Democrats are racistsFollow

Black people know more about shoes.

OMG, I am soooo racist.

You're right. That's the reason so many people who worked at a company for 10 years, 15 years, 25 years , are now out of work.

Couldn't be because some company shipped everyones jobs over seas or they saw their stock drop 30 cents could it?

African descendants are far more prone to lactose intolerance than Caucasian descendants. African descendants are far more prone to sickle-cell anaemia than Caucasians. African descendants are less prone to sun-damage to their skin and thus likely to look about 15 years younger than their Causian descendant counterparts when they hit 50 and older.

At the top, maybe. But not where these people are going to be hired at.



I'm well aware of that but you stated the reason people are out of work was because they were stupid and lazy. I countered with because they had their jobs taken from them. Naturally, you came back with **** that had no ****** bearing on the actual conversation. Like normal.

Again, just so we're clear since you're not actually answering the question, your offense comes from him saying blacks know more about something than other racial groups in the US?

Jophed,



Yes.


Seems pretty simple to comprehend, even for you.


If I say whites know more about the stock market because there are more whites at the NYSE then I would called a racist, and many other more offensive terms.

I just want to say that my local Kroger is unionized, and the employees there are the most helpful and polite people I've ever met in any grocery store, ever. They're always smiling, they're always willing to help, they're always asking me if I need help finding anything. The manager at one of them gave me a detailed explanation as to why they didn't have any canned pumpkin (apparently last year's crop was very poor and all their reserves were depleted for Thanksgiving.) When they were open on Christmas day, rather than ******** about having to work, the cashier sang me Christmas carols as she checked out my last minute groceries.

It beats out, hands down, any of the other grocery stores in town, by so many miles it's not even in the same class. Publix is employee owned, but none of the employees seem that happy to be there. Winn-Dixie, Food Lion, Ingles, and Bell's all have surly, downtrodden, unhappy people working there that all look sad and desperate.

And yet, Kroger is now by far the dominant franchise here in town, with three locations, compared to one each for its competitors. All three Krogers proudly display their union sticker on the front of the door. The union is surely sucking away all the profits and is about to force the store to go bankrupt, amirite?

Edited, Jul 30th 2010 11:29am by catwho

Maybe. But then knowledge of the stock market is more of a learned thing than a cultural/ethnic thing. If you were to say that whites (inc. Hispanics) know more about being Catholic, I doubt you'd see much argument.

That difference was not as astronomical as you've likely been lead to believe, and should have been largely erased over the time since. There are other factors involved.



I'd be curious if you have a cite for that, because I don't think that's exactly correct. My understanding is that when blacks and whites who are middle class or better are compared, the outcomes are similar. But when we look at the poor and lower end of the working class, blacks do not gain as much ground over time statistically as whites.

This should not be the case, especially given the removal of opportunity blocking/limiting structures like segregation 40-50 years ago. When we look at this, conservatives and liberals give two different explanations:

Liberals believe that there is still some institutionalized racism which prevents black people from advancing, so we need racially targeted social programs to balance that out.

Conservatives believe that the very social programs enacted by the left to help poor black people actually prevents them from advancing, and if we eliminated them, they'd be better off in the long run.


Which is true is a subject of debate, of course. But the data fits the Conservative explanation better. If institutionalized racism was the culprit we'd expect to see greater limits on the top end of the economic spectrum. But what we're seeing is that once a black family reaches a certain level of prosperity they succeed normally, but those still at a low enough economic level to qualify for government "help" succeed at a lower rate. Obviously, it's not as simple as that. We'd have to also take into account historical migrations of black populations from rural communities into inner cities (ghettoisation) as well, which dramatically reduces the opportunities for those "stuck" living in areas in which there are not enough jobs for the numbers. Um... We'd also have to look at how that happened, given that blacks were encouraged during the civil rights movement to move into more highly populated areas in order to increase their representation in congress.


Everyone loves to toss around assumptions about motive, and examine alleged code words and phrases looking for signs which they can interpret as racism. But to me, we ought to look at actual actions, legislation, and policies, and what effects we can see have resulted from them. Joph loves to talk about things like the "Southern Strategy" as though the phrase itself has meaning and weight. But when pressed to give examples of actual legislation or executive action clearly aimed at unfair/unequal treatment of people based on their race, he balks. It's easy to point to a word or phrase and insist that it has some secret meaning. It's easy precisely because when the other guy insists that it doesn't mean that, you can also just say he's lying to cover up the secret meaning. But that very ease should give us pause if we want to rationally address this issue.


We should look at actions, not words. And when we look at the actions and assess them by objective racial standards, it's hard not to see that the policies of the left and of the Democratic party have clearly not only been racially aligned, but in some cases have backfired and actually *hurt* those they intended to help. The GOPs position is that we should treat everyone equally under the law and allow time and social progress to change everything else. But the Dems don't want that. They seem to want to make race an issue and press for "racially aware" laws in some claimed attempt to make change happen faster. But the biggest effect of those laws seem to be to create yet more differences which can be pointed to in order to support the need for yet more laws.


It's a self fulfilling and IMO ultimately harmful policy. What's wrong with actually treating people equally under the law? Shouldn't that be our objective? Judge people, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character? What is wrong with that?

Edited, Jul 30th 2010 5:46pm by gbaji

Gbaji likes to pretend that uncomfortable things don't exist and when three different Republican National Committee chairs all admit to the Republicans having used Southern Strategy techniques, it matters less than what Gbaji rationalizes to himself to make all the scary facts go away.

Hi, frantically running goalposts! How are ya?

Was that your way of admitting that I was correct about the Southern Strategy and the blog you were reading from was wrong?

Thanks!

Especially when they're not encrypted. Free wi-fi!