to: e-mail wars
RACE WARS: A debate in the U.S. E-Democracy Forum under the heading of “Lefty Incitement”
(March 27, 2010 to March 31, 2010)
Note: Originally a discussion of whether the political left or political right is more prone to violence, the focus shifted to leftist (anti-racist) threats which led to the forced cancellation of American Renaissance’s conference in northern Virginia in February 2010. Kevin Kervick and Bill McGaughey (names in red) assume the conservative (rightist) positions on these questions. Most of the other posters (names in blue) assume progressive (leftist) positions. The selected postings on this forum are listed in chronological order.
From: Kevin Kervick Date: Mar 27 09:08 CDT
I wanted to respond to Mark Asch's curious query about equivalency. His question suggests that there might some lefty hypocrisy when it comes to the incitement and proliferation of violence....
Michele Malkin does a nice job today in debunking many of the recent lefty accusations of violence against Obama or other democrats. And this document, published in 2001, chronicles the presence of both right and left terrorism in the United States and abroad. The authors document the cyclic nature of the types of terrorism and suggest that the preponderance of domestic terrorism varied depending on the perceptions of political power and powerlessness of the era. It also points out that the FBI was very successful in defeating much of the lefty terrorism that peaked in the 70's and started to wane in the eighties.
From the article: "Leftist extremists were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s. From an international perspective, of the 13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10 most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by leftist organizations. Although the current domestic terrorist threat within the United States is focused on right-wing extremists and white supremacists, left-wing extremists are alive and well and have several objectives."
" Besides ideology, there are important differences in left-wing and right-wing terrorist groups in this country. A study of 378 members of extremist groups indicted for various terrorist-related activities indicates that left-wing terrorists are younger and better educated that their right-wing counterparts. They are also more likely to live in an urban area. (Smith, 1994).
From: Marnita Schroedl Date: Mar 27 09:44 CDT
Well . . .I have to say Mr. Kervick does indeed like to engage in "lefty incitement," and name calling.Well the question I still have, having never had the questions answered by Mr. Kervick because he seems most to love to throw rocks at others instead of actually addressing the motes in his own eyes, why is the Tea Party Movement so white? How in any way does it differ from the last 30 years of bate and switch already offered by conservative leadership in this country? Why if I am so supposed to attend to what "Hitler did" when historically he would be viewed as a rightest in academic circles (of course this is total condescension to suggest that the Germans themselves and reputable historians would be shocked to hear that Hitler was a leftist), but Mr. Kervick won't even talk about the excess of the party/movement in which he is currently involved with.
I find it very offensive for Kervick to talk about his "civil rights history." Based on the politicians he supports and the views he espouses, unless the "history" he is talking about is the opposition for people of color to have rights, then something isn't syncing up. You don't get to talk about respecting Lou Dobbs and Michelle Bachmann and then actually try to get us to believe that anything in your history shows respect for people of color.
Again, the conservatives have ALWAYS and HISTORICALLY been against civil rights. In fact, Newt Gringrich said when HRC passed "this will cost the Democrats politically just like passing civil rights legislation did 40 years ago." But it is universally accepted that the Civil Rights movement was a goodthing.”
From: Neala Schleuning Date: Mar 27 10:12 CDT
Thank you, Kevin, for this effort to bring a different approach to the table. I would have the following comments and observations on the material you sent, a little cherry-picking of examples, and perhaps a question or two.
The Seeger article (2001, before 9/11 and the rise of international terrorism) concluded in several places that the MAJOR threat was from the right: “bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and a number of other incidents attributed to right-wing extremists indicate that the major threat is from the right, [however] leftist extremism remains a concern within the United States.”
The author did not define major, but one can assume that it speaks to an overt level of violence. And “The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports that although leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the predominate domestic terrorism threat over the past three decades [1970-2000 I presume], right-wing extremist groups that adhere to antigovernment and racist ideologies are the increasing concern today (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995).” And “From the mid-1980s to the present, the major threat of domestic terrorism has been primarily from right-wing extremists.”
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 27 12:42 CDT
There is violence on both sides of the political spectrum and I don't think it is productive to say one or the other side is more prone to this. I will, however, speculate on the different natures of leftist and rightist violence.
The most recent case of political violence - actually, the threat of violence - of which I am aware was leftist violence. It was directed against an organization called "American Renaissance" which in February wanted to hold a convention in a Washington, D.C. suburb in northern Virginia. American Renaissance publishes a monthly newsletter which I suppose might be considered “white racist” in that it discusses such things as racial differences in IQ testing scores.
This group's convention was cancelled when "anti-racist" groups put pressure on hotels where the meeting was to have taken place. Representatives of these groups called the managers of the hotels to threaten violence against the hotel staff or their families if the convention was allowed to take place. This happened four times. American Renaissance tried to schedule its event at four different hotels but one after the other they rescinded their invitation after receiving threats from the protesters. The leader of one protest organization was a former official of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.
