Looming Race War

[woodchip]

Does anyone else here feel down deep in their primal parts of their cortex, that the possibility of a very real race war is brewing? First off let me state it will not be Obama's fault other than his policies and leadership abilities are fail.

What I'm looking at is all the racist demagoguery being spewed out by the left, Jimmy Carter being the most recent example. People who are against Obama are being labeled as Nazis, Brown Shirts and now as being degenerate racist. The term racist is being used as a pejorative in a attempt to pressure people to not demonstrate against the socialist policy's of Obama and the Democratic leadership. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective)it is not working.

By reading some of the links posted in other threads, the rhetoric is certainly starting to sound a bit scary. I think perhaps even Ms. Polosi is starting to realize things are drifting beyond simple and honest discourse:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... lence.html

I wonder if she has enough consciousness to realize she was instrumental in fanning the flames. Hopefully the light bulb will come on in other race-baiters. The question is, has the lit match been thrown in the dry brush with a Santa Anna coming up from the south and we are tipping past a point of no return? I'd like to read your thoughts.

I experienced the race riots in Detroit back in the mid 60's and I can tell you first hand, if a race war breaks out, it will not be a pretty thing.

[Will Robinson]

I think Pelosi's comments are just more of the race card tactic not a sincere alarm.
I don't see the racial component boiling up in the real world any more than usual, maybe a few new instances of black on white aggression surfacing as a component of the black man finally getting into the white house, kind of emboldening of the attitudes of those who think they need to seek revenge for the past suffering of their race. Other than that it is just the increased use of the same old tactic since any disagreement with Obama is also a disagreement with a black man.

[Hostile]

No.

[Foil]

No, I don't think there's anything close to the violence of the '60s looming.

There are certainly some increased tensions lately, but in most cases the extremist rhetoric seems to be sparking dialogue rather than violence.

If there's any area where ideological differences could start some kind of violence, I personally think it would more likely surround a religious divide.

[Spidey]

Everything will be fine, as long as nothing happens to His Majesty.

[AlphaDoG]

I deal with the real world on a daily basis as the maintenance supervisor of a large truck stop. It appears that there is nothing imminent. As a matter of fact most of the people I talk to or overhear are on the same page when it comes to the socioeconomics of this great land.

Obama is a one term president and he only has himself and his followers on the FAR left to blame.

[Insurrectionist]

Well I will wait until 2012 we will all see then. I bet if he doesn't get elected again there might just be race riots going on.

[Drakona]

Nah. I don't think anyone actually believes the claims of racism except the folks making them. And even about them, I'm not so sure. I can't decide whether it's more likely that they're calculating liars or actually that paranoid.

Racism is dead. Two, almost three generations, don't remember life before Martin Luther King Jr. Folks who actually hold honest-to-goodness racist views (well, anti-black racist views anyway--anti-white is a whole 'nother story) are few and far between -- tiny populations of crazy folks who couldn't be further marginilized except possibly by the Spanish Inquisition.

The war's over. The good guys won. The continued use of the rallying cry is growing increasingly transparent (or delusional), and countermemes are appearing. I honestly think it's gasping its last breath. Folks who see racists under every rock and tree are on their way to being as marginalized as the racists themselves. If it weren't so entrenched in academia and certain subcultures, I'd figure it wouldn't last the decade. And I'm not sure even that'll save it.

I was glad when political correctness died out a few years ago, and I'll be glad when this dies out, too. Except that it will almost certainly be replaced with something just as tiresome.

[Gooberman]

With issues like racism and sexism, I think it is entirely possible to have long and heated discussions, where both parties are referring to different things.

Lets take sexism for example because its a bit more clear. The main sexism that exists today is not \"I HATE WOMEN\", in fact quite the opposite, most people who are sexist really really love women. They marry women, they would die for their daughters and wives.

No, the majority of sexism is not hate, it is that one feels that they don't have to show women the same amount of respect in positions of authority.

This is the racism that people are referring too. I think the amount of people that are \"lynching\" style racists are almost gone. But those who think that Obama doesn't deserve the same amount of respect are clearly visible.

[Drakona]

But those who think that Obama doesn't deserve the same amount of respect are clearly visible.

Seriously? I think people disrespect him because he's a Democrat, a liberal, an (alleged) socialist, etc. People disrespect him because they think he's a huckster, a politician's politician, an empty image without substance. You know, all that stuff they said during the election? They meant it then. They mean it now. Heck, I would agree to half of it.

There are folks who think their peers were stupid to vote for him because he's black, and that by giving him special consideration, they got a worse politician out of the deal than they otherwise might have. I'd agree with that idea. But that's about as close to race as the sentiment comes. I've never heard anyone say, "Well, his ideas are decent, but I just can't respect him because he's . . . you know . . . black." Not once.

"Well, of course," I'd expect you to say in response. "Nobody will say that. It's not allowed. But they're thinking it. I can tell."

