This Racist Election

Who's voting based on skin color?

The sheer heights of joy and giddiness on the part of Mr. Obama's supporters, most definitely including the media, is something to behold.  One would almost think Osama bin Laden had been captured and the Islamofascists converted en masse to social-democratic atheism, from the paroxysms of neo-liberationist celebration.

Where once Chris Matthew's mere leg tingled, his whole body must now be racked by ecstatic seizures.  The Obamessiah has come into his kingdom!  America has been redeemed from its original sin!  Slavery is at an end!

And, indeed, it is.  For all that the left has grossly overused, misused, and abused false accusations of "racism" to accomplish their communitarian ends, the fact remains that America does have a history of racism, and American blacks have been grievously abused over the decades and centuries.  As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said four decades and more ago,

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

Well, they've resubmitted that check - and it came back marked "Paid in Full."  No one now can ever again accuse America of being a racist nation; no racist nation would grant the highest office in the land to the oppressed race.

Even if Mr. Obama hadn't won, he had already clearly demonstrated the passing of the days of "racist whitey" by his primary victories: the voters of Iowa, white to a man, were happy to grant him their vote, and a large minority of equally-white New Hampshire did the same.  And indeed both these politically important states, oft derided for not "looking like America", were solidly in the blue column on November 4.

All Americans, right and left, can celebrate this achievement, not the least because we need no longer hear Rep. John Murtha (D, PA) accuse his constituents and ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV) accuse the entire country of being racists.  The mainstream media all over the world loudly proclaimed that the only way Mr. Obama could lose the election was voter racism.  Might we see an apology for this vicious slander?  Don't hold your breath.

For this election was, indeed, riddled with racism which has been clearly visible for months.  It's a more virulent, more angry, and far more unanimous form of the old racism than has been seen since the long-gone days of the Jim Crow South.

Recall for a moment how the civil rights revolution came to pass.  Blacks marched for their rights; black leaders made great speeches, yes; brave black men and women stood up to police dogs, fire hoses, and murderers, but black people weren't alone.  Whites seeking justice for all stood beside them.  As Hillary Clinton pointed out, it was (white) President Johnson that signed the Civil Rights Act.

Dr. King and his marching millions couldn't do it all by themselves; the current holders of power, white every one, became convinced that they should finally deliver on the promise of America, and were backed by the majority of white Americans nationwide.  The racists of the South found themselves a minority even among their own race.

Full citizenship as enjoyed by American blacks is not merely a right.  It is a responsibility - a responsibility to, as Kennedy said, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

Part of doing this is voting thoughtfully - to judge the candidates according to who would be best for the country as a whole, not as a symbol of race or class.  Dr. King said as much when he called for his children to "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

The white voters of civil rights days actually did judge rightly, considering what was best for the country as a whole and not just themselves; their elected leaders likewise voided racist laws and granted blacks their civil rights, not just in response to black protests, but in response to white voter pressure for justice on their behalf.

Reasonable people can disagree as to what is best.  There is no shortage of folks who truly believe that government knows best and that "progressive" policies will benefit the common man.  They are, of course, wrong, as history the world over clearly illustrates; but that doesn't mean that they aren't sincere.

There have been white people on both sides of the political aisle for as long as there has been an aisle; in the main, and certainly for the last half-century, white America has judged their politicians as Dr. King would have them to do, without regard for skin color.

Even the white voters who, when interviewed, said they voted for Mr. Obama to "make history" on account of his race are not exactly racist, at least not in the sense Dr. King condemned.  America's long sad history of injustice to blacks costs us every day; it's not unreasonable to hope that this past can be laid to rest by the election of a black man.  It's not even totally illogical to think this the most weighty issue confronting us; with the constant drumbeat of "Bush lied, thousands died," the average voter can be excused for thinking the War on Terror is a conjured-up bogeyman born of Darth Lord Cheney's black arts.

So we see that, while Mr. Obama won convincingly, the vote result was what you would expect to see of genuine differences of opinion, the sign of a healthy democracy.  55% - 45% is a free and fair victory, reflecting a democratic resolution of a legitimate debate.

