An honest discussion about Racism?

LoL, even in the thread about that case, the bigots here would not acknowledge the one white teen. I also notice that it's the bigots here that keeps bringing it up as a black crime.

 

inherent

1. existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

This is true of the democrat party, not of conservatism. You have not once shown how conservatism is racist, yet I have shown time and time again how the democratic party is racist.

 

Hell he didn't even know what state the murder took place in, let alone who was involved in it.

 

How do you have an honest conversation on a one-way street?

 

Why is racism even important to the sole surviving species in the Homo genus?

 

Especially when you are riding on a street car named, "Denial".

 

"Especially when you are riding on a street car named, "Denial"."

Taxcutter says:
I rest my case.

No conversation possible.

 

IQ could be a sign of evolution, and higher IQ's could be found in different sub groups of homo sapiens. So the racism would be from the higher quotient individuals, when compared to the lower quotient individuals..

 

Nice post. I have more respect for posters that put up some real thought on a subject, and you've presented some genuine thought. A guy that I respect once said, "I may be wrong, and you may be right, and together we might get closer to the truth". That's what interests me more then blind ideological spit. It's about being open to new ideas, and to do that I think is important which is to grasp ones own fallibility and understand that none of us have all the answers. That means having a willingness to question your own ideology, philosophy, or beliefs.

 

This is what the forum is meant to be about. People sharing their perspectives.

 

Are you deliberately ignoring the conservative ideologue that despises the liberal, or did that just slip your mind?

In that case, then the liberal hate you're talking about has no racial basis. It's all about the ideology. Being black or white doesn't matter. It's the conservative ideology itself. That's what you're saying. There's quite a difference in that. The Conservative hate toward racial groups is over something that people have no control over. Nobody can control the color of their skin. However, you have complete control over how you think. You can change that. So it's about attitude, not somebody's race. What the liberal has no tolerance for is intolerance. Nor should they. Left unchecked, intolerance is lethal to the kind of society that we hope to live in. Germany in the 1930's is a perfect example.

 

You seem to have selectively left out a few things. In 1924, Harry S. Truman was a judge in Jackson County, Missouri, which includes Kansas City. Truman was up for reelection, and his friends Edgar Hinde and Spencer Salisbury advised him to join the Klan. The Klan was politically powerful in Jackson County, and two of Truman's opponents in the Democratic primary had Klan support. Truman refused at first, but paid the Klan's $10 membership fee, and a meeting with a Klan officer was arranged.

Truman was inducted, but afterward “was never active; he was just a member who wouldn't do anything”. Salisbury, however, became Truman's bitter enemy in later years, so this version is suspect.

According to Hinde and Truman's accounts, the Klan officer demanded that Truman pledge not to hire any Catholics or Jews if he was reelected. Truman refused, and demanded the return of his $10 membership fee; most of the men he had commanded in World War I had been local Irish Catholics.

Truman had at least one other strong reason to object to the anti-Catholic requirement, which was that the Catholic Pendergast family, which operated a political machine in Jackson County, were his patrons; Pendergast family lore has it that Truman was originally accepted for patronage without even meeting him, on the basis of his family background plus the requirement that he was not a member of any anti-Catholic organization such as the Klan. The Pendergast faction of the Democratic Party was known as the “Goats”, as opposed to the rival Shannon machine's “Rabbits”. The battle lines were drawn when Truman put only Goats on the county payroll, and the Klan began encouraging voters to support Protestant, “100% American” candidates, which was anathema to the Catholic Pendergasts. The Klan allied itself against Truman and with the Rabbits, and Shannon instructed his people to vote Republican in the election, which Truman lost. Sympathetic observers see Truman's flirtation with the Klan as a momentary aberration and point out that his close friend and business partner Eddie Jacobson was Jewish, and assert that in later years, Truman's presidency, notably the President's Committee on Civil Rights, marked the first significant improvement in the federal government's record on civil rights since the post-Reconstruction nadir marked by the Wilson administration. It's also a fact that it was Truman that integrated the Army.

