An honest discussion about Racism?

Wrong again. I question your flip flop on your own race. You claimed you're mixed, and yet your sister was beaten because she was white. Why should I assume that she was beat up because she was "white". I only have your story on what went down. But that isn't the point here. The point is that you have NO qualifications to question Obama's understanding of the black experience since you aren't black. That's a fact. You comment on things that you're ignorant about.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm asking again...who is Leroy Brown?

 

Then you learned nothing of this debate. Buckley was a White Supremacist. He vehemently opposed civil rights although in the most eloquent Buckleyisms he could muster. To make the claim that Buckely argued in favor of Civil Rights in a debate with James Baldwin is laughable. Do you not understand the Cambridge Union deliberately got two men from diametrically opposed positions to square off? Do you actually think that they'd hold a debate with two people advocating the same position? You're wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

 

Or is it because republicans always had Civil Rights as a part of their platform:

All these Republican Platforms throughout history show the same conservative platforms of today as well as support for civil rights and anti-lynching laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29628#axzz2jLF3fQth
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29629#axzz2jLF3fQth

Here you'll see that the republicans were conservatives long ago NOT LIBERALS and the issues are nearly identical almost 100 years later:

 

Well...talk is cheap. What I did was present a completely logical argument that points directly to your intellectual dishonesty. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be infallibly true. I'm afraid the Pee Wee Herman defense isn't going to work for you. Perhaps you could put together a logical argument to refute what I posted, but otherwise, you're stuck.

 

Yes, Buckley argues against the premise, but that is not to say that he is against civil rights, nor do I have to agree with his position on the premise.

 

I am white and Mexican. Obama is white and black. People can be of mixed race. I don't understand what you don't understand.

[video=youtube;QvwDohEEQ1E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvwDohEEQ1E[/video]

 

This is what I mean. You have not watched the debate if you think they are debating for or against Civil Rights. You have not watched the video if you do not know that Buckley's side specifically said they are not against the Civil Rights Act but are for it. You have no understanding of what the premise means that they are debating and it is evident in your remarks above.

 

I'm not going to argue the point with you because you are incurably ignorant with regards to what benefits I have eligible to me.

You'd find out what you said about liberals republican vs conservatism is also wrong if you would click on the links I've provided showing the issues today are much the same as are each parties ideologies as 100 years ago both socially and economically.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm afraid the "I'm infallible" defense isn't going to work for you.

 

All those former Dixiecrat voters turning Republican sure worked out well though didn't it.

 

Another baseless claim for the umpteenth time with no evidence to back it up.

 

No disrespect,

A lot of whites don't understand institutional racism or are in denial that it exists. The easiest example is the criminal justice system.

White kid gets caught with Marijuana, he gets told to go home. Black / Brown kid gets caught with Marijuana, he gets sent to jail.

White kid shoots up a school, he is "mentally ill." Black / Brown kid even takes a picture with a gun on facebook (TM), he gets labeled a future criminal.

I think a large majority of people in this country now have gotten over racism from a bigoted sense. However, institutional racism is alive and kicking. Just look at Republicans refusal to accept anything related to Barack Obama. Obama could say grass is green and Republicans will disagree.

My honest question is why white people get so offended when the term "racist" is thrown around? I don't use it loosely personally. In fact, I think it is overused quite a bit. However, the reaction you would think someone was killed.

 

Oh that's right....they all died suddenly.

 

Another baseless claim for the umpteenth time with no evidence to back it up.

 

That means you are a white Hispanic. White and black is a mixed race, white and Asian is a mixed race, etc... Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race.

 

You don't use the term "racist" loosely but then accuse republicans of institutional racism? Another baseless claim for the umpteenth time with no evidence to back it up. I've been waiting for all these race card playing race baiters to provide evidence of republican policies that are racist, but like you, have come up empty.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, your Tea Party pop culture historic revisionism is just plain stupid.

 

Thank you Colonel Purity. Are Mexicans not only another race but a nationality and ethnicity? I defer to your racial expertise for a ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

I deal only in historic fact. I have links to prove my point. You have squat.

 

You have nothing but a lot of completely unrelated anecdotes strung together with liberal doses of mindless rhetoric.

 

If you'd listen sometimes and stop pretending to be a know-it-all, you'd learn something

Yes, Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race. Look at any census survey if you don't wanna believe me.

 

How the hell is this baseless?

Racist of today is different than racist of 50, 30 or even 20 years ago. Today, it is more subtle and institutionalized.

Back then.. it was outright hate crimes, killing (ever heard of Emmit Till? Of course you havent.), or blatant verbalization.

You want proof of institutionalized racism politically? In 2007, President Elect Barack Obama was called a "boy" (slave reference) publicly by a fellow politician (republican). Republicans - "I hope he fails." "Out goal is to make him a one term president." In the case of Clinton, the Republicans merely differed in ideology.. not outright hatred before he ever took office. Don't get me started on the racial politics. Republicans play the "Kiara, the welfare queen" images countlessly to rile up their less-educated, southern constituency. There are more white people in this country on welfare but you would NEVER, EVER see this on Fox News or any other deluded Republican outlet. Racial politics works the other way too, because the liberal media likes to play on institutional racism against black and brown to make Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al some money (two f**cking idiots I care nothing about). Did you pay attention at all to the Zimmerman Trial? On Fox News, Trayvon Martin is a thug with a picture of him with a gun showing his tattoos flipping off the screen. On MSNBC, Trayvon Martin is a 9 year old boy with an innocent smile. One plays the race card on fear of black men, the other plays the race card on innocence and insensitivity TOWARD young black men. You need to check your eye doctor because you are blind.

