The Race Card on April 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM

You are correct, the word, “nigger”, is merely a contemptuous corruption of the word, negro. As for the word, “honky”, it has no derivation.

. . . to his rantings and it had made him look mean-spirited and bigoted

should read:

“. . . to his and it revealed him for being the mean-spirited and bigoted person he is.”

Attack in public, apologize in private.

The art of the moral coward.

Lockstein13 on April 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Until you have heard this man, Rev. Eric Lee, speak you cannot imagine how annoying he is. He literally ruined a local MLK event with his racial provocation and whining.

We ought to use terms like Caucasian & Negro instead, but Negro has been banned from use for anyone except Negroes (as in the NAACP).

jgapinoy on April 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Negro means black in spanish. It’s the same term.

By the time I get through this rant, someone else should have pointed that out.

***
Here’s a memo to all you guys and gals out there who are now trying to justify your own racism by pointing to the racism of Rev. Wright and other bigots.

If that’s the format we’re following, then I should be racist against whites, because there are just as many if not more (numerically, not proportionally) racists as there are of any other group.

***
And as far as suggesting that black on white racism is a problem beyond white on black racism. BWAHAHAHAHA There is no equivalent word for “nigger” that applies to white people. There is no equivalent in world history that mirrors the experience of blacks in America. The phrase “Go back to Europe” never took hold as cultural catchphrase.

My ancestory has deeper roots in this country than most families. This is my country.

I gaurantee that if Republicans make the mistake of twisting these issues into political weapons, it will backfire. It always does. And then we’ll really have something to whine about.

A lot of commenters herein put forth this holier-than-thou posturing. It’s apparent to me based on some of the language that some of you are and always have been racist. Using a sermon of some wild-eyed pastor whom you’ve never met nor been affected by as fuel for your racial angst is totally obvious.

***
The Democratic Party panders to minorities. The Republican Party offends them.
***
John McWhorter will be the next of the annointed ones to be tossed to the curb by Republicans, particularly white males.
***
Anger is not a strong foundation for sound reasoning. How mad are you about race? How sound is your reasoning?

The art of the moral coward.

Zaire67 on April 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM

But that is my point, your boss had a problem, not you. Nothing you could do or say would have made him think differently. The stereotype he imposed upon you may have been founded on truth in other situations in his life, but, his mistake was in assuming that all (large) Black men were the same.

As an aside, it has been my experience that small men, of any shade, are more aggressive than tall ones (the small man syndrome).

OldEnglish on April 11, 2008 at 10:35 AM

It’s not about a feeling of superiority or inferiority. And it’s definitely not the need for anyone’s approval. It’s about being able to work and live in an environment where everyone is thought of and treated as equals. Where everyone’s ideas and expressions are taken at face value, and placed in context of the discussion or situation. Not the “typical” response of “__________”(you fill in the blank).

Case in point: In the early 90’s I worked in a hi-tech firm in Milpitas, CA and sometimes my boss would call me in from the field to perform tedious tasks at odd times of the day as though they must be completed immediately. After several weeks of this, It finally dawned on me he was always laying off an employee while I was in the office performing such tasks. The office manager seemed to notice the same thing. Then it all began to make sense; At that time I was 6’3”, 255 pounds, athletic Black man. It truly seemed to me he was expecting me to protect him by kicking into angry Blackman mode if an employee went postal after being fired. I wouldn’t have thought this except I was the only Black person working in that office. And after I questioned him, he admitted that this was in fact the case.

The problem wasn’t that I would not have been willing and able to do so if asked. It was the assumption that I was able to do so if the situation arose simply because who I am. For all he knew I could have been a big mama’s boy who at any sign of trouble would have been the first one out the door. And its important to point out that there were other white male employees that matched me physically at that office who were never placed in that situation.

This election gets unpleasanter and unpleasanter, but the agony is prolonged by the do-gooder who is so busy examining their personal guilt they cannot see how they facilitate a greater evil

When you nominate yourself to apologize for group guilt you have validated group prejudice

Is there a Zionist plot to portray blacks in a certain light, or is it that Jews in Hollywood, while acting individually, portray blacks in a certain way because they all tend to share similar views and ideology? Group think in Hollywood, who would have guessed.

So for the rest of my life I have to prove to white people that I am not “an angry Black man”. I face this at work, in my neighborhood, pretty much any social interaction. And if I do get angry, that’s always seems to be the response regardless of the justification for my anger. Is assuming the negative until disproved racism or is assuming the positive until disproved naïve? I ask myself this almost every day and the answer keeps changing.

Zaire67 on April 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM

That statement tells me the root of your problem. You do see white people as being both different and superior, otherwise you would not feel the need to gain their approval. Be yourself, and if they can’t accept you for what you are, that’s their problem, not yours.

