Carter's Racism accusation

Remove all ads!

No, that isn't what my argument amounts to. At all. That is what you want my argument to amount to so you can continue dismissing it without really thinking it through. You just don't get it. Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you aren't reading very carefully. Either way, I really have no interest in flogging this topic any further. It is going nowhere fast.

 

As I said -- you missed the point. It's truly disappointing that you don't understand the heart of the issue.

 

No, T2, I'm not. What you appear to be missing is that this:

is an assumption. You assume that racism plays a role, but I haven't seen any indication of this at all.

 

The things you "haven't seen" could just about fill an ocean, NOG.

 

Yes it's an assumption. An assumption based on years of experience in many parts of the country and having lived through some pretty rough times -- most of which occurred before you were born (and before you were old enough to care). That you haven't identified the indications is actually a good thing; you haven't been exposed to the same ugliness I have.

 

Care to fill me in? So far, in this thread, I haven't even seen an attempt to present evidence.

So you admit to living in the past? Experiences from 20+ years ago may not be terribly informative when you look at the people protesting today. Most of them are also people, like me, who don't remember that stuff.

There's one thing that could really settle this. Proof. An accusation of racism has been made against the masses, and supported for one individual, but I'd like to see some for the masses. Of course, it's impossible to prove that racism doesn't play a part, so the burden of proof falls on the accusers.

 

You know exactly what I mean.

You "haven't seen any indication" that the Bush administration were dishonest about WMD's.
You "haven't seen any indication" that Fox News misinforms their viewers.
You "haven't seen any indication" about a lot of things that most people pick up on.
A tendency I believe you have been made aware of.

I'm going to try this one final, painful time. As it relates to this topic: we're not saying these people are outright racists. You keep insisting that's our argument - which makes me question your reading skills. The point is they don't have to be outright racists. We're saying that a cultural presence of racism in the south - in South Carolina, in particular - and in Joe Wilson's own personal history make it reasonable to assume racial prejudice has a tangible effect on the intensity of their dislike for Obama without being the whole reason, since this dislike and disrespect for Obama is otherwise so irrational (to the degree they take it, that is).

This is the point Jimmy Carter was trying to make. A pervasive environment where disrespecting blacks, calling them "boy," treating them as inferior, dismissing them all as lazy welfare queens - this is the environment Wilson and Carter grew up in. Not everyone acted like this, of course, but it was a constant presence. This is the environment in which he rose to political power. This is the rhetoric espoused by the talk radio pundits who support him (not so much the "boy" stuff, but the constant demonization of "welfare queens" and the like). Wilson's constituency and tea party/9-12/birther groups are almost entirely white, hail overwhelmingly from southern states, and a majority of them sincerely believe Obama is a Kenyan (or worse).

In short, there is ample reason to observe that race-based resentment plays a considerable role in the intensity of the ire directed at Obama. It helps explain why their reaction is so disproportionally extreme and negative compared to what Obama is actually doing and saying, and why they choose to believe things about Obama that are demonstrably false. You keep insisting that we're saying it's the whole of it, and we are arguing no such thing. You are denying that it even plays a role, and that's remarkably tonedeaf of you. But again, you tend to be very tonedeaf to these kinds of things.

There is evidence, just not the smoking-gun kind you seem to be looking for. I'm reminded of the Orwell quote "To see what is in front of one's nose needs constant struggle" when I read some of your responses. If it's going to take us producing a video of Joe Wilson burning a cross for a crowd of whooping, naked birthers before you'll absorb this, then I don't know that you ever will.

If someone else wants to jump in here, feel free - I don't know how much more clear I can make that. I'm done.

 

Apparently you don't, though. I was asking for you to 'fill me in' on this topic in particular.

I've seen no indication that Bush knew the information was false. Cheney, well, I wouldn't put anything past him.

I haven't seen any indication that their news programs (as opposed to editorial and opinion pieces) are more likely to misinform viewers than others (CNN, MSNBC, etc).

No, what you're saying is this:

You're saying that racism plays a significant role in the protests that have been happening around the country. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me.

You're talking about the past. I'm talking about the present. You're talking about a few influential leaders. I'm talking about the general public. Do I have that right? That would explain our miscommunication. It isn't what you said earlier, though.

No, there is ample reason to suspect it plays a role, but those suspicions should be backed up by actual evidence, not just assumed.

