Bush Tells Blacks, 'I'm Here to Ask for Your Vote'
 

Heh...Had to laugh to myself when I saw this. He must realize that he's not going to get it.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news

I find that seeing this:

http://spe.atdmt.com/b/M0SHCJK04JKP/...mer300x250.gif

on the same page as the article somehow lessens the credibility of the source. Is Rueters tilted in a particular direction?

oh, and ...uh...George is a dick.

For some reason, whenever I see a politician trying to pull the 'honesty is the best policy' card, I trust them even less.

What are you talking about LS? He'll probably get the same 1% that most Reps get.

It does seem strange to me though that Bush has 3 solid, competent blacks in his administration, more than "the first black president", yet he'll still only get the same 1%.

This just reinforces the notion that blacks as a voting block, aren't really interested in working their way up in the society. They don't see Condi, Rodney, or Colin as proof you can be black in America and succeed. They see them as "uncle Toms". Sad.

It will truly be interesting though to see what the numbers are as even the longtime black supporter, Bill Cosby, suggests that maybe.....just maybe, blacks have actually won the war for equal treatment, but instead choose to blame white America for their lack of progress when in fact, they simply need to move away from the victim mentality.

Voting Republican would be a major step in doing so.

Ads from both campaigns are showing up on news websites. As a whole, I find Reuters to be pretty middle-of-the-road.

For older Blacks, the vote on Election Day will be a matter of "Do I want a crumb or absolutely nothing? Hmmm...that crumb looks mighty good."

For younger Blacks, two groups will converge--the apathetic ("What does it matter anyway?") and the militant ("Fuck both these crackers!"). Neither will vote.

The Democrats are taking the Black vote for granted...and they shouldn't. Their votes are going to be important for Kerry in PA, MI, OH and MO. Having said that though, the Black vote has become less and less important as a whole, for 2 primary reasons:

--Blacks are getting closer to Whites in terms of equality.
--Latinos have become the "more important" minority. They're now the largest minority group in this country.

Will we see a shift in party affiliation from Blacks? It depends on how badly the GOP wants them and how much longer they're willing to take the treatment they get from the Dems.

1865 – Abolished Slavery

1868 – passed the 14th Amendment after one attempt blocked by Democrats

1955 – Eisenhower makes E Fredrick Murrow first African-American to hold a cabinet level position

1957 – Eisenhower signs the Civil Rights Act

1957 – enforced the desegregation of Little Rock, Arkansas under armed escort by presidential order.

1964 – passed the Civil Rights Act over a democrat filibuster

1965 – passed the Voting Rights Act, again over democratic opposition

1987 – Reagan appoints the first black National Security Adviser

1989 – Bush Sr. appoints the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

2000 – Bush Jr. appoint the first black Secretary of State

If abolition, broken color barriers, voting rights and civil rights are enough to “earn the Black vote”, then maybe the Republicans should stop trying! Imagine what America might look like today if the Democrats had been successful in 1865, 1868, 1964, and 1965.

-sm

I think if the same poll was given to whites, it wouldn't be 8 to 1, but most would "just "satisfied"" with Kerry.
The best Kerry can do is....Hey, he's not Bush.
The best Bush can do is.....Hey, he's not Hitler.
:(

But he could be "if he applied himself". I heard that the other day and laughed my ass off.......and Bush is "my guy". :biggrin:

They probably would have kept the black vote if they hadn't worked so hard to take the racist vote from the Democrats. During the civil rights battles, most of the anti-civil-rights Democrats migrated to the Republican party.

Shouldn't that be "my lesser of two evils" ;)

Well, given that Bush has spoken to pretty much everyone who would stand still long enough to listen, refusing the NAACP invite would seem to mean the answer to that speculation is "not very".

Which got to his desk partly as a result of the efforts of Sen. Lyndon Johnson, D-TX.

Both championed and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Do you have a source on this? I can't find anything on this guy.

Over a record-setting filibuster by Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond who switched parties to Republican when he realized that the Democratic party would not support segregation.

from this link.


Let's face it, which party in this election is going to get the Klan and Nazi vote? The Republicans may have a big tent, but it's not big enough to hold both the KKK and the NAACP.

Thanks.

No wonder I couldn't find anything on him...his name was E. Frederic Morrow.

Scoff.

