A you tube discussion of a good new book that discusses how race is used to divide and conquer us on behalf of the one percent. Since Ronald Reagan mastered it, overt David Duke/George Wallace straight out racism is not so apparent. We now have the coded use of words like "welfare" and illegal aliens to do the job. Interestingly I listened to Rush Limbaugh and Hannity for about one and half hours a couple of days ago. Tough, but liberals have to do it occasionally. There are constant complaints that whites are victims of reverse racism, but in this particular case they claim whites are victimized constantly by false claims of racism. This approach still does the job of giving the declining middle class the racial scapegoat explanation instead of blaming the multimillionaires like Limbaugh and the billionaires who are his patrons. <iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pHi5TfXNiV4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
l am sort of surprised that you don't see how folks like Hannity and Limbaugh are using race to divide.
Never in history has a political party used race to divide the populace more than today -- and it's the Democrats doing it. 1. Trayvon Martin's media charade -- probably the most blatant 2. False claims of racism against the tea party to try to diminish their rise in 2010 3. Using racial politics to shield Obama from criticism 4. About 50% of Eric Holder's agenda 5. Attempting to equate/conflate civil rights with gay rights 6. Recent attempts to smear rising politicians with racist charges (Rick Perry's ranch, Rand Paul's libertarian stances on restaurants are two examples) 7. MSNBC's promotion of Al Sharpton(!) and Melissa Harris-Perry, two completely incompetent 'journalists' who promote a racial agenda. 8. Even going back to Obama's speech on race in 2008 which was timed to deflect criticism from the growing Jeremiah Wright scandal. 9. Constant efforts to go out of their way to display people of color in promotions and advertisements (the Obamacare computer simulated Hispanic was the most egregious example). 10. Constant talking points intended to paint the Republican party as a regional, white party (many on this board try this smear) This is from memory, typed in about 3 minutes. I could probably go on all night, but don't need to since the point is clearly made.
Perhaps a bit of a tangent from the OP, but when did the "oppression of white men in America" narrative really start gaining steam? I feel like it's a relatively recent phenomena, but maybe it just reached the mainstream in the past few years?
I agree, it seems like this has started to take hold. I think it's an unfortunate, mutated reaction to more equality in the country, as well as a defensive mechanism towards the ability that minority groups now have to dictate mainstream opinion.
Also - I'm not going to deny that there's racism on both sides. I think the term "reverse racism" is stupid; racism is racism. But at some point, we're going to have to turn a corner and stop harboring hatred about things that happened to our fathers and grandfathers. We all know, intellectually, that there's no difference between a white man and a black man, but we continue to define deep differences between the two in pop culture and social politics. Round and round the carousel we go.
The thing is, even if we could say for sure that the gap in gender and racial equality has narrowed, it seems as though that gulf has widened along economic lines. And even if those minority groups are able to dictate mainstream opinion, it doesn't seem as though they are able to have a pronounced influence on public policy. While I believe that on an individual level we all have an intrinsic responsibility for our own actions and decisions, and can personally only muster so much sympathy for those who blame their lot in life on an imbalanced playing field, it seems like just acknowledging and trying to address inequities in our society is taken by those with privilege as a personal attack.
1. Wasn't from the Democrats, and not really about stirring racial divide. 2. There were plenty of legitimate claims of racism against the Tea Party. 3. Doesn't happen as often as racial attacks against Obama. 4. Not going to buy that crap unless you can show it. 5. gay rights is about civil rights. But again not about creating a racial divide. 6. Rand Paul's stance on allowing restaurants to discriminate would be advocating for racists. 7. I agree that Al Sharpton isn't really a competent journalist. 8. Which was a reaction to all the BS put out there about Wright most of which was unwarranted, and wrong. 9. This one didn't make any sense. 10. The last Republican President put racists in the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. The Republicans were also the party that in Florida talked about ways to discourage black voters. If the Republicans don't target minorities for things like that, it would do wonders for their image. Too bad the Republicans provide so much ammo. But calling it out when it happens isn't the fault of Democrats or anyone else who calls out Republicans when they do things like that. It's the fault of Republicans who actually do those things. Of course Obama has done far less discussing of race than any Democratic President in decades. But that FACT doesn't jibe well with your narrative.
A few loons does not make the whole movement racist....there are African American members of the Tea Party.(Many were liberal plants) That president gave more aid to Africa than any other president before him, and if you want to talk about a racist Dept of Justice just look at Holder.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GpVgEmMmFVY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes, Bush did that, and I'm on record supporting that. He also appointed racists to the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. What an insult. I've looked at Holder and have yet to see one instance of racism.
Around 1980 with the whole bust the unions, export many good manufacturing jobs, NAFTA, forbidding students to go bankrupt on loans, allowing a few millionaires to own huge media chains to spread economic theories just to their benefit and now just fairly openly buy the politicians. We stopped having the rising tide lifting all boats. It is well documented. Frankly white working class men have virtually nothing to show for this period except reduced economic prospects. Hence the appeal of Dog Whistle politics. At least working class women and minorities have gained more civil rights.
Please provide proof that they were racists? Cite the person and their documented proof of being a racist. I will hang up and listen. For starters
Ignoring the bullet points, this is a hilarious bit of hyperbole. You do know, don't you, that half the country seceded from the Union because an anti-slavery Republican was elected president? And we had to fight a war in which hundreds of thousands died to settle what rights black people would have?
Sure here's the proof. It's been shown before. It's possible that Tanner and Schlozman aren't racists, but they are guilty of sending racist emails, so the evidence is there. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DOJ_Civil_Rights_lawyer_sent_racist_0114.html Your report on Holder investigating if there was a Civil Rights violation regarding the Zimmerman case doesn't prove racism.
Do not trouble Ketchup Bot with facts and reason. He will not respond. Instead, you will only see the next stream of erroneous bullets and talking points. Ketchup Bot is resolute and never wavers.