The funny thing is that none of this was reported in the newspaper or picked up by any well-known political commentator, either on the left or right. There were two media outlets that did conduct interviews with the American Renaissance leader, Jared Taylor. One was Jeff Crouere, a conservative who does political interviews on a college-based television station in New Orleans. (I was interviewed by him when I ran in Louisiana's Democratic presidential primary in 2004.) The other was Russia Today, an English-language broadcast sponsored by the Russian government that broadcasts worldwide.
I find it ironic that a news organization based in Moscow saw fit to conduct a controversial interview about race when American news organizations won't touch the subject. Are we a free country or what!
My observation is that leftist violence may be directed toward silencing the right - denying rightists the right of free speech - while rightist violence may be in blend reaction to this, born of despair that their point of view will be allowed to be fairly presented in the media. Right-wing talk radio is mostly an entertainment spectacle, not pretending to be balanced opinion.
This leftist tendency to try to silence free speech or demonize the opposition - not "dignify something with a response" - helps explain why political conservatives have been ascendant for a number of years. I would love to see the political left get back to presenting positive proposals or, at least, berating Wall Street's purchase of Congress instead of personally attacking people who disagree with them philosophically.
From: Jack Ferman Date: Mar 27 13:22 CDT
2wmcg (Bill McGaughey) said he would "speculate on the different natures of leftist and rightist violence." However, the following 6 paragraphs say not one word about Righty Incitement, only Lefty Incitement. And this is the perfect example of right wing 'fair and balanced.'
From: Kevin Kervick Date: Mar 27 21:52 CDT
The Tea Partiers are largely salt of the earth people, grandmas, and associated other ragamuffin rabble rousers. Sure there is some organized support from professional advocacy groups and talk radio but by and large that support is minimal. These folks are up against entrenched professional interests with direct connections to the Democratic party like Mr. Asch and huge sums of money from the George Soros's of the world, Hollywood fat cats, and the nonprofit human services sector and government unions which for all intents and purposes are political extensions of the Democratic party. The point is this establishment juggernaut is largely being paid for their activities and their opinions.
To someone like me, having lived in that world before, the Tea Party movement is exciting and more authentic. Now, I will acknowledge that I am President of a nonprofit corporation that has as its mission the social marketing of American Values, values that are consistent with what I write here, and are at odds with the tenets of American progressivism. Today we have no funding but if we get to the point that we do, I will disclose that here.
I'll return to the substance from the responses from Ms. Schroedl and Schleuning in a subsequent post. Please note the difference in tone between these two contributors. The latter, a respectful, assertive alternative, and the former seems to be not only a spirited response but also an attempt to silence. What I get routinely from this poster is that only certain privileged people are allowed to share in the pride of American successes and that there is only one acceptable cultural narrative, about which she is the sole proprietor and speaker. Gimme a break.
I believe Mr. McGaughey has it exactly right when he writes: "My observation is that leftist violence may be directed toward silencing the right - denying rightists the right of free speech - while rightist violence may be in blend reaction to this, born of despair that their point of view will be allowed to be fairly presented in the media. (Omitted the part about Talk Radio because I believe that is too broad a brush - not all talk radio heads are the same.)
This leftist tendency to try to silence free speech or demonize the opposition - not "dignify something with a response" - helps explain why political conservatives have been ascendant for a number of years. I would love to see the political left get back to presenting positive proposals or, at least, berating Wall Street's purchase of Congress instead of personally attacking people who disagree with them philosophically."
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 28 09:02 CDT
John Ferman wrote: "2wmcg (Bill McGaughey) said he would "speculate on the different natures of leftist and rightist violence." However, the following 6 paragraphs say not one word about Righty Incitement, only Lefty Incitement. And this is the perfect example of right wing 'fair and balanced.'"
I did not promise to give an equal number of examples of leftist and rightist violence so Ferman's criticism is invalid. I did speculate on the nature of rightist violence in these words: " Rightist violence may be in blend reaction to this ( denial of balanced public discussion), born of despair that their point of view will be allowed to be fairly presented in the media." The word " blend" is a typo; I meant to say "blind".
It may be that my discussion of rightist violence is inadequate. On the core issues of race, gender, etc., you'd have to go back to well-publicized incidents such as the murder of the three Civil Rights workers in 1964 or the Texan black man, Byrd, being dragged under a car driven by white men. What about Malvo, the black man who shot whites in the Washington, D.C. area about ten years ago. Is this rightist violence? Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of rightist violence but, to my knowledge, he acted in a rage against the federal government when it exterminated people in the religious compound in Waco, Texas.