In looking for Klan members that were involved in US politics, you might also note a few of these.
Warren G. Harding - Republican President of the US #29 (although that's more of a rumor,)
Rice Means a Republican Senator from Colorado
Edwin Jackson the Republican Governor of Indiana
Clarence Morely, the Republican Governor of Colorado
And of course David Duke. He was founder and Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-1970s; he re-titled his position as "National Director" and said that the KKK needed to "get out of the cow pasture and into hotel meeting rooms." He claims to have left the organization in 1980. He ran for president in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries. In 1989 Duke switched political parties from Democrat to Republican. That happened quite frequently. The Republican party was far more sympathetic to Klan types. In 1989, he became a member of the Louisiana State Legislature from the 81st district, and was Republican Party chairman for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.

But again...it's not about the party. It's about conservatism. No Conservative with racist tendencies is going to want to be part of a liberal party. He'd never get elected. He wouldn't get any party support.

In terms of the politics of his time, FDR could be described as a "liberal", since he supported some things - like setting up the National Works Administration, creating labor laws that recognized unions, and setting up Social Security - that conservatives opposed. But that does not mean he would qualify as a liberal in modern times. He opposed the abolition of segregation, for example, which in modern times is supported by liberals. In addition to being opposed by many conservatives, FDR was also opposed by many people on the left wing who felt that he was not doing enough to help the poor. The socialist and communist movements were very active during the great depression and they opposed many of Roosevelt's decisions.

So to answer your question...who knows? He was liberal on some things and conservative on others.

Nobody ever praised JFK as a Civil Rights Leader. Show me a few citations claiming that he was a Civil Rights "Leader". It doesn't help your case to make up a load of crap. His brother was far more involved than he was.

So....where was the conservative outrage over those events? There wasn't any. Because they were the ones participating in the very things you're pointing out. Liberals weren't hosing down blacks and attacking them with dogs. They weren't the ones conducting the violence and murders against blacks. You keep avoiding this essential problem. It's not about Democrats. The parties aren't the problem. The ideology of conservatism is. Do you think that there were no conservative Democrats? Hasn't it seemed a bit strange to you that blacks would be predominantly Democrats today? Why do you think that is, if they saw the Party as the problem? It's because they know precisely what the problem is. It's with Conservatism, and it doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican. Those are just two sides of the same coin. It's Heads I win, tails you lose. Conservatism is what they reject. The Democratic Party embraced Civil Rights as part of their platform. That's what drove the Conservatives from the party. They opposed it. The Republicans said come on over, and they did. Now the conservatives totally control the Republican Party and that's why they can't attract blacks. Martin Luther King was a Republican. But that's because he and his family were Lincoln Republicans. The Southern Democrats were segregationists and Klan types. And in the south, that meant conservative and it still does today. Today's party of Lincoln is now the party of Jefferson Davis complete with secessionists and confederate flag wavers. What black wants to be part of that?

I already addressed that. Truman wasn't a member. He was advised to join because he was told it would be good for him politically. He never did anything with them or attended any of their meetings and refused to discriminate against Catholics and Jews. What you're doing is spreading lies and half-truths.

What you've focused on entirely is the Democratic Party, which is typical of the conservative. It's a way of avoiding the truth. Parties aren't what this is about. The philosophy or ideology is what matters. The parties can and have changed over the years. What doesn't change is the ideology that drives them. Conservative v Liberal. All Democrats were not conservative or liberal, any more than all Republicans were conservative or liberal. They were mixed with both.

Here is a breakdown of the votes taken on the CRA in 1964
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By party and region: This is where the rubber hits the road.

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

There were 22 Senators from the South and all but 1 were Democrats and every one of them was a conservative. Today, there are no Democratic Senators from the South, and I don't think that you could make the case that the South is NOT Conservative. They may have changed parties but they remain conservatives.

Liberal Democrats and Republicans from the North passed the Civil Rights Act. Conservative Dems and Repubs from the South opposed it. So your contention that the Democrats were a bunch of racists ignores the fact of liberal Democrats from the North that were not and along with Liberal Republicans, passed the Civil Rights Act. Can you show me an example of a liberal Republican Senator today? I'll bet every one of them identifies themselves as a conservative. Show me one that doesn't.

