Posts tagged: racist
so this guy in my neighborhood is super racist and he has a confederate flag flying so someone last night took it down and spray painted black power and put it back up
“We Put White People of the World First!”
Yeah this is a real thing. It’s a blog and a podcast. Their About Us says this:
The objective of The White Voice is to deliver a positive, progressive, White-First message. We intend to lead the White people of the world down the path of racial salvation through education, revolutionary philosophy, and self-improvement.
So they say they are white-first, but then they say this:
We reject all ideas of racial supremacism, the out-dated belief that one race has the right to dominate another. We believe in the right to self-determination not just for ourselves but all the peoples of the world.
And then this:
We favor love over hate, love being the most powerful emotion. We recognize that White racial salvation can only occur when we love our race more than others.
And this at the beginning of the handbook:
“A mutt makes a great pet and a mulatto makes a great slave” -Joseph Adams
Soo we have racist white supremacists that says they’re against racial supremacy and that they are based on love but only for their race. I don’t think they quite understand what they’re doing here. Oh and they want to start their own country called the White Republic. It sounds like an overpriced department store chain.
But anyway you can send all of your hate here: firstname.lastname@example.org or he encourages you to call at (718)395-9760
718? These devils are from NYC? What the what?
This is literally one of the most pathetic articles I’ve ever even attempted to read. Who gives a shit about the colour of someone’s skin? It’s practically singling out people in some weird form of Affirmative Action/Reverse racism but it isn’t called on because it’s some how treated as a “positive” thing. Rage.
Actually, I think the article is a great idea, because while people of color have significant roles in pop culture and particularly hip hop, the music industry has long been guilty of a lot of racism and whitewashing. It is essential to recognize the contribution of black folks in rock ‘n roll, especially since the genre started from white guys ripping off black music and making money off it.
GIVING BLACK PEOPLE CREDIT FOR THINGS IS REVERSE RACISM GUYS
Are you kidding me with this guy?
It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites dragged to this country and enslaved.
So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I laugh bitterly. When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.
Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end of the political spectrum, and everything in between. Everyone from Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)
I find it fascinating and more than a little unsettling.
Here is Ron Paul giving a speech about how the South was right, and the Civil War was awful because it destroyed “individual choice.” Never mind “individual choice” vis-à-vis the enslaved; they weren’t people and thus could lay no claim to “individuality” or “liberty.” What Paul means by “individual choice,” is “white men’s (specifically white property-owning men) individual choice.”
Just look at this silly little man, standing proudly in front of a Confederate flag talking about the enslavement of black people in transactional terms. In the Ron Paul Gospel, adherence to the quintessential American values of “individual choice and” “liberty” would have required the Yankees to buy the slaves’ freedom. A detestable notion, to be sure, but also historically inaccurate since, as we all know, the South started it.
Ultimately, when it comes to black people, the world “liberty” seems to disappear from Paul’s vocabulary. Funny, that.
I must confess that I’m truly baffled by the level of support I’m seeing among my friends for presidential candidate Ron Paul. While the number of Paul fans in my circles is relatively small, he nonetheless enjoys the highest level of support from my LGBT-identified and equality-supporting friends out of all the non-LGBT-friendly candidates. In addition, the Ron Paul supporters I know tend to be passionately, often blindly, devoted to their candidate, steamrolling over any criticisms of Paul, no matter how legitimate, and simply dismissing out of hand those they cannot out-argue.
To many people, Ron Paul’s sound bites are very appealing. Smaller government. Individual liberty. Legalization of marijuana and other drugs. (Yes, I think this has a lot to do with the support Paul receives, especially among young people and college students.) Unfortunately, it’s been my experience that most supporters of Ron Paul stop there and either don’t dig any further or ignore the digging done by others. This alarms me, because Ron Paul’s record is very, very anti-gay.
On his best days, Ron Paul supports the so-called “states’ rights” position regarding marriage equality. On his worst, he has specifically bragged about his efforts to obstruct and attack LGBT people’s civil rights and gone out of his way to slander and mischaracterize LGBT people.
Setting aside the generally disturbing deployment of the “states’ rights” argument at all, given its shameful history as a justifier of slavery and Jim Crow laws in this country, I’d like to ask Mr. Paul (as well as those who profess to support both Ron Paul and LGBT equality) why LGBT couples should be the only Americans whose marriages are subject to the “states’ rights” standard. Why should only LGBT people, but not straight people, have to seek the approval of our state legislatures and/or citizenry in order to marry the people we love? Why should our marriages be the only ones that dissolve when we cross state lines? And why is this an acceptable state of affairs, especially given the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all American citizens?
