savefork8t: theduty: white man’s burden.
Bwahhhaahahaha
Notes
posted 5 / 29 / 2009
There has to be a reason that the US, of all the industrialized nations, the richest country in the world, is so hostile to social welfare programs. There are a lot of contributing factors, not the least of which is our vaunted individualism. But one of the fundamental reasons America is so resistant to programs that provide for the common good is that there is a long tradition of rejecting any proposal that taxes white people to pay for programs that benefit non-whites.—
Hullabaloo (via azspot)
Or, maybe it’s all in your perspective. Some might argue that the reason the US is “of all the industrialized nations, the richest country in the world,” is precisely because it is “so hostile to social welfare programs.”
(via bellatoris)
Oh, puleeeze. If Americans are opposed to certain broad social programs, it must be because they are racists and white supremecists.
Yawn.
The abortion movement in this country was started by Margaret Sanger, the founder of an organization known today as Planned Parenthood. Ms. Sanger was quite open that she wanted “more children from the fit, less from the unfit.” The unfit, she made clear, were blacks and poor whites. She had no qualms about speaking to as many as 12 Ku Klux Klan meetings. As I discuss in the new film, “Maafa 21” (produced by Life Dynamics Inc.), she targeted blacks in her eugenics-based campaigns.
Does an overtly racist past mean that the abortion industry is racist today? Consider last year’s widely reported account of seven Planned Parenthood offices that agreed to accept a donation on the sole condition that the money only be used to abort black babies. The recordings of the phone calls to Planned Parenthood are chilling.Dr. Alveda King (MLK’s niece)
Racism springs from the lie that certain human beings are less than fully human. It’s a self-centered falsehood that corrupts our minds into believing we are right to treat others as we would not want to be treated. So it is with abortion.
Racism oppresses its victims, but also binds the oppressors, who sear their consciences with more and more lies until they become prisoners of those lies. They cannot face the truth of human equality because it reveals the horror of the injustices they commit. While victims die physically, practitioners die spiritually. So it is with abortion.
Racism is a way to gain economic advantage at the expense of others. Slavery and plantations may be gone, but racism still allows us to regard those who may keep us from financial gain as less than equals. So it is with abortion.
A majority, perhaps as many as 75 percent, of abortion clinics are in areas with high minority populations. Abortion apologists will say this is because they want to serve the poor. You don’t serve the poor, however, by taking their money to terminate their children.Dr. Alveda King (MLK’s niece)
Abortion has taken a gruesome toll on the black community, killing more than AIDS and crime combined. Some 14 million black babies have been aborted since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all stages in all 50 states. That’s equal to one-third of the number of blacks living today.
By the abortion industry’s own statistics, black women are 4.8 times more likely to abort than are non-Hispanic white women. Blacks comprise about 13 percent of the population, yet have 37 percent of all abortions.
When dramatic racial disparities like these appeared in employment and education, it was enough to conclude that institutionalized racism and discrimination were present in our corporations and colleges. Why should we apply a different standard to the abortion industry?Dr. Alveda King (MLK’s niece)
I think that in our history some Americans have been kept out of positions of power and wealth and influence by discrimination, and that that tends to be a self-perpetuating thing. Restricting the best jobs, the best schools, the best incomes, the best opportunities to a single group tends to set that group up to continue to prosper disproportionately. Historic discrimination doesn’t undo itself, it has to be overtly interrupted, by affirmatively helping some people from previously excluded groups into positions where they have the opportunity to succeed—so we as a country don’t end up sealing in place forever a white supremecist society created by and defined by segregation and Jim Crow and slavery. Current discrimination needs to be stopped now, and the ongoing effects of massive structural past discrimination have to be overtly overturned as well. That’s my position.—
Rachel Maddow (via Brooklyn Mutt—video at link)
An eloquent presentation of the liberal perspective on racism and affirmative action. However, as nice as it sounds, it’s still wrong.
The most honorable, respectful, and fair way to all to correct and atone for our nation’s historic racial sins is to treat everyone fairly without regard to color. Anything else is discriminatory and offensive to any self-respecting person. (Too often this thinking coincides with identity politics: it’s offensive to assume that a black man voted for Obama, or that a Christian is a Republican, solely based on those characteristics.)
I understand the desire to “correct injustice.” But any corrective action that simply reverses discrimination rather than treats all equally is unfair to somebody. Maddow can use as much flowery rhetoric as she wants, but “overtly interrupting” discrimination in a fair way can only mean color-blindedness.
(via sds)
so by your logic if just using outright, “fair play” turns out to be the status quo we should do nothing? And if your answer is no then isn’t it just degrees of affirmative action you are arguing against?
(via brooklynmutt)
I’m not particularly worried about that happening, because if policy enforcement (etc) is truly colorblind, than the discriminatory status quo (where it exists) WILL change.
Some people’s idea of equality means equal racial representation in employment, etc. So if blacks are 20% of the national population, are they being discriminated against in, say, the restaurant manager industry until it’s composed of 20% black managers? It’s ridiculous. Once we start looking at it that way, we have to arbitrarily (and unfairly, I might ad) define “success.” Our goal should not be a specific ratio or composition of races, but rather that race isn’t important. The firefighter lawsuit Sotomayor ruled on is a perfect example of this.