Fulbright was a conservative Southern Democrat. That's what conservatives did. Why would you think he was any different? Perhaps his most notable case of dissent was his public condemnation of foreign and domestic policies, in particular, his concern that right-wing radicalism, as espoused by the John Birch Society and wealthy oil-man H. L. Hunt, had infected the United States military. He was, in turn, denounced by Republican Senators J. Strom Thurmond and Barry M. Goldwater. Goldwater and Texas Senator John Tower announced that they were going to Arkansas to campaign against Fulbright, but Arkansas voters reelected him. During the Nixon administration Fulbright voted for a civil rights bill and led the charge against confirming Nixon's conservative Supreme Court nominees Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell. Fulbright was from Arkansas as was Clinton and they knew each other well. However, I doubt that you'll be able to convince any African/Americans that Bill Clinton is a racist.

And this is supposed to be significant. You're actually going to suggest that Obama is racist towards blacks. His own wife and kids? And you think that any sane person is going to buy this crap? Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK in the 1950's. And he quit. And he changed his views. Sen. Byrd displayed a mix of conservative and liberal points of view in his later years. Remarkably, though, his politics resonated with the African-American community and came out on the right side of issues that are of concern to black voters. Byrd enjoyed a perfect 100 percent rating from the NAACP. He proposed $10 million to fund a Martin Luther King National Memorial in Washington, DC. The senator received a 67 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, and a 65 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters on environmental issues. And we should respect his ability and willingness to transform his mind and move beyond his circumstances and upbringing. Robert Byrd did not die as a leader of the Klan, because he had buried that racist past a long time ago.

Yeah...I'm white, and what part of what I said do you think would be offensive to blacks?

OK...you're a troll right? Or you're drinking. You seem to not be aware of what you wrote. You need to engage your brain. These are your own words; "I can't figure out if democrats really believe the crap the spew or if it is just a conscience ploy to keep African Americans on the democrat plantation" Your statement suggests that blacks aren't also democrats. It actually suggests that they aren't members of the party themselves, deeply involved in policy matters, and that in some bizarre manner the party that they are completely involved in, would institute policies that these very party members would then use as a conscious ploy to keep themselves on a party plantation of their own making. That's totally insane. How condescending can you get?? And then you have the audacity to claim that what I said would be offensive to these very people? Look at what you're saying. What part of anything that I said, would be offensive to blacks. Do you not understand that what you've said is deeply condescending and assumes that blacks are being fed something that they don't understand? What makes you think that blacks aren't involved in the Party? You talk like they are sitting on the side lines and like the White Bread Republicans aren't involved in policy matters. Look at who's in the White House for christs sake. Do you think that he's not involved in policy decisions?? He's running the entire country.

Bullsh*t. Is lying a genetic problem with conservatives?

Allen West was targeted as a extremist conservative. It had nothing to do with his skin. There are plenty of black members of congress. Skin is not the issue. His political extremism was the issue.

Obvious?? Well then you can prove this. Go ahead and demonstrate it for me. I think that we can safely conclude that you are not a serious poster here.

Oh brother...you are out in space. Allen West was defeated just as Joe Walsh and a few other crazies were, because of their extreme views. Not because of his race. Everyone knows that, other than somebody as extreme as him and that would include you. I have no interest in watching a video of that guy. He's as nutty as it gets and we're all better off without him infecting congress.

Wrong. He opposed it because he was a conservative and a DixieCrat. Senator Mike Mansfield was the majority leader in the Senate and a Democrat. He voted for it. If what you said was true, then being a Democrat he should have opposed it. Hubert Humphrey was another Democrat that voted for it. Again, if what you said were true, he would have opposed it. Obviously what you are saying is NOT true. It had nothing to do with party affiliation. It had to do with ideology. Those that opposed it were conservatives. Those that voted for it were liberals. Liberal Dems. Liberal Repubs. Here's the facts, and I think they'll disappoint you. Since southern Conservative Democrats opposed the legislation, votes from a substantial number of senators in the Republican minority would be needed to end the filibuster. Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, the Liberal Democratic whip who managed the bill on the Senate floor, enlisted the aid of Republican Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen, although a longtime supporter of civil rights, had opposed the bill because he objected to certain provisions. Humphrey therefore worked with him to redraft the controversial language and make the bill more acceptable to Republicans. Once the changes were made, Dirksen gained key votes for cloture from his party colleagues with a powerful speech calling racial integration "an idea whose time has come."

