Obama talks about race

[rapuda]

I like Obama and do not believe he is anything like his pastor. His speech about race was informative and brought to light how whites and blacks don't understand each other. I myself don't understand some things that I see in black America. For example.
I don't understand how black people say they want to be treated equal, yet they continually do things to segregate themselves. They also do things that would be racist if done by a white person. Examples.

1. The Black Music Awards
2. Miss Black America
3. Jet magazine
4. Black Entertainment Channel (BET)
5. The United Negro College Fund
6. Black colleges and universities
7. Black churches

I'm sure there are more examples, but these will do to get my point across.
What would people think if the following list existed?

1. The White Music Awards
2. Miss White America
3. White Entertainment Channel (WET)
4. The United Caucasion College Fund

I understand racism still exists. I understand we still have work to do to treat each other better. I don't understand how listening to a pastor call America the US of KKKA and suggest we sing God damn America, instead of God Bless America, does any good. I don't understand how continually bringing up racism and white America, in a provocative tone, helps bring us together. Pastor Wright is providing sermons that provoke anger towards white society and are divisive. At least as a white person, that's how I perceive it. Obama said he doesn't feel the way the pastor feels, yet he frequents that church. Shouldn't he be guilty by association? If he doesn't agree with the remarks of pastor Wright, why does he go to that church? If Hillary or any white politician went to a church that said similar things about black America, their political careers would be in jeopardy. People would say, you are a racist for being a member of a church that promotes hate towards blacks. Is this a double standard?

I will be the first to admit I need to understand the differences between whites and blacks. I just want to point out that it goes both ways. Black people need to understand a white persons point of view as well. If we listen to each other, and have good dialog, not hateful speeches, we can resolve our issues in time.

[jma]

First of all, lets talk about black colleges. These colleges were formed because blacks were not allowed to attend white colleges.

Black churches were formed for the same reason.

Music awards, magazines, and the like are not meant to separate the black community from others. They are a means of celebrating the sucesses of the community. Besides, how many people of color are part of the power group of Hollywood!! Do some research on Tyler Perry, and see how many walls have been placed in front of him!

The Miss America pageant has pretty much been the "white" america pageant throughout most of it's existence

We don't need a WET (white entertainment television) because most of television is white already. Predominately black shows are rarely seen on major channels. (The Cosby show being the exception).

Guilty by association? I have a very dear friend who is a racist. I do my best to change his views through education and by how I live my life. He has come a long way in his views. I believe I'm better off associating with him and helping him learn, instead of cutting him off completely and allowing his views to get worse. He has many, many wonderful qualities, but he is a product of his environment. He was taught to be racist by his family.

While many of the ministers comments are inflammatory, I can understand where some are coming from. He's certainly right about one point--this nation was built on racism--it was called slavery.

Lastly, why are we continuing to call Obama a black candidate? He's as much a white man as a black man.

[Tino3]

Well said, JMA. When you read about how black Americans have been treated in the past, you understand the anger. Fortunately, things are changing and I think Obama can help. Thanks.

[collie]

Your original post was very reminiscent of the Papandrea email Proud to be White email, Tino. I agree with the sentiments of JMA.
Too bad America is so out of touch with reality. Too busy watching their reality shows I guess. Rhetoric similar to that of Rev. Wright is expressed on CSpan every February in the annual State of the Black Union. Last year one of the panel members called CBS the Caucasian Broadcasting System ... she went down the list - CNN, the Caucasian News Network etc... Louis Farrakhan was on the panel last year or the year before. Cornell West is on the panel every year.
Hillary Clinton also appeared this year at the State of the Black Union, took the stage and chatted with host Tavis Smiley for some fifteen minutes or so, took questions and all. Guess Hillary Clinton gets a pass when it comes to participating in what I am sure many would view as a divisive and extremist setting. But of course Obama will be held to the usual double standard.
That said, I watched Obama's speech yesterday in its entirety and I really liked the way he refused to turn his back on, deny like a Judas if you will, Rev. Wright anymore than he would deny the black community or his white grandmother.
People need to get real. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is not judged by the comments of the radicals he hung with and worked with. His vision is not diminished by running clips of radicals over and over agian. Maybe the March on Washington speeches need to be listened to in their entirety; he was only one speaker that day and many in the movement expressed anger.
This country forgets WEB DuBois as well. One of the NAACP founders, the USA eventually exiled him to Africa in his old age. He dared to associate with Mao, visit Russia, etc. And the civil rights movement has always been composed of some who are more radical and outspoken and those who are more conciliatory, shall we say. Not every one works for the same cause in the same way. I do happen to believe that the more outspoken were the ones that made the most difference. Malcom X, DuBois. And MLK was in his day was denounced by many as way too radical ... memories have faded, people live in some kind of dream world where they give lip service to the expression "the work left to be done" when it comes to civil rights yet I never hear them speak up or perhaps, as the whole Rev. Wright controversy exhibits, they don't know what the issues are.
It has been said that the black church was the cradle of the civil rights movement. It rocked it, fed it, nurtured and loved it. Do we, America, love it back, appreciate the work they do and the people they help, or in some twisted version of freedom of speech now seek to tell them to be more white, not to clap, sing, scream, cry ...
Obama still gets my vote!

[eds]

rapuda,

There is no double standard. While I don't think Patsy's email was racist, nor is what you are commenting on, I do think it is shortsighted.

Let me address your "claim" of a lack of white institutions. They are there in abundance but they don't call themselves that because it was assumed that whites partake in these institutions mainly and blacks were traditionally left out.

1. The White Music Awards - That is called the Grammy's.
2. Miss White America - Any pageant like Miss America, Miss Universe.
3. White Entertainment Channel (WET) NBC, ABC, CBS
4. The United Caucasian College Fund - Any financial aid program today.

White churches? Let's see, RC, Lutheran, Baptist, the list goes on and on.