So, who in 2004 will get the Klan vote?

It would seem that the Dems chose the NAACP to be in their tent instead of the KKK.

Probably because it's bigger.

Or because they were a safer bet.

and only slightly less racist.

Please explain how the NAACP is racist. I've heard the charge and the rationale before from others, but I'd like to hear your explanation of it.

I don't know about that but if it was politically expediant I'm sure both parties would jump into bed with NAMBLA.

Well it's very existance is about a certain racial group, is that not racist?
Yes I'm playing devil's advocate

That would mean that any group tied to any ethnic group or sex would be racist or sexist by definition.

Working for the advancement of one specific group is not necessarily racist, it is when you work for the suppression of competing groups that you become racist/sexist.

ok then, let's think this one through. tomorrow, me and my white friends are going to launch a few new organizations. some will be businesses others will be activist groups. here are the names that they will be known by:

NAAWP - national assoc. for the advancement of white people
WET - white entertainment television
WSU - White student union ( gotta get the college campuses involved)
UCCF - united caucasian college fund
NOWLE - national organization of white law enforcement executives
WRAG - white retail action group
NAWA, Inc - national association of white accountants
NWCC - national white chamber of commerce
WITE - White information technology eprofessionals
WGSA - white graduate students association
NAWSE - national assoc of white school educators
CWCF, inc - congressional white caucus foundation
NACHR - national assoc of caucasion-americans in human resources
AWC - assoc of white charities

the list goes on and on. i believe that most of the organizationsi based this list on provide real value to the community, but what would you say if you saw one of my new organizations in the news? most would assume it has a racist agenda, and they would be right. i'm pretty sure that these organizations aren't based on creating a society where the color of one's skin is irrelevent. and if i remember correctly, that was one of the goals of the civil rights movement.

now please pardon me while i go find my flame resistant suit and a big-ass fire extinguisher.

a but isn't racism by definition merely discrimination, positive or negative.

But, if you pull strings, exert pressure and harass someone to hire your candidate, aren't you suppressing all the other candidates? And if you do it because your candidate is a particular sex or race, doesn't that make it sexist or racist? How and where do you draw the line between supporting yours and supressing theirs? I've wrestled with this for some time and have yet to find a satisfactory answer. :confused:

any organization that is designed on the premise of the exclusion of or the the advancement of one particular race is discriminatory and goes against the idea of genuine equality.

i would support the NAAAP - national association for the advancement of all people. but the NAA(fill-in-the-blank)P is just plain wrong.

all of these organizations build walls between people.

So are you saying that even in the midst of blatent racism when many black orgs were created, that in the spirit of "genunine equality" that they should NOT have been created?

And you want to get into the walls of these particular orgs that are currently helping non-whites..why lookout123? What are you going to contribute that these orgs will be able to use to advance their culture/ethnicity?

Great gosh almighty, I had to laugh when I saw this...um, didn't you know? These groups have been in existance ALL ALONG, just not by those names!! :lol:

Kerry Tells Black Voters He Shares Their Hopes:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news

Lsyc - please name a couple of organizations that are strictly for the advancement of the white man, and give specific examples of why it is designed to exclude others or hold them back.
the argument that everything is designed to advance the whiteman just doesn't hold water anymore.

*shrugs* If you say so. That's your opinion though. I feel that the deck is still stacked against non-whites.

As far as orgs, I already named one...in fact you named it first on your list: the NAAWP. You can go to their website and see for yourself. Plus, you can easily do a Google search under "white supremacy groups" and see plenty of groups designed for the advancement of the white man and their mission statements.

*reaches for his asbestos blankey*

no i mean groups that are acceptable within the mainstream. not groups that most everyone writes off as being wackjobs. when you step up and cite white supremecy groups as existing for the advancement of white people it is just silly. most white people would gladly take a 2x4 to those repulsive fools.
i am asking you for organizations that have a measure of public acceptance that exist for the advancement of white people.

afterthought: are you saying that you think the real organizations my list was based on are as ridiculously fringe-oriented as the white supremecy groups you countered with?

Advancement of white people to where?

just pulled the word advancement from the NAACP.

The point of black groups is to provide resources for a group that they consider to be underserved by the rest of society. What would be the point of a white advancement assocation?

I think that the crux of the issue is the difference between entitlement vs. opportunity.