My highly subjective opinion is that rightists tend to give up on changing public opinion - partly because the media will not allow their opinion respectfully to be heard. Publicity, they think, is ineffective. Something " stronger" - violence - is needed. I disagree with that point of view. The conservatives who bother to post on this forum are also, obviously, believers in changing public opinion as are the liberals, of course.
From: Wizard Marks Date: Mar 28 11:11 CDT
2wmcg (Bill McGaughey) : "It may be that my discussion of rightist violence is inadequate."
Rightist violence, were we to tote it up punctiliously, does put the Caucasians in this country at the top of the list by miles. Though denied at every turn, the first premise of the right-wing syllogism is white privilege. It is a herding instinct, cutting out members of the heard and pigeon-holing them in order to create ease of body and mind in the lucky, culled members.
The first premise is, of course, American Individualism, lauded in song and story, also incorrect and species self-defeating. One cannot accomplish much if one has to spend all one's time with one's feet on the neck of someone else. Makes it impossible to walk.
From: Jack Ferman Date: Mar 28 12:03 CDT
William McGaughey has placed himself into the box labelled 'far right.' As such we may all save a lot of reading time by bypassing his posts and he could help us by prefacing his posts with 'not my usual righty rant' so that we might be able to see whether he has anything new or novel or credulous to say for our erudition.
From: Jon Lebkowsky Date: Mar 28 16:12 CDT
“ Rightists tend to give up on changing public opinion - partly because the media will not allow their opinion respectfully to be heard.”
This is such an odd observation, to me. My perception is of a steady stream of right wing propaganda through all forms of media, with even the more ignorant rants of extremists accorded far greater respect than they probably deserve. The Bush Administration is rather famous for its ongoing successful manipulation of (and intimidation of) media, so that it got a pass on all sorts of issues that should have been investigated more deeply at the time.
I've also been reading with interest the other comments in this thread, following my own usual counsel not to feed the trolls. A simple Google search will show you that protesters were restricted and sometimes arrested during the Bush Administration - and these arrests were reported by the media. I'm pretty clear that death threats against Bush were investigated and reported ... If we take the threats against Obama more seriously, it is probably because there are so many more of them, and in at least some cases, the intent seems more serious.
From: Marc Asch Date: Mar 28 16:48 CDT
McGaughey wrote: "My observation is that leftist violence may be directed toward silencing the right - denying rightists the right of free speech - while rightist violence may be in blend reaction to this, born of despair that their point of view will be allowed to be fairly presented in the media.
Please Bill, don't you watch Fox News or read the Wall Street Journal or any other part of Rupert Murdock's vast media empire?
From: Kevin Kervick Date: Mar 29 05:49 CDT
So, you (Jack Ferman) have anointed yourself as the categorizer in chief and assigned someone to a box that he did not choose for himself. And then you encourage your neighbors to shun him. Most distasteful. And familiar.
On the larger stage hoards of folks are rising up to take part in their democracy and rather than rise to the debate, there is a concerted effort among the anointed class to stigmatize them as nuts, bigots, and angry mobs. And then use their clout to attempt to get others in the media marketplace to shun them.
Mr. McGaughey does not need and probably would not welcome a defense from me. But in this instance he has accurately described the phenomenon of contemporary lefty intimidation, and that tendency has been further illustrated by Mr. Ferman here. The attempt to label against someone's will and then silence is nothing short of bullying.
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 29 08:39 CDT
I do appreciate Kevin Kervick's comments in my defense after reading John Ferman's posting that I am a "far right" ranter who ought to label his messages as such. It is this kind of malicious discussion which makes people want to unsubscribe to these lists. I do not have unlimited time to respond to such remarks but will continue for the time being. There was a more substantive criticism from Marc Asch that does deserve a respectful response. I had suggested that right-wing views did not receive a fair hearing in the media. Asch asks: "Don't you watch Fox News or read the Wall Street Journal or any other part of Rupert Murdock's vast media empire?"
The short answer is that, no, I don't, at least not any more. I subscribe to basic cable from Comcast. This package allows me to tune in to CNN but not Fox News. While I would characterize CNN as fairly balanced on most questions, it is biased toward a "leftist" point of view with respect to the core political issues of race, gay rights, and immigration, or what comes under the umbrella of political correctness.
I have closer ties with the Wall Street Journal. Many years ago, I spent a summer as a copy boy in its New York City headquarters. Thirty years ago, I used to read this newspaper regularly when an employer subscribed to it. Now I seldom do. When I read this paper years ago, I thought it was remarkably balanced in revealing Wall Street's warts as well as virtues. Paul Craig Roberts, who used to write opinion pieces for this paper, became a fierce opponent of Bush Administration policies. Today I seldom see the Wall Street Journal. It may be that, under Murdock, this paper has assumed a more hard-line political view.
