All things Racist...USA edition (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I predicted you would say that. That is a very standardized statement.

There is nothing wrong with being white, male, straight, or a Christian. In the same manner that there is nothing with being a female, lesbian, and Muslim. Don't fight hate with hate.

Old traditions are something entirely different than run of the mill bigotry.

There's something wrong with one group taking on a role of dominance and holding others back. That was the clear point that you missed.

 

[V Chip]

I am a centrist

 

[V Chip]

On the right there is a firm line that most people consider a no-go zone and that would be identity politics (white nationalism).

I have about 74 million examples of why this is not true.

 

[Paul]

There's something wrong with one group taking on a role of dominance and holding others back. That was the clear point that you missed.

Good old traditional values have nothing to do with domination. politeness, standing up if a woman walks in the room, saying please when asking for something, being well groomed at all times, manners, avoiding foul language. The list is long!

 

[Paul]

I have about 74 million examples of why this is not true.

You have a point. If the left does identity politics the right will do the same and that is a major disaster.

 

[Paul]

I voted for Obama twice and now for Biden. I favor free choice, feee college, and national health care. That makes me left of center.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

You have a point. If the left does identity politics the right will do the same and that is a major disaster.

The Southern Strategy pre-dates the left using identity politics. If anything it is what opened the door to the left using identity politics. The Southern Strategy is what galvanized minority support to the Democrats and the Dems certainly leveraged it moving from Nixon getting 15% of the black vote down to McCain getting 4% and Romney getting 6%. However, the Southern Strategy was identity politics on steroids and led to the current electoral dynamic.

You bring some strong anti-left biases to the way you view information that I think warps your perspective on the history of identity politics in this nation. Either that, or you just don't know the facts, but I think the current landscape is impossible to deny (for Democrats it's one of their tools, for Republicans it's their only tool).

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Good old traditional values have nothing to do with domination. politeness, standing up if a woman walks in the room, saying please when asking for something, being well groomed at all times, manners, avoiding foul language. The list is long!

I was going to bring up things like the Southern Strategy, but it appears SBTB beat me to it. You seem to lack the ability (or desire) to see nuance or read between any lines whatsoever.

 

[MT15]

Paul, you have interesting comments, but sometimes you are just way out of whack in the way you see things.

When a sitting GOP US Congressman holds a joint fund raiser with a known white nationalist, without even being reprimanded by GOP leadership, that’s a pretty clear indication that there is no clear line that the GOP won’t cross concerning white nationalism. I cannot fathom why you think there is a clear line there. Fox News features a very popular evening talk show (at least among Republicans) that recently promoted the Great Replacement.

I have voted my entire life independent of the party, my parents taught me to vote for the person. My values align better with the Democratic Party, so I have more often voted for democrats than republicans. I have voted for republicans though, and not just one or two, over the years.

If you had told me years ago the extent of the pandering the Republican Party was going to do to white supremacists and white nationalists, I would have thought you were crazy. Yet, here we are.

There is a fundamental difference between what Republicans are willing to do and say today than anything Democrats are willing to do and say today. The so-called fringe left is just that, fringe. The vast majority of Democrats are far more moderate and centrist than the majority of republicans. The vast majority of republicans are fringe right, and going further right all the time. They present a clear and present danger to democracy, as it appears they are willing to peddle outright lies about election fraud in order to undermine our democracy. Add to that the evangelicals who want a theocracy, and we have a horrible alliance who wants to basically undo the American experiment.

It’s foolish (IMO) to cling to the idea that there is more danger from the left in the US today. These things ebb and flow, when I was young and the SDS were planting bombs on college campuses, you could have made the argument that the left was more dangerous. Today, the danger of civil violence absolutely comes from the right. It has been that way for a bit, since McVeigh at least.

The BLM protests never approached the violence of the insurrection at the Capitol. Over 140 policemen and women were injured, some very seriously in life altering ways, in one afternoon. One police officer died the next day after collapsing the day of the riot, two more committed suicide in the days after.

 

[Paul]

The Southern Strategy pre-dates the left using identity politics. If anything it is what opened the door to the left using identity politics. The Southern Strategy is what galvanized minority support to the Democrats and the Dems certainly leveraged it moving from Nixon getting 15% of the black vote down to McCain getting 4% and Romney getting 6%. However, the Southern Strategy was identity politics on steroids and led to the current electoral dynamic.