*ding ding ding* TS has nailed it!

again, we are not guaranteed "life, liberty, and happiness"
only "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Well, the organization's mission statement is on their home page, if you'd care to visit.

And blacks are the largest group that was systematically denied those three.

talk to me about TODAY. no one denies that bad evil shit happened. the point is every day is a new day. how is anyone (other than anecdotal cases) in america denied "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" on 7/26/2004?

I'm rather certain that they were being lumped in with the wackos to be dismissed.

having just perused their site - i am sure as hell dismissing them.

here is the thing - if you only look at the mission statement, you're like "damn straight!" you wonder to yourself who in their right mind would disagree with the premise of the organization. but then you get into the their articles, and it is a supremecy group.

And some are more than willing to join up. Especially now that racism has a place online, it's just too easy now.

Like I said, they don't have names. ;) And what does this mean for me if I can't name any orgs that have a measure of public acceptance that exist for the advancement of white people?

Oh those were real??? I thought only the NAAWP was. Interesting. No, I just think that they are "typical". *shrugs*

no actually the organizations i listed are not real... i had to change ONE word in each of them. can you guess which one?

and nobody has even attempted to answer how the real organizations aren't exclusivist and racist by their very definition. my whole point was that those agencies all exist and are perfectly acceptable because they are the Association of Black _________ but if you turn it around and create Association of White _________ it would be seen as racist and typical of racist society we live in. explain to me how the double standard is acceptable? mind you - i don't want organizations for white people i just think that organizations designed for one race are foolish and equally wrong, no matter which ethnic group is involved.

Why?

How so?

And maybe you won't get an answer. At least, not from me, because honestly, I don't know. I don't think that the orgs are so horribly exclusivist and racist. What are they supposed to do? Just b/c you think they are "wrong" then suddenly they should just disband and no longer exist?

I don't have the answer you are looking for. All I know is that racism is still an issue that we must battle, and I can only go by what I've gone through, what some members of my family have gone through, and what some people are STILL going through even in 2004. However, I'm not going to sit here and discuss/debate/argue this point anymore since I don't have a lot of "backup", meaning other blacks to either support me or to backup any points that I make (but a major thanks to DanaC and richlevy and anyone else I might have missed).

Never mind. I was just being catty really. :rolleyes:


Intesting reading:

Age of Rage
Young extremists find new targets — and new recruits
By Bob Moser

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=468

Last July 4, a lesbian couple in Boston took their two children to an Independence Day celebration in a local park — and ran smack into a gang of teenagers who did not appreciate their presence.
After the teens allegedly taunted the family with anti-gay slurs and threats, 15-year-old Anita Santiago allegedly slugged 35-year-old Lisa Craig hard enough to knock her to the ground. According to police reports, Santiago and her fellow gang members then bashed Craig's head against the sidewalk and kicked the woman so brutally that her brain hemorrhaged and she needed more than 200 stitches.

A few hours later, in the blue-collar suburb of Farmingville, N.Y., a Mexican family was startled awake — just in time — by a fire that would tear through their home and reduce it to ashes in minutes. Five boys, ages 15 to 17, had decided to top off their July 4th festivities by torching the house with leftover firecrackers.

Asked why, one of the teens simply told police that "Mexicans live there" — as if that were reason enough.

Welcome to the harsh new world of young-adult hate. Like the stories, photos and profiles in this special section, the Independence Day incidents illustrate some major shifts in the ways American kids are learning to hate — and how they act it out.

The Poison Spreads
Hate among kids has probably never been more widespread — and it doesn't stop with racist graffiti, Confederate flag T-shirts, swastika tattoos and homophobic slurs in high-school hallways.

Studies by hate-crime experts like Jack Levin, director of Northeastern University's Brudnick Center and co-author of the new book, Why We Hate, show that incidents perpetrated by youngsters, which became more frequent from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, "plummeted" during the Clinton years.

But since 9/11, the number of hate crimes by kids has risen sharply — and they appear to be more brutal than ever. "What we're seeing," says Eric Ward, a longtime observer of extremist youth who works at Chicago's Center for New Community, "is a more militant, street-fighter culture."

As both the Boston and Farmingville incidents show, the targets of this militance have multiplied — and so have the perpetrators. After 9 /11, a disproportionate number of the assaults on Muslim-Americans were committed by teenagers. The same appears true for attacks against sexual and gender minorities, Hispanics and the homeless.

