A liberal blog recently doctored a photo of black republican and Lt. Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele.  Michael Steele has recently announced his intention to run for United States senate.

As first detailed in The Washington Times, the blog, run by a popular black democrat in Maryland, put this picture of Steele in blackface on their site:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/steelesmeared.jpg

Not only this, but Michael Steele was also being pelted with oreo cookies (black on the outside, white on the inside.)  Read the AP story here.  Even democrats from outside Maryland, like democratic candidate for governor of Virginia Timothy M. Kaine, is pulling his ads from the blog.

AND

We have a column that says put an asterisk by Clarence Thomas' name because he's not a real black because of his views.  I guess if you're not on the democratic plantation, you're not a real black.  Some conservatives and black are outraged at the column.

You know if this were conservatives doing the exact same thing to black liberals, there would be a huge uproar.

I guess this proves that all liberals are racists. Good work! ::)

i think support for the gop among blacks is running at around 3 percent? yeah, in such a climate i guess you're gonna get this sort of thing.

the blackface thing is a bit much but the bit with the oreos seems fair. if you're black, or if you're a member of the working or lower middle class of whatever race, and you support the GOP, you have pretty much abandoned your fellows, IMO. the GOP's disdain for anyone who isn't wealthy and white is pretty clear.

I must say, I'm heartened to see that so many conservative commentators are genuinely concerned with divisiveness within the black community! ::)

I think the manufactured outrage is part of the reason a lot of blacks -- even the ones with certain conservative (small 'c') views, refuse to buy into the "Conservative" (uppercase 'c') platform.

But yes, for the record, mudslinging and rudeness and disrespect is always deplorable, in life and in political campaigns. And the use of the terms Oreos and Uncle Toms can be rude and spiteful, but the underlying concept is valid, whether you agree it fits a particular person or not. I don't know anything about Steele, but if he is committed to addressing the real issues concerning black people, more power to him. If he's one of those who will respond to his critics by going on Fox News and crying about how "the black community has rejected me", then the criticisms may well have merit.

You know if this were conservatives doing the exact same thing to black liberals, there would be a huge uproar.


Why do people never see the irony of these comments?

Why do people never see the irony of these comments?


i couldn't even parse it out. why would conservatives be throwing oreos at black liberals? i was confused by that.

i was having an argument with some folks the other day and whether or not she was an "uncle tom" and whether that problematic term should even be used. and the people i was arguing with kept drawing these weird equivalences -- what if everything was the same only she was white and gw bush was black? i was like, if gw bush was black, he wouldn't be gw bush. i just didn't even get it.

i couldn't even parse it out. why would conservatives be throwing oreos at black liberals? i was confused by that.

i was having an argument with some folks the other day and whether or not she was an "uncle tom" and whether that problematic term should even be used. and the people i was arguing with kept drawing these weird equivalences -- what if everything was the same only she was white and gw bush was black? i was like, if gw bush was black, he wouldn't be gw bush. i just didn't even get it.


Most of the time, I think people are just being deliberately obtuse.

i think support for the gop among blacks is running at around 3 percent? yeah, in such a climate i guess you're gonna get this sort of thing.


Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004.

The year the blacks walk off the democratic plantation, even if it's just a 65-35 split, the democrats will never win another election.  Period.

Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004.

he dipped rather precipitously after katrina. and 11% wasn't too stable to start with.

The year the blacks walk off the democratic plantation, even if it's just a 65-35 split, the democrats will never win another election.  Period.


and that's bound to happen any day now.

i actually think that whatever the GOP would have to do to court the AA vote would undermine their conservative base. it might come out as a wash.

Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004.



Oreonation is catching on!



the democratic plantation



Gee, with talk like that, I don't understand more black people aren't rushing to embrace the Conservative platform.

::)

the blackface thing is a bit much but the bit with the oreos seems fair. if you're black, or if you're a member of the working or lower middle class of whatever race, and you support the GOP, you have pretty much abandoned your fellows, IMO. the GOP's disdain for anyone who isn't wealthy and white is pretty clear.


As an African American liberal who was raised in a very Conservative Republican household I find this
whole thing offensive, and think all involved should be ashamed.  The rest I agree wholeheartedly.