Yeah, uh . . . how can you tell? I know what a racist opinion looks like. I can pick out a racist argument or idea. That's pretty straightforward. But a racist motivation that's unspoken or maybe even subconscious? How exactly does one examine the unspoken motives of one's opponents? It's a good day when I can make heads or tails of their positions just taking them at their word. It would be the absolute height of arrogance to suppose I could reveal their inner thoughts and motivations.

Sure, you can spin compelling stories. "They quietly disrespect Obama because he's black" is plausible enough, if we're speculating on secret motives. But you could fill in the blank with anything. Maybe it's really that he's not Jewish. Or that he's upper class. Or that they Hate The Poor while he wants to Help Them. Unproveable Yet Plausible Stories are the path to paranoid intellectual suicide. The whole thing is like saying, "My neighbor parks his car a foot over the property line just to test my nerves." Well, that's one explanation, but the usual response is, "Not everything's about you. He probably doesn't know or care. Go talk to him about it."

Not everything is about race. And looking for racism in quiet, hidden motivations revealed by canny guesses based on suspicious circumstancial evidence strikes me as somewhere between witch-hunty and delusionally paranoid. It's not rational. And it sure ain't healthy. And it's regularly provably false, given how often the charge is leveled at me

And anyways, what exactly would you do about it if half of America was secretly racist? Brainwash them? I'll tell you what the only reasonable answer to that could be: prove them wrong and win their respect. Which is exactly the same thing you should do whenever anybody disrespects you for any reason. So it doesn't really matter why.

People's personal demons are not up for examination, and are -- at the end of the day -- irrelevant.

[Lothar]

those who think that Obama doesn't deserve the same amount of respect [because of his skin color] are clearly visible.

Unless you're a telepath, telepathic inference of other people's motives doesn't qualify as a credible argument.

A lot of people think Obama doesn't deserve respect. That's clearly visible. I haven't seen any indication that his skin color plays a significant part in it. I have no doubt that it plays a part with some people on the fringe, but your assertion that it goes beyond that is speculation based on circumstantial evidence at best.

[Gooberman]

\"Well, of course,\" I'd expect you to say in response. \"Nobody will say that. It's not allowed. But they're thinking it. I can tell. Yeah, uh . . . how can you tell?\"

Pitching the ball to yourself and then rounding the bases is more likely to bore your opponent then garner respect.

I’m just not buying this moral outrage from one who had no quarrels with the notion of pre-emptive war. Where not only are the intentions of others assumed, they are killed for it! But I digress--generalizing from anecdotal experience, and drawing general conclusions about groups of people, is wisdom. , or so I’ve been told.

Let’s look at the two of the main Obama attacks.

1. He is a Muslim. Despite his consistent claims that he isn’t, they believe he is. What makes it so easy for them to believe that he isn’t Christian? This isn’t policy, this isn’t “I like his ideas but he is black.” This is flat out being blind to the facts in front of them.

2. The Birthers, who believe he is a citizen of Kenya. There are newspapers in Hawaii that catalog his birth. The hospital catalogs his birth. He displayed his own birth certificate. Again, this isn't policy, it is simply ignoring reality.

If one is faced with insurmountable evidence and can’t come to the right conclusion then it isn’t arrogance to question their inner thoughts and motivations; because their outer thoughts and motivations simply do not square with reality. The only choices that remain are to question their inner thoughts or abandon all hope for understanding.

I have no doubt that it plays a part with some people on the fringe, but your assertion that it goes beyond that is speculation based on circumstantial evidence at best.

While I have no doubt we disagree on our definition of the fringe, I’m disappointed that you actually had me “assert” things that were not asserted.

[Gooberman]

ugh, bb edits are all timing out.

[Will Robinson]

...
Let’s look at the two of the main Obama attacks.

1. He is a Muslim. .....

2. The Birthers, who believe he is a citizen of Kenya. ....

The two main reasons?!? You are not paying attention.
Those may be the two main attacks from the fringe but they are NOT the substance of the MAJORITY of the opposition to him. Why do you guys ignore the substance of the debate and try instead to ascribe the nutbaggery to all who oppose him?!?

If one is faced with insurmountable evidence and can’t come to the right conclusion then it isn’t arrogance to question their inner thoughts and motivations;....

I know what you mean, like when tens of thousands of people march carrying signs protesting policy, speak openly against policy, form grass roots organizations built on policy differences to the President, etc. etc. and the critics of these people ignore the evidence of the content of their protest and instead proclaim extra-sensory powers and conclude that those people are all closet racists otherwise they wouldn't be protesting.

[Spidey]

Liberals will never accept the fact that everyone doesn’t think just like they do, they don’t understand why, and therefore to protect their egos, anyone who disagrees with them, must be defective in some way.

[BlueFlames]

Liberals will never accept the fact that everyone doesn’t think just like they do, they don’t understand why, and therefore to protect their egos, anyone who disagrees with them, must be defective in some way.