In summary, I don't deny that there are enclaves of right-wing opinion - and Murdock's media empire would certainly be one of them. Part of the problem, however, is that we don't have respectfully clashing opinions in the same media platform - just separate platforms with their own clientele. We don't have true discussion.
There is another problem here: the definition of left-wing or right-wing. A century ago, when socialism was a viable political movement, "left-wing" meant criticisms of the moneyed interests and a society more friendly toward working people. Today, our politics is defined by the Civil Rights movement in its various manifestations: black vs. white, female vs. male, gay vs. straight, immigrant vs. native-born population. I do not believe there is an adequate diversity of opinion in the media with respect to issues such as these.
I originally brought up the example of a "white racist" organization whose convention was cancelled by repeated threats of violence. No one has responded to that example, not only in this forum but in the U.S. media. Instead, Russia Today covered the controversy in decent journalistic fashion. There's plenty of anti-white hate floating around in our society but the haters present themselves as being on the side of the angels.
No one will discuss this kind of subject. It's given over entirely to the realm of demonization. Is violence justified to prevent people speaking their opinions with whom you disagree? Is it proper to go straight to silencing or punishing the "demons"?
From: Marnita Schroedl Date: Mar 29 10:20 CDT
So now we have been fully schooled.
The gospel according to Kervick . . .Kervick and people like Kervick "salt of the earth." People who are salt of the earth and patriotic Americans have no obligation to explain the bad behaviors of those with whom you align. They are just a few bad apples but have nothing to do with the movement at large. It's so nice to have someone tell us what is and is not bullying . . . and to ascribe the intent and impact of our actions . . . Nope don't try to ever hold the TPM (Tea Party Movement) accountable for reality. If we do . . that makes us "bullies."
Me and people like me --e.g., people who don't agree with your public policy prescriptions-- those you so respectfully call "the anointed class" who are supposedly keeping you from "taking part in democracy." Because of your entitlement to have everything go 100% the way you and people like you want it . . You see no obligation to explain why after "the people" rose up to take their part in democracy in November 2008 and won that little thing called an election we shouldn't be treated with deference and respect.
It kind of does make us the "anointed." Because our side won the election, we get to set public policy. What was that Bush expression, "we have political capital and now we are going to spend it." Since you weren't "rising up" to take part in democracy when the people for whom you approve were in office--we aren't taking you so seriously about your motives. In fact, what we see is a movement that is only this angry because a black man is in office.
That's what all this nonsense is about "I want my country back." Well, this is my country too. I'm tired of people like Bachmann and this poster suggesting that this isn't my country and I'm somehow "less than salt of the earth" simply because of my public policy prescriptions aren't not the same as their failed policy prescriptions (and it is important to keep reality in the frame . .. Now isn't that arrogant? Doesn't the overwhelming winning side get to set the public policy direction? I thought that's how it worked in a representative republic.
The conservatives have run this country into the ground since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. An election that was won and a majority that was maintained by the documented practice of demonizing "the other." That's the reason "the anointed" won the election--BTW a rare occurrence for someone who is a centrist. And the fact a black man won kind of tells everyone how badly the conservatives really screwed up the country . . . that we got our first brown president in the bargain . . . that as a country we were less afraid of a black man running the country than we were the people who had taken us to the brink of the cliff ...
It's why "salt of the earth" small business owners like me . . those who hire and employ people, enterprising successful entrepreneurs see a better way than having 40 million americans uninsured. I'm every bit as American and salt of the earth as you . . . You just think you have the entitlement to define what it means to be an American. But you don't . . . I and many people like me are fully American and we just disagree on public policy. But look at the way this poster always marginalizes us . . . he is "salt of the earth." But we are the anointed? Yes, I will shame and name what your behavior demonstrates. That you do not believe we have equal rights under the law to vote and change the direction of this country ...
Want to make sure that the game of "monopoly" keeps being played . . . Well the rest of us playing this game called "We the people govern the US," have decided we want something else. Your side lost because your ideas have proven not to work the way you say they will. And, just like the game of monopoly--which always ends with your brother crying and throwing the board all over the living room and the person who owns park place and boardwalk winning (unless you have all the yellows, reds, greens, the railroads and the utilities or have managed to keep anyone from having any monopolies at all) .
Well I spend a fair amount of my time with the privileged dynastic class . . . do you know what my rich conservative friends are doing? They are hoovering up the assets that the poor are losing due to the lack of regulation that allows the rapacious to prey on those with less. The rich are always fine . . . but with the help of the TPM (Tea Party Movement) they will get richer and richer and we all will get poorer and poorer . . .
Anyone with eyeballs who aren't filled with bigotry can see that Obama isn't a wild-eyed, disrespectful socialist . . .I don't believe there is anything Obama could ever do to connect with or appeal to the right . . . because to the right there is no way a black man could ever be seen as a legitimate leader . .. It just isn't what 'leadership" or what a true "American" looks like.