I must say, I'm heartened to see that so many conservative commentators are genuinely concerned with divisiveness within the black community! ::)


I am actually angry about it.  It seems that some people consider "Black Conservatives" a fair target for racist attacks.  And it also fits in along with any group that does not match what is considered to be the "proper mindset".

A great example is the former President of the LA chapter of the NOW.  She championed womens rights issues.  And being a Lesbian, she also supported same-sex issues.  She got into trouble because she 1) encouraged men to join NOW, and 2) she forbid the local chapter to work for Democratic campaigns on the premises (doing so violates their charter as a non-partaisan nonprofit organization).

Then she got into more trouble, because she started to hold marches and vigils for the Nicole Brown-Simpson Foundation.  She got into more trouble for holding a candle light march for victims of spousal abuse on Bundy Drive.  The final straw came when she went public and endorsed Dr. Laura Schlessinger for her long time support of PFLAG.

I am sure that some in here know who I am talking about.  She has written books about how if you do not toe the line with the Liberal agenda, you are a pariah.

And this is not the first time we have seen things like this.  Dr. Rice and Judge Thomas has been portrayed in a similar way in the past.

What angers me is this "double standard".  I am against any form of double standard, but this is one of the worst.  Just because the person does not toe the Democratic line, it seems you are fair game for racial attacks.  And even more depressing to me, the groups that sould scream the loudest at such treatment are totally silent.

And it is strange that people in this very forum are useing racial slurs, and to a lot it seems to be OK.

Now tell me again how I am a racist.  I think some of you should be taking good hard looks into the mirror.

he dipped rather precipitously after katrina. and 11% wasn't too stable to start with.



"George Bush dosen't care about Black people." --Kanya West

I am actually angry about it.  It seems that some people consider "Black Conservatives" a fair target for racist attacks.  And it also fits in along with any group that does not match what is considered to be the "proper mindset".


Do you know what the issue is with this candidate?  It's very easy to say that he's attacked for being 'conservative', but what view is he being attacked for and why is it not legitimate?



I am sure that some in here know who I am talking about.  She has written books about how if you do not toe the line with the Liberal agenda, you are a pariah.



Never heard of her.  But I would bet my house that "if you do not toe the line with the Liberal agenda, you are a pariah" is not only an oversimplification, but a disingenuous one on your part.



And this is not the first time we have seen things like this.  Dr. Rice and Judge Thomas has been portrayed in a similar way in the past.



For what reasons?  To say "because they're conservative" is both meaningless and (again) disingenuous.



What angers me is this "double standard".  I am against any form of double standard, but this is one of the worst.  Just because the person does not toe the Democratic line, it seems you are fair game for racial attacks.  And even more depressing to me, the groups that sould scream the loudest at such treatment are totally silent.

Explain what you mean by double standard.  You seem to think that a racial comment is the same as a racist comment, and that racism is racism is racism.  That is oversimplistic.  It's like saying someone who makes a sexist comment is the same as a misogynist.  



Now tell me again how I am a racist.  I think some of you should be taking good hard looks into the mirror.



Please.  We should all be taking good hard looks into the mirror.  

What you people don't seem to understand.. what everyone (but me) seems to have forgotten... what very few people know... what you civilian idiots don't seem to get... what no one but people with my extensive intellect and education seem capable of comprehending... what people who don't care about freedom and justice and the American way seem to know... blah, blah, blah for 9 or 10 paragraphs....

I don't think you even have to be Republican to be conservative.  I know a lot of conservative minded black Democrats.

I often find it asinine how some groups (e.g. gays, blacks, the poor) support the Republican/Conservative movement when it is clear that they are often ostracized for their group memberships. It baffles me.