And hate activity is no longer the province of white boys, though they're still the main offenders. Not only are more Hispanic and African-American kids getting involved in hate, but more girls as well.

Social ecologist Ronald Huff, a longtime student of both street and racist youth gangs, estimates that in many cities "anywhere from a third to 50% of gang members are girls."

In another demographic shift, the bulk of hate activity now bubbles up in the suburbs — among reasonably well-off youth.

"Twenty years ago, big cities were hotbeds of hate," says Levin. "But as more and more minority families have moved into suburban areas, the prevalence of hate attacks has also increased there — much of it perpetrated by kids."

Where the classic profile of a young hater in the 1980s was a blue-collar juvenile angered by economic displacement, the more typical picture now is a teenager "raised in a middle-class family in a place where almost everyone is a racial rubber-stamp of himself," Levin says.

"These kids aren't prepared for people who are different. They see them as a threat. They come home in the afternoon to their empty houses, log onto the Internet, visit hate sites, chat rooms, bulletin boards and get ideas. "

For kids who've grown up online, there's no longer a need to join large hate groups in order to get those ideas. Neo-Nazi outfits like the National Socialist Movement and Aryan Nations (see Youth Action Corps) still work hard to recruit youngsters into the fold, and concerts featuring adrenaline-fueled "hatecore" music continue to gain popularity and win converts.

But much of the racist activity among kids is springing up from the grassroots, with small groups like the Connecticut White Wolves and Agnostic Neo-Nazis, who draw inspiration from Internet hate sites — and run with it.

"I don't know what's more frightening," says Ward, "kids joining organized hate groups, or the way hate is rising up spontaneously among kids who feel it's OK to terrorize and assault people because of their race or religion or sexual orientation. What does that say about where our society's headed?"

Desperately Seeking Stability
It's an excellent question. Why is juvenile hate spreading in a culture that seems to become more accepting of differences by the day?

There's no shortage of reasons that have been proferred by sociologists and criminologists. Some blame the re-segregation of schools and neighborhoods. Some point to the omnipresence of violence in movies, on TV, and in video games.

Some cite misguided "zero tolerance" policies in schools and communities, where kids are increasingly incarcerated for first offenses; on any given day, well over 100,000 U.S. youth are locked up in places that are "not only schools of violence," says Levin, "but crash courses in hatred."

Then there's the lingering death of the American dream: with downward mobility — rather than upward — as their most likely future direction, more middle-class kids are looking to rebel, and looking for somebody to blame.

No single factor is sufficient to explain the spread of youth hatred. But the upsurge in one of its main manifestations — white supremacy — has inspired a theory developed by sociologists like Pamela Perry and Randy Blazak.

In Perry's 2002 book, Shades of White, she chronicled the racial attitudes of white kids at two contemporary California high schools — one predominantly white, one minority white. She found what Blazak calls "anomie" — French sociologist Emile Durkheim's term for the sense of confusion brought on by rapid social change.

The confusion, in this case, amounts to a basic question: "[W]hat is the new role of whites in the multicultural chorus?"

As Blazak points out in his forthcoming book, Ethnic Envy, "contemporary youth were born in the 1980s and 1990s, long after the frontline civil rights battles." White kids lack a long-term perspective on racial oppression in the U.S. — and end up saying, for instance, that "racism ended in the 1960s" and they're tired of hearing blacks "complaining about it."

They also see Hispanics, lesbians and gay men, Asian-Americans and others embraced and recognized — while straight white culture seems, from their limited vantage points, to be dissed and demonized.

"White kids feel like their racial identity is murky nowadays," says Ward. That's been partly responsible for the outbreak of Confederate flag T-shirts in high schools, both North and South, and also in several efforts — usually snuffed out by administrators — to start Caucasian clubs, mostly in California high schools.

"When they bring it up, they get their hands slapped," Ward says, "and they become pariahs. Pariahs can be dangerous."

Hate groups have tailored their recruitment pitches to these frustrated white kids. A perfect example is Jeff Schoep, "commander" of the National Socialist Movement, who says his group "lets our young people know it's all right to be white, and better yet, something to be proud of."

