Senator Bigot

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

The black vote doesn't matter, Syc. I'm not sure it ever did. It's the Hispanic vote that
causes pollsters and political strategists to wake up screaming and drenched in cold sweat.

Hmm...I have a feeling that once the politicians are "through" with Latinos , they'll have no more use for them. "Sure, we NEED your votes...that's it...vote for us, you won't be sorry!" :p

As far as the black vote is concerned, if it doesn't matter, then why should "we" even bother? That's probably WHY blacks don't come out in huge numbers. As much as the NAACP and others try to get "us" to vote, many blacks have just given up, especially the older ones...after all, many of them had to deal with segregation and laws inacted to keep them from existing as human beings in this country. So, a part of me doesn't blame them for NOT even wanting to give one good goddamn about voting...BUT...at the same time, I wish that they would. IMO, it would make a hell of a difference.

[slang]

Yes, that's a good post and very interesting. But the real question is, do you ever feel like kicking Syc's ass for being a liberal?

You can PM me with a reply so as not to cause any friction at home.

Also, see my blanket apology below.

[Cairo]

I'm going to address my reply to everyone, since all of you need to get out of the 1950's and realize it's 2002! We have a growing phenomenon taking place, it's called the mixed race. My children are mixed, as are many of the most beautiful children of the world are! Soon there will be no more White, Black, Red, Yellow, or Green because everyone will simply be Brown, a nice blend of all races together. Just watch the younger generation(my son's age:7) and learn...they are already "color-blind" and know what the future holds, instead of holding on to the past.

Also, if you are pro-affirmative action, you better be pro-racial profiling as well. By definition affirmative action and racial profiling are based on race. You are either for them both or against them both, take the good with the bad...you can't pick and choose to suit your own needs. What's fair is fair.

Senator Lott has already explained his "we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today" meant the Middle East...before his words were hijacked(and that is his fault for leaving it open to interpretation) if anyone of us were asked what mess are we in today? Anybody who doesn't live under a rock would say, the Middle East! Senator Lott is right when he said that he "fell into a trap." The trap of being blackmailable...any Jesse Jackson out there would threaten to ruin him if he held to issues he was elected to hold.
It will be fun to watch activist groups and DemocRATS squirm and squeal when they realize they should have been careful what they asked for! LOL....

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Cairo
We have a growing phenomenon taking place, it's called the mixed race.

Because it's you, I have to ask...what is "mixed race" (not necessarily what your children are, just your definition of the concept as a whole)?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by slang
Yes, that's a good post and very interesting. But the real question is, do you ever feel like kicking Syc's ass for being a liberal?

Rho and I are pretty much on the same liberal wavelength, but I now have no choice but to kick your sorry ass for trying to be a shit-disturber.

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore


Rho and I are pretty much on the same liberal wavelength

I thought maybe you guys had that "opposites attract" thing going. Or that Lsyc might be the one AA female in the country.

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by Cairo
We have a growing phenomenon taking place, it's called the mixed race. ..

. . . and there are actually people alive today, among our esteemed our peers on this site, in fact, who believe that there is some formula for determining who is black. For example, if at least one of your grandparents is black (no matter the ethnicity of all other descendants), you are black. (!)

The idea of a monolithic "black vote" ought to terrify these 'racial purists,' as the group that identifies itslef as "more than one race, including Black" is growing at a much faster rate than the general population and all other self-identified groups.

Perhaps Senator Lott and others would benefit from some briefings on the current thinking in both the scientific and anthropological communities about the obsolescence of the artificial construct of race. While many scholarly and scientific sources abound, a very concise overview of the history of the notion of 'race' and the myriad facts and reasons to do away with this man-made concept, can be found -- of all places -- at the National Cancer Institute.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
more White, Black, Red, Yellow, or Green because everyone will simply be Brown, a nice blend of all races together. Just watch the younger generation(my son's age:7) and learn...they are already "color-blind" and know what the future holds, instead of holding on to the past.

I was pretty colorblind when I was 7 too. And then I grew older, and the real world intruded on my innocence. I think we have a few more generations to go before the general population is truly colorblind.

Also, if you are pro-affirmative action, you better be pro-racial profiling as well. By definition affirmative action and racial profiling are based on race. You are either for them both or against them both, take the good with the bad...you can't pick and choose to suit your own needs. What's fair is fair.

Actually, yeah, you can. Affirmative action and racial profiling are both based on race, yes, but so are affirmative action and segregation. You can't equate one policy that's intended to equalize the playing field with one that ends up making people feel oppressed.

That being said, I think many of the cases of racial profiling are just police seeing suspicious activity and acting on it. This isn't to say it's a real phenomena, but I don't think (or, at least, I hope not) it's as bad as Rev. Sharpton, et al. would have us believe.