Could we step back a sec?  Historically "Uncle Tom" and "Aunt Jamima" were respected elders on plantations because they were considered too old to be dangerous to "ol Masser" and were able to interceed to protect younger slaves from some of the cruelty and barbarism, and instruct them as to what they could get away with.  This within a system of fictional kinship relations that bound the slave communities together.  After emancipation, and as a result of movements like Marcus Garvy's Universal Negroe Improvement Association, as black people began to develop Black Pride and to resist the blatant racism so deeply ingrained in American society, this pandering to white power became, rightfully, anathma to most black people.  So I have no problem with the idea of calling a black conservative an uncle Tom (do the name Clarence Thomas come to mind? or Condi Rice?) because they seem to think that since they made it, anyone can.  And they are pandering, imho, to those who wield real power, and use it to supress all minorities.  They have stuck their...I guess I can't say that...up and are allowing themselves to be used to the detriment of the opressed, the poor, and the working class, and should be ashamed.

I often find it asinine how some groups (e.g. gays, blacks, the poor) support the Republican/Conservative movement when it is clear that they are often ostracized for their group memberships. It baffles me.


Me too, that's what I just said, right after you posted.

"George Bush dosen't care about Black people." --Kanya West


Thank you for Exhibit 1 in conservative faux-outrage.

1. Who the hell is Kanye West? Some twenty-something hip-hop artist.Who cares.
2. He made an (admittedly, rude, inappropriate, tasteless) reference relating to race, therefore he is a racist? Inane.
3. He made an accusation about a particular PERSON, so therefore the comment itself is racist? Dense.
4. Using Kanye's remark to make a commentary on black people, black rappers, "that element", whatever, are somehow NOT racist? Delusional.

I could go on, but... please.

Me too, that's what I just said, right after you posted.


I know. LOL

Could we step back a sec?  Historically "Uncle Tom" and "Aunt Jamima" were respected elders on plantations because they were considered too old to be dangerous to "ol Masser" and were able to interceed to protect younger slaves from some of the cruelty and barbarism, and instruct them as to what they could get away with.  This within a system of fictional kinship relations that bound the slave communities together.  After emancipation, and as a result of movements like Marcus Garvy's Universal Negroe Improvement Association, as black people began to develop Black Pride and to resist the blatant racism so deeply ingrained in American society, this pandering to white power became, rightfully, anathma to most black people.  So I have no problem with the idea of calling a black conservative an uncle Tom (do the name Clarence Thomas come to mind? or Condi Rice?) because they seem to think that since they made it, anyone can.  And they are pandering, imho, to those who wield real power, and use it to supress all minorities.  They have stuck their...I guess I can't say that...up and are allowing themselves to be used to the detriment of the opressed, the poor, and the working class, and should be ashamed.


I think people of GOOD WILL may disagree about the appropriateness of the terms, but I have no stomach for disingenuous bullsh!t from people who display willful ignorance towards the very real substance and concerns of various groups and individuals who engage in this rhetoric.  Political mudslinging goes on all the time.  I don't see the same level of outrage. 

For too many people, it basically comes down to how come those n***** get away with saying that crap and I can't.

great post, harpo, particularly the bit about how everyone could stand to look into the mirror. i feel like i want to retract the whole bit where i was apologizing for the people throwing oreos. i so want to see some hardball from the people on the left that sometimes i lose sight of my own values... it's frustrating because i feel like we've been taking it on the chin for so long but you should never cede the ethical high ground, you know? and tossing oreos most decidedly does that. mea culpa.

and weirdly, i do agree with mushroom on one thing -- there is a tendency toward being rigidly doctrinaire on the left, sometimes. and i don't think it does us much good. we have to find a way to pitch a bigger tent, imo, and do a better job of letting the little things go.

great post, harpo, particularly the bit about how everyone could stand to look into the mirror. i feel like i want to retract the whole bit where i was apologizing for the people throwing oreos. i so want to see some hardball from the people on the left that sometimes i lose sight of my own values... it's frustrating because i feel like we've been taking it on the chin for so long but you should never cede the ethical high ground, you know? and tossing oreos most decidedly does that. mea culpa.

and weirdly, i do agree with mushroom on one thing -- there is a tendency toward being rigidly doctrinaire on the left, sometimes. and i don't think it does us much good. we have to find a way to pitch a bigger tent, imo, and do a better job of letting the little things go.


Right, people should not be throwing oreos and that kind of stuff.  That's obvious.  But people of ILL WILL co-opt those situations and try to use them to invalidate the substance of what's really going on.