We have a White Santa Claus, a White Jesus and we even have White Day which is any holiday on the calendar.

Black folks need their own advocacy groups because they traditionally have been cut out off and removed from other traditionally white institutions. If white folks can make whites-only groups, covertly today, but overtly prior to the civil rights movement, why can't black folks do the same today?

There are legal private clubs catering primarily to only one type of gender, race, sexual orientation etc today. Daughters of the American Revolution, Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, Gay and Lesbian Alliances.

But I still do not think Affirmative Action is necessary. Because of this banding together, blacks with blacks and whites with whites, we have room in society for companies to be run by blacks and for those companies to hire only blacks. The same can hold for white companies. I don't think that is racist. That is the right a person has to free association. So each race has their own groups and support. The Italians, Irish, Spanish, Chinese and others all help their own kind. The whites have just been doing it longer.

[collie]

My apologies, Tino - I read too fast I guess; should have said Rapuda's original post reminded me of the Proud to be White email ...

[rapuda]

Collie,
I didn't know what you were talking about, so before I got offended, I looked up the e-mail on the internet. I can see how my thread reminded you of that e-mail. I don't agree with the tone of that e-mail nor do I agree with the entire content. I do however agree that white people get called racist far too easily, and black people never get called racist. Anybody can be a racist. I expected someone to call me a racist or bigot because of this thread. I am neither. I wanted to create discussion on this issue due to Obama commenting on race relations. I like giving my opinion and reading others.
JMA,
I expected someone to answer that blacks were excluded from colleges in the past and that's why there are black colleges. I accept that answer. Are those schools exclusively for blacks, or are whites allowed to attend? Although black women are in beauty pageants now, I realize not equally yet. However, a black woman does have a chance to win. Is a white woman allowed to enter Miss Black America? As far as television, yes whites are the dominant color, but that is changing. I completely disagree with the black music awards though. Are white people nominated? As far as the Grammys are concerned, I looked up the nominees and winners for 2008 and there were black artists that were nominated and won.
http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/50th_show/list.aspx#01
As far as our founding fathers building this country on slavery, I had nothing to do with that and don't want to be blamed for it. Lets not forget that some blacks had slaves too and also the Chinese and Irish had there share of troubles.
Eds,
Thanks for sticking up for me about being a racist. It's possible my thoughts are short sighted. Having this dialog helps me understand things that I don't. I appreciate your thoughts, as always. I have to disagree with you on the financial aid comment though. What financial aid program that you know of, gives aid to only white people? I've never seen one.

One question again for all that replied and anyone else.
If Hillary went to a church that talked negatively about black America, would it hurt her career? Pastor Wright may have hurt Obama's.

[eds]

Financial aid programs are offered and advertised in such a way as to limit their exposure to underprivileged youth in urban areas. Its not so much that they deny black people, its more so that they don't tell predominantly black neighborhoods about what options and opportunities there are for going to college. Many black people grow up without knowing they can qualify for financial aid and that they can go to college. Many black people are also discouraged from applying for fear they will be rejected or otherwise be disqualified.

[jma]

Rapuda, I never called you a racist, although some of your comments may be interpreted as such. It's easy to misinterpret words without having the benefit of facial expressions, tone, etc. To answer your question;

Every black college is open to white students. Pretty ironic when you think about it.

[eds]

With the college argument we need to understand history.

Refer to the article on Wiki which clearly describes the difference between historically black colleges and predominantly black colleges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historically_black_colleges_and_universities

Essentially the difference is when they were founded and the purpose for which they were founded. A black college, historically or predominately, caters to the needs of the majority at the college, in this case, black people. White people can attend but you will more than likely find course offerings geared toward people of color and African decent. The opposite holds in other colleges where the focus is more on European studies. There is also more than likely some revisionist history going on at all colleges.

Just like the focus of some news agencies can be either liberal, moderate, conservative, or centrist, so can colleges viewpoints be focused on certain racial studies.

To go to a black college would give the black student a change to learn about their heritage, about their ancestors, within the course of elective offerings within the curriculum that might not otherwise be offered in a predominately white college. There is also a level of comfort that a black college affords to black students, that being the free association of similar people of similar backgrounds and challenges.

The same holds for special olympics, little people, and the like. There is comfort in spending time with similar people. Diversity can make people feel alone in the world. That is why clubs are so popular and free association is a right.

One other area of so-called segregation is in sports. There is men's basketball and women's basketball; the same pattern being applied to other sports as well.

Because of the predominance of black oppression, historically, this group and other groups similar, need to be given a fighting chance within the predominantly white community in America. That is why we see a focus on black-whatever and the analog white-whatever is not specifically mentioned. The white majority already is established and does not need additional mention by name. We already know it exists.

[catnap]

Well said, JMA. When you read about how black Americans have been treated in the past, you understand the anger. Fortunately, things are changing and I think Obama can help. Thanks.

I think that is why we need Obama in the White House - hey....a BLACK MAN in the WHITE HOUSE.....:cool: ....

seriously - We need to bring this country to gether on so many levels...race, the war, the economy - Obama is the Balm...this country needs.

The Black this and the Black that is clearly represent the racial divide...and cultural divide between the races. Maybe we just have to accept that different peoples like to be with their own kind...and that's okay. Maybe we don't have melt all together in one big bland pot - The direction should be - to hold own to our diverisity while living peacefully with each other, but the key is to share our diverisity.

[billd531]

Got to stick my two cents in here!