More correctly, political partisans cannot accept the fact that others don't think the same way they do. Liberals attribute it to racism, and conservatives attribute it to being \"unamerican\" and make some vague implication that their opposition are in league with terrorists or Nazis or Communists or somesuch.

They're both wrong. They both say it anyway. Neither will understand or acknowledge their own hypocrisy, and their supporters will love them all the more for it. Thus political debate is reduced to name-calling.

[Gooberman]

two of the main Obama attacks.

The two main reasons?!?

The 'of the' was important and shouldn't be removed for the purpose of rantng. I was unable to edit the prethe last night.

And yes, especially the birthers, it is definitely one of the main criticisms levied against him by a significant part of the base, including numerous congressmen.

[Spidey]

Liberals will never accept the fact that everyone doesn’t think just like they do, they don’t understand why, and therefore to protect their egos, anyone who disagrees with them, must be defective in some way.

More correctly, political partisans cannot accept the fact that others don't think the same way they do. Liberals attribute it to racism, and conservatives attribute it to being "unamerican" and make some vague implication that their opposition are in league with terrorists or Nazis or Communists or somesuch.

They're both wrong. They both say it anyway. Neither will understand or acknowledge their own hypocrisy, and their supporters will love them all the more for it. Thus political debate is reduced to name-calling.

I will grant you the point, but I’m bored with this “They both do it” stuff. (true to the most part, and you may have to split hairs to define the differences, but they do exist)

Example: Liberals think they are smarter than Conservatives, so the feeling that they are always correct, runs much deeper.

I for one am very proud of the fact that not many people think the way I do, and I like it that way.

[Will Robinson]

two of the main Obama attacks.

The two main reasons?!?

The 'of the' was important and shouldn't be removed for the purpose of rantng. I was unable to edit the prethe last night.

And yes, especially the birthers, it is definitely one of the main criticisms levied against him by a significant part of the base, including numerous congressmen.

I don't read much about the birther argument but I sure do read a lot about the economic and social policy that so many are worried about but you say the birther argument is "one of the main criticisms levied against him by a significant part of the base, including numerous congressmen."
I wonder if you are failing to make the distinction between 'reporting' on the birther argument and reporting on the substantive opposition....because if you're only watching left wing approved media it is no wonder you have that perception.
If CNN et al was accurate you would be correct....

[Gooberman]

[quote="Will Robinson]I don't read much about the birther argument but I sure do read a lot about the economic and social policy that so many are worried about but you say the birther argument is "one of the main criticisms levied against him by a significant part of the base, including numerous congressmen."
I wonder if you are failing to make the distinction between 'reporting' on the birther argument and reporting on the substantive opposition....because if you're only watching left wing approved media it is no wonder you have that perception.
If CNN et al was accurate you would be correct....[/quote]

Will, your trying to pull me out of the context of the thread. This thread was about race, those were issues (that one can see discussed on CSPAN), that I beleived it was likely for many of their followers to have some racial undertones.

I'm aware of bailouts and health care opposition, etc, I didn't pick those because I don't draw any racial connections, you *know* I'm aware of them because *we* have discussed them. So lets please try and keep this train on the rails.

[Gooberman]

More edit timeouts...

[Isaac]

More edit timeouts...

It's better to just delete the post when an edit is needed if it's a big post. And simply apply the changes as a new one.

[Will Robinson]

Gooberman, I don't see how I'm off topic here.
The thread is about opposition to Obama being labeled racially motivated.
I was pointing out the bulk of the opposition to Obama comes from sources that do not exhibit any racial component in their protests.
You sited a specific subgroup and called them significant so I challenged that perspective.

If your position is that their is a racial component to some protesters motives then sure I'll buy that. But the initial post wasn't defending against any application of the racial tag, it was pointed at the way Pelosi and Co. have tried to marginalize all protest by categorizing opposition rhetoric as hateful, dangerous etc.

If all you were trying to say is some people who oppose Obama are racists then..yea, sure...but they are a tiny voice among the opposition to his policies so why focus on them? I don't assume Rev. Wright's anti-white man teachings are Obama's motives for his policy....

[Gooberman]

More edit timeouts...

It's better to just delete the post when an edit is needed if it's a big post. And simply apply the changes as a new one.

I did that with my post in Alpha dog's "how things work" thread and now I can't see the whole thread. Deleted cookies, refreshed browser, the whole thread is temporarily gone.

[Will Robinson]

More edit timeouts...

It's better to just delete the post when an edit is needed if it's a big post. And simply apply the changes as a new one.

I did that with my post in Alpha dog's "how things work" thread and now I can't see the whole thread. Deleted cookies, refreshed browser, the whole thread is temporarily gone.

Yep, does the same thing to me. This board is buggier than Obama's missing, but often flaunted, health care plan

[AlphaDoG]

lol, I've been noticing some delay on my end as well.