Except that politics does it much better. Tell me this: if Edwards had somehow gotten the nomination, been exposed to the Republican political machine, beaten McCain, and then brought up the same health-care issues, supported the same actions in the same way, do you honestly think the tenor would be any calmer? As has been said before, consider the fire Clinton got when he tried it, and then consider the polarization of the political theater since then. What is happening seems to make perfect sense simply from an observation of political history. You don't need any degree of racism to explain it. That you and others insist it must be there, even if only in the background, is nothing more than a wild accusation.

No, I'm not insisting that's your arguement.

So, again, fill me in. Aside from 20+ year old history, what makes you think racism plays any significant* role in this.

*I admit there are racists out there. I just don't think they're enough to make any significant impact. I think that, without the racists, the 2 million person march on DC two weeks ago may have been 1,999,977 instead.

Actually, just a proponderance of videos of protests with racist slurs, racial epithets on signs, and a distinct absense of minorities would do.


My point is, overall, you claim that racism plays a role because, when you see people vehemently opposing the first black president, you see racism. I see it not playing a sizable role because I see this as a natural outcome of the political polarization of the past several years. I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would face the same kind of stuff if they were in Obama's place taking the same actions. The details of the claims may be different, but the ardent opposition, the protests, the sign-waving, and yes, even the guns, would all be the same.

 

No. Not only no, but hell no.

Ok. You really don't get it. I don't have the energy or the interest in another quote-a-thon, so I'm just moving on now.

 

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Can be!
Man: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't!
Man: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Man: Yes but that's not just saying "no it isn't".
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is!
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all!

 

Only a fool would ignore the lessons of recent history. Only the naive would believe people change in such a short span of time.

 

DR, you have blatantly said that, at the least, racism plays a role (implying significant) in the extreme political protests. That's what you said when you agreed with T2, because that's what T2 said, and you agreed.

Now, honestly, I even have a problem with that because, while I'll agree that they're idiots, I don't see any indication that racism has anything to do with it other than that they're protesting agaist actions taken by a black man (well, when they aren't protesting actions taken by Congress, who are mostly white men). They aren't just southerners, they aren't throwing racial epithets, they aren't lynching in effigy. There was one cartoon published which portrayed an undefined political entity (most assumed Obama, but honestly Congress works better) as a monkey, and many claimed it was racist, but even there I don't see actual racism, just an idiot sticking his foot in his mouth (or in his pen, as the case may be). So far, we have protests, we have boisterous protests, we've even had some protests that looked like they may be headed for violence (though I haven't heard anything about any of them actually going there), but so far I haven't seen anything that indicates racism.

You say you have. So show it to me. Unless you're 'evidence of racism' is the whole scene, in which the only indication of racism on any level is the target of the abuse and the level of it, you should have specifics in mind. So please, give me your justification for saying that racism is there in anything other than a minor, incidental level.

 

DMC raises a very good point. It is a shame that in our society people have to defend blanket statements of racism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what NOG and I know I have been trying to do. Carter's statement correctly or incorrectly has been used to paint a very broad brush that implies that people who have been protesting Obama and the Democrats are doing so because of racism to a certain degree.

I personally believe that that is ********. Yes, I'm sure there are protestors that are doing so for that reason, but nobody has been able to show that is the reason the majority are protesting. It is disgusting that Carter and his fellow race baiters have been able to paint me as belonging to a racist crowd.

 

Yeah, just like we have to hear that Obama won the election because he is black, or that Colin Powell voted for Obama because he is black and Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people."

Yep, I agree. There sure is a lot of "race-baiting" these days....

 

Who said that? I believe you were the one who said the blacks were going to vote Democratic anyway and you were correct.

 

That's not what was said.

 

Umm...post #116?

 

Actually, I agree with Chandos 100% on this one. Obama won because he played it smart (and got many times more funding by breaking promises, but that's politics as usual). While there are some blacks that genuinely look at Obama as the redemption of America, and as all but their social messiah, they seem to be the minority. I heard a lot of them say they voted for Obama specifically because he was black, but let's be honest, they would have voted for Hillary or Edwards just as easily.

As for Colin Powell, I'm sure he has his reasons, and I don't think he or anyone else needs to explain why they voted the way they did to anyone. I also don't believe for a second that Obama hates white people. The people who spread this stuff are just as much race-baiters as the people who cry 'racism' whenever anyone objects to Obama's ideas.

 

And I will, in turn, agree with you 100% on this: