Can anyone give me specifics where these conservatives came out with
blatantly racists comments? Remember, simply opposing certain positions
or policies does not necessarily make one racist!
I tend to agree with the conservative viewpoint (Rush Limbaugh) rather
than the liberal viewpoint (Jesse Jackson) and I take offense when someone
says I am a racist for doing so.
If someone points out the errors in my ways I hope to have the insight to
change my views for the better but also allow me to analyze other
viewpoints and sometimes disagree with them without being labeled
"racist". I have no doubt, unfortunately, that some conservatives are
racist but with God's help, they might someday see the error in their
Just honest dialogue . . .
Can you detect a rasict comment? Remeber in the 30s most
non Jewish Europoens and Americans could not detect racism
in Mein Kamp (SP)! Even when Jewish refugees begged them
still no-one could see it.
>Can anyone give me specifics where these conservatives came out with
>blatantly racists comments? Remember, simply opposing certain positions
>or policies does not necessarily make one racist!
Being a conservtive doesn't not make you a racist. However
things like Lee Atwater's Deathbed confession (he used
racism in the Bush88 election) and Rush Limbaugh's sweeping
generalization ( Black people like or Black want this or that)
>I tend to agree with the conservative viewpoint (Rush Limbaugh) rather
>than the liberal viewpoint (Jesse Jackson) and I take offense when someone
>says I am a racist for doing so.
Well Jesse talks about ending racism, getting all races
togather and Rush Limbaugh talks in general terms
about Black wanting hand-outs. We're not all on welfare,
sorry rush and pat.
>If someone points out the errors in my ways I hope to have the insight to
>change my views for the better but also allow me to analyze other
>viewpoints and sometimes disagree with them without being labeled
>"racist". I have no doubt, unfortunately, that some conservatives are
>racist but with God's help, they might someday see the error in their
I believe in the conservative point of view on most econ issues,
however, it is a fact that Black people suffer merely due
to skin color. As we (African-Americans) are US citizens we
are due the protection granted in the bill of rights. This
is a simple issue. Things like equal protection under the law
should mean that police will treat the same as anyone else.
This should be a conservative cause repect for the bill of right.
I have never heard Rush argue that the Roney King beating was
wrong due to a bill of right issue.
>Just honest dialogue . . .
Tony"The Tiger" Sterrett NRaD This is my opinion and only mine
NCCOSC RDT&E Division*
ATTN : A. Sterrett Code 411
53140 Systems Street
San Diego California 92152-4808
Voice (619) 553-4078
FAX (619) 553-4808
--Red Wings,Pistons Rule, Tigers Rule, Lions Rule!-----------------
*NOSC is now the RDT&E division of NCCOSC therefore NRaD
This is how I percieve the question of race as handled by the Conservatives.
First of all I will post under separate cover a declaration of anti-racism
which from any positivistic point of view should be at the kernal of any
modern constitution. Seeing something like it simple and plain puts in
clearer perspective what I will say...
Simply put, conservatives have no history of anti-racist politics which is
apprecieated by African Americans. So, in taking a conservative view of
politics, ie defending the status quo, the racist effect of originally
white supremacist law and culture, is that which the conservatives implicitly
Rather than confront the above paragraph which is rooted in fact, I would
argue that most conservatives would choose to argue premises which is, in
effect, racist. They generally question the ability of African Americans at
large to judge the efficacy of anti-racist politics. This is almost always
a Conservative hardline. "We are as anti-racist (if not more) than any
political group in America, yet the (black) civil-rights 'establishment' has
convinced black folk that we are not."
Taking apart the thinking in that statement requires a bit of doing. I can
do it but I simply want to state my first point which is that the Conservatives
generally refuse to deal with their shameful history. Historically, they are
not to be trusted because they have stood on principle against change. Few
Goldwater Conservatives care to discuss this. Instead, for the sake of
expediency they point fingers at liberals. They should be pointing to an
anti-racist manifesto, but as far as the African American community knows,
they have none and have no interest in creating one.
So for reasons of principle, Conservatives have situated themselves by not
championing and pioneering in anti-racist politics, as the racists by
default. Their burden of proof is greater than that of liberals, period.