Strom Thurmond didn't oppose the CRA because he was a democrat. He opposed it because he was a conservative segregationist dixiecrat. Democrat is not an ideology. It's not a philosophy. It's a political party. Know the difference. People with different ideologies fight for the philosophical "soul" of the party they belong to. You can see it in today's Republican party with it splintering into different factions such as the establishment Republicans, and the Tea Party. Whoever wins that war will control the party. That's exactly what happened to the Democrats. They split into factions and the Liberals won the party soul. The Conservatives had no voice so they left and joined the Republicans. It's always about the ideology. The party is simply the foundational infrastructure that the ideology operates from. Once you figure that out, you won't look so foolish in the future.

The voting on the civil rights bill was closely correlated to one thing: regionality. Southerners mostly voted against, Northern and Westerners mostly voted for.
Since then the GOP has disgraced itself by enthusiastically embracing Nixon's Southern Strategy which purposely took advantage of white resentment in the south. This is why today the south is largely a GOP stronghold--something to be ashamed of, not proud of.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative. Nobody denies that. He was the first person to run as a Conservative. Reagan was the second.

I saw it on the news when it happened. You still don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that those things that took place were the result of conservatives in the south. George Wallace was a conservative. Yes he was a Democrat and later an independent, but he remained a conservative. All of Alabama is Conservative.
I remember the incidents in Little Rock during the late 50's, and of course the events of the 60's. I was 7 years old when Emmett Till was murdered in Money Mississippi. I remember reading about lynchings. I was 16 when three Civil Rights Workers were murdered by the Klan. I remember the bombing of the church in Birmingham. All of it. My entire family was Republican at the time. But I lived in the North. We didn't have that problem. I also came to learn that the Democrats in the South were a different breed then those up north, and I learned what the difference between a liberal and a conservative was, and I found that the South was all made up of conservatives. Liberals are not welcome down south. The three Civil Rights workers killed in Mississippi were liberals and they walked into the conservative south and they were butchered for registering black voters. And I found out that the Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Act were all from the South...the Conservative south. The Republicans that supported it, like my own Senator in Illinois were liberals. Dirkson was Liberal. Rockefeller, Scranton, Javits, Brook. All Republicans. All Liberals. There are no liberal Republicans today. There are no real conservative Democrats any more. Every thing changed within the parties. But Liberalism and Conservatism remains the same.

 

Thank you for your reply,
There are a number of issues with your post.

(1) Your citation of yourself to prove a point is 'refuting by example'. In other words, I claimed that there was a phenomenon of innocent whites being accused and abraded by a persistent onslaught by the media and political machines. You subsequently offered a lone example to attempt to disprove my point. Thus you altered my claim, I didn't offer that every single white in America was an example of such phenomenon. IE: [I myself have never been struck by lightening, therefore its not possible that any person has ever been struck by lightning]

(2) You are duplicitous in that you claim that "blacks and whites do have a "special" history don't we?". I personally do not have a "special" history with blacks, therefore no one else has a special history with blacks either, right? Or would that be 'refuting by example'? Odd, it seems that Im characterized as an individual when convenient and characterized as part of some guilty collective of racists when convenient.

By the way, Ive never owned a slave, never committed any crime against any black, never called one of them any derogatory name, never fired a black, never denied any one of them any promotion, employment or anything else that they were due them. Ive spent years volunteering in urban blighted areas that were 'all black'. Brought elderly blacks meals, fixed their doors, their appliances, fixed plumbing. used my own money to do the work, had their utility bills sent to my house, worked in distribution centers for Katrina, went to New Orleans after Katrina as part of the relief effort, unloaded evacuee planes, gave them money, kissed them on the forehead, prayed with them, shook their hand etc. Ive stopped on the side of the road and picked up blacks walking down the highway, bought them batteries for their car, gave them money to eat on etc. I have black relatives, been on vacation with blacks that were in the same room, I have blacks on speed dial, go to ball games with them etc. etc. etc.
Yet with all that, in every form of media that I see I am portrayed as some genocidal racist.
Yea, I have a special history with blacks. So far, they are WAYY ahead in the game with me. But that's okay, it would just be nice to not have Jesse Jackson kick me in the teeth when I'm bending over to put his mother back in her wheel chair that she fell out of(figuratively speaking).