There is, however, one great group where true democracy is in a dire state, and in just that group which should be most sensitive to its importance: black America.

Last week, 95% of American blacks voted for Barack Obama.

Ninety-five percent.

That's not an election result that should ever be seen anywhere short of a dictatorship.  It might as well be unanimous.  A result like that clearly demonstrates that something is badly wrong.

It isn't just that blacks don't like John McCain.  They voted for Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, the wife of our "first black president", in numbers almost as overwhelming - 82%, and this despite the media-appointed black leadership siding with the Clinton establishment.

Is it just that blacks are disproportionately poor, and Mr. Obama appealed to the poor?  No; the same exit polls show that he received only 47% of the votes from whites with a family income below $50,000.  If the presidency was up to poor whites alone, he'd have lost.

Is there any other demographic group that ever votes for the Republican candidate with such near-unanimity?  Even evangelical voters, for most of whom opposition to abortion is as much an article of faith as its defense is for Democrats, barely scrape three-quarters for Republicans.

No, there can be only one possible explanation for this result: There is, indeed, true racism still in the United States.  Racism, in the strict sense of judging for or against people based on the color of their skin, is alive and well in the black community.

Now, this is not to say that every last black voter for Barack Obama is a racist.  Indeed, quite a few of them clearly had other reasons for their choice.  Peggy Joseph, of Florida, rejoiced at Mr. Obama's victory and what it would mean for her:

Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Mr. Obama], he's gonna help me.

This is a horrifying voting rationale, to be sure, which should put stark fear in the heart of anyone who believes in freedom and the American dream.  As dreadful and as un-American as her dream of Mr. Obma paying all her expenses is, racist it is not.  We can be sure that Ms. Joseph is not alone in her laziness and greed.

Dare we to think, though, that ninety-five percent of black voters were gleefully bribed to vote this way?  These are, alas, the only two choices on offer:

Either American blacks voted for paternalistic socialism at its most stark, in opposition to everything that America has stood for from its inception and in a repudiation of the ideals fought for by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver...

Or, they voted for racist reasons, just as surely as the white supporters of Alabama Gov. George Wallace and Birmingham Sheriff Bull Connor voted for them for racist reasons.

In words that should be taught in every schoolhouse, but surely won't be, Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race."  White America has made this transition and reached the promised land dreamed of so eloquently by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Black America?  Well, this election turned over a rock concealing the foul secretions of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his fellow bigots, who, we are told, represent a view not uncommon in black churches.

A "church" which rejects a God that doesn't hate white people?  A preacher who calls down judgment on the opposite race?  If the colors were reversed, there'd be cries of horror and condemnation all up and down the TV dial; but for Rev. Wright and his ilk, only understanding and sympathy.  This is vile; racism, from whatever source, deserves to be ruthlessly exposed and repudiated in full measure.

And not only is rejecting racism good for the souls of everyone involved, a racial rush to judgment cuts off blacks from a whole world of much-needed opportunity for improvement.  Conservatism and the Republican party have much to offer to black Americans in particular that liberalism never can, from effective solutions to our dreadful inner-city schools to essential support for traditional families, the most reliable way to wealth and success yet found.

White Americans have long since learned to listen to the arguments of candidates and evaluate them on their merits as best they can; to judge the candidates by their personalities, yes, and their characters as presented, and vote accordingly.  Sometimes the Democrat wins; other times, the Republican; and in a democracy, that's how it should be. Those places where there is no alternation of power are just those places most disgracefully governed.

When will black America free itself from its racist past and do likewise?  Racism brings its own punishment, and the sooner it is dead and buried by all Americans, the better off we'll all be.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Society.
Reader Comments
This article is with all due respect, ridiculous.

I noticed you conveniently left out the fact that the Black vote hovers around 90% for Democrats no matter their race. Oh, and what about Black republicans who have lost to White Democrats who had 80-plus percent of the White vote.