Granted ' racism ' exist but not to the level of the days of Dr. King. I for one feel that he would be sad to see what has happened to his dreams. Basically, he wanted all people to be free and be brothers. What has happen since then is black seperation. The leaders of the Black movment today seem to want more than equality. They seem to want ' pay back ' for what our ancestors did in the days of slavery. If you listen to leaders like Rev. Jackson or Sharpton, the Government needs to help the black race. This is not what Dr. King would have wanted for the blacks. He wanted black to have an equal chance at life, not hand-outs from the Government. Every time Washington comes up with a program to help blacks, the blacks become more dependent upon the Government. Mmmmmm! Sounds a bit like slavery to me!:mad:
EDS, why can't all school teach the complete picture? Teach about slavery but don't teach that all blacks are under the thumb of the white bosses!:mad: Teach that there are difference in all people but don't teach that these differences should be the way of life to embrace. We are all Americans and what makes us Americans is that we have melted all our differences into the American life. True, school books were printed with little or no mention of what the different peoples have done to make us what we are today, other than from the Eurpopean view point. This is changing but it seems not for the better!
So, when I hear stuff that Obama's minister spat out ( he did hear it and may have agreed ) it makes me think that Dr. King would feel that his life was wasted!:(

[eds]

It's funny that Obama's former minister can say all that he said and yet Papandrea get's slammed for forwarding a white pride email. Patsy didn't even write the email. He just pressed the forward button and nearly lost his job. No one, not even Sharpton or Jackson condemned what that minister said. If it was a white minister like Pat Roberston, you'd bet your last dollar the both them would be all over the news. Sharpton was all over the sports reporter who said "lynch Tiger Woods in an alley to beat him". So I definitely see racism on both sides of the color line.

We have freedom of speech in this country. It's not illegal to be a racist in this country, yet. But I can see where people might think that being a white racist is worse than being a black one. I don't agree with the email that Patsy forwarded. But I agree that people should be able to express their opinions about what they see as inequities between the races. That does not make you a racist.

The plain truth is even the northern army during the civil war would not enlist blacks into their units until Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation. Then they were placed into a blacks-only unit. Now that's racist. And that came from the north. So this whole civil war theory about it being against racism is a crock.

When we get right down to it, people hate each other more today than ever before. And not just over race, but over so many other differences or attributes. My hatred is based upon character. I look upon people with low character with disdain, and with forgiveness. I don't judge the person, I judge the character. I hate the character not the person. That is what MLK wanted. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of THEIR CHARACTER" (emphasis added).

I judge people based upon their character and not the color of their skin. We're not talking the final judgment here. We're talking about whether or not I choose to associate with that person. And we all do it. If I dislike your character, I will let you know about it. I don't look at the demographics. Just because one group seems to have more members in it with poor character than another group, how is that my fault? How is that racist?

MLK's head would explode if he heard some of the things being said by black people today. Because many white people today feel guilt about the past, white people excuse failure in the black community. Personal responsibility for oneself is paramount. But if you preach that, preach that you are responsible to yourself for your own success, you are called racist if you are white, or an Uncle Tom if you are black. Bill Cosby was absolutely right when he gave his so-called Pound Cake Speech.

http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm

Cosby said, regarding a black man stealing a hypothetical piece of pound cake, "People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! And then we all run out and are outraged, 'The cops shouldn’t have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? (laughter and clapping). I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else (laughter) And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said, 'if you get caught with it you’re going to embarrass your mother.' Not 'you’re going to get your butt kicked.' No. 'You’re going to embarrass your family.'"

Cosby said, "And something called parenting". Today in America certain people have no parenting to rely upon. They only have excuses to rely upon. Excuses which talk less about personal responsibility and more about what they are owed.

[collie]

Yesterday I spent part of my day listening to MLK's speech 4/4/1967 (easily accessible on the web) "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to break the silence." You guys have sadly sanitized MLK's memory into something acceptable to yourselves and meld your memory to justify vilification of Rev. Wright and apologies for Patsy Papandrea.
In the 4/4/67 speech, MLK quoted a Langston Hughes poem:
"O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me..."
He also spoke of America being the greates purveyor of violence in the world. I'm sure you're aware that this speech went over like a lead balloon. You think you know MLK would be agreeing with Booker T. Cosby if he were alive today. I think you live in a dream world. Do yourselves a favor and check out the news and commentary of Black America Web; we are still in two very separate worlds. I think you do King's memory a disservice as you use him, conveniently dead and buried, to justify things like the elimination of affirmative action.

[eds]

Booker T Cosby? The only Booker T I ever heard of was Booker T and the MGs. And that was Booker T. Jones.

I was talking about William Henry Cosby, Jr. Ed.D. commonly known as Bill Cosby. You know, the comedian? Have a Coke and a smile? The Jello pudding man? Played Cliff Huxtable in the Cosby Show? That Cosby.

Bill Cosby in the speech was right. That was my point.

Do you honesty believe that MLK would appreciate the "Yo! Where you at?" and "Why ain't where you is" as Cosby suggests? I think this quote sounds like what MLK would be saying today. His speeches were from a time past. He died 40 years ago. That was a long time ago. The issues today facing whites and black and latinos are very different. Cosby today is modern, relevant, and to the point.

Back then, you didn't have people, white, black or latino, having a half dozen kids with different fathers. Teaching children they don't have to speak English and that they can expect to be given everything from the government because they owe you something. You didn't have the apathy you have today. Some people today just don't give a damn about anything but themselves.

Quoted from the speech, whose link I posted previously:

Cosby said, "Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person’s problem. We’ve got to take the neighborhood back (clapping). We’ve got to go in there. Just forget telling your child to go to the Peace Corps. It’s right around the corner. (laughter) It’s standing on the corner. It can’t speak English. It doesn’t want to speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk. “Why you ain’t where you is go, ra,” I don’t know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk (laughter). Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with “why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this. Well, they know they’re not, they’re just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you’re just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out."

Sounds like a modern day MLK to me! Five or six generations living in the projects when you are supposed to get a job and move out. Hmmm...couldn't have said it better myself. Bill Cosby is right. And he is still alive today and he was alive when MLK was alive. And he is a black man. I absolutely love that it came from him. Because had it come from a white man, Sharpton would be as gleeful as a teen on prom night.