Thank you for Exhibit 1 in conservative faux-outrage.

you're welcome!

I think people of GOOD WILL may disagree about the appropriateness of the terms, but I have no stomach for disingenuous bullsh!t from people who display willful ignorance towards the very real substance and concerns of various groups and individuals who engage in this rhetoric.  Political mudslinging goes on all the time.  I don't see the same level of outrage. 

For too many people, it basically comes down to how come those n***** get away with saying that crap and I can't.


I guess I'm a bit confused here.  I have been called "unpatriotic" (read "traitor") because of some of my political positions, but for me to suggest that Condi and Clarance are offering up their... for personal adavancement is somehow out of order?  I'm not really sure that is what you  are  saying, but that's what I gather.  If I'm wrong, excuse my misread.  If I'm right, please explaine.  I admit that I might be attributing motives to them that they don't deserve, but...

"Quote from: Harpo on Today at 03:15:34 PM
Thank you for Exhibit 1 in conservative faux-outrage.

you're welcome!"

haha! we aim to please.


Right, people should not be throwing oreos and that kind of stuff.  That's obvious.  But people of ILL WILL co-opt those situations and try to use them to invalidate the substance of what's really going on.


i'm actually not sure how obvious it is. i mean, yes, in that particular instance, perhaps it is, but in general, the political environment these days seems to be so acrimonious, and the right wing seems SO bent on accumulating more power at whatever cost, that it's hard to find out where the line is when resisting it. how much is too much, when you're dealing with people who start these phony wars that kill tens of thousands of people? when they let things happen like happened in new orleans? you know, you have to break the rules some when you're fighting folks like that and in such a context, it's really hard to judge how much is too much. it really is a serious problem, i think.

Do you know what the issue is with this candidate?  It's very easy to say that he's attacked for being 'conservative', but what view is he being attacked for and why is it not legitimate?


I do not care what the view is.  I do not care either.  To me, the picture was simply wrong.  Period.  What if I doctored a picture like that of say Martin Luther King Jr.?  Or doctored a picture of Jimmy Carter in a KKK outfit, just because he is from Georgia?  When I see racist attacks, the person or the view does not matter for me, it is simply wrong.  And I do not care for Kanye West, but I would be just as outraged if he was attacked in such a way.


Never heard of her.  But I would bet my house that "if you do not toe the line with the Liberal agenda, you are a pariah" is not only an oversimplification, but a disingenuous one on your part.


This has happened many times, not just once.  And the ladies name is Tammy Bruce.  The same thing happened to Bernie Goldberg, Zell Miller, and Geraldo Rivera.


Explain what you mean by double standard.  You seem to think that a racial comment is the same as a racist comment, and that racism is racism is racism.  That is oversimplistic.  It's like saying someone who makes a sexist comment is the same as a misogynist.  


How is calling somebody an "oreo" any different from calling them a "coon"?  It is a word designed to be used in a hurtfull manner, that reflects on their color.  SO are terms like "Uncle Tom", "Aunt Jemima", and a lot of others that I see used.  Why not just use a term that makes no reference to color?  If I called Louis Farrakan an "Uncle Tom", it would be a deadly insult.  But a lot of people have no problem if I use it on say Judge Thomas.


What you people don't seem to understand.. what everyone (but me) seems to have forgotten... what very few people know... what you civilian idiots don't seem to get... what no one but people with my extensive intellect and education seem capable of comprehending... what people who don't care about freedom and justice and the American way seem to know... blah, blah, blah for 9 or 10 paragraphs....


Oh please!  I simply like to make clear posts.  If you do not like me being clear, then you can read Maxwell's posts, which tend to be 1 or 2 lines in length.  I also try to put some reasoning behind my statements, not simply saying "this is what I think, so that is how it is".  I try hard to remove bias and emotion, simply stating facts as much as possible.  I also like playing "devils advocate", and flipping things to look at them from other directions.

And I readily admit that my posts are given from my own point of view.  I am not trying to make others change their mind, as much as to see it from another angle.  Things often look different that way.  It does not make anybody "right" or "wrong", it simply expands the understanding of an issue.  One thing I almost never do is to close myself off, and refuse to listen to other points of view.  I may not agree with other people in here, but I almost always respect their beliefs.