No, you intentionally aim to mislead readers with empty accusations of "reverse racism" by Blacks, by leaving out the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You my friend, and many like you, are the REAL reason Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic...No matter their race.
November 14, 2008 9:27 PM

"White Democrats who had 80-plus percent of the White vote."

Should have read:

"White Democrats who won with 80-plus percent of the BLACK vote."
November 14, 2008 9:29 PM
No, you're missing something here - as it says, evangelicals come near 80% for Republicans (well, 3/4 anyway). There's a big difference from 80% to 95%, and not just 15% mathematically. It's the difference between "overwhelming victory/loss, but clearly there was still some thought and debate" and "total unanimity, the other 5% probably made a mistake, it's not a real election or there's something else at play here."

Why else do you think Communists aren't satisfied with 51% in a rigged vote, or even 80%? No, it has to be 95+%...

Any election result north of 90% for a significant sub-section of the electorate in a two-party system, is a slap in the face of democracy.

Or, put another way: Are you seriously arguing that reverse racism was NOT an issue in this election? How many man-on-the-street interviews were on TV talking about how they were going to vote precisely because of race? Loads. That ought not to be - ever, for anyone, in either direction.
November 14, 2008 10:36 PM
Listen, saying the difference between 80% and 95% is huge is completely subjective, and is self serving. I personally do not see it as a big difference numerically. But philosophically, yes, 95% is quite incredible. :-)

I am in fact arguing that reverse racism was NOT an issue in this election.

Why do you not directly address my point, which directly refutes your charges of "reverse racism"? That being, that BLACKS REGULARY VOTE OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC BY MARGINS OF 90+ PERCENT in presidential elections. What about the fact that Michael Steele, Alan Keyes, and other Black Republicans have lost elections to WHITE Democratic candidates, due to, let's say it together, overwhelming support of the Democratic candidate by Blacks. Tell me why I should not view you as being completely uninformed, or just trying to stir the pot on this issue?

Did Blacks vote 90% for Clinton and Kerry because they were Black? See how quickly your argument falls apart? Oh, we can quibble about the additional 5% Obama got. I'll even concede that that additional 5% voted for Obama because he's Black, if you'll concede that that 5% was more than offset by the percentage of White people who voted AGAINST Obama because he is Black.

"Any election result north of 90% for a significant sub-section of the electorate in a two-party system, is a slap in the face of democracy."

NOW we're getting somewhere. You see, THIS is the meat of your frustration with the election. You should have made THIS case instead of the racially tinged, red herring argument, that Blacks voted overwhelmingly on the basis of race.

So what do you suggest? That Blacks just vote for the GOP regardless of whether they feel the GOP represents their interest? See the problem is, Blacks are not as gullible as all the people out there making $8.00 an hour, voting as though they are benefitting from GOP policies. Joe the Plumber? Please. That guy will NEVER earn $250K, but because he fantasizes that one day he WILL be rich, he votes on that basis TODAY? He is willing to vote directly against his financial interests based on a fantasy. Now whose vote makes more sense?

I will say however, that THAT is the beauty of the GOP. Every election, they somehow convince millions of voters to vote against their interests. And I have to say, I both admire and envy the GOP for that feat. ;-)

Now back to "slapping democracy in the face" (lol). In a nutshell, Republicans, are openly hostile and antagonistic to Black people, and their interests. Now let me clarify that, "their interests" as defined by Black people, not the GOP. That distinction is important, because the GOP will try to tell you that what Blacks REALLY care about are things like school prayer and vouchers.

The GOP gave us Clarence Thomas, whom the vast majority of Blacks despise. Whenever there is a public race-related matter, the GOP ALWAYS comes down on the side opposite the general wishes of Blacks. They are constantly attacking and trying to repeal programs and policies that Blacks care about. Most Blacks if they themselves were not poor at some point, STILL know or are related to poor people.

Which brings me to my next point. The GOP is also viewed as uncaring and callous to poor people by many Blacks. And just look at who passes as the typical Republican to Black folk. People like Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter for God's sake. Not to mention all the racists and bigots who have weighed in on this nonsense of Blacks voting based on race. There are simply too many people in the GOP that Blacks see as "obviously" racist and bigoted. The amazing thing is that there are actually Blacks who look past all of that, and consider themselves Republicans. See what I mean about convincing people against their interests? That is just amazing!