That is why I dislike the projects. I dislike the money being handed out day after day after day without end. Without hope. My money, every tax payers money, being used to create generation after generation of beholden individuals, that's what they are, individuals who have no motivation to remove themselves from their own situation; beholden to the government. For whatever reason, they choose to live like that. They chose that path. That's not racist. That's called tough love. Biblical love.

Do you know what Biblical love is? It's teaching people how to fish not just giving them fish.

Do you know what the Bible says about sloth? About wasting money and squandering the opportunities you have today. Maybe you should attend one of those churches of which you're so fond.

If you didn't know I tell you.
Proverbs 10:4 He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. In others words, get your ass to work!
Proverbs 20:4 The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. In other words, excuses will get you nowhere.
Proverbs 13:4 The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. In other words, everyone wants but only those who work get it.

I like this one:

1 Timothy 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

Sounds like the projects to me! Working also means working smarter. Working at something that pays well. Not working where you never get a chance to better yourself.

[collie]

It was a little too intellectual of a joke, I am afraid. Booker T. Cosby as in Booker T. Washington, EDS. As in, to call someone a Booker T. is to refer to them as a sort of Uncle Tom. Booker T Washington was very much on the same page as Bill Cosby. I am not a Booker T Washinton adherant - I am a follower of the ideology of his arch enemy, WEB DuBois.

[eds]

That was out there. Way out there. Let me tell you my take on Du Bois. Its Du Bois, not DuBois. Two syllables. Du Bois and Washington were actually close friends for a time. Though Washington preached that hard work would make all blacks successful and break down barriers, Du Bois seemed to suggest that only a tenth would make it that far and the rest would not or would have to be led by the tenth. Washington did more to integrate blacks with white people than Du Bois did. And they wrote at the same time. Washington was well received by whites. Interesting that during this time, most blacks were Republicans. Now they are Democrats mostly. Du Bois was more radical and confrontational. Washington, the Great Accommodator, was more about fitting into white society, rather than bucking it. Be that as it may, Du Bois and Washington were rather similar in many regards; despite claims of arch enemy status.

What you said jokingly, calling Bill Cosby an Uncle Tom only proves my point. I said, "... if you preach that, preach that you are responsible to yourself for your own success, you are called racist if you are white, or an Uncle Tom if you are black."

But Cosby is a member of what Du Bois preached as the Tenth. He is part of the top tenth trying to help the black person rise up and become successful. Du Bois never could have foreseen the tribulations of drugs, teen pregnancy, poor language, and rampant dis-education of black people by their own kind. Today schools teach to all people even those whose first language is not English. There is no reason for lack of education, lack of ensuing employment, and therefore no excuse for crime. This is not the Reconstruction Era, of which Du Bois mainly wrote during, having died in 1963 just eight years after start of the civil rights movement in 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. It was during this time, Reconstruction and after, that black people were at the greatest disadvantage. So much has changed as to make Du Bois dated. Cosby is like I said, modern, poignant, and relevant.

Du Bois wrote in his famous Souls of the Black Folk published in 1903, "the Emancipation Proclamation seemed but to broaden and intensify the difficulties; and War Amendments made the Negro problems of today".

He blames their new found freedom on why there was a large crime problem in the beginning. But that as this continued, Du Bois felt that lack of education and employment have led to the crime story of today, which is similar to Robert Merton's strain theory of deviance. However that theory fails to address the seeming inability to integrate today when so many are educated and employed.

On page 4, Du Bois starts off his treatise with the basic goal of the negro. "The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife this longing to attain self conscious manhood to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He would not Africanize America for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows without having the doors of Opportunity closed in his face."

This sums it up quite nicely. No one wants to white wash black folks. No one thinks black folks will Africanize America. Today the doors of opportunity for black folks are opened to the greatest degree they have ever been. When Du Bois wrote this, during a time when this wasn't true, perhaps it was relevant.

Du Bois goes further. On page 105, Du Bois talks about the "Talented Tenth". He said "Here then is the plain thirst for training, by refusing to give this Talented Tenth the key to knowledge, can any sane man imagine that they will lightly lay aside their yearning and contentedly become hewers of wood and drawers of water". This was solidly against Washington's view that allied trades were the way to integrate blacks into white society. Du Bois wanted more of a fine arts education. Well, I think we have those opportunities today. Plenty. But the black entertainment industry, especially the music industry, has used those opportunities to preach dis-enfranchisement. The sports industry, the NBA and NFL in particular, do a better job of promoting blacks.

Du Bois also said, "The dangerously clear logic of the Negro's position will more and more loudly assert itself in that day when increasing wealth and more intricate social organization preclude the South from being, as it so largely is, simply an armed camp for intimidating black folk". Du Bois was envisioning that wealth and prosperity would eventually empower the black man and help him rise up and conquer oppression with money. True. But that money today comes from the peddling of dis-education and disenfranchisement, as I will show.

I would say that perhaps some members today of that tenth are trying to bring full integration to black society, albeit with some kicking and screaming. Could Du Bois have foreseen such deviance as the bastardization of the English language into a degenerate form of communication? Could he have foreseen that this wealth and intricate social organization would also include some of the highest paid entertainers in the world. That some of the entertainers use racial epithets and encourage people to be deviant and not "snitch" to the cops. Du Bois may have been against so called "fitting in" but I think even Du Bois would not have agreed with the way entertainers today espouse the values of dis-education.

Some of the tenth, ala Cosby, are trying to provide the proper education and ability to obtain employment which Du Bois himself speaks. There is a profound influence among the young black generation of today, not from respectable individuals such as Cosby, but from those who promote gang violence and civil disenfranchisement. This is counter to what Du Bois envisioned and something to which cannot be attributed to the mere "strain" of lack of employment, education, and self-worth. The disenfranchisement is coming on the backs of their own people now, not white people. As Cosby said, Brown vs. Board of Education is no longer the white man's problem.