Secondly, the Conservatives are the politicians of big money. Big money has
never been black. In fact, big money has always had racist effect on blacks
and other 'racial minorities'. Capital moves in this country without respect
to race for the most part, but historically it has moved in white supremacist
manners. Blacks have never been economically on par with whites and no
conservative would dare suggest any plan to repair that.
Conservatives value the sanctity of property. Blacks *were* property.
Conservatives, on principle defend property rights over human and civil
rights. Socialist reform would be necessary to undo what was done to
blacks from a strictly economic point of view, and even by a Conservative
definition of man (thinking of original intent) blacks were not accorded
Thus, without a redistribution of wealth to African Americans, it is
mathematically impossible for us to attain economic parity. The Conservatives
will hold that line forever despite the racist effect. All you have to do
is search the NYTimes back a few weeks to see what effect its restructuring
of loans in tight times does on different populations.
These two factors, as strong as they are do not irk quite as much as
the recent developments in Republican party politics. They have gone beyond
the political to the cultural. Anyone mouthing the diction of 'Family
Values' or quoting the economics of Sowell has invoked the question of
whether or not African Americans, culturally, are capable thus deserving
of the privileges of liberty as construed through our economic way of
seeing and doing things.
In short they have made enemies of the black *way of life* if they percieve
it impolitic. The ugly rear end of that is a brand of politics that invokes
the worst tactics. Our best examples of these are well known - Hill/Thomas,
Willie Horton, David Duke, LosAngeles, 'constructive engagement.'
African Americans, many Conservatives perceive, are the primary boobears
raising the spectre of race. It has been said enough nauseating times that
if we were to desist political agitation for anti-racist measures America's
racial problems would go away. But that doesn't change the fact that
American blacks who find themselves abroad get much political sympathy. As
Conservatives define the national interest, ridding ourselves of racism falls
very low on the totem pole.
America can tell you how much Beryllium lies under the Namib desert with
frightening accuracy. And it might have told us the face of Mars. But facing
America's racism is a task Conservatives prefer to leave undone. They will,
I predict, be quite satisfied with half the rich black vote and total
destruction of the 'civil-rights establishment' which just happens to be
the most powerful African-American political coalition this country ever
had. I suppose they will say it was a group of hypocrites that just
happened to be black.
U.N.T.S. No. 9464
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION
OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour,
descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of
nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal
footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions,
restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention
between citizens and non-citizens.
3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way
the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship
or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate
against any particular nationality.
4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate
advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring
such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or
individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental
freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that
such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate
rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued
after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.
This document could have been created 100 or 500 years ago. Or it might
not exist for another 100 years. I believe that Conservatives in the
American tradition will always be opposed to it because they cannot
practically establish for themselves a politics which satisfies its core
constituency and 'racial minorities' who would benefit under such provisions
which would logically derive from it.
If such a provision were, for example, 'Affirmative Action', the Conservatives
could not practically design one that works in the interest of racial justice.
In America, they have demonstrated this. Is that because Conservatives are
racist on principle or because their constituents are racist?
If such a provision were, for example, 'License Forfeiture for Racist Effect'
the Conservatives could not practically enforce a law that would cost
Marge Schott her right to own a baseball team or Denny's right to do business
as a restaurant, or Darryl Gates privilege to work in law enforcement. Is
that because the Conservatives are racist on principle or because they use
racial tactics to gain white voters?
If such a provision were, for example, 'Enterprise Zones' the Conservatives
could not restrict American businesses from foreign investments if they
refused to build in poor black communities. Is that because the Conservatives
are against poor black communities or because Americans could not possibly
be proud of televisions made in Watts?
If such a provision were, for example, 'Educational Parity' the Conservatives
could never support federal subsidy of arts funding that went to rap music.
Is that because the Conservatives know there is no possible redeeming qualities
to black art forms or because black people need jobs not culture?
What is the reason Conservatism does not appeal to the plurality of African
Americans as it has been defined by Reagan, Nixon and Bush? Is it because
blacks are incapable of being conservative and lack the high standards the
conservative claim as their own, or is it because these Conservatives and
those who support them have been effectively opposed, wrapped as they were
in the traditional colors of America, to black progress as defined by blacks?