You think Black folk don't hear attempts to assassinate a Black man's character with stuff like "Pallin' around with terrorists", and charges of being a socialist and communist? Stuff the likes of which has never been heard in a Presidential Election in modern times?

We are not stupid, we are not un-informed. Sure there are the uninformed on both sides, and attempts to make these anecdotal examples of "man-on-the-street" interviews as representing the norm is at best disingenuous, at worst verging on racism. No one would argue that idiot rednecks in a pickup professing their support of McCain because he's white, are representative of the White voter. In fact I'm sure you would be the first to say they are an insignificant "radical element" who does not represent the views of the vast majority of Republicans. So why are you holding up uninformed Blacks as evidence of the mentality of Black voters? See what I mean?

So my friend, the problem isn't that there is a consensus amoung Blacks as to who better represents their interests. The REAL shame is that one of our National Parties is viewed as completely atithetical to the interests of a "significant sub-section" of the electorate, and are apparently uninterested in their votes.

So who's really guilty of "slapping Democracy in the face"?

Your criticism is badly misdirected my friend.

Political parties court voters, not the other way around. But you already knew that.

And if those voters were any other block, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


P.S. And if you come back with some lame variation of the "GOP is the party of Lincoln" nonsense, then I'll consider that evidence of the intellectual vacuousness of your positions, your inability to logically support them.
November 16, 2008 2:19 PM
Wow. Quite a lengthy response. But I cannot let it stand unresponded to, and it doesn't lend itself to a freestanding article just yet, so I'll try to hit your major points.

1. You say that I am saying that blacks only voted for Obama because he was black, and that all blacks voted for that reason. Not true, I explicitly state that there are other un-racial reasons why blacks voted for Obama. My point was only that there are a large number of blacks for whom Obama's color was a very significant motivating reason to vote for him. I don't see how you can dispute that; and, by definition, that is racism.

2. I don't dispute that there are people who voted AGAINST Obama purely because of his color. I do doubt that there are very many of them.

3. It's funny that you point to "Pallin' around with terrorists" as an argument AGAINST the Republicans. It happens to be TRUE - Obama has, in fact, repeatedly had long, extensive, deep relationships with known and acknowledged terrorists. It's never happened in a presidential election before, because never before have we had a candidate with such poor judgment as to his vile associates. On this subject, we have written extensively; do a search for "Ayers" and "Wright."

4. Now we get to the meat of your argument. You seem to be presenting the "What's the Matter with Iowa?" argument that we've addressed elsewhere, founded on the assumption that Democratic liberalism is What's Best for Workers, and any worker who votes for Republicans is an idiot voting against their own interests.

Rubbish! Nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservatism (not the same thing as Republicanism, especially these days) is what is best for everyone, poor or rich, who wishes to work hard and get ahead by their own efforts. It is NOT what's best for the lazy, unmotivated, or "moochers" like Peggy as mentioned, nor for union bosses or other would-be monopolists.

Conservatism, as noted, has a great deal to offer the poor especially poor minorities. Exhibit A is its support for school vouchers, the ONLY way our inner-city youth will ever escape their worthless schools. In Washington DC, where 90+% routinely vote for Democrats, there is MASSIVE support for the very limited voucher program imposed by the Republican congress; there is a waiting list thousands long for the few number of vouchers. Even Marion Barry was forced to support the plan's renewal. Yet if there's one thing Democrats and their union paymasters hate, it's school vouchers. Republican policies are better for the poor in this area.

We also see the overwhelming number of black people in California who voted to protect traditional marriage, another area in which they are wildly at odds with the Democratic party and in line with the Republicans. There is abundant evidence that children are most likely to succeed when raised by their married, natural parents, than in any other way. Bill Cosby has repeatedly made this point, to the ridicule of Democratic leaders.