Du Bois continues, "You may marshal strong indictments against them but their counter cries lacking though they be in formal logic have burning truths within them which you may not wholly ignore. O Southern Gentlemen. If you deplore their presence here ask, Who brought us?" Exactly. The problem of integration is a two way street. He seems to suggest the problem lies in the fact that we brought them out of Africa, that they cannot possibly integrate into Western society, and that it really is not there fault.

Look that time that this was written. Perhaps in 1903, when racism was as its worst, during and after the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877), this may have been true. But we have risen past that as a society. The majority of white people are no longer racists. But they do see issues still remain, hence the "white pride" email. There is a growing movement of black racism against white people which starting during the Black Power movement during the 60s and 70s. Du Bois was at the beginning stages of this movement with Pan Africanism, the intention of creating a global African community made up of all black people, native and non-native Africans alike. This has further developed black nationalism and black supremacy movements of today which seek to counter white supremacy movements. But these movements are entirely different subject, one I could write on for hours. Each of these movements do nothing to further integration, but only seek to divisively separate blacks from whites, each into their own communities.

These remaining issues stem from the perception that black people should not have to integrate into white society. That they should form there own society. Du Bois was a socialist, a border line Communist investigated for such during the McCarthy Era.

Nation of Islam leader, Malcom Little a.k.a Malcom X, was killed by a Black Muslim, Talmadge Hayer. Black people are killing themselves in the streets today. Nothing has changed since 1965. Today we have blacks killing each other, promoting words of racism, and failing to bring themselves up. If was about white oppression, most of this crime would be directed towards only at white people.

Today we have black senators, black police officers, black teachers, black plastic surgeons, and other high profile positions which generally were whites only. Du Bois could only have imagined the day a black man would be so close to becoming president as Obama is today. Today success is waiting for anyone and while there is a small degree of racism remaining, to which only vigilance can address, nothing is stopping black people today from becoming wealthy, educated, and proper members of society.

If education and employment are still the problems as Du Bois concerned himself with and as was the case during Reconstruction, then why are so many black people successful today? I think it talks to a general lack of motivation.

[collie]

To equate Bill Cosby with DuBois's talented tenth is laughable. Barack Obama would be a better example. To say that Du Bois and Booker T. were "friends" is not accurate at all. They were intense enemies. A good source on DuBois is David Levering Lewis - two nice fat books, volumes one and two. He won a Pulitzer Prize. I have stated more than once I adhere to DuBois, Cornell West in ideology. Certainly I am not alone in considering Cosby to be a Booker T. It's just the same DuBois/Washington ideological argument a hundred years later with different players and Cosby is definitely the Booker T. Not sure anyone rises to the greatness of DuBois, quite frankly.

[billd531]

Collie, I guess you just don't see EDS overall point. Who is keeping the Black American down now? White Americans? Well, sort of, since most the leaders of Obama's party are white. Does the Democatic Party tell Black Americans to pull themselves out of the gutter by working hard and getting a good education ( which help to get you out of the gutter )? No, they give you lip service and social programs which keep you inder thier thumbs!:mad:
So many people in this country want things to be handed to them on a silver platter. Guess what? No social program is free. By the Governemnt giving all this ' free ' help to Black people, they are holding them down.
On another subject, why do we call people ' African American ', ' Chinese American' or ' Native American '? If you came into the US from Africa today, you'd be called African but your children would be American ( if born in the US ). We all should be Americans first with origins from other countries, not the other way around!:mad:
What Obama says and what his party plans for us with cost us all. Since all forms of our Government do not make money ( they spend what is taken from us ), we will get to the point where no one will be able to make a living. Those who have a lot of money will leave because they want to stay that way. So, where does the money come from to support the " poor "? The middle-class and soon they become the " poor ". Where does the money come from then?:confused: So, it frightens me when I hear Obama and his party speak of helping us.:(

[eds]

Well I had to check my facts and found this in the Wikipedia in the article on Booker T. Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_T._Washington

Seems a lot of black leaders were taking up sides of the Du Bois (You still spell it wrong.) Washington argument.

"Washington's 1895 Atlanta Compromise address, given at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, was widely welcomed in the African American community and among liberal whites North and South. He was supported by W.E.B. Du Bois at the time but several years later the two had a falling out. " (Emphasis added).

You are right if you say the "self help" view of Washington is what Cosby refers to. You are wrong to think of Cosby or Booker T. as "sort of an Uncle Tom" Uncle Tom is a pejorative term. I would be careful how that term is used.

I think they philosophy represented by Du Bois is dated. More Re-constructionist and Civil Right movement oriented. That was then. Today we have full equality in every manner of the word. It is they that bring inequality in their words and deeds.

Cosby is as powerful if not more so than Obama. Both have money and both have influence. But Cosby has been around a lot longer and touched more people's lives. Cosby is 70 I believe.

It really is time to get up and stand up for themselves.

[collie]

I dug out my copy of The Souls of Black Folk and found the Chapter on Booker T. Washington amusing, in light of your quoting from the book. And, refreshing my memory, this is when their relationship really became adversarial and shortly afterwards, Du Bois helped form the NAACP. I, unlike you and Bill, believe that like the last century, this century's challenge is still the color line. And surely these are the same ideological arguments that went on a hundred years ago, with Cosby taking the mantle, such as it is, of Booker T. Washington and all he stood for.

[rapuda]

I've read a lot about various topics in this forum from taxes, to the rich having too much, to the poor have it tough, to a lack of healthcare and so on.
I've come up with an idea that will solve all. Tell me what you think.
We take everyone who earns a paycheck and put it into one big checking account. Each week we add the total in this account and divide it by the amount of contributors. Each contributor will get an equal check minus 50% for the government. The government must then pay for everyone to have equal medical and dental coverage plus all the other expenses to run the country. In order to qualify you must work 40 hours a week and be a legal citizen of the United States. If you don't work, the government will provide boot camp style housing that covers your food, clothing, and shelter needs. You will live as a soldier does in boot camp. If you don't like living there, either get a job or move to another country. If you kill, you will be killed. If you rape, you will be raped. If you steal, you will be stolen from. If you cannot live within the rules, you are deported to another country. There will be no taxes of any kind. You lose 50% of the equalized earnings and that's it. Example.

