak and biased mind. Hope you learn what you think you are trying to preach! Now here's a question for you: what color and gender am I? What's the right anwer? I'll tell you: Don't answer it!!! Because who cares and why does it matter! Do you? Does it? Why? When we get to heaven, not on our skin color or even on our merit but on His, it certainly won't matter either! All skin colors cook the same and feel pain the same in Hell as well, and all equally long - forever! Hope to see you in Heaven (no more squabbling over dermitology!) God Bless!

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.