There is no good reason for any political party in America to lack the
support of a significant plurality of any 'racial minority'. The fact that
Reagan, Nixon and Bush consistantly did despite the self-evident diversity
of black opinion says more about their brand of conservatism than anything
The status quo on racial justice is unacceptable. Conservatives don't
appeal to African Americans because they lack, big time. They don't know
us and they try to coopt our opinion. Where the rubber meets the road
they can't deliver (when they try). They have harbored enough racists and
defended racist effect enough to not merit the benefit of the doubt. When
challenged, they dispute defensively rather than lead by example. As
Bevis would say. 'They suck'.
I've listened to Rush and Pat a few times but am not an authority
on them. But of course that never stopped me or anyone else from
commenting. I would put Rush in the "ever so slightly" or maybe
"unconsciously" racist camp. I heard him bring up on his show the
fact that Rodney King was arrested for DUI a couple of weeks ago.
(So was John Denver but Rush didn't mention this). What was the
purpose of this? Does that excuse the cops from nearly beating him
to death? On the other hand, I would put Pat in the documented,
obviously racist camp. I heard him say one time on the Crossfire
show that if he saw a group of black men coming down the street,
he would cross to the other side because he feared for his safety.
And then there is the time he said he preferred European immigrants
to African immigrants because they "assimilated" better. And
William F. Buckley found evidence for Anti-Semitism.
By the way, what was the purpose of your question?
Fred LaMaster f...@icbdfcs3.fc.hp.com
Well to answer your last question first, the purpose of my question was to
have some honest dialogue about positions I hold to be sound
(conservatism) with people who hold alternative opinions. My thinking is
that, with intelligent, rational discussions, I either become stronger in
my convictions or I am enlightened in some way that I would not have been
if I did not pose these questions.
Conservatives, Pat and Rush are the most prominent, are attacked as being
racist. I hold what would be considered conservative views, am I, I ask
myself, racist as well? I honestly don't think so. I also am angered
when someone considers me racist simply for espousing conservative views.
Perhaps I am wrong but when Rush mentions Rodney King and his DUI, he
mentions it in light of the fact that this is one of several incidents
where Rodney ordinarily would have been arrested for his actions but was
not. Why? I don't believe it is a "Black vs White" issue Rush is trying
to comment on but rather a cops vs civilian issue. I personally don't
think John Denver's DUI adds anything to that discussion. Rodney has
shown himself to be a menace (which has nothing to do with race but with
individual responsibility) but the police are afraid to do anything to
him. As far as the cops, I don't think anyone condones excessive
violence. The cops in question were tried in federal court, acquitted,
and due to public outcry, tried again in a state court and found guilty.
I ask people "Why were the cops acquitted the first time". If the answer
is racism by the jury then that is sad indeed. The tape, with the
"18 seconds of non-resistent beatings", seems hard to justify yet the cops
were still found innocent. Again, if the answer is racism then people
have a right AND DUTY, to denounce the jury's decision!
As far as the Pat B. remark about crossing the street, I had a similar
discussion once with a friend of mine. Given the state of race relations
today, I told my friend I would not fault a white person or a black person
one bit for "crossing the street" on the simple premiss that, all other
things being equal, a white (black) person would not attack another white
(black) person simply because of the color of their skin. Notice I did
not say that one race is more predisposed to attack others. I think we
would both agree that there are, unfortunately, bad apples in every bunch.
The jury is still out IMO whether Pat B is an anti-semite. I've read the
William F. B. National Review article a long time ago. I know he and the
jewish community disagree on some major issues. As an aside, there are
several prominent jewish journalists who grill Pat on his stands but on at
least one occasion, John Demjarnick.. (Forgot how to spell his last name),
Pat seems to have been correct, yet none of these jewish journalists
apologized. I wish people, conservatives and liberals, would admit every
once in awhile that they might be wrong!
And with that, I welcome comments. My opinions are sometimes wrong,
sometimes right, but my interest in seeking an honest, intelligent and
non-racist dialogue is sincere!