So, I'm resentful of all the old white people--Did anyone read the article on the Tea Party Movement in the New York Times yesterday about the number of people in the tea party movement who are out of work and living on "the dole," to be at all these rallies, etc.? Their reason for thinking it was okay that they could utilize pubic benefits . . "they had paid into the system." Well so have I since I was 13 years old . . . so have many other Americans who disagree with your public policy prescriptions . .. we think we need a strong safety net and it doesn't make us communists or socialists to say we need one that isn't dependent upon charity entirely. But again . . . who is the bully here . . . by demonizing very centrist and not particularly leftists ideas that the rest of the democratic first world has accepted as public policy best governance practices . ..
What is really happening is that the conservatives are trying to scare our neighbors about "those scary people who aren't quite like you and don't share your values." Well, I'm those people . . . a rational, reasonable, tax paying, salt of the earth American who just happens to disagree with your public policy prescriptions. I'm tired of hearing about the lazy people who are going to steal "my tax dollars." No, we the people, who won the election in 2008 are now exercising our democratically elected right to set the course of public policy . . . For that we have been called every name under the book including Hitler by you, while at the same time the very people throwing the names aroundare claiming that their country was stolen from them and claiming that their voices are being silenced ..
When you say you want your country "back" . . from whom exactly? Back from where? The edge of the cliff that conservatives almost ran it over? So you can send us all over the edge? Well that doesn't sound like you just disagree on public policy. It sounds like you believe you own this country and I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut in your world .... I think by "salt of the earth" members of the TPM you really means that which poisons the ground so that nothing can live or grow there.
From: Wizard Marks Date: March 29, 2010 10:24:07 AM CDT
Mwmcg (Bill McGaughey): "While I would characterize CNN as fairly balanced on most questions, it is biased toward a "leftist" point of view with respect to the core political issues of race, gay rights, and immigration, or what comes under the umbrella of political correctness. ... No one will discuss this kind of subject. It's given over entirely to the realm of demonization."
I do not believe that Mr. McGaughey is sincere in his desire for a discussion on race. If he begins with "political correctness," he has already situated himself firmly in a pejorative stance toward any opposing view. What is politically correct? As it is used, it demeans anyone who is unwilling to insult a group right off the bat. Ergo, one does not start with the n word if one wants to have a conversation. As well, one does not begin with 'politically correct' to describe the opposing viewpoint(s).
People on this list and elsewhere may be very willing to discuss the subject of race, gender, preference, nationality, what have you, by if the opening salvo declares that it's demonization to do other than to insult, what is the friggin' point of trying to discuss a subject?
From: Jon Lebkowsky Date: Mar 29 12:50 CDT
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:42 AM, William McGaughey wrote: “ In summary, I don't deny that there are enclaves of right-wing opinion - and Murdock's media empire would certainly be one of them. Part of the problem, however, is that we don't have respectfully clashing opinions in
the same media platform - just separate platforms with their own clientele. We don't have true discussion.”
I think this is absolutely true - one downside of a technology that enables niche communities and conversations is that we get echo chambers and lose the broader conversations. David Weinberger et al warned of this possibility in the early 2000s. Propagandists (or PR people or political consultants, whatever you want to call them) sieze specific niches and organize them into pseudo-movements, emphasizing opposition, further polarzing the political environment.“
There is another problem here: the definition of left-wing or right-wing. A century ago, when socialism was a viable political movement, "left-wing" meant criticisms of the moneyed interests and a society more friendly toward working people. Today, our politics is defined by the Civil Rights movement in its various manifestations: black vs. white, female vs. male, gay vs. straight, immigrant vs. native-born population. I do not believe there is an adequate diversity of opinion in the media with respect to issues such as these.”
Perhaps we should depend less on traditional media for leadership and create contexts for broader commmunication - what I thought this list was for.“I originally brought up the example of a ‘white racist’ organization whose convention was cancelled by repeated threats of violence. No one has responded to that example, not only in this forum but in the U.S. media. Instead, Russia Today covered the controversy in decent journalistic fashion. There's plenty of anti-white hate floating around in our society but the haters present themselves as being on the side of the angels.”
I looked into it at the time, but frankly thought you were trolling and, as I said in an earlier message, I avoid "feeding the trolls." I was suspicious of the accounts I was seeing of the reasons for cancellation - they all seemed to originate from within the organization. I didn't see much by way of verification that those calls had actually occurred and were the reasons for the cancellations.“No one will discuss this kind of subject. It's given over entirely to the realm of demonization. Is violence justified to prevent people speaking their opinions with whom you disagree? Is it proper to go straight to silencing or punishing the ‘demons’?”