Well, that’s close enough to what he said. In a very small part of my presentation, I referenced a meeting I had with Rabbi’s and other community leaders. A Rabbi stated in that meeting that the close relationship between the……

But for Obama, the problem is there are enough other people out there who see and hear this stuff and who are turned off by the hatred. Bill Clinton won in 1992 in part because, after a dozen years out of the White House, the radical left in the Democratic Party was willing to shut their pie holes during the campaign to avoid scaring people back to George H.W. Bush. Obama’s got to muzzle people like Wright and Lee, but it both may be too late for that thanks to DVDs and the Internet, and this is a different group of radical activists, who apparently are caught in the grip of their own empowerment through Barak’s success to say what they actually believe from time to time.

Is Lee a Black?

No, he’s light brown. And I’m not “White”–I’m kinda beige with pink undertones. I’ve never met anyone who is “Yellow”. We ought to use terms like Caucasian & Negro instead, but Negro has been banned from use for anyone except Negroes (as in the NAACP).

Everyone else has to understand THEIR pain in order to be more comfortable with preachers shouting, hooting, and juicing their body language.

Where’s Eddie Murphy when you really need him to act out of his 5 characters from “Coming to America”? Wait, the preacher was played by Arsenio Hall. OK. Where’s Arsenio?

Is assuming the negative until disproved racism or is assuming the positive until disproved naïve? I ask myself this almost every day and the answer keeps changing.

Zaire67 on April 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM

It it’s a Dem, they feel sorry for you because you are a perpetual and blameless victim. If it’s a lib, they feel obligated to fix your situation for you. In either case, they don’t see you, only ur color.

If it’s a conservative, they don’t think anything about you at all, unless they happen to know you. And then they decide if they like you or not.

From the JDL website
While statistics and studies on the subject are not readily available, the Anti-Defamation League believes that the recitation of numbers and percentages is not the answer to the false charges of Jewish “control” of the motion picture industry, or, indeed, of similar accusations involving the media, banking, finance and other businesses. Reliance on statistics alone plays into the hands of anti-Semites. Generally, Jews involve themselves in non-religious and non-political activity as individuals, not as Jews. ADL takes the position that the number of Jews involved in a particular field bears no relationship to “Jewish power” or “Jewish control” of that industry. ADL does not accept the notion that Jews in any field act in concert with other Jews similarly situated simply because they happen to be Jewish. To believe otherwise is to accept a conspiracy theory that is the anti-Semites’ stock-in-trade and relegates Jews to a kind of second-class citizenship.

In other words, American Jews have as much right as any other citizens of the United States to work in the motion picture business, in the entertainment industry, and in any other legitimate businesses. Moreover, it bears repeating that those Jews who involve themselves in the motion picture industry do so as individuals, not as representatives of their religious group or with an aim to act in some coordinated conspiratorial manner.

The true question is, are we willing to apply this same logic to other groups? I know the JDL doesn’t and judging by some of the comments, this is not the case here either. A lot of us grew up watching black TV shows in the 70’s. It just so happens that most if not all was generated by the same group of people that happen to be Jewish. It was quite obvious that the object of the shows was to perpetuate the seed of Black victimization. We did not like those shows, but that was the only example displayed until The Cosby Show aired. By then the Black victimization movement was fully entrenched in my community. They even attacked The Cosby Show as not being realistic, a true depiction of Black family life. Basically any Black person that did not follow this mindset was ostracized and in some cases killed. (Take a close look at what happened in San Francisco’s Western Addition during the late 70’s early 80’s) White liberals have fed upon this to their betterment and the further demise of the Black community. So now the Black boogie man is Rap music. The nonstop demands that young Black folks stop making and listening to this self destructive music and embrace a more positive form of expression. My son loves Rap music and his Zune is full of hours of positive uplifting, spiritual and sometime just goofy songs by a myriad of artists. Unfortunately none of these artists make to the airwaves, why? When he tells his friends about them they start listening also but the groups tends to fade out after a couple of CD’s. Why, I ask is this possible. Can’t be the music, it all sounds the same. Only difference is the lyrics, they go against the Black victim mentality and embrace our inner strength and spiritual truths. Two things the Liberals would rather we not have.

So for the rest of my life I have to prove to white people that I am not “an angry Black man”. I face this at work, in my neighborhood, pretty much any social interaction. And if I do get angry, that’s always seems to be the response regardless of the justification for my anger. Is assuming the negative until disproved racism or is assuming the positive until disproved naïve? I ask myself this almost every day and the answer keeps changing.

Debbie Schlussel on April 11, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Precisely.

I, for one, didn’t know that such hatred for white people was being preached in black churches around the country; that blaming all things evil on white people was a current dynamic being taught to young black Americans; and so on…

Much progress has been made over the past 40 years with regards to racism within certain communities; apparently not included in this progress is portions of black America. Ignoring this will not make it go away.

Well then, aunursa, if it’s a concern that the printed word will be desecrated, why is “God” changed to “G-d” in an internet article or blog?

I’m glad you asked that. The concern is that someone might print out the article or comment and then subsequently discard the paper. If you think that’s a particularly trivial reason, the you don’t know the Talmud.