My Take on Trent Lott

I should mention that Tom's right about this being a problem with both parties in the South, but it's much less of a problem with Democrats because the party is integrated. The Republican Party down here is still pretty much a white party. The only African-American Republican I've ever seen run did so in a district that was overwhelmingly African-American.

I support affirmative action because I believe white-black statistical income disparity can be blamed on 100 years of government-supported segregation, preceded by 250 years of government-endorsed slavery. I don't think anyone can say the dice aren't loaded, so I do think that a certain amount of compensatory "reverse racism" (though I prefer the term "anti-racism") might be a useful way of correcting this situation. I look forward to the day when American society has become fair enough that affirmative action really is the ridiculous idea that it ought to be in theory.

I almost never hear the "n" word, but that may be because I've spent pretty much my entire life in a city that's over 50% African-American. I'm sure the word still gets some mileage in white rural areas, and I can't say I don't occasionally run into an active bigot. But, generally speaking, I'd say that subconscious/passive racism is the biggest race problem down here. (Incidentally: Conservative folk sociology aside, I almost never hear black folks use the word, either.)


Cheers,

 

Personally, I consider racism to be a substantially bigger problem today than many people would like to believe. It's expressed in different ways in different places, perhaps in a more subtle form here in the "enlightened" North than in other places, but it's there nonetheless. That being said, Darrens use of the word "all" in the above quotation is a mistake and serves as a great example of how easy it is to fall into the trap of prejudice.
Jack

 

Tom:

I would bet that you have heard the "n" word even though you grew up in a mostly black inner city. You probably heard it allot, but from other blacks. Many of my in friends called each other that terrible word in a joking type manner. Listen to Cris Rock, and many rappers. They use the word all the time. They also yell cracker, and other terms at whites.

All you have to do is look objectively at who flames racism. Is Lott more of a racist than Jesse Jackson?

Bob Jones on Larry King explained that he is a sinner who is growing and changing from his ways. He has spent his life serving God. I do not agree with him on much, but I can say from experience that you will not find better people than some of the ones from BJU.

I worked with a black man who graduated from BJU in electronics engineering. This man was great man to work with and to socialize with. He was a little more straight laced than I am, but we got along just fine. He did many things through BJU and his church in the way of missions.

Jesse Jackson was on cross fire quoting scripture about how you know a man by his fruits, and all kinds of things like that. The whole time repeating the racist label. I say that Jackson should look in the mirror. This man has the nerve to preach to and belittle people about morality when he is immoral too. Hell we all are. Jackson makes his millions off race by extortion, and then uses the money to pay off his concubine.

I think racism exist less now than we would like to believe. I know in my little realm of whites and blacks I do not see it much. I would bet that racism shows up more in lower class neighborhoods, whether white or black. Whether it is the hood, or rooster fighting redneck.

 

Actually, I am Biracial. When It cold outside and my cheeks are red, and I am werind a stocking cap, I look white. I have seen before how people just assume that I am ready to engage in converstations about how the blacks are moving into that neighborhood, or if blacks could just get jobs we woulcn't need welfare.

You are right, I believe there is more overt racism coming from flom blacks (this is my oberservation), but although it is crappy, it is not quite the same thing. When blacks are called the N word, especially to their faces, it brings an entirely different issue to the board. Before any debate can continue, the history and magnitude of that word must be dealt with.

When blacks use the h word, it just doesn't seem to bring up the same history.

BUT, WE ALL need to chill, and love humanity for its intrinsic value.

 

You are right. My mom and wife are white and they would NEVER say those things.

Sorry

 

Darren,
I totally agree with you. I hope my earlier post didn't offend you. I suppose that this is still a touchy subject from all sides, so it is easy to get worked up about it. While every poster here has had certain opinions that others probably disagree with, I think it is safe to say that we are all hoping for the same outcome - where skin color is no more important in determining the worth of a person than their hair color (or lack of hair).

clint

 

Darren: the "h" word is only loaded if you're of Eastern European ancestry due to its close resemblance to (derivation from???) another abusive term. Thanks for your insightful posts. Besides, you're a landsman (my father is from East St. Louis).