You bring some strong anti-left biases to the way you view information that I think warps your perspective on the history of identity politics in this nation. Either that, or you just don't know the facts, but I think the current landscape is impossible to deny (for Democrats it's one of their tools, for Republicans it's their only tool).

You are making my point. The Democrats used ID politics to cultivate the black vote. LBJ pushed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to get votes. LBJ who was a racist somehow knew black identity politics was the future. That someone did it before makes no difference. Two wrongs do not make a right. Sure, it is important to form groups to petition the government, but that is different than using skin color to dictate which party to vote for.

As for anti-left bias. I obviously think race ID politics is a disaster that leads to division, tribalism, and civil war. 200 years from now historians will look at this race ID era and conclude it was a mistake BTW, I am aware many want to end the USA as a nation, but I think that is a mistake.

 

[Paul]

Paul, you have interesting comments, but sometimes you are just way out of whack in the way you see things.

When a sitting GOP US Congressman holds a joint fund raiser with a known white nationalist, without even being reprimanded by GOP leadership, that’s a pretty clear indication that there is no clear line that the GOP won’t cross concerning white nationalism. I cannot fathom why you think there is a clear line there. Fox News features a very popular evening talk show (at least among Republicans) that recently promoted the Great Replacement.

I have voted my entire life independent of the party, my parents taught me to vote for the person. My values align better with the Democratic Party, so I have more often voted for democrats than republicans. I have voted for republicans though, and not just one or two, over the years.

If you had told me years ago the extent of the pandering the Republican Party was going to do to white supremacists and white nationalists, I would have thought you were crazy. Yet, here we are.

There is a fundamental difference between what Republicans are willing to do and say today than anything Democrats are willing to do and say today. The so-called fringe left is just that, fringe. The vast majority of Democrats are far more moderate and centrist than the majority of republicans. The vast majority of republicans are fringe right, and going further right all the time. They present a clear and present danger to democracy, as it appears they are willing to peddle outright lies about election fraud in order to undermine our democracy. Add to that the evangelicals who want a theocracy, and we have a horrible alliance who wants to basically undo the American experiment.

It’s foolish (IMO) to cling to the idea that there is more danger from the left in the US today. These things ebb and flow, when I was young and the SDS were planting bombs on college campuses, you could have made the argument that the left was more dangerous. Today, the danger of civil violence absolutely comes from the right. It has been that way for a bit, since McVeigh at least.

The BLM protests never approached the violence of the insurrection at the Capitol. Over 140 policemen and women were injured, some very seriously in life altering ways, in one afternoon. One police officer died the next day after collapsing the day of the riot, two more committed suicide in the days after.

I do not see it as one sided as you do. Perhaps i am naive, but I worry a lot about a committed extreme left winger that feels he or she is morally correct. This is dangerous because the excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.

Having said the above I freely admit there are lots of redneck ignorant types that have nothing going for them and lean on the concept of being white. My problem is that their numbers grow whenever the left clings to race ID politics. If the left plays the Race ID politics the right will do the same. That is a very nasty situation.

 

[MT15]

You don’t get concerned about the millions of evangelicals and right wingers who are convinced that Trump is the Chosen One from God?

Okay, then.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

You are making my point. The Democrats used ID politics to cultivate the black vote. LBJ pushed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to get votes. LBJ who was a racist somehow knew black identity politics was the future. That someone did it before makes no difference. Two wrongs do not make a right. Sure, it is important to form groups to petition the government, but that is different than using skin color to dictate which party to vote for.

As for anti-left bias. I obviously think race ID politics is a disaster that leads to division, tribalism, and civil war. 200 years from now historians will look at this race ID era and conclude it was a mistake BTW, I am aware many want to end the USA as a nation, but I think that is a mistake.

Like almost everything thing that relates to race and political history, you have a poor understanding of LBJ’s motivations.