Yes, the GOP was the party of Lincoln, but that was 150 years ago, it no longer matters. What's more interesting is that the GOP was the party of civil rights - the great civil rights acts were filibustered by DEMOCRATS. That's within living memory, but of course it's gone down the memory hole thanks to the bias of the MSM and the self-centered race-baiters like Rev. Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright.

Oh, and your point about us not having this discussion with any other block of voters - find me a block of voters that is a) over 10% of the populace, b) in that block by nature not by personal choice or effort, and c) votes in 90+ percentages for one side, and I'll write an article about it.

Thanks for your intelligent comments, and I hope you continue reading and posting.
November 16, 2008 3:06 PM
Tony said "Whenever there is a public race-related matter, the GOP ALWAYS comes down on the side opposite the general wishes of Blacks"

Which is what? Handouts, welfare, affirmative action?

Perhaps, one might say that Blacks ALWAYS support socialist, racist policies which - coincidentally - the GOP is always against.
November 16, 2008 4:07 PM
"Which is what? Handouts, welfare, affirmative action?

Perhaps, one might say that Blacks ALWAYS support socialist, racist policies which - coincidentally - the GOP is always against."

AND like clockwork, from under rocks they crawl.

The GOPs finest.

See what I mean Petrarch?
November 16, 2008 4:26 PM
Patrarch, Thank you for your response. I know you have more to do than respond to me, so I'll keep this brief (

The only way your "race as a significant motivation" argument holds water, is if absent the "significant motivator" of race, Blacks would have voted Republican in large numbers.

We both know that is false, so your argument is invalid.

"My point was only that there are a large number of blacks for whom Obama's color was a very significant motivating reason to vote for him. "

"I don't dispute that there are people who voted AGAINST Obama purely because of his color. I do doubt that there are very many of them"

It's amazing you don't see the problem with stating in effect that "Oh yeah, sure, some Whites voted on race, but not many...Unlike the Blacks.". You really can't see it can you? You have no more basis for that assertion than I would have asserting the opposite, yet still, you blithely suggest that more Blacks voters were guilty of bad behavior than Whites.

Let me guess, you're Republican right?

See, I'm not even offended nor surprised, because in mine, and a lot of other Blacks' minds, this is the typical Republican view of the world. It's like it's in you all's DNA, and you just can't help yourselves.

You see, ours is a microcosm of what goes on all over the country whenever the subject of Republicans comes up in a discussion amoung Black Folks.

Now you can choose to ignore it, blow it off, criticize Blacks as just having their hands out (I'm a professional software engineer at almost $100K mind you), and continue to address us with barely concealed disdain.

But the fact of the matter is that until you guys figure out how to appeal to non-WASPs, and good ole boys like Ben here, you're going to be resigned to squeaking out elections...when you can win them. Because, as you can see, when White voters are roughly split, Republicans don't stand a chance.

I have to say, I like the way your finely parse your motivations. That part about a "block by nature and not by choice" was quite, but good. :-)

I don't begrudge your writing about the issue at all. I just find fault with your analysis of it.

I appreciate your taking time to personally respond.

I had been searching all over the internet to have an intellegent discussion on the topic, and unfortunately, most of the threads are simple minded, and overtly racist.

Thanks for an intelligent discussion. I hope "Ben" doesn't change the dynamic of any discussions between you and I.

I will check in from time-to-time, and offer my two cents when interest and time permits.

Take care

November 16, 2008 4:31 PM
Actually, Tony, I do have several data-points for the (let me emphasize, very limited) assertion of reverse-racism I'm making.

1. Obama polled 7% better than Kerry among blacks. Obama and Kerry had pretty much the same policies, and I'm assuming you'd consider McCain to be basically Bush Jr. (We've extensively argued against that, but most voters believe it and that's all that matters.) Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider that 7% as a starting point.

2. You say that we can only consider to be racist those who would have voted for McCain if not for Obama's race. Not so. There are very few people on either side for whom race is the ONLY element of consideration - I'd point to the racist Revs. Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, et al on the left and the KKK on, well, not our side exactly, but they'd be viewed as rightist I suppose.