So if you have 5 people with the following earnings, here's how it would work.

Police Man $75,000 with over time.
Doctor $300,000 private practice.
Factory worker $40,000.
CEO of a major firm $1,000,000.
Major league Baseball star $14,000,000.

Pay after my plan,
Police Man, Doctor, Factory Worker, CEO, Baseballl Star all make
1,541,000 per year.

Everyone eats, everyone has a home, and everyone has healthcare. Everyone who wants an education can get. Everyone who is willing to work can get a job.

Problems solved. Anything else I can solve?

[billd531]

You have left a few hole in you plan, Rapuda. Greed and power ( which leads to corruption ). What you described sound a bit like Communism. Which in it ideal form, might work, but, when administored by humans, will not work.
There have always been the ' haves and have nots '. Your plan calls for the Government to take 50% and they have to provide out of these monies for the non-workers. Well, they will want extra pay because they are the bosses so, they will take extra. The poor would not be able to get what they need to live and will riot. The long and short of it is it will all collapse.
Until the day when there will be no wants and needs on all levels, mankind will have to survive as best as it can......

[eds]

Please keep in mind the following is only observation, for the sake of scholarship and understanding. It is in no way meant to be racist commentary or to promote racism. I just want to make that clear. We are discussing the various points of two philosophies for educational purposes only.

I did more fact checking.

After reading the article in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Du_Bois

I confirmed that despite Du Bois being the founder of NAACP, Du Bois left that organization because he wanted to promote more radical change, like black separatism, and NAACP was opposed to that. Du Bois became estranged from the leadership of the NAACP. Essentially he was becoming more Pan African. It is interesting to read about the black separatist movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_separatist

Quote "Martin Luther King, who was a key speaker and leader in the political effort to overthrow segregation in the 1960s, and Malcolm X, who until May 21, 1964 was known as a black separatist from the Nation of Islam, may personify the opposition between the two views."


MLK was for integration, and Malcom X was for separatism. Segregation is a form of separatism, but from the perspective of "whites only" Separatism is also separation from white, but from the perspective of "blacks only".

It seems today that the black entertainment industry seems to be promoting the Malcom X way of separatism, that form of segregation to be "blacks only", which its advocates feel that black people can never be accepted within white society. So they have created their own language, their own holidays, their own industries as a response to white oppression. It can be summed in two words "black power"

From what I have read in addition to my own knowledge it seemed Du Bois was also more about creating a black nation, with its own language, its own customs, and Booker T wanted to promoting "fitting in" with white society.

[eds]

To address rapuda's well thought out argument. That would be creating a uptopian society. It could work were it not for human nature. If we all were paid the same, nobody received raises, everyone is essentially the same, what would happen is that people would shut down. We would all have the same houses, the same cars, the same clothes. Everything would be the same because everyone has the same resources. For that matter we would not need money because everything becomes a wash. There would be no motivational force because no matter how hard you work, you will get nothing extra. So then people might start thinking that work was unnecessary. That we could go to a barter society. It would quickly become an agricultural society. We would only do the things we needed to do to survive. Industrialization was a direct result of people trying to make lives better; trying to build a better mousetrap and profiting from it.

To make more profits one has to alter their production and invest in new technology or research. The business then must raise prices which causes a chain reaction of price raising and then their customers asking for a raise from their employers to pay for the new products. Which then means more price increases and so on. So to keep your pay scales the same, as in your example, one must then eliminate new development and new investment. That would essentially shut down industrialization, shut down innovation, and return us to farming to provide the basic needs. Farming is all that is left when there is nothing else to invent. No industry will remain. We all will be farmers. Just like before industrialization.

Its too perfect. Human nature would inevitably cause wars because of greed. At that point war and taking of resources would be the only way to satisfy the innate greed humans have.

[RC12L4]

I've read a lot about various topics in this forum from taxes, to the rich having too much, to the poor have it tough, to a lack of healthcare and so on.
I've come up with an idea that will solve all. Tell me what you think.
We take everyone who earns a paycheck and put it into one big checking account. Each week we add the total in this account and divide it by the amount of contributors. Each contributor will get an equal check minus 50% for the government. The government must then pay for everyone to have equal medical and dental coverage plus all the other expenses to run the country. In order to qualify you must work 40 hours a week and be a legal citizen of the United States. If you don't work, the government will provide boot camp style housing that covers your food, clothing, and shelter needs. You will live as a soldier does in boot camp. If you don't like living there, either get a job or move to another country. If you kill, you will be killed. If you rape, you will be raped. If you steal, you will be stolen from. If you cannot live within the rules, you are deported to another country. There will be no taxes of any kind. You lose 50% of the equalized earnings and that's it. Example.

So if you have 5 people with the following earnings, here's how it would work.

Police Man $75,000 with over time.
Doctor $300,000 private practice.
Factory worker $40,000.
CEO of a major firm $1,000,000.
Major league Baseball star $14,000,000.

Pay after my plan,
Police Man, Doctor, Factory Worker, CEO, Baseballl Star all make
1,541,000 per year.

Everyone eats, everyone has a home, and everyone has healthcare. Everyone who wants an education can get. Everyone who is willing to work can get a job.

Problems solved. Anything else I can solve?

Okay you take the lead on this, send me your next paycheck and I'll disperse it accordingly.