LBJ was a racist, yes. He was also committed to fulfilling the promise of The New Deal with his Great Society. Johnson believed you couldn’t simply crush white poverty to usher in the Great Society, but that the only way to end poverty was through racial justice. It’s why he lead Civil Rights legislation as Majotiy Leader in 1957. Like most humans there was a duality and nuance to LBJ’s actions that can’t be simplified. It wasn’t about votes, it was about his anti poverty ideology and how he thought that could be achieved. LBJ was very concerned with his place in history and being seen as the heir to Roosevelt’s legacy.

If you filter everything through your biases you are greatly limiting your understanding of things. That combined with your clearly exposed weakness in understanding US cultural and political history leads to a very poor understanding of a subject you seem very passionate about. I’m not saying knowledge will change your opinion at all, you seem clearly set in cement there, but at least it might keep you from saying so many things that are easily disproven by someone who has read even a single book on the complex political history of this nation.

 

[SystemShock]

The Southern Strategy pre-dates the left using identity politics. If anything it is what opened the door to the left using identity politics. The Southern Strategy is what galvanized minority support to the Democrats and the Dems certainly leveraged it moving from Nixon getting 15% of the black vote down to McCain getting 4% and Romney getting 6%. However, the Southern Strategy was identity politics on steroids and led to the current electoral dynamic.

You bring some strong anti-left biases to the way you view information that I think warps your perspective on the history of identity politics in this nation. Either that, or you just don't know the facts, but I think the current landscape is impossible to deny (for Democrats it's one of their tools, for Republicans it's their only tool).

Not to mention, the Southern strategy is identity politics.

 

[SystemShock]

You don’t get concerned about the millions of evangelicals and right wingers who are convinced that Trump is the Chosen One from God?

Okay, then.

Some of them are fine people.

 

[Paul]

Like almost everything thing that relates to race and political history, you have a poor understanding of LBJ’s motivations.

LBJ was a racist, yes. He was also committed to fulfilling the promise of The New Deal with his Great Society. Johnson believed you couldn’t simply crush white poverty to usher in the Great Society, but that the only way to end poverty was through racial justice. It’s why he lead Civil Rights legislation as Majotiy Leader in 1957. Like most humans there was a duality and nuance to LBJ’s actions that can’t be simplified. It wasn’t about votes, it was about his anti poverty ideology and how he thought that could be achieved. LBJ was very concerned with his place in history and being seen as the heir to Roosevelt’s legacy.

If you filter everything through your biases you are greatly limiting your understanding of things. That combined with your clearly exposed weakness in understanding US cultural and political history leads to a very poor understanding of a subject you seem very passionate about. I’m not saying knowledge will change your opinion at all, you seem clearly set in cement there, but at least it might keep you from saying so many things that are easily disproven by someone who has read even a single book on the complex political history of this nation.

I am from Latin America and did not live in the USA during that era. After some research it is seems LBJ used the N word regularly, but perhaps you are correct regarding his quest to end poverty with his 1965 bill.

By the way the Civil Rights Act passed because of Republicans. The bill was opposed by the Democrats of that era as they were the party of the KKK. IN 1960 the rate of children out of wedlock in black America was 23%% and today it is over 70%. Among whites out of wedlock births were extremely low around 3% and today is over 25%. In the USA single motherhood is a sentence for poverty. Kids from two parent homes have a low rate of poverty. The LBJ war on poverty failed and yet some politicians want more of that. On the other side the Republicans have no answers either. They preach responsibility and hard work to people that cannot do such things as they mostly come from a single parent dysfunctional home. The unintended consequences of the 1965 Bill were massive and predicted by Moynihan.

Your acrimonious remarks are not needed and do not advance your position.

 

[Paul]

You don’t get concerned about the millions of evangelicals and right wingers who are convinced that Trump is the Chosen One from God?

Okay, then.

I fear the Evangelical as much as I fear radical islam ideology. However, there is such a thing as freedom to practice religion. But, there is more. Those on the far left also have a belief system that is pseudo-religious and they do not tolerate heretics.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I fear the Evangelical as much as I fear radical islam ideology. However, there is such a thing as freedom to practice religion. But, there is more. Those on the far left also have a belief system that is pseudo-religious and they do not tolerate heretics.

This is bordering very closely on the absurd "atheism is a religion" argument made by some evangelicals. It's no less ridiculous in this context.