"If I called Louis Farrakan an "Uncle Tom", it would be a deadly insult. ¦nbsp;But a lot of people have no problem if I use it on say Judge Thomas."

see?! though, this is that weird equivalency thing. in what sensible universe could louis farrakhan be considered an uncle tom? there's a lot of things you could call him -- antisemitic springs immediately to mind, not that i think he is, necessarily, but a case could easily be made -- but an uncle tom? i really can't get my head around it, you know? just reversing the equation in that context doesn't work, it obfuscates the complexities of the situation.

having said that, i was chatting with a friend about how thoroughly i disagree with you in most of your opinions, and i imagine the feeling's mutual, but it's cool that you're typically civil about it. i appreciate that, you know? it's not necessarily easy particularly when it's a dicey issue like race not to get all personal.

I don't think you even have to be Republican to be conservative.  I know a lot of conservative minded black Democrats.


You do not.  A good example is people who are religious.  Orthadox Jews are considered to be very "Conservative", but when it comes to social issues are very "Liberal".  The same is true of thse down here in the South.  Very family oriented, very religious, the Democrats from this region tend to be the most Conservative Democrats you will find (some of them make a lot of Republicans look "liberal").

In another topic here I talked about a job I quit because of my fiancee's pregnancy.  My boss there was Jewish, a holocost survivor, and an expatriot from Israel and Germany.  He was a regular (and high dollar) donator to the ACLU, Democratic Party, and other "Liberal Causes".  Yet the same man would not let me take time off from work because of our problem pregnancy.  He also had problems with my disability, telling me that if he knew I had a disability, he never would have hired me.  Some may say that he was a hypocrite because of how he treated his employees (I was not the only one that had problems with him), but that is simply how he was.  I do not blame his politics for his views, I only blame him.

In short, "Conservative" and "Liberal" are not the same thing as "Democrat" and "Republican".  But to a lot of people, they are.  I think that is part of the problem with political debate in both this forum and in this country.  This is also why I try hard to find compromises, so that we can try to eliminate the more radical of both sides, and find a good point where most people can get along.

And as "Conservative" as I am, if you read here you will find that I probably side against poster GW Bush more often then I agree with him.  This is because I myself do not "toe the party line", but follow a more moderate path.  But I have noticed that "Conservatives" whoare moderate are attacked a lot less then "Liberals" who are moderate (or people who "should be liberals" who are Conservative).

"If I called Louis Farrakan an "Uncle Tom", it would be a deadly insult. ¦nbsp;But a lot of people have no problem if I use it on say Judge Thomas."

see?! though, this is that weird equivalency thing. in what sensible universe could louis farrakhan be considered an uncle tom? there's a lot of things you could call him -- antisemitic springs immediately to mind, not that i think he is, necessarily, but a case could easily be made -- but an uncle tom? i really can't get my head around it, you know? just reversing the equation in that context doesn't work, it obfuscates the complexities of the situation.


At one time, and to a lot of people today, "Uncle Tom" is a racial slur used against anybody that is black.  The current "Politically acceptible" use whoever is when it is used against a black person who is conservative.

Only a few decades ago, "Uncle" was a common word to call an elderly black man in the South.  The terms used by racists were normally "boy" for somebody that was under 50, and "uncle" for somebody over 50.  By this older definition, Louis would definately be an "Uncle".

And thank you for the compliment, I am taking it as I am sure you meant it.  As I said, I may not always agree with somebody, but I try to be respectfull.  I may get mad at a view point, but not at the person who made it.  I know it can be a fine line, but I try hard to walk it.  If I lashed out and attacked anybody here who I dissagreed with, then we no longer have "debate", we have warfare.  And then nobody has an open mind.

I don't think you even have to be Republican to be conservative.  I know a lot of conservative minded black Democrats.


Very true, as I said I was raised in a conservative (Republican) household, and many in my family are
still very conservative, but vote democrat.  The terms are not mutually exclusive.