Senator Lott has already explained his "we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today" meant the Middle East...before his words were hijacked(and that is his fault for leaving it open to interpretation) if anyone of us were asked what mess are we in today? Anybody who doesn't live under a rock would say, the Middle East! Senator Lott is right when he said that he "fell into a trap." The trap of being blackmailable...any Jesse Jackson out there would threaten to ruin him if he held to issues he was elected to hold.
It will be fun to watch activist groups and DemocRATS squirm and squeal when they realize they should have been careful what they asked for! LOL....

Ok, since most of that didn't make sense, I'll answer what I found in it.

When did Lott say he was talking about the Middle East? Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat platform revolved almost exclusively around segregation. If you show me proof of Lott's intentions, I'll believe you. But I haven't seen anything but half-hearted apologies. And a trap? The only trap he fell into was the one he set himself.

And the issues he was elected to hold? By associating Jesse Jackson with this, you imply that he was elected to hold up racist issues. Which thoroughly invalidates the first half of your paragraph, and says that every racist remark he's ever made was, if not heartfelt, then intentional.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure

While many scholarly and scientific sources abound, a very concise overview of the history of the notion of 'race' and the myriad facts and reasons to do away with this man-made concept, can be found -- of all places -- at the National Cancer Institute.

That's a pretty good summary. I saw somewhere that the differences between the races was something like less than 1/1000th of a percent of our DNA. There's bound to be more differences in a race than there are between the races as a whole.

[tw]

Originally posted by slang
Please accept my most sincere heartfelt apology for anything that may possibly offend anyone at any time for any reason in any thread and/or any topic. I regret the perception of any insensitivity or bias that may bring one distress or make them cry or incite one to violence.

If Trent Lott had the foresight to quote Slang - then shut up - he would have been elected Majority Leader. That was all he had to say. Not only did he not keep his mouth shut during his apology era, but we also now know he kept repeating that same bad Strom Thurmond joke. Slang for senatorial political adviser. It has credibility. Lott also needs a new joke writer. Any ideas?

[wolf]

I'll second the nomination.

[Cairo]

Sycamore -
Ahhhhh, because it's YOU...I figured as much. Hehehe...
"Mixed race" as in more than one. Can't really say bi-racial anymore because today bi-racial men and women are having children with partners that blend a third race in as well.

99 44/100% pure -
I agree that race will soon be a non-factor...sooner than most think.
Those who think that they are Black no matter what are oppressing and enslaving(by denial of existence) the Hispanic,White,Asian, or Other DNA/Culture in them...in effect, being racist to themselves. Sad. I wonder who teaches them this nonsense?
The "more than one" race generation is growing fast in general...and guess what? Most are well educated and conservative!
Senator Lott wasn't the one who pulled out the "race card" here, so don't blame him for keeping the racial divide alive...you can thank the Democrat minority leaders for that! Those who would "benefit from briefings on current thinking" are the people who would be out of a job if race were no longer an issue.

Hermit22 -
No...as you grew older you were taught to see color, and you were taught to attribute any roadblocks or failures in the "real world" to color
because we are also taught to blame anything but ourselves. Personal responsibility and accountability are often buried in a "feel good" society. Parents of the "more than one race" generation do not teach differences of color. My son has concluded(on his own) that some kids have better suntans than others because they get to play outside more, it all starts in the home!
O.K...either you are pro-affirmative action and pro-segregation, or you are against BOTH! Are you saying that affirmative action quotas don't end up making people feel oppressed?

Lott was 7 years old when Strom ran for President on mostly a Democrat platform, Strom has changed parties and views since then, so I'm sure he's not remembered as such around the watercooler.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075408/

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGAL1VA8M9D.html

Apologize for what? Wanting America to keep a strong defense? Or for trying to pay tribute to a 100 year old man's life?
The blackmail trap is always there for every politician, Lott fell into the hole that was already there.

No, the issues he was elected to hold are Republican issues...now, it seems, that you are calling me and Lott's constituents in Mississippi racists????? Take a look in the mirror, bud...
I'm not the one insisting that this is a race issue and putting words in mouths that aren't there!!!

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo

Those who think that they are Black no matter what are oppressing and enslaving(by denial of existence) the Hispanic,White,Asian, or Other DNA/Culture in them...in effect, being racist to themselves. Sad. I wonder who teaches them this nonsense?

So it's racist to be proud of your heritage? You've mentioned earlier that you're Jewish, and, as far as I know, you have to have Jewish blood in order to be Jewish. So are you racist simply because of your religion?

No...as you grew older you were taught to see color, and you were taught to attribute any roadblocks or failures in the "real world" to color
because we are also taught to blame anything but ourselves. Personal responsibility and accountability are often buried in a "feel good" society.

Uh..wow. Nice assumption that I blame problems on race. Isn't that how the Lott thing came up in the first place? Blaming "roadblocks or failures" (problems) on color? I bristle at your implied suggestion that I'm somehow racist. If you look at my post, I was talking about the discussions on race that permeate our society. Child rearing, no matter how great, isn't going to protect children from national debate.