I found one of my colleagues posting on Facebook that Teabagger rhetoric "wouldn't be tolerated in most settings," and I differed with this. The First Amendment is broadly tolerant. But you do have to accept that extreme speech offered will often get extreme speech in response. Perhaps the TeaBag movement should tone it down a bit - and maybe become a true populist movement rather than a cynically contrived string of media events produced by political consultants and Fox Network.
From: Kevin Kervick Date: Mar 29 20:02 CDT
It seems we have found some consensus that folks are herding themselves into echo chambers (both sides) and we are missing the opportunity for discussion across differences.
I received an e-mail announcement some time back, don't remember where I saw it that there was this new forum being formed for a discussion of US issues. Craving that kind of conversation I thought I might join, even though I had a hunch that the discussants might lean a bit left, I thought it would be a good opportunity to listen, learn, and try to persuade. If my memory serves me correctly I think I may have been one of the first to join as I remember the organizer writing that there were few people signed up and we were waiting to get to 100 joiners before the site launched. So, when you refer to trolls I don't know who you are referring to as it seems we have about 20 regular posters here each with different opinions, and each with a right to express his/her viewpoint. Your use of the term troll, is confusing to me because I don't know who you could be referring to. If it is me you are referring to, as your reference seemed to indicate, I'd like you to talk about what it is about my e-mail behavior that you believe is troll-like. If you think there are other trolls here perhaps you could talk about that as well rather than sniping about it.
Despite numerous requests to talk about the Tea Party movement using the correct terminology some folks continue to use the insulting terminology you did below, like our President did, in an apparent effort to mock the movement principles. And you are continuing to spread misinformation below about the origins, organizational connections, and intentions of the nascent movement. Have you been to any rallies? Do you watch Fox News? How are you getting your information about the movement? Is it possible it might be coming from a left-leaning echo chamber?
Frank Rich's critique seems to be thus. I've argued for the progressive agenda for my entire life, and accelerated that advocacy during this progressive administration with the hope that this was our time. We are still losing the argument. The only thing that ever works for us is the
racial, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic guilt by association rant. So, I guess I'll trot that one out again in the hopes that it will stick again. God knows Obama is not convincing anyone on the merits. So, let er rip.
Damn the racists and homophobes! If it weren't a transparent sham it would be criminal. Anyone that reads Rich regularly like I do gleans that he frequently demonizes Christians, Republicans, and heterosexual white men. The hate is in his own soul and it is narrowly directed. One can only guess at what might be at the root of his hate but it is obvious that it is there. I see a clear delineation of perspectives emerging in our country for the first time in memory. Constitutional conservatism is bumping directly into Progressivism. Both parties are solidifying their core identities. May the best ideas win out over time. If that clarity continues to get muddied by extraneous distinctions and false accusations we don't have a debate. The extreme speech you speak of sounds more like clear speech to many of us out here in the conservative movement.
The Democratic and Republican parties has been mushying up their platforms for years, and resorting to indirect and covert arguments. Now the democrats have finally elected an unabashedly economic progressive President with a progressive Congress, enacting a progressive agenda. A little more than half the country seems to be strongly opposed to that agenda and their beliefs are being best represented through the Tea Party movement and the conservative identity push within the republican party. Those people are fighting back hard. The debate reigns as it should.
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 29 20:51 CDT
John Lebkowsky wrote of the reported forced cancellation of a meeting by "anti-racist" groups that threatened violence against hotel managers: " I was suspicious of the accounts I was seeing of the reasons for cancellation - they all seemed to originate from within the organization. I didn't see much by way of verification that those calls had actually occurred and were the reasons for the cancellations."
I admit that it is hard to verify reports such as this. The targeted organization is biased toward its point of view, the protesters won't provide objective information, and the press did not report on the incident. My information came from http://vdare.com/hart/100216_anarcho_tyranny.htm. The report is fairly detailed and you can decide for yourself whether to believe it.
Wizard Marks has decided to dismiss my argument because I used the term "political correctness" which she takes as a personal insult. She's entitled to use language any way she wants but not force others to accept her far-fetched interpretations.
With respect to the Tea Party: Yes, there do seem to be a lot of white people involved in this movement. However, I do know of at least one African American who may well run for public office in Minneapolis with Tea Party support. The racial arguments, coming from certain posters, are a one-trick pony.
I suspect that what many people find disturbing on this list is that the Tea Party appears to be an authentic grass-roots movement. It threatens their comfortable belief system that such a movement could come so fast out of nowhere and possibly affect the 2010 and 2012 elections. Must taint this with racism and violence - it couldn't possibly be legitimate.
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 30 10:17 CDT
I gave the source of my information that the American Renaissance conference in February had been cancelled due to threats of violence against hotel staff - http://vdare.com/hart/100216_anarcho_tyranny.htm. Jon Lebkowsky wrote that he took a look at this and determined that "there don't seem to be cites to support the contentions he's making. It's more of an opinion piece - you have to take his word for most of it."