The double standard argument doesn't make sense to me because a characterization from within a group usually does not have the same meaning as the same characterization from outside the group.  To suggest that is to use the same old simplistic argument that says that if white people can't use the n-word, black people shouldn't get to say it either.  Not that I want to re-visit that conversation.

We can't pretend that words are just words, regardless of context or speaker.  You have to consider MEANING and PURPOSE of the words. 

When a black person calls a black person an Uncle Tom, it may be a rude/uncivil/irresponsible/disrespectful term, but they're holding the person accountable for (as they see it) selling out their ethnicity/race/background in order to ingratiate themselves with what they perceive as a dominant power structure.  It's highly unlikely that a non-black would use the term the same way.

I don't think it's a productivel course of action to call names and throw Oreo cookies.  Oreos are too tasty to waste on some crummy politician, anyway!


Here's what I see...vast numbers of people, including African Americans and myself, who feel wrathful towards the Republican party and what has happened to this country under all-Republican leadership.  Rather than yell, "hey you hypocrites, can't a Black man be a Republican?," I would take a serious look at whether there really is something to the rage of these African Americans.  The way conservative commentators talk about Blacks is condescending as all-get-out!  "They just keep voting for Democrats, and life keeps getting worse for them.  They don't realize the Democrats take them for granted.  Don't they understand the Republican party is the party of emancipation!"  And such piffle and balderdash.  Maybe....just maybe African Americans get it!  Maybe they really do understand what the Republicans are all about, and a few of them lose their tempers over the resentment and jealousy they feel at the sight of a Black politician sleeping with the enemy.

And what's all this horsepucky about "the Democrats take the African-American vote for granted"?  Oh yeah, says who?  And yet the right-wing media repeats this line over and over and whitey swallows it down like an aspirin with a glass of water!
::)

I don't think you even have to be Republican to be conservative.  I know a lot of conservative minded black Democrats.


With all the spending and seeing Bush down in South America pushing the FTAA, it's near impossible to not agree with you.

I'll take a southern democrat (Miller) over a northeastern republican (Specter, Chafee) any day of the week.

With all the spending and seeing Bush down in South America pushing the FTAA, it's near impossible to not agree with you.

I'll take a southern democrat (Miller) over a northeastern republican (Specter, Chafee) any day of the week.


Any southern Democrat Miller's age would be an unofficial member of the New Deal Coalition, and would fund social programs heavily, even if he didn't support abortion rights. Are you telling me you would be happy with that?

Oreos are too tasty to waste on some crummy politician, anyway!



On the other hand, why not just go ahead and make them crumb-y politicians as well!

But seriously, I don't think Democrats, Republicans or independents should be tossing their cookies... except after visiting 'questionable' web sites.

Any southern Democrat Miller's age would be an unofficial member of the New Deal Coalition, and would fund social programs heavily, even if he didn't support abortion rights. Are you telling me you would be happy with that?

Well, yeah, it's hard to get re-elected if your constituents are starving.  It was the Civil Rights era that peeled Souther Dems off in favor of the GOP.  Miller just happens to be one of those Southern dems who stayed with the party.  He's also been crazy as a loon for about a decade.

Well, yeah, it's hard to get re-elected if your constituents are starving.  It was the Civil Rights era that peeled Souther Dems off in favor of the GOP.  Miller just happens to be one of those Southern dems who stayed with the party.  He's also been crazy as a loon for about a decade.


This I know, but I am simply pointing out to GW, an avowed conservative both socially and economically speaking, that even a nutjob like Zel Miller is still a Democrat, and still advocates the funding of social programs which to my knowledge GW (and the northeastern Republicans) do not.

This I know, but I am simply pointing out to GW, an avowed conservative both socially and economically speaking, that even a nutjob like Zel Miller is still a Democrat, and still advocates the funding of social programs which to my knowledge GW (and the northeastern Republicans) do not.