“Yeah,” many of my Paul-supporting friends will say, “but that’s just your opinion.”
This brings up another point: the difference between opinion and fact. Maybe it’s just me, but in this era of false equivalency memes, it appears as though this distinction is being increasingly overlooked. A fact is something that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence, while an opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence, usually taking the form of a subjective statement that can be emotionally based or result from a person’s individual interpretation of a fact.
- FACT: Ron Paul’s presidential campaign issued a flyer that boasted about the candidate’s efforts to introduce legislation that would remove challenges to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act from the federal court system.
- FACT: Ron Paul’s Iowa state director is Mike Heath, a long-term Christian-right activist who formerly served as the board chairman of an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group known as “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”
- FACT: Ron Paul has a long history of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic comments.
- FACT: As state above, Ron Paul supports the so-called “states’ rights” approach to marriage, but interestingly, only for LGBT couples.
- FACT: Ron Paul said, “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage license issued in another state.”
- FACT: Ron Paul opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers.
Based on the above examples and so many others, there is no way one can honestly characterize Ron Paul’s past statements and record as anything other than anti-gay. Of course, LGBTs and supporters of LGBT equality, like all voters, can and should vote for whomever they choose. I am neither disputing that right nor attempting in any way to tell anyone how to vote. What I am saying, however, is that LGBT and pro-LGBT voters should at least acknowledge that a vote for a candidate like Ron Paul is a vote for someone who opposes their rights.
As the year 2011 ends, there are several good year-end reviews about racial justice, this video from Colorlines and this post from a David J. Leonard writing at New Black Man, are both excellent. We here at Racism Review offer this as our own brief, and necessarily incomplete, recap of some of the notable events in the struggle for racial justice. Be sure to scroll all the way to the end, there are some victories there, too ~ and a challenge for you at the end.
We lost some fierce champions and scholar-activists:
- Manning Marable, aged 60, died in April, just days before his epic biography of Malcolm X was published.
- Derrick Bell, aged 80, a founder of critical race theory who famously resigned his tenured position at Harvard Law School in protest over their failure to hire any women of color, died in October.
Lots of things happened in 2011 which illustrate just how entrenched racial inequality (still) is, including:
- the execution of Troy Davis and the ongoing racism of the New Jim Crow. I argued here at the time of Davis’ execution that the U.S. death penalty is akin to the American practice of lynching in which black and brown people, especially men, are executed in disproportionately high numbers as a means of social control.
- the Occupy Wall Street movement, initiated and led predominantly by white people, missed theracial significance of the “occupy” terminology, and thereby missed an opportunity to galvanize a movement across racial boundaries. Dick Gregory said in October that the Occupy movement had a ‘whiff’ of the civil rights movement, with a key difference: “The difference between this movement and our movement is that white people — rich, poor, educated — are born with 300 years of white privilege. So there are certain things that you don’t do to me when you’re born with privileges. When it was us, the cops could do anything they wanted to. You can’t do these children like this.”
- the racism in presidential politics has been off the hook this year, with the Republicans on center stage as they search for a viable opponent to defeat President Obama. This is not to say that Democrats are not capable of practicing racism in the service of a political goal, it’s just that the Republicans have been taking up all the air time. From the buffoonery of Herman Cain and the strategic racism of his Koch brothers’ supporters, to the ‘food stamp president’ racism of Newt Gingrich, to the white-supremacist-supported campaign of Ron Paul, it’s been an epic year for racism in presidential politics.
- immigration reform has stalled and deportations have increasedunder President Obama. In 2010, the U.S. government deported some 400,000 people, more than in the entire decade of the 1980s. However, it’s not all immigrants who are being targeted; research indicates that Asian and European immigrants are almost never deported, yet blacks and Latinos are deported in large numbers.
- Facebook (and YouTube) racism continue. In a move that continues to baffle me (you know we can see what you’re saying, right?), white people continue to post racist crap to Facebook, YouTube and any other form of social media. One of the more infamous examples from 2011 was Alexandra Wallace, former UCLA college student, who posted a racist video of herself mocking her Asian American classmates. She later left UCLA amid reported death threats. More recently, the racist postings on Facebook by NYPD cops was exposed.