[collie]

Yes, EDS, I'm glad you did a little more delving into the ideology of DuBois. (I'm not being graded on this so excuse the lack of spacing; I know it should be Du Bois) DuBois, who founded and ran the NAACP's Crisis Magazine (still around, I subscribe) pretty much alienated himself from the NAACP at the end, due to sticking to his "radical" beliefs. I still recommend David Levering Lewis' biographies of Du Bois as the best resource out there. I really learned a lot reading that and it's actually something I'll reread. Ideological discussions ala the philosophies of Washington vs DuBois, influence on American history and correlations to the present don't get a lot of play, except on C-Span. Thank God for C-Span. I must say I got a chuckle out of the R-J article this morning on what MLK would be saying today. An AP article, it raised some of the points I made re MLK's Vietnam speech.

[rapuda]

I have a confession to make. I wasn't serious with that idea. I was tired of being serious all the time and felt like throwing something whacky out there to create discussion. I agree it sounded communist and it would create inflation. If everybody made the same, money wouldn't have value and nobody would work harder than the other person. Good points eds and bill.
It'll be interesting to see how the next president gets us out of this fiscal mess we're in. The next administration will have to raise taxes. Let's see how creative they get to hide it.

[eds]

You know we, as a society, can debate race relations all we want. But the basic truth of the matter is that if we cannot come together as the human race, we won't be able to come together at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/07/oly.torchrelay/index.html

We can't even come together around international good will and the Olympic games.

[collie]

Personally, I think if we had any moral fiber we would be boycotting the Olympics. But we don't ... so we'll be there, as usual looking the other way, pretending the Tibetan monks aren't getting the **** kicked out of them.

[rapuda]

I don't understand how China was approved for the Olympics in the first place. It wasn't a secret that China had horrible human rights policies, and that the pollution there was very bad. Now we have whole neighborhoods being wiped out to build for the Olympics, we have the situation with Tibet, and some of the athletes are afraid for their health due to the air and water quality. I think somebody was paid off just like previous Olympics.

[RC12L4]

I don't understand how China was approved for the Olympics


I'll tell you how..........$

[rapuda]

Money is the only logical explanation.

[RC12L4]

Money is the only logical explanation.

Of course it is, why do you think they now allow professional athletes to compete?

[eds]

You know we criticize China about Tibet, and perhaps they do indeed oppress Tibet. However, much can be said about America in Iraq. Who are we to point the moral fickle finger of fate? I don't think we are any better than China in that regard. China and the US have their transgressions against their people. Look at the American Indian.

[collie]

Yes but we like to portray ourselves as better than China in terms of human rights. Therefore, not acknowledging our transgressions in the present (never mind the past, they won't consider it) we of course think we should be participating in the Olympics. China likes our kind of democracy; they relate to what we've done in Iraq and figures it gives them a free pass to continue their human rights violations. And logically, they would be right in that assumption.

[eds]

you make a good point collie. The US and China are but two black kettles. Who will be the first to call it? I think both countries are doing wink-wink nudge-nudge say-no-more. But that is way beyond our league. We try to pull a Tienanmen Square in the US and we'll be shut down like that Texas polygamist compound, Ruby Ridge, Waco and that guy in New Hampshire or was it Vermont who tried to avoid paying the IRS. Our government plays the game just like China does with its citizens. We have just as many jack-booted thugs in government positions of power as China does.

[rapuda]

I agree the U.S. is no saint. We absolutely have corruption and bad people within our government. Our government also has been guilty of some nasty things in it's past and present. I don't however see how you can compare this country to China. Our country doesn't haul people away for speaking their thoughts. Our country doesn't bulldoze whole villages to modernize. Maybe some properties in this country were acquired by eminent domain, but not to the extent that China is kicking people off their land to build a dam, or prepare for the olympics. Other than Guantanamo Bay (Bush administration), we don't take people away without their day in court like China does. We don't control the press, or try to control what people take pictures of or what people do on the internet. I'm not trying to pretend we have a perfect country and never do anything wrong. I'll save that for Bush and his cronies. But, we don't equate to China.

[eds]

Our country doesn't haul people away for speaking their thoughts. Our country doesn't bulldoze whole villages to modernize. Maybe some properties in this country were acquired by eminent domain, but not to the extent that China is kicking people off their land to build a dam, or prepare for the olympics. Other than Guantanamo Bay (Bush administration), we don't take people away without their day in court like China does. We don't control the press, or try to control what people take pictures of or what people do on the internet. I'm not trying to pretend we have a perfect country and never do anything wrong. I'll save that for Bush and his cronies. But, we don't equate to China.

Doesn't haul people away for speaking their thoughts, eh? Do you think for a minute you would not be hauled away if you were a member of a organization that promoted terrorism in the US? One of those organizations that are on the watch list? You'd at least be put on the no fly list and prevented from flying all without your day in court. There is no way to view the list by the average John Q. and no way to appeal your placement on such list. It is at the sole discretion of the Homeland Security Department.

Eminent domain happens more than you think. All over the country towns are bulldozing homes to make way for large retail operations. New London was only the most recent high profile case. If Meriden wants to put a power plant in they could easily do it, despite the protests. Eminent domain is not some rarely-used policy. It is used very often.

We control the press by delaying FOI requests. The White House has repeatedly lied to the press, delayed requests from Congress as just happend recently. So no we don't prevent something from being written, we just provide the wrong information or provide no information at all. That's just as bad. There certainly is no transparency within our government.

We don't control that which people photograph? Take a camera down to New York City and start taking pictures of bridges, ferries, tunnels, and other such places. You will be asked to turn over the camera and investigated for terrorism. It already has happened to many people.

What we do on the Internet is monitored. Trying sending an email that espouses your views and support for Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. No threats mind you. Just your First Amendment right to speak your mind. You will be monitored. Right now, the government has the authority to ask your Internet service provider to tap the line and record every website you visit under the Patriot Act either without a warrant in some cases or with a warrant issued by some "special" court whose name eludes me at this moment. You have no idea how easy it is under the guise of War on Terror or national security.