He must have worked in a few good words for social programs in his 2004 speech at the GOP convention, but the whole screed was too subtle and nuanced for me to follow.  You know, it's like when W.H. Auden used to get rolling about stuff!
;)

He must have worked in a few good words for social programs in his 2004 speech at the GOP convention, but the whole screed was too subtle and nuanced for me to follow.  You know, it's like when W.H. Auden used to get rolling about stuff!
;)


Honestly, I have no idea who W.H. Auden is. :-\\

Honestly, I have no idea who W.H. Auden is. :-\\

Oh, he was just one of those high falutin poet-writer-critics active from the '30s throught '60s.  He was quite an interesting guy, though veddy toffy British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Auden

You got that right ;)


Seriously, the first time I read this whole thread through, by the time I was finished I was experiencing some hardcore Oreo cravings.

Seriously, the first time I read this whole thread through, by the time I was finished I was experiencing some hardcore Oreo cravings.


i prefer nutterbutters myself.

there! another thread successfully derailed. no need to thank me.

Again, I want to take a step back.  "Political theater" has a long history, and one of its aims is to outrage, typically because its practicioners believe they are not getting sufficient attention.  Fox News pundants and neocons rail against the "liberal" media", which it defines as, whaT CNN?  Ok lets conceed that CNN and the networks are "liberal".  So where is the "neo-left" media?  Bernie Sanders, our current VT house member and next Senator, represents the left of American politics, but I have never seen him interviewed on CNN or the national network news - why is that?

So throwing those oreols at black politicians who some believe have abandoned the interests of their race and class consitutes political theater, just as the Swift Boat Vet against Kerry was political theater, but more honest because it did not alledge that those people had falisified their record, only that their record suggested that they thought of themselves as white inside.  "All the world's a theater and each must play his part", so stop carping, and bring on the games.

Getting back to a more serious tone, what's the deal about race?

Seriously, are we not all humans?  If we are not all humans, then what are we?  What are the criteria for mensch (humans) and untermensch (sub-human)?  Are there ubermensch (super-humans), and if so what are their criteria?  My goodness, what a can of worms has been opened up.

The concept of race, as some may know, was developed by a German sociologist based upon skin coloration and facial features.  Later, such things were used by Nazis to declare the "Aryan" race (Caucasians with blond to light brown hair and blue/green/light brown eyes) as superior to all other races.  A semi-scientific concept (because mixing between races has been going on since time immemorial) was corrupted by power-hungry opportunists in order to bring tyranny upon us all.  And it still is.

The example that started this thread is not the only one.  Yes, you've got your inbred mutants of the KKK running around.  You've also got the resurrected Black Panthers.  You also have La Raza, an Hispanic group who developed the Plan of San Diego, a plan in which every white male over a certain age (16, iirc) was to be slaughtered.  That plan, so far as I know, has NOT been abandoned.

We need to get back to reality:  WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, REGARDLESS OF OUR SKIN COLOR.  What makes us superior or inferior are our thoughts and actions, NOT any physical characteristics.

What makes us superior or inferior are our thoughts and actions, NOT any physical characteristics.



To me, the whole superior/inferior mentality all leads to the same place, whether you're talking about race, religion, economic status, politics, education, looks, intelligence, or whatever else.  It's no more preferable to think you're better than someone else because of one of those things than another.

didn't read all of this yet...will come back to it later....for now I'd like to say I truly don't get it

here comes that big tsunami wave, oh look out for those Oreo's they're not human beings they're "black on the outside, white on the inside", that other human being that's running along side some true 'black" people is running with the "white" people 'cause he's an "Uncle Tom" and back in that day, with the inhuman treatment of slaves, might not it have been a good thing to be a bit of an apple polisher for self-perserverance?

Today's world it seems to be the in thing "you're the missing link" and anything goes....we have to "teach the children before it's too late, before they are six or seven or eight..." so (children are)"our future" will be run by a lot of people thinking it's ok to express disdain by throwing oreo cookies after judging and finding inferior other's....

I'm sure I'll never live to see the day when we are all just people.

:)

Getting back to a more serious tone, what's the deal about race?

Seriously, are we not all humans?  If we are not all humans, then what are we?  What are the criteria for mensch (humans) and untermensch (sub-human)?  Are there ubermensch (super-humans), and if so what are their criteria?  My goodness, what a can of worms has been opened up.