Non-politically, institutionalized racism is everywhere and you are delusional if you think otherwise. You completely ignored my knock at the criminal justice system. Black and Brown men are arrested for petty crimes that white people are never arrested for. Do I even have to bring up how many deaths and beatings by law enforcement? I worked my ass off, went to college, got a good job at a professional firm. All along the way I get "you only got into X school because you are black." "You got that job because you are black." "You talk well, despite being black." How the heck is that not institutional? Fine, I'll call that part ignorance or just stupidity.

 

this ^^ however I should say I wold like improvement to minority groups but as you said racism occurs naturally. Should we encourage it... no but should we try to put an end to it as much as possible yes. But to each his own.

 

They weren't conservative platforms. What is wrong with you?? They're liberal platforms. Civil Rights has always been a liberal idea. Rockefeller insisted on it in 1960. ML King was NOT a conservative. Those who opposed him were. The Republicans were not always deeply conservative as they are today. The Democrats were predominantly conservative in the south just as the Republicans are today. The common thread is conservatism. You're simply lying about this, or you're completely ignorant. One thing is certain, you're being intellectually dishonest

Conservatives fought a civil war to preserve slavery. The fought to preserve Jim Crow. They fought against womens suffrage, they fought against child labor laws. they fought against Social Security, they fought against Medicare and Medicaid, they fought against the CRA the VRA and today against the ACA. They have opposed EVERY measure of social reform in this country, and that's because every attempt is a challenge to the existing institutions. What do you think it is that makes a conservative a conservative. What's at the core of his belief? You think it's "freedom and liberty' and all that neat stuff? No. There's something MUCH deeper involved in the ideology that you're not even aware of. You can read it in Buckley, and in Russell Kirk, and all the way back to Edmund Burke...all of whom you obviously have no familiarity with.

In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the
Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative
Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1.A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2.Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3.Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4.Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5.Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6.Society must alter slowly.

Kirk described these as "canon". Do you understand the meaning of that word? It's mostly used in an ecclesiastical sense. Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another." and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief. This refers to Canon #1 and explains the close ties between conservatives and the Christian faith.

So who is Russell Kirk? He was the guy that influenced Ronald Reagan, and Buckley and Goldwater and established the entire conservative movement in the US.

All the pledges you offer from previous platforms did nothing to insure civil rights in this country. If they had, a Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary or a Voting Rights Act. Conservatives constantly obstructed every attempt. Note that I'm NOT saying Republicans. I'm saying Conservatives. The establishment of the concept of civil rights is a challenge to the existing culture. And all challenges of that nature are met with resistance out of a conservative desire to maintain the existing institutions as they are. Advancing civil rights to blacks is a liberal concept. NOT a conservative concept. To deny this is to admit ignorance of your own ideology. I would ask you this, is Social Security a liberal idea or a conservative one? How about Medicare? How about the ACA (Obamacare)? Every one of those things challenges the social structure in this country. The CRA and VRA were in your face challenges to the existing social structure.

Conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. And that is the source of hatred directed at blacks and the liberals that supported this. Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative. And we can see it in full-force today, and so do minorities in this country which is why they reject you.

 

Buckley's misguided record on civil rights is undeniable. He published National Review and stated his position clearly.
Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s Buckley and National Review opposed the civil rights movement. In 1957, Buckley wrote an editorial entitled “Why the South Must Prevail”. He wrote; “National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, and then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of minority, in which case it may give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence”.

Buckley is endorsing the idea of violence if needed to maintain the existing institutions of the South. This sentence stands out to me: “ It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority”. “The question, as far as the White community is concerned , is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.” Actually, the question becomes, how civilized is a society that enforces racist White Supremacy? Is Mr. Buckley defining “civilized standards” for all of us, including those living under the suppression of a racist overlord? I seriously doubt that anybody living under Jim Crow thought they were living under civilized standards. Being denied the most basic human rights including the right to vote, to an education, to being on a street after sundown, and facing the prospects of being lynched if you defied the norms of this kind of community hardly paints a picture of a civilized society to these eyes.

So you're a liberal when it comes to Civil Rights? There's no denying Buckley's conservative credentials so I doubt you want to go there and suggest that he's not a conservative. Buckley is no liberal. You'd agree with that...right?

 

What does Jim Croce have to do with Barack Obama? You said he's no Leroy Brown. I know about the song. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

 

I didn't say they were debating for or against Civil Rights. I've said repeatedly that the topic was Does the American dream come at the expense of the Negro. That's a different subject. It's a historical reference that Baldwin presented powerfully on how the American Dream was built on the backs of "cheap labor". That's what is meant by the Question Does the American Dream come at the expense of the Negro.

Baldwin's entire argument was directed at racism. If you didn't get that, then you got nothing. Buckley was defending the status quo.

Buckley never once mentions the words "civil rights" or the Civil Rights Bill in his entire oratory, and he NEVER once stated specifically that he endorsed civil rights. Not once. Baldwin did, but only in passing. His speech was an indictment of racism in America. I'm afraid you didn't get the message. Buckley does not endorse the idea of civil rights. He endorses the idea that maintaining the existing institutions is vital to freedom and the American way of life. He even speaks of maintaining the status quo. He even speaks to the potential for war that he feels would be to the benefit of the Negro as well as the White. It's totally consistent with everything he wrote in his life. Now, you want to suggest that in a debate with Baldwin, he changed his position? hehe. The Cambridge Union didn't see it that way. You seem to be alone in your observations.

I'm quite aware of it. I'm not surprised that you have a comprehension problem with this. You seem to show that problem throughout this thread.