We may not be as overt as China is, because we at least have some protection under law. But covertly our government watches everything that goes on with its citizens in exactly the same manner that China does. So yes, with the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror, we are fast becoming like China in every way, shape and form.

I agree we are not as bad as China is. And I don't intend to paint a grim picture of the US. We are trying to stop terrorism and unfortunately no better way exists. I think we apply these laws carefully and without abuse. Sure. China in that regard is a much more oppressive. They actively block, from the entire country, web sites that they feel promote Anti-Chinese viewpoints or are not in-line with the government's idea of the truth. That is more oppressive than the US. So all in all it really is not as bad in the US as China is. I just think that we are more similar than not in many aspects.

[rapuda]

Everything you pointed out, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, is all Bush. Do we need some security measures since 9/11? Absolutely. It's pretty obvious to most people though, that our country is getting more like China everyday when it comes to our personal freedoms. There has to be a fine balancing act between freedom and security. Right now security is winning.
Once again, we're not perfect, and may do similar things that China does, but nowhere to the extremes that they do.

[collie]

Well, I certainly think China is way worse than we are. Except that I suspect that some of the CIA sponsored "projects" in establishing puppet governments would probably make our hair stand on end if we knew the truth .. However, did you know the Portland library was placed under a gag order a few years ago for refusing to divulge member's reading lists? The FBI went in to the Portland Library and another library in CT and when the librarians refused to cooperate, they were told they COULD NOT TELL ANYONE of the troubles they were in ... Eventually, the library won in federal court and the story came out.
A war passed without congressional approval, the Patriot Act, Cheney saying "SO?" when asked about the majority in the country who want us out of Iraq? Watching the hearings with Gen. Petraeus yesterday, I see Congress is again expected to be circumvented as the war continues. So, no they haven't started bulldozing and rounding up yet (except ICE) but they sure the heck can access our internet records. Continue to erode our freedoms like this, legalize torture, Guantanamo Bay ... and who knows?
What's that old expression - freedom isn't free. We, if we had any moral fiber, should never have entered into the cozy business deals we have with China (Lots of lead toys and tainted dog food from their sweatshops) when we could have dangled business in front of them like a carrot and said clean up your human rights violations and we'll make a deal. Used to be the US did things like that. Not anymore. We could care less about Tibet because we were too busy invading Iraq on false pretenses!

[rapuda]

Once again, my reply, Bush and company. This administration is so corrupt it amazes me. Where is the outrage. Why aren't there news specials and PBS stories on how bad this administration is. I guarantee you within a few years of Bush 43 leaving office, there will be all kinds of programs showing the damage this administration did to our country. I understand we have a congress that went along with a lot of what happened, but Bush was the head guy. He was the leader. He gets the blame. I'm looking forward to when the History Channel has a segment about Bush. I'm sure it won't be pretty.
I hope when the historians write about Bush, they write the truth and not some watered down version of how he spent his time in office. As long as I'm alive, I'll make sure all around me know my displeasure of this man and his presidency.
As far as why we don't use our financial might to control China, we want their money. We've spent all of ours. Now we want money from everybody else. Eventually this country will be backed against the wall and realize what has to be done. When that happens, it's going to be ugly. We are a reactionary country. We only do what we have to do when it needs to be done. Basically, we wait until we hang ourselves, and then we try to untie the noose. Look at this mortgage mess. I remember reading 2-3 years ago about how lending institutions were setting themselves up for a fall should the housing market slump. There were reports about how dangerous the lending practices had become. There were reports and warnings about a housing bubble burst. Knowbody cared, because we as a country were doing well. Now that things have gone to crap, everybody is looking for someone to blame. Makes me sick. The taxpayers are going to be the ones to pay for this mess once again. We all know it's coming. Some form of a bail-out with our taxes. I'm so tired of paying for other peoples mistakes and carelessness.

[eds]

Ever hear of an FBI Terrorist Lean on property? You won't. It's classified.

[billd531]

So, gang, if it's so bad here why are we having to turn away people from getting into this country? Jobs? That might be part of it but, if you ask many new legal immigrants, they will tell you it's because of our freedoms.

[collie]

No one is denying we are the greatest democracy in the world with the most freedoms. However, freedom isn't free, and if the vast majority of Americans continue to spend the vast majority of their time watching drivel on TV and not getting involved to ensure that our freedoms are not eroded, we will lose those freedoms. It's not a good sign that those who do attend city council meetings in Meriden are treated as freaks. Similarly, this is a great forum with lots of opportunities to discuss pressing local issues and we are a miniscule percentage of the population that discuss things. Our democracy remains a work in progress. Pointing out we are still the freest in the world absolves none of us of the obligation to keep it that way. And criticism, if not pointed out, allows corruption to get worse.

[eds]

One might say that people are coming to the US as the lesser of two wrongs instead of the US being the greater of two rights.

The fact that people come here may be more to do with the dollar having been king, though currently that is in jeopardy. It is the money and not the system or way of life immigrants desire. Living our way of life comes about more as a side-effect rather than the object of the quest for immigration to the US. The primary concern is always the money. Perhaps when and if the dollar becomes a pawn, these people will then immigrate to Europe instead.

[Tino3]

Can you answer a question? Why do older threads come up that look like they have new contriubtions (because it says Today) and then you check and it is an older thread that seems to pop back up? Just checking. Thanks.

[collie]

I think it's because we got off track of the original topic, one thought led to another... If you start at the beginning of this thread, it did begin with Obama and a discussion of race. Somehow that led to human rights and China..

[eds]

Actually they are related especially with recent comments regarding Obama's recent negative talk about guns, religion and immigration. Human rights is an underlying theme. How the US handles human rights and foreign policy involving places like Gitmo and what we're doing in Iraq will ultimately be decided by the next president.