However, this article does state that the Dulles Westin hotel, one of the places sought for the convention, "was getting 50-60 nasty phone calls a day and, in light of the experience at the Crowne Plaza, feared for the safety of its employees." The article also discloses that "The Manassas Sheraton got death threats, including one stating 'If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you'. It capitulated and cancelled on Monday, February 15, just four days before the conference was scheduled to begin."
This seems to me to be more than opinion. Now, I suppose one can argue that this whole episode was a hoax cooked up by American Renaissance, vdare.com, and others. Those who are interested can call the particular hotels that are named to see if there was such a conference or if the managers know why their hotel rescinded the invitation to host an event. It is true, the article did not have footnotes linked to the information - but citing what as a source? There were no police reports because no violence was actually carried out - it was a threat of violence, resulting in cancellation of the conference. There were no articles in newspapers presumably because the journalists did not think that threats made against a "white racist" organization were worth reporting.
I would propose, however, that because Russia Today covered this incident, and also the London Bureau of the Wall Street Journal, the hotel cancellations were more than a hoax. Make up your own mind what you think is plausible. First, decide if honesty is a virtue you wish to cultivate.
From: Elaine Friedland Date: Mar 30 16:28 CDT
By the checking google I found that hotels did cancel the American Renaissance Conference, but there was no threat of violence at all, and instead the various hotel managements were informed of the ideology of the concerned organization and did not want to be in anyway associated with such an organization.
In November, the Washington Dulles Marriott refused to host the event (which had been booked by Taylor’s New Century Foundation, parent of American Renaissance magazine) after R.E.A.L. founder Imm, who lives in the D.C. area, contacted the hotel with information about the group’s white nationalist ideology. In January, the Westin Washington Dulles Hotel followed suit after they heard from Imm and other activists. Imm has also called other nearby hotels to let them know about American Renaissance, making it difficult for Taylor to find a conference venue. “Obviously, we hit a nerve,” Imm told Hatewatch. “I think he was counting on the ignorance of other hotels in the area.”
A frustrated Taylor challenged Imm in a Jan. 29 letter to organize a public event at the National Press Club where the two men could debate. In response, Imm invited Taylor to an outdoor public awareness event about racial supremacy that R.E.A.L. has scheduled for noon on Feb. 19, several hours before registration begins for the American Renaissance conference. “The truth is you really don’t have the courage of your convictions,” Imm wrote in a Jan. 30 letter posted on R.E.A.L.’s website. “You claim to seek a public debate even while you doggedly seek to keep your planned location of the AmRen 2010 event a secret. What are you afraid of?”
During the ensuing E-mail exchange, which Imm posted on his website, Taylor rejected Imm’s offer to appear at the R.E.AL. event. “We will be preparing for our conference on Feb. 19, and you know very well that you do not plan to give me equal time to defend my point of view,” Taylor wrote on Jan. 31. “The only fair venue would be one that is a proper public debate with equal time for both sides.”
Imm replied that Taylor was merely making excuses. “The real reason why Jared Taylor cannot meet with us is the same reason why American Renaissance seeks to hide in the shadows,” he replied.
On Feb. 1, Taylor posted a statement on his website concluding, “I shall waste no more time on Jeffrey Imm.” As for Imm’s final communiqué with Taylor, the subject line read: “Wrong Again, Mr. Taylor.” Taylor’s website now provides general information for an undisclosed hotel near the Washington Dulles International Airport. Imm is trying to confirm the location of the new venue.
Taylor wasn’t the only one upset by Imm’s activism. Craig Bodeker, who’s scheduled to speak at this year’s American Renaissance conference, sent Imm several E-mails this week via Facebook asking him why he was trying to stop the conference. Bodeker made the documentary “A Conversation About Race,” in which he adopts a professional demeanor as he tries to debunk what he sees as the myth of racism. Though Bodeker never uses racial slurs or threatening language in the film, Hatewatch reported earlier that he repeatedly did so when posting comments on YouTube, even referring to blacks as monkeys.
Bodeker abandons restraint once again during his discussion with Imm. In a Feb. 3 E-mail, he accused Imm of anti-white bias, then wrote: “Whites are starting to realize that when someone does declares [sic] war on us, it’s OK to fight back. With any and all means.” The final comment from the filmmaker, who asserts in his website bio that he “love[s] learning about different cultures as well as different viewpoints”: “Jeffery [sic], you are full of shit!”
Now I wonder if you consider this organization as legitimate organization and defend its ideology.
According to ADL this is the ideology of the American Renaissance Conference: 2010 American Renaissance Conference Will Feature Racist Speakers from U.S. and Abroad Posted: December 9, 2009
2010 American Renaissance Conference Will Feature Racist Speakers from U.S. and Abroad
The white supremacist publication American Renaissance (AR) will hold its ninth biennial meeting in Herndon, Virginia from February 19-21, 2010. Like previous conferences, the event is principally led and organized by Jared Taylor the editor of AR and its Web site. In keeping with previous conferences, this event will feature a range of racist speakers from the United States and abroad. It will focus on “racial differences in IQ” and discuss the “costs of diversity” as well as the “challenges of non-white immigration.”