However, you still have not disputed the fact that there were a great number of people who were expressly motivated to vote for Obama because of his race. Didn't you watch any of the election news? How many voters were saying how much they wanted to vote for a black, how glad they were it had happened in their lifetime, and so on.

The same is true for women, of course, the PUMAs were just as dedicated to voting for a female. That's not racism, but it's certainly sexism, the moral equivalent, if that is a primary motivating factor.

Surely you don't disagree with Dr. King's dream? It is precisely that goal which I share - when all of us, truly, care nothing for the race of anyone else, but only for their policies.

Obama's policies are noxious, unAmerican, and have a very significant risk of destroying our economy and national security. His race has nothing whatsoever to do with my opposition to him; it is entirely his political positions that appall me.

I can honestly say that I would not have a moment's hesitation in voting for a black man, or anyone of any race, for any political office. As it happens, I did vote for a black man for president in a past election, but his race was incidental; his policies were what attracted me.

Are there racists out there? Sure there are. There always will be. But my point, and one with which I am sure Dr. King would agree wholeheartedly, is that racism is evil no matter who is doing it, or against whom it is directed, and it must always be called out.

Only when we judge each person by their own merits and character, for good or ill, can we be a unified country. This discussion is an excellent example. Clearly, you have a different political point of view from myself; but we are discussing it in a civilized, respectful way. That's what politics is all about! And it's what keeps disagreements from exploding into wars as they have so many times elsewhere.

But unless the bad actors are clearly brought to light and repudiated, their bile will spread and grow. Nobody listens to the KKK anymore, even though they have every right to spread their hate via free speech - we all know them for what they are, and ignore them. Unfortunately, the same is not yet true for their moral equivalent on the other side.

I should mention that Scragged policy is to allow all reasonable posts to remain that attempt to argue any points rationally; but it is also policy not to allow reprehensible views such as racist ones to go unchallenged. The best response to bad speech, is more speech. Our comment board will remain civilized; otherwise, we wouldn't want to be in it ourselves.

I don't read Ben's post as racist. You were the one that said there was such a thing as "general wishes of blacks," and that Republicans were always opposed to them. However, I've already given two examples of issues in which the Republicans are exactly aligned to the wishes of blacks. What, exactly, were you thinking of? I read Ben's comment as sarcasm.

Looking forward to further discussions with you. You have made many intelligent remarks in the past and I look forward to debating many more.
November 16, 2008 8:28 PM

You say I have not disputed that race was a motivating factor for large numbers of voters, yet here is a quote from my previous response:

"The only way your "race as a significant motivation" argument holds water, is if absent the "significant motivator" of race, Blacks would have voted Republican in large numbers.

We both know that is false, so your argument is invalid."

That was a direct refutation of your assertion.

I think it is you, quite frankly who refuses to directly address my central argument.

I say to you that Obama got approximately 5% more votes than the typical WHITE Democratic presidential candidate gets, and you respond with talking about polls. POLLS? Your unwillingness to directly and forthrightly address this point is disappointing and speaks to the merit of your argument.

I've said that sure, there where people that voted race on BOTH sides of the aisle, yet YOU insist on minimizing those voters on YOUR side, while insisting that the numbers of such voters on MY side (ie. Blacks), are far greater, in spite of the fact that, within a few percentage points, they exhibited typical voting behavior.

I'm sorry, but I have to say, the longer we post, to be honest, your point of view becomes a little more offensive to me.

I mean really, to compare Johnson, Jackson and Shaprton to the KKK? Are you serious? Really?Who have either of those men lynched, tortured, terrorized, or fire bombed?

"I don't read Ben's post as racist...I read Ben's comment as sarcasm."

And this in a nutshell exemplifies the chasm between Blacks and Republicans.

You'd compare Three reverends to cowardly, racist, murdering, terrorists, yet totally give a pass to a guy who is obviously, at the very least is a bigot, and most likely a racist.

I'm sorry, but all your words about MLK and stamping out racism, etc, read a little more hollow to me now.