I think that in our history some Americans have been kept out of positions of power and wealth and influence by discrimination, and that that tends to be a self-perpetuating thing. Restricting the best jobs, the best schools, the best incomes, the best opportunities to a single group tends to set that group up to continue to prosper disproportionately. Historic discrimination doesn’t undo itself, it has to be overtly interrupted, by affirmatively helping some people from previously excluded groups into positions where they have the opportunity to succeed—so we as a country don’t end up sealing in place forever a white supremecist society created by and defined by segregation and Jim Crow and slavery. Current discrimination needs to be stopped now, and the ongoing effects of massive structural past discrimination have to be overtly overturned as well. That’s my position.—
Rachel Maddow (via Brooklyn Mutt—video at link)
An eloquent presentation of the liberal perspective on racism and affirmative action. However, as nice as it sounds, it’s still wrong.
The most honorable, respectful, and fair way to all to correct and atone for our nation’s historic racial sins is to treat everyone fairly without regard to color. Anything else is discriminatory and offensive to any self-respecting person. (Too often this thinking coincides with identity politics: it’s offensive to assume that a black man voted for Obama, or that a Christian is a Republican, solely based on those characteristics.)
I understand the desire to “correct injustice.” But any corrective action that simply reverses discrimination rather than treats all equally is unfair to somebody. Maddow can use as much flowery rhetoric as she wants, but “overtly interrupting” discrimination in a fair way can only mean color-blindedness.
Amazing. Black Congressional witness rips Sen. Barbara Boxer for being CLEARLY racialy condescending.
Of course, she’s a Democrat, so he must be wrong, but still!
(via josephweisenthal)
(via johncarney)
Watch this.
This is what’s wrong with the Democratic Party’s collectivist approach to race. They cannot see that members of a racial minority aren’t defined solely by their race. They cannot understand that we don’t all share the same goals and views. They view you as part of a homogeneous group and strip you of your individuality.
And good luck trying to explain to them how and why a minority member could possibly be a non-Democrat.
That is racist.
Rachel Maddow vs Pat Buchanan: The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court.
Rachel Maddow, on her show, thus far has stayed away from lively and heated debates. I understand it, and I respect her for steering her show and herself personally away from a seemingly easy way to garner attention/ratings. But she is especially good at it so therefore I wish she would do more. During MSNBC’s campaign coverage there were times when she would mix it up with panelists on the other side of the political spectrum and she would always hold her own. Honestly most times she would make fools of her counter parts.
She uses a unique combo of coolness and articulation. She tops anyone that I can recall at this and I am going back to the beginning of what some might call, “debate TV”. Even harking back to the old Bob Novak vs Michael Kinsely or Pat Buchanan vs Bill Press CNN “Crossfire” days.
Maddow’s calm and reasoned thinking absolutely pwns Buchanan’s emotional outbursts and seemingly ingrained prejudices. Here are some of quotes from this nearly 11 minute debate:
Buchanan: She, Sotomayor, is nothing but an ”affirmative-action appointment”.
Buchanan: “Whites are the ones being discriminated against”.
“I think white men were 100% of the people who wrote the constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country basically built by white folks.”…”You know what they ought to do? They ought to defend the rights of white working-class folks.”
Maddow told Buchanan, ”I don’t need a lecture from you”..
Buchanan spoke over her telling her, “Yes, you do. You do.”
Maddow continued: “a lot of things divide us Pat, for you to privilege race and say that what we really need to do is make sure that we tap into white people’s racial grievances, you’re dating yourself and playing with fire.”
A few thoughts: I like Rachel. She keeps a friendly tone and avoids a confrontational shouting match. She listens closely to her guest, and asks penetrating questions. That being said, she completely misunderstands Robertson’s Buchanan’s essential argument, losing it amidst some of his more whacky points—for example, that 100% of those who wrote and signed the Constitution where white (this matters why?).
I am not generally a fan of Robertson Buchanan, but I agree with his point: namely, that the pool of intellectual and judiciants considered for a post on the Supreme Court should be color blind—essentially agreeing with Rachel that all should be considered, not just white men, and that this is progress—but that the selection should be race-neutral as well.
Robertson Buchanan argues that Sotomayor is not qualified based on her intellectual merits and that she was picked because of her race. I disagree on the first point and agree on the second. Sotomayor is likely qualified enough to serve on the Court, even though I think she’s made some idiotic decisions. Yet I think she was chosen primarily because of her race, and I have a problem with that.
Should she be confirmed? Yes. Obama won the election and his pick is technically qualified? Should she have been nominated in the first place. Nah. But it’s too late to fix that now.
(Fixed. h/t brooklynmutt)
—It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend’s home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ”This is our world” and ”This is a black world” as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family - Ohio.com
Akron police aren’t calling this a racial hate crime. If this isn’t the textbook definition of a hate crime, nothing is.
(via randyhaddock)
That’s because hate-crime is a political term that will never be applied fairly. It’s the same with the refusal to call affirmative action what it is: reverse racism.