One of the scheduled speakers, Craig Bodeker, has gained increasing exposure in the racist subculture due to his 2009 movie, “A Conversation About Race.” In the hour-long movie Bodeker interviews a series of random individuals from the Denver area about race and racism. His stated goal is to prove that “ racism is not an objective term.” Rather, he claims that it is a “hammer” used as “intimidation against Caucasians.” To that end, he sets out to prove that a host of taboos in discussing race are directed differently at whites and blacks. For example, he argues that it is acceptable to assign “ collective racial guilt” to whites over slavery but not to blacks over black on white crime. Similar points are made frequently in the pages of AR and other white supremacist publications. Bodeker has also appeared on The Political Cesspool, a radio show hosted by white supremacist James Edwards, and War of Deception, a radio show hosted by an anti-Semite, Peter Schaenk. Bodeker’s movie has proven popular with a variety of white supremacist individuals and organizations, including The Council of Conservative Citizens, which has held several screenings. The movie and the response to it have also received some attention in the mainstream media, including the Wall Street Journal. At the AR conference, Bodeker will give a “one year retrospective” on the movie’s release.
Raymond Wolters, a professor at the University of Delaware (where he has been a member of the history department since 1965) is scheduled to speak on “ education reform since the 1950s.” Wolters’ relationship with AR dates back at least as far as 2004, when he addressed that year’s conference on the history of the famous Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Wolters has written many books on race relations in the 20th century, several of which have been positively reviewed in AR. He has described one of these books, The Burden of Brown (published in 1984), as the story of the “ failure” of desegregation in the decades following the Brown decision. Wolters was interviewed in March 2009 by Kevin Lamb for VDare, a racist Web site. (Lamb is the managing editor of The Social Contract, a xenophobic journal published by John Tanton, and a former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, a well-known racist journal.)
Other scheduled speakers include:
a.. Nick Griffin, chairman of the far-right British National Party (BNP). In June 2009, Griffin won one of two BNP seats in an election to the European Parliament, part of a wave of far-right political parties across Europe who won seats in that election. Griffin has been a topic of intense media interest in Great Britain since that election, especially in relation to his appearance on Question Time, a major BBC political television that some viewers felt granted him undue legitimacy. He spoke at the 2002 and 2006 AR conferences.
a.. Wayne Lutton, editor of The Social Contract. Lutton is also a director on the board of The Occidental Quarterly. He spoke at the 1994 and 1996 AR conferences.
a.. David Yeagely, operator of the Web site BadEagle.com. Yeagely identifies as a great-great-grandson of the Comanche leader Bad Eagle, and sees himself as a conservative Native American. http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/2010_amren_conference.htm
Jared Taylor (also known as Samuel Jared Taylor) founded The New Century Foundation, a self-styled think tank known primarily for American Renaissance, a white supremacist journal and companion Website. The journal, which Taylor edits, promotes pseudoscientific studies that attempt to demonstrate the intellectual and cultural superiority of whites and publishes articles on the supposed decline of American society because of integrationist social policies. American Renaissance generally avoids the crude bigotry and stereotyping characteristic of many other racist publications and Taylor himself personally refrains from anti-Semitism.
Born: September, 1951
Residence: Oakton, Virginia
Organization: The New Century Foundation
Publication: American Renaissance
Education: B.A. Yale University, 1973;
M.S. Institute of Political Studies, Paris, 1978
Ideology: Intellectualized white supremacy
Books: Author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (1992) and Shadow of the Rising Sun: A Critical Review of the Japanese Miracle (1983); edited or contributed to various other books, including Essential Writings on Race by Samuel Francis (2007), Race and the American Prospect (2006), A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century (2003) and The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and The Future of America (1998)
Affiliations: Taylor is on the editorial advisory board of Citizens Informer, the newspaper of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, has contributed to The Occidental Quarterly a racist journal, and has been a member of the Board of Directors of the National Policy Institute, a racist "think tank."
Taylor promotes his views by attacking racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, which he calls "one of the most divisive forces on the planet" and therefore "dangerous." Through speeches delivered at the biennial American Renaissance conferences; books, pamphlets, and articles; and public appearances via mainstream venues, including television shows and universities, Taylor promotes the idea that racial segregation is "natural" and society is best organized along racially homogenous lines. He maintains ties to a variety of racist organizations, publications, and individuals, both domestic and international, and many of North America's leading intellectual racists have written for American Renaissance or have addressed the biennial American Renaissance conferences.
The following files were added to this