Respectfully,

 

They were all White too. Does that make all Whites racist?? God...how thick can you be. It doesn't matter what the party is. Don't you understand that. All Democrats are not racists any more than All Republicans are racist. They're parties..NOT ideologies. Do you not know the difference. That's like saying what is your degree in or what was you major, and answering Harvard. WTF???? What's your philosophy? Is it Republican? What the hell does that mean?? Or are you a conservative. Are you a conservative or a Republican? Conservatism and Liberalism predate parties. There was conservatism and liberalism before Republican and Democratic parties existed. You need to help yourself before trying to help anybody else.

So you are denying that the Democrats in the South that opposed civil rights...were conservatives? When has the South not been conservative? Tell me about the liberalism that dominated southern culture. Southern Democrats were ALL Conservatives. There weren't any Liberal Democrats in the south. EVER! The South is now and always has been Conservative.

Lincoln freed the slaves and fought against secession. Todays' Republicans (Rick Perry) support secession. Lincoln wouldn't fit into the Republican Party today. And how am I taking credit for the Republicans move? Where did they move to? Conservatism? They weren't always conservative. Nelson Rockefeller wasn't a conservative. Jacob Javits wasn't a conservative. They were both Republicans. What move are you talking about? I'm not making Lincoln a Democrat...Republicans are doing that.

That's right. He wasn't. He was a liberal. Yet you make this statement: ""It is a conservative idea that people have individual rights to freedom and the fruits of their labor" and I point it out to you that this is a false statement and WHY it's a false statement, you object to being presented with the evidence that shows that it's wrong. That concept comes from Locke and the Social Contract which was a liberal idea. You're hung up on the ridiculous. You need some background historical understanding of your own ideology. You don't even know where your conservatism comes from. Republican is not a philosophy. Democrat is not a philosophy. They're political parties.Liberalism and conservatism are the prevailing philosophical positions. They determine the party. You live under the totally false assumption that the Party tells you how to think. It's the ideology that tells the party not the other way around. Are all Republicans Tea Partiers? Or are they Establishment Republicans? Is there a difference? Can't be. They're all Republicans so they must all think alike.

.

Are you going to tell me that Thurmond didn't switch to the Republican Party?

The Bottom Line on all of this is that the Democrats embraced Civil Rights as their core platform principle. They renounced the southern Conservative Democrats that opposed it. There is no room for that kind of thinking within the party. That's why African/Americans in a large majority vote Democrat. Republicans have embraced southern conservatism. In fact we now have the complete Southernization of that party. And that's why African/Americans reject them.

 

Lol? Desperation at it's finest. Let me know when you ditch the denial.

 

Conservatism isn't a party. It's an ideology. And Democrat isn't an ideology. It's a party. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Obviously you have to pound a square peg into a round hole to force fit your argument. So your statement is false. That's not unusual. All of them have been. Hehe...look at this. "You have not once shown how conservatism is racist, yet I have shown time and time again how the democratic party is racist" Is conservatism a party? Or is it a way of thinking. An Ideology? Is Democrat a party...or a philosophy? You're attempting to compare two different things in order to prove your point. That's called failure. Oh...one other thing...the Democratic Party is the Party of Civil Rights. That's why African/Americans vote for Democrats. Not the Conservative Party....oh that's right. There is no "Conservative Party" It's called the Republican Party. They don't vote for people that hate them. If the Republican Party ever did what the Democrats did, the Conservatives would all leave the party. Just like they did with the Democrats.

 

Why would Anyone want to be less superior than this:

 

I'm aware that there may be a perceived phenomenon by some, of innocent whites being accused etc...but I don't find that perception justified. I have no personal experience with that, and I'd like for someone that has had the experience tell me what I'm missing and why if it's true, I should experience it as well. If it's real, why wouldn't I share that experience? Is it possible that it's a misapprehension?

I don't see that as a good analogy. If I'm struck be lightning I'm sure there will be a direct physical effect that I can document and describe, complete with side effects and hospital records. Whatever it is you're suggesting is a perceived psychological affront which may or may not be justifiable depending on my own state of mind. Am I reacting to something based on a defensive posture out of a sense of guilt? Because I see nothing in this that would indicate a physical assault.

Of course you do or you wouldn't be pointing out the "grating effect" in the first place. I'm assuming that you're white, and if you live in this country, then you a player in the race relations that exist in this country dating back to our beginnings. If you yourself experience this "grating effect" then it's obviously a result of whatever historical relationship you "feel" is genuine. Like I said, I don't feel this, so I ask if it's real or imagined?