 

I couldn't disagree more strongly or vehemently.

If racial descrimination is OK, then there is nothing to compensate for. But if it's wrong, then it's wrong when liberals do it just as it's wrong when conservatives do it.

I find it bizarre and unsettling to imagine that no matter how I think or behave, a complete stranger (provided that his or her politics are correct) knows more about what lies in the depths of my subconscious than I do, based simply on the color of my skin.

Isn't the ideal to have an America where skin color is no more of an issue than hair or eye color? But the way to that goal is NOT to emphasize, accentuate and fixate upon race at every possible opportunity. It's certainly not to stoke anger and grievance in exchange for votes.

I would prefer color-blind policies that are aimed at giving everyone an opportuity to improve his or her life. If members of some groups need these things more than others do and can make more use of them, fine.

Ideally everyone, no matter what misfortune life has dealt them or whatever poor choices they have made in the past, should always have some opportunity available to improve their lives. If people find themselves trapped in a box, I'd like the box to have a door.

That's one reason I like DL.

 

As I mentioned later in the post, I haven't even heard it used (often) among African-Americans. I have heard it from black (and, occasionally, white) public figures, but generally not people I encounter in "real life."


Cheers,

 

I have heard the 'n' word used by African Americans. Even then it is controversial. The controversy seems to cross generational lines as I have heard both young and old defend its use and be very angry about it. When I was in the army it was a topic of discussion in an Equal Opportunity Certification course. There were African Americans on both sides. Same thing with whether people are 'African Americans' or 'black'. There were people on both sides of that debate.

My thing is that I want to use whatever term communicates the most respect and dignity for you. I therfore use 'African American'. I do not seeing anything wrong with 'black' necessarily as we use the term 'white'. We generally do not call those of lighter complexion 'European Americans' we call them 'white'. I once saw a gov't doc that broke race down in the most minute and bizarre looking attempt to be correct (forgot how many categories there were). I also remember a person of German ancestery (2nd gen) who disliked being called an Anglo. She asserted that 'anglo' was 'anglo saxon' and she was not an 'anglo saxon' (aka Englishman). Terminology is loaded and all we can do is the best we can to be sensitive.

As for the Lott issue, I think the air will be cleared with his leaving. Do I think he intended a racist remark...no. However, his sad & confusing attempts to undue the damage and his legislative history signalled the end. Frist is a much better candidate (conservative, well respected) and hopefully will be able to move forward the President's agenda. I wish Lott well in his future and I think he has a lot that can be learned in terms of sensitivity (especially if you are a Southern poltician). Do I think Democrats/Liberals/ and self seeking Repubs took advantage of this slip...yes. It blew up bigger than itself and took on a life of its own. Lott did not deal with it effectively and this damaged the Republican agenda.

At any rate, can we not take a page from the bible......in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, etc. Lets just treat one another with dignity and the way we would wish to be treated.

North

 

As a staunch Republican, I agree it was time for Lott to step down. His stumbling over an apology alluded to a lack of a clue of what people were upset over. Was there some grandstanding? Sure. Opportunists? Sure. But Lott failed to grasp the one thing in the crisis I have seen missing from the Senate for a while, vision.

Like Gingrich, Reagan (even Gore, Daschle) or hate them, they had vision. It may have been 180 degrees from what another thought, but they had vision of their own. Lott was an extremely good deal maker, not what I would call a big picture kind of guy. He would have (and still may) made a good whip. During Republican control, the House and Bush have defined the party.

I don't know he is an overt racist, but I think he misunderstood the country badly. Badly enough that I would question his vision and leadership.

 

OK--but Jack, you ought to...

..Check out the international comparative data on race and prejudice in the back of the book "America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible" by Stephan Thernstrom, Abigail M. Thernstrom. It might change your mind--it did for my friends.