- Islamophobia on the rise, and mass murder in Norway. In July, Anders Breivik opened fire on a Norwegian camp killing about 90 people, many of them children. He was said to be upset about “immigrants” especially Muslim immigrants that were supposedly “destroying Europe.” In the U.S., Rep. Peter King (R-NY), led the way in fomenting Islamophobia through a series of congressional hearings that targeted Muslims living in the U.S. as potential terrorists. King refused to focus any of his congressional hearing on predominantly white militia groups or white supremacist organizations.
Did you know that the reason for the Civil War was not racism? I know, right? Shocker. The Civil War was started to keep the “Union” from completely splitting up forever and having two separate countries.
But I guess that makes me racist for knowing my history.
My good friend JadedBard is going to help you out now.
I figured I’d collect the most important links and quotes into one post, which I will forever refer to, or even copy-and-paste in a response, whenever I see someone spew forth the misguided belief that the Civil War was about anything more than it was about slavery and that the Confederacy is not inherently racist (and the flag not a symbol of anything racist).
This is as much for my own archives and convenience in rebuttal as it is anything else, but feel free to use it for your own edification, too.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America, the major differences from the U.S. Constitution having explicitly everything to do with slavery. Key ones include:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 (note the explicit language):
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Funny how they felt the need to specifically set off slaves from “other property.”
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3:
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Georgia, the SECOND SENTENCE IN THE WHOLE THING:
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Mississippi, SECOND PARAGRAPH:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
South Carolina, the first state to secede. This one is particularly egregious. FIRST SENTENCE in the declaration:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.
And further on down, a flat-out admission that the protection of its right to slavery was the main reason South Carolina ever ratified the U.S. Constitution in the first place:
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.
Texas, explicitly stating that being a slave state was one of its strongest ties to the states east of the Mississippi:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery— the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits— a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
And because I live in Tennessee, I think it’s appropriate to throw in some of my state’s stuff. Like the speech from Gov. Isham Harris (who very soon after sent Confederate troops to storm strongly pro-Union East Tennessee to prevent it from becoming its own state within the Union, as West Virginia would do successfully).
Shortly into his speech:
The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a crisis in the affairs of the country, unparalleled in the history of the past, resulting already in the withdrawal from the Confederacy of one of the sovereignties which composed it, while others are rapidly preparing to move in the same direction.
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
And then this, perhaps even the most offensive (and saying it in the name of what I assume is the Christian God):
With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator.
But thanks for playing Confederate bingo with us! Maybe you’ll win next time :)
[TW: racial epithets]
Louis CK revealing on Reddit that black people might actually be taking the high ground, leaving “a whole lot of white people” floundering in the dust.
You don’t get it, PostSatire.
Louis CK isn’t merely a white person using the “N” word in jokes. (That describes half the racists on Tumblr.)
Louis CK is a person of mixed heritage, a Mexican-Hungarian-American with a Jewish grandfather and indigenous Mexican grandmother (also called “Mexican Indian”), who passes for and identifies as white, and he is actually criticizing white people using the “N” word and their latent, coded racism.
I’m a fan. I watch his show, his stand-up specials. I like what he’s about. I am not vouching for every single joke he has made, I am not signing off on everything he has ever said, but he is not uninformed as to race and racism.
It’s disappointing that you’re trying to use him to excuse white people using racial slurs, and implying that instead of calling out oppression and racism, people of color should “take the high ground,” i.e. be silent.
Postsatire must have missed the comment where he said he was not happy with white kids using his routines as an excuse to say “nigger” and “faggot.” I don’t know how, since it was the top comment for a good portion of that AMA, but it’s not like bigots ever cherrypick information to support their bullshit positions or anything.
Okay you haver a right to your own opinion, but sadly your being racist in your own way, and its true generally other race’s get scholarships and all the time for more things because of their race, so no offense but you have no right to get so upset over what she said because she is just speaking her mind, and isn’t being racist in any way, shape or form.
I am confused. Either I have a right to my opinion, or, I have no right to get upset. Which is it?
No, people of color don’t get “more things” for their race. Except more oppression and disparity. If you think people of color get more scholarships, then you either didn’t read the statistics posted, or you’re ignoring them.
I am being racist in my own way? How? Against who?
You have a right to make any kind of argument you want, but can I suggest you try presenting one that makes a little bit of sense?
You know what? I’ll give up the minority scholarships I’m not getting (like 96.5% of other people of color) in exchange for being featured positively in media, being able to date who I want without worrying about stares from the public or anyone pulling her aside and telling her she should date a white person, not being harassed for the color of my skin, getting paid the same amount as equally-qualified white people, having the same chance of being hired as equally-qualified white people without those white people having to be convicted felons, etc.