O.K...either you are pro-affirmative action and pro-segregation, or you are against BOTH! Are you saying that affirmative action quotas don't end up making people feel oppressed?

See how bigoted you sound? The point of affirmative action is to attempt to make things equal (not 'separate but equal'). Segregation served no noble purpose; it existed only to make dirty racists feel cleaner. Of course there are problems with affirmative action, but there are problems with any social institution. That being said, I'm not one of those people who think affirmative action is failproof, or should last forever. But I do think your comments are evidence of the sentiment behind Lott's remarks: not to say you're racist or he is (even though the evidence on him points otherwise, despite the ass-kissing in the links you posted), but that it shows a great insensitivity for the real race problems in this country, and the only way to fix them is to end any discussion, and return to an idyllic fantasy of the past.

Apologize for what? Wanting America to keep a strong defense? Or for trying to pay tribute to a 100 year old man's life?

No, the issues he was elected to hold are Republican issues...now, it seems, that you are calling me and Lott's constituents in Mississippi racists????? Take a look in the mirror, bud...

Hmm...I'd say Truman did a pretty decent job on defense. This was post-WWII, and America only wanted its boys home. He was able to recognise the growing threat of Communism, and started to take action to combat it. Or maybe you don't like Ike's job? He did cut the military back a bit (a lot) in order to streamline it. Any president since then would not have been directly effected by a Thurmond presidency.
No, the real problem is Lott's embodiment of the Southern Strategy, which has been key to the national Republican strategy since Nixon. It means, at the very least, paying lip service to racists, and, at the worst, running anti-black ads like Helms did. There's a lot of such sentiment in the Republican party, and that doesn't mean that every Republican's a racist - it just means that nearly every Republican figure that relies on the Southern vote pursues this strategy - even John McCain. And this is just wrong. Racists shouldn't be coddled, and neither should Trent Lott. What he said boils down to a racist remark, no matter what he claims to have meant by it, because it evokes a campaign that was built almost entirely on racism. His reformation isn't as evident as Thurmond's, so he had little to stand on. No, Lott got what he deserved. There was no trap set against him. No reporter asked him any pointed questions - he was giving a speech about an old man he thinks is great and got carried away with his exuberance, nostalgia, or some similar emotion.

I'm not the one insisting that this is a race issue and putting words in mouths that aren't there!!!

No, you're trying to insist that it isn't a race issue and trying to take words out of mouths that are there. This isn't a conspiracy against your beloved Senator. "Personal responsibility and accountability are often buried in a "feel good" society" - seems you've fallen victim to this in your analysis of Trent Lott.

[Cairo]

Hermit22 -
Listen for a moment to what you are saying...
"So it's racist to be proud of your heritage?"
Their heritage is also 50% Hispanic, White, Asian, or other...not too proud of that are they?
A racist is one who considers one race superior to all others. So are you a racist if you think 50% of you is superior to the other 50% of you?

I never implied that you consider one race superior to others, I implied that society today plays the race card instead of striving to be the best qualified. I could rant about the true reality of today...which is that I have a very "Hispanic sounding" name through marriage, however, I am as redheaded and freckled as they come. Seeing my name on an application, employers think-(Cha-ching) TWO quotas for the price of 1 position! I'm not qualified, but their extra position leaves them free to hire a quota-less qualified person. Imagine their HORROR when my lilly white ass waltzes in the door!!!! I could whine and play the race card, but I'd rather end discrimination based on race.

I don't sound bigotted, you're the one saying that employment based solely on race is equal?!?!

I showed proof of his ill-worded intent, you said you would believe it then because, after all, Trent Lott knows what he meant and nobody else could... but you lied...just more of the same from you!

[hermit22]

Hmm.

So I've been sitting here for about 30 seconds trying to figure out just what the hell you were trying to say, and decided that you're using some Mississippi dialect I don't know. Somehow it's inexcusable to be proud of your ancestors when some came from Europe and others from Latin America? I guess? I think I'm really putting too much thought into trying to decipher you here.

But I will comment on two things:

Originally posted by Cairo

I don't sound bigotted, you're the one saying that employment based solely on race is equal?!?!

And if there are obvious trends that people aren't being hired solely because of they're race, that's not bad?
I wish I knew of a better solution, but I don't think ending affirmative action is currently justifiable without a decent replacement.

I showed proof of his ill-worded intent, you said you would believe it then because, after all, Trent Lott knows what he meant and nobody else could... but you lied...just more of the same from you!

So I'm a liar, now, eh? No wonder I keep going through Levis. Did it ever enter into your mind that he was lying about his intent?

And those ass-kissing links you provided were not proof positive that Lott's a reformist. This is a serious issue, and it is something that stains the GOP nationwide. There are a lot of blacks, feminists and gays that would vote Republican if the party would break away from its own discriminatory panderings. This doesn't mean the party is racist, or homophobic, or mysoginistic, but that it doesn't make efforts to prove that its not, and doesn't condone such activity within its ranks.