You also have La Raza, an Hispanic group who developed the Plan of San Diego, a plan in which every white male over a certain age (16, iirc) was to be slaughtered.  That plan, so far as I know, has NOT been abandoned.

We need to get back to reality:  WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, REGARDLESS OF OUR SKIN COLOR.  What makes us superior or inferior are our thoughts and actions, NOT any physical characteristics.


I'd like a source on the "Plan of San Diego", since all I have ever heard of La Raza has focused on cultural pride, self improvement, and developing La Comunidad.  If such a "plan" exists, could it be a racist fringe group?

Back in '68, when I was called up for the draft, I answered the "race" question oin the "paperwork" human.  But on the same token, we do need to acknowledge AND RESPECT the cultural differences that make each of us individually, and as members of sub-grouping unique, and respect the pride that other groups take in their cultural heritages.  For example, my dad has a distant cousin of German heritage who moved west in the mid '30s.  He married a Chinese woman and they opened a restaurant serving Chinese/German quisine, like "sweet and suor kraut" and hosinfefer Cantonese.  It was a great success.  The only complaint they ever recieved was that an hour after eating people felt hungry - for power.

But seriously...

The only complaint they ever recieved was that an hour after eating people felt hungry - for power.



Great punch line.

Great punch line.


Old family joke.  Glad you enjoyed.

I'd like a source on the "Plan of San Diego", since all I have ever heard of La Raza has focused on cultural pride, self improvement, and developing La Comunidad.  If such a "plan" exists, could it be a racist fringe group?


Just like any group, "La Raza" has a fringe element.  And the radical fringe is very disturbing.

One of them is a group that calls itself "MEChA".  And yes, it is an off-shoot of La Raza.  They want to see a secession of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.  They want to call this new nation "Aztlan".  And upon this, they plan on expelling everybody who is not of "La Raza" blood.  Here are their 6 main demands from their "Manifesto" in 1969:

1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlan reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation)
2) Aztlan belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture
3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze Chicana/Chicano) Nation
4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement
5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de la Raza
6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the sentiments of the Chicana/Chicano community.

Not a lot different from the claims/demands of groups like the KKK or Aryan Nation.  In fact, MEChA's official slogan is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada", which roughly translates to "Everything for the Race - Nothing outside the Race".

And the "President" of the CSUN chapter is Miguel Perez.  In a recent interview, he stated "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan.... Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled.... opposition groups would have to be quashed because you have to keep the power."

Below is the official "symbol" of MAChA.  And yes, that is an Eagle, holding a stick of dynamite in one claw, and an Aztec war club in the other.

For example, my dad has a distant cousin of German heritage who moved west in the mid '30s.  He married a Chinese woman and they opened a restaurant serving Chinese/German quisine, like "sweet and suor kraut" and hosinfefer Cantonese.  It was a great success.  The only complaint they ever recieved was that an hour after eating people felt hungry - for power.

But seriously...



LOL!!!

Thank you, Mushroom.  I appreciate what you have said.

Don Carlos, here's another source with more sources:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/deisyseis_partone.htm

Please note that this is not an indictment against Mexicans in general, but only those who wish to destroy innocent human beings whose only crime is being born "white".

You also said, "But on the same token, we do need to acknowledge AND RESPECT the cultural differences that make each of us individually, and as members of sub-grouping unique, and respect the pride that other groups take in their cultural heritages."  I MOSTLY agree with that, insofar that such respect is not for things that are inherently evil (malum in se), such as cannibalism, or sacrificing infants to Baal/Kronos.

Great response on your question of "Race" on your military paperwork, BTW.  ;D

I thought your story was funny, too! :)

Not only this, but Michael Steele was also being pelted with oreo cookies (black on the outside, white on the inside.)  Read the AP story here.  Even democrats from outside Maryland, like democratic candidate for governor of Virginia Timothy M. Kaine, is pulling his ads from the blog.


too bad this is 100% made up by Steele

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.oreos13nov13,0,6788452.story

He didn't mention it until a week later (hmm, I would have thought if it happened he'd have said something sooner) and the cleanup staff didn't find any evidence of cookies being thrown, there are ZERO witnesses that can verify it happened.