-Orson

PS much of what is called today "racism" is (or are) really reputational effects--both positive and negative. If changing the source of these substantial effctsbecomes part of the agenda of civil rights lobby, THEN things will be changing again. Otherwise, I think racially effected matters will remain the same as they are now.

 

HOW is the Republican Party evolving?

Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times puts it in generational terms, see this,

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/nation_and_world/article/0,1426,MCA_454_1626299,00.html

--Orson

PS I agree substantiall with Toms headline opinion
(and THIS assent comes from a Northerner wh has spent less than one year in the South).

 

Re: OK--but Jack, you ought to...

C'mon Orson, I've already got too many books to read. Maybe you could give us a summary.
Jack

 

I'm very suprised to see this from you, Tom. What you're basically saying is that racism is okay, as long as the victims are white. Racism in any way, shape, or form is WRONG!!!!

My ancestors are from Scotland (where slavery was never legal), and they first came the United States in 1923. I, my children, my grandchildren, and so forth should not be punished for the wrongs committed by someone else, simply because we share the same skin color.

How would you have felt if your application to CSUDH was rejected, simply because you didn't fit into a protected minority class???


Bruce

 

In that imaginary world, I guess I would have been forced to find another school. Meanwhile, in the real one, an untold number of young adults in low-income urban areas--who disproportionately belong to that "protected minority class" thanks to segregation laws and its long-term socioeconomic effects--will never be given a real opportunity to go to college at all.

I hate affirmative action, and will happily support any worthwhile alternative that stands a meaningful chance of solving the problems affirmative action was created to address. Do you have any suggestions?


Peace,

 

Before folks crank up their rhetoric a notch in a lovely game of Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Liberal, I should mention that I'm not here to look good, and I'm not going to bother to respond to posts that are written solely to make me look like a Very Bad Person. I don't expect everything I say to win me brownie points.

It would be so nice to be born 100% certain about issues like this, as so many people seem to be. Then I wouldn't lose any sleep over them.


Cheers,

 

Tom,

Your view on affirmative action is also shared by conservatives/Republicans, including Colen Powell. Remember his speech before the national convention a few years ago? It raised some brows and even triggered a few boos, but he stuck to his position.

Like you, I also wonder what would be a good alternative.

Roscoe

 

What is Affirmative Action?

I realized after preparing a paper that many don't even know what Affirmative Action is.

Is it a mandate for companies? NO!
Rather, it is a voluntatry action for those organizations that wish to receive government money. It says that these organizations must have a workforce that is a reflection of the communities it serves. From a moral perspective, it seems wrong to condemn an action, then remedy it with the same action.

Will there be racist practices in business, education and industry? Certainly, but AA won't help. It will just cause the powers that be to cheat. We have have civil rights laws, USE THEM.

I propose that organizations that are racist will not survive. The invisible hand will see to that, so long as we are not all racists. If we are, then where is the foul?

It is a complicated issue, but gut tells me that when I condemn an action, i should also see to it that I don't do the action, especially as a way of solving the problem created by the first action.

Affirmative Action is as wrong as the action that created its necessity. Further, it only further divides this country.

 

Roscoe, thanks for the kind words. I'd forgotten about Colin Powell at the '96 convention; that's one more notch in the "Harry Belafonte is a nitwit" column.

DCross, I think we'd all agree that deliberately killing someone is wrong--but whenever we go to war, our representatives tell the government to kill potential thousands. (I'm not usually a fan of war, but I think we'd all agree that our participation in, say, World War II was justified.) I don't refer to affirmative action as "racism" because it doesn't operate based on a racist ideology; it operates in response to a system that operated based on a racist ideology. Certainly it can be used in a racist way, and it probably has been from time to time. That's one more reason not to like it. The issue of whether affirmative action is a pleasant solution isn't a live one for me--of course affirmative action is unpleasant. The issue is whether it's worse than the problem. Right now I'm not that confident that it is. Even if I opposed affirmative action, I would feel very strongly that some sort of response to the long-term effects of segregation is necessary. That's why--seriously--I'd like to hear some good alternative solutions. I don't have any.


Cheers,