Thank you very much for the discussion. Perhaps we will cross swords again sometime.

November 17, 2008 6:43 AM
I am sorry, Tony, but the Racist Revs are indeed comparable to the KKK, if less effective. Have they personally lynched anyone? No; most Kleagles, like Sen. Byrd (D, WV) didn't either. But I'm sure we can agree that incitement to murder and riot is almost as bad.

Regarding Rev. Wright, read
Also google "black liberation theology" and "James Cone."

Sharpton is by far the worst of the three. He may actually deserve a whole article sometime, but google "Tawana Brawley hoax" and research the Crown Heights riot to find examples of Sharpton inciting to murder and riot, resulting in actual murders and riots - just like Klan Wizards did.

Jackson is a little different, and perhaps not as bad. He doesn't have the same history of incitement to murder, though he has made bigoted and anti-Semitic comments on several occasions. He is better known for what amounts to extortion from companies - "pay up or we'll protest and shut down your business." The KKK used this same tactic against businesses who were willing to deal with black people.

None of these three deserve the honorific of "Reverend," and I'm sorry to hear you defend them.

I wholeheartedly condemn anyone who judges another solely because of their race, no matter whether they are on my political side or the other. If, indeed, Ben is racist, then I condemn that. I simply don't consider his post to be proof of that; we clearly have a difference in judgment on this point.

There may well be more absolute numbers of racist whites - but then, there are a lot more American whites than blacks. Percentage-wise, there is a good deal of evidence that a higher percentage of blacks are. Is there even one church of several thousand in this country led by a pastor who openly preaches that God hates black people? Yet not only does Rev. Wright pastor such a church, but various writers attempting to defend him have said his views are not uncommon. That's shocking, and revolting.

I was privileged to be a member of a mostly black church some years ago, and rarely have I seen a more loving, caring group led by a more godly, learned, fantastically gifted pastor. In no way do I think Rev. Wright represents a "typical" black minister or his church a "typical" black church. But there's clearly a significant group of leaders and followers like him, and that's what I condemn.

I believe from your many comments that you are a reasonably openminded, intelligent, and generally fair person, Tony. There is no doubt that we have profound political disagreements, and that's fine. But surely we can agree on this one thing: each individual person should be judged on their own actions, beliefs, and statements, and NEVER by their color. We may judge someone's actions differently (e.g. Ben), but his or anyone's color ought to have nothing to do with it.
November 17, 2008 8:33 AM
Ha! Beautiful - you've proved my point.

There was nothing either racist or incorrect about my point. It was to demonstrate political PERSPECTIVE.

How specifically, my tolerant culturally-mature friend, am I "obviously a bigot and most likely a racist"?

I'm looking for facts, not tired cliches.
November 17, 2008 8:56 AM
"I'm looking for facts, not tired cliches"

And you won't get them. Tony is what I like to refer to as "an emotional fool".

He, and many others like him, believe that those of us that question culture policies (ie. political issues that deal with culture, race or diversity) are all bigots or racists.

We question these policies because we see their meritless, economically-destructive endgames. Tony questions US because we question the policies.

He also believes that he is the majority. That's where phrases like "crawling out from under rocks" come from.

Any reasonable person can see that there is a GREAT DEAL wrong with these policies and a GREAT NUMBER of people that oppose them.

Liberals believe that nature itself defies the "oppressive" stance of conservatism which then presumes a point of view that makes ANYTHING conservatives believe to be offensive, bigoted, racist, blah, blah blah.

All of this is, of course, irrational which is why most of them can't be reasoned with.
November 17, 2008 9:35 AM
"We question these policies because we see their meritless, economically-destructive endgames. Tony questions US because we question the policies"

Nuff said.
November 17, 2008 9:54 AM
the word 'racist' should be removed from the dict. and banned from all usage. i am so tired of hearing people use that word just because someone talks about an issue that is relevant to race but doesn't happen to be that particular race. doc. king must be rolling in his grave because of how the black community now makes every issue about color and not character.
November 17, 2008 6:19 PM

Thank you for your response.