That's very white of you to say so. You've just given me a long spiel about how benevolent you are to black people. But it does seem that with all that experience with the black experience you might be more understanding of what it is that they actually see. Are you doing all these things to make yourself feel better? If it's self-serving, then it it's seen for what it is. And If so, then where is the moral worth to what you're telling me? You do those things because they are the right things to do, not because it makes you feel better about yourself. But you also do those things regardless of what color the people may be. Not to sit on a forum and tell Adagio about all the good things you do for black people.

Really? Every form of media? Can you give me some examples? Because like you, I'm white and I simply do not get any accusations that I'm a genocidal racist. In fact, I can say I've never experienced that. What are you watching or listening to, that I should see, so that I may objectively verify this claim?

I thought you didn't? "I personally do not have a "special" history with blacks" So...which is it? Judging from your previous comment in the longer paragraph, it would seem that you actually do.

Yeah.....sure looks like you have some history there.

Well...the question for me is whether or not JJ is justified in whatever his complaint may be. I find racism rampant in America, and I guess being white, racially speaking, I tend to put myself into other peoples shoes so that I may see things from their perspective, so if he's saying something that isn't true, that's one thing. But if his statement is true, then I'm not going to ignore it because I find it "grating".

There's an interesting debate going on over the name of the football team, Redskins. The people that don't find if offensive are mostly white. The test for racial propriety of a term is who created it and when did they do it? It's most likely true that Native Americans didn't name the team Redskins. The team was formed in 1933 and it's owner was a white guy. I'm sure that he didn't see anything racist in using that term, nor does current owner Dan Snyder who happens to be Jewish. I can't imagine Snyder walking into a restaurant and spotting a family of Native Americans at a table, and saying, "it's sure nice to see some Redskins in this place". And I'm pretty aware of some of the "nicknames" for Jews that have popped up over time. If he doesn't find Redskins offensive, maybe he would consider one of the many names used to describe Jews as a mascot for his team. The point here is that it's really pretty dumb to ask why a minority might consider things racist when we aren't on the receiving end of the slurs. It's really obnoxious to presume that we might know what is offensive to people we're directing our comments toward, and then think that they're the ones overreacting to our racist attitudes.

 

How do those of us who don't know our origins interact in this country? I can be considered white, but I know I have Indian ancestry, but I don't really know the amount. I get people asking my descent all the time, and they are baffled when I say not only do I not know, but I don't care to even get a DNA test or otherwise find out.

An example I often hear is in relation to the phrase "jury of one's peers". If a black person is on trial, and no black people are on the jury, then many automatically claim that he/she didn't have a "jury of his or her peers." Have they considered the implications of that statement? What it really means, is that those of us who aren't 100% certain of our origins, cannot possibly serve as someone's "peer". Huh? That doesn't make sense. If peers for white people are different than peers of black people, then where do the rest of stand who don't give a sh it what "race" we belong to?

 

That silence you hear are "conservatives's" heads exploding from having their bubble popped. This is nothing people haven't known for years, it's just fun to hear them talk about how the Democratic Party is so racist, and how "conservatives" champion for a "colorblind" society.

 

Just ask all those black people that were tried in the south before the '60's. You really think a jury of their peers consisted of KKK members or people with a KKK mindset?

 

Bash whitey! Bash whitey! Bash whitey!

That isn't what I'd call a conversation.

 

So peers = your race? If you don't know your race = you don't have peers? I just don't get the whole thing.

 

Just a quick response cause I'm busy but I'll be back to go over your longer posts. Those posts by the way are hugely entertaining watching you defend racist democrats who I already proved are liberals. You have yet to demonstrate one reason why racism is synonymous with conservatism, while I have demonstrated ample evidence that the racists were liberal democrats. I really find the explanation that Truman didn't participate in the KKK because they were anti-Catholic. So I guess he was okay with lynching blacks but I have friends that are Catholics! There are so many other things wrong with your posts that it is laughable. Like when I point out that the racists were Democrats you say, wrong, they were Southern conservatives. The very title of the thread is, "An Honest discussion about race", you could at least try to be honest.

I even linked the one about Thurmond and you just denied it was true. Well, what use is there in talking to you if you just nay-say every fact and link I post?