With whites already a minority in some parts of the U.S., it's a pitch that has become very popular among extremist groups — and among bright, middle-class kids like Logan Brown. The 15-year-old lives in California, the first large American state to become minority white, and he's trying to revive the Aryan Nations Youth Action Corps.

Brown insists that he's nothing like "the stereotypical racist," certainly no "redneck." But he yearns for the long-lost days like "the 1920s when everything was white and beautiful. Minorities were few and far between. Gays weren't out of the closet. We were a white civilized nation."

Brown's longing for simplicity and order — two things that seem hopelessly lost in the America of 2004 — points up one final, age-old reason why kids turn to hate. They want to know why the world seems so messy, so complicated, so out-of-control.

"Most parents, most teachers don't pretend to have easy answers," notes Ward. "Hate groups do. Hate music does. Hate sites do. The racist Skinhead down the street does, too."

Easy answers can be mighty appealing to young people. But when those answers don't mesh with the complicated realities of contemporary life, the result can be anger, frustration, and violence. The following articles offer sad, and instructive, testimony to that.

Groups like the NAACP were created to help minorities advance as a culture, at a time when they were nothing more than second-class citizens and the white man ruled the world. As I see it, minorities are still considered second-class citizens by many, and the white man still rules the world. As such, the groups are still necessary. I personally don't see such groups as racist or consider this a double-standard.

Also, there are a multitude of Anti-Defamation leagues for various white ethnicities which are active wherever there happen to be any lingering "no Irish need apply"-like sentiments. Of course, they don't get as much press because they don't have as much work to do.

LSyc - i apologize if you think that this was an attack on you or your views in any way. i am not angry, upset, or even especially excited in any way over race issues. my main point, which maybe i didn't communicate clearly, is that most of these organizations, while having a valid mission statement, actually act in ways counter to their intentions.

the civil rights movement was meant to end the foolish and evil oppression of blacks and other minorities in our country. much ground was gained there but we are not to the end of the road yet. racism and ignorance still exist in society, because society is still comprised of men and women. until we eradicate that strange 2 legged creature known as human, we cannot rid ourselves of ignorance. BUT, i firmly believe that any organization that draws distinction and attempts to classify and set apart people of different skin colors, faiths, etc... is acting counter to our nation's best interests. what we need is a mindset that accentuates peoples' similarities, not differences; that shows that all of interests our advanced when we work together toward a common goal, not many goals set for many different groups distinguishable by color.

again, if you thought that this was a personal battle which required reinforcements, or if you thought i was trying to get you to surrender to my view of the world - i sincerely apologize.
just another day in the cellar, just another topic to stir the braincells. :)

rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.*

*Emphasis added

They are racist.

Now, if you'd like to come up with a better word I'd be happy to apply it, but as it stands, any use of the word in referrence to an organization that doesn't include other races is wrong.

The terms must be clear. See the The Rules of The Game.

Thats like calling a women's support group sexist because it doesnt include or take into account men

are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

why is it that female golfers can sue to get on the PGA, and people support it? if a man tried to get on the LPGA, they would call him an ass.

females sue for the right to gain entrance to a private men's golf club and get attention and support. if a man wants entrance to Curves gym, he would be an ass...

sex·ism Audio pronunciation of "sexist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender*, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

*Emphasis added.

Not liking a definition is not the same as not agreeing to the terms of that definition. It's important to be on the same page.

Connotations aside, the definition is correct.

*chuckles* let me guess....Sexism is no longer the problem that it was, and we women should let bygones be bygones, bury the hatchet and stop trying to make men feel guilty for the sins of their forefathers? Any balancing attempts on our part are by default aimed at modern day man when in reality he has done us no harm and as such our balancing attempts become in and of themselves an oppression?

Well *smiles* that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that we live in a world built of both modernity and antiquity and many of the economic imperatives and social conditioning which underpinned the deeply patriarchal and possibly misogynistic world of our grandparents are still in evidence and as such still to be fought against

It sure is. Here, I'll do better than simile, let's go for straight up equivalency: The National Organization of Women IS sexist, DanaC.

Edit: Oh, well sure, change your post then. :P :)

Not to mention if an ad made women out to be dumb blondes who should be in the kitchen the company would be sued out of existance but any kind of potshot at men is fine.

That said, the recent suit against one of the big financial firms, forget who showed there is still serious wage disparity.