Although, as you said, we have profound differences of opinion, I can respect you for your willingness to disagree maturely and like a gentleman.

It's too bad that so many of your "brethren" are incapable of civil discourse...As witnessed by the responses aside from your own. Which as I've stated previously, are typical from your side of the fence, and are in large part the reason why 90+ percent of Blacks vote for the other side.

Why would ANY sane, person want to identify with a group having so many members like those that posting here. That's not to say there are no Louis Farakhans on our side either, but when you get down to street level, they are not nearly as pervasive as they are your side.

Look at this discussion, it's repeated across the internet. Someone posts a topic such as your article, and you'll have people trying to have a reasonable discussion, and before long the thread is hijacked by people like the ones posting here.

Again, blow it off as hyper-sensitivity, playing the race card :::rolling eyes::: or whatever, but insulting and excoriating a group of people, and then expecting them to associate (vote for) with you (not you personally) is the height of stupidity.

Remember, we're not the one's complaining and knashing our teeth about the way we vote.

Again, I appreciated your comments, and the discussion.

November 17, 2008 6:57 PM
P.S. I have belonged to, and attended a number of churches which are predominately Black.

I have NEVER belonged to, or have even visited a church preaching anything other than love for our fellow man. In fact, if there was any criticism to be heard, it was directed at those in our own society, and even in the congregation who were guilty of bad behavior.

Thank you for your kind words with regards to the church you belonged to. I can assure you, that church is indicative of the vast, vast majority of Black churches.
November 17, 2008 7:08 PM
I completely agree about my experience attending a black church. The congregation welcomed us, and were amazingly tolerant of our ignorance of their ways of doing and thinking.

They opened their hearts to us in worship.

Then, when we ran into a rough patch, our remembering their open love for us helped us through. They'd been so vivid in their acceptance that remembering them helped us go through the mess.

I was later privileged to go back and thank them for their support, which continued long after we'd left.

I sorrow that this is not better recognized.
November 17, 2008 7:44 PM
These last few posts about black churches precisely illustrate the point I was trying to make.

Fact: There are a great number of loving, caring, black churches led by talented, Godly men, who are doing tremendous work in their community, and who are being taught to be truly colorblind.

Fact: There are a certain number - perhaps a small number, but certainly a good deal greater than zero - of black "churches" led by racists who preach a doctrine of hate and violence.

The same is true for whites as well - a lot of good, decent churches, and a few horrible bigoted ones. But in the white community, the bigots are despised and cast out of the wider community - although of course they have every right to say and believe as they wish, nobody wants anything to do with them and no excuses are made for their vile racism. This has led to them being completely marginalized and made mostly irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the same has yet to take place in the black community. Farrakhan, Sharpton, Wright and the rest are still accepted in polite society, listened to as though they have something to say, and given a respect they do not deserve. Their most outrageous statements and actions are excused with a sheepish "well, you have to understand them..."

Wrong! Forget whites for a minute. Wouldn't the black community itself be healthier if it repudiated its own racists? The last thing we need is another generation of them. For the black racists incite the white racists, and back and forth, and we stay in the cycle of hate.

People of good will, of all colors, need to work together to reject racism. But mark this well: racism is colorblind. Any person, no matter his race, can be a racism - and it's every bit as evil no matter who is doing it nor whom it's directed against. Only until we all recognize this can Dr. King's dream be achieved.

To truly stand for equality for men of all colors, it's not enough to condemn race bigots on the other side of the political divide. You have to condemn them on your own side as well, just as vigorously. But in order to be fair, you have to be sure to have clear and convincing proof of true racism, not just a political debate or discussion.

We've come a long way from Jim Crow, though, you have to admit! Even Obama said that in no other country would it be possible for someone of his background to rise to the level he has. We should all be grateful for America.
November 17, 2008 9:24 PM
Just want to point something out: The Tony posting above is NOT the same Tony (me) who has been posting here on scragged for the past year.

Maybe I'll have to change my name...
November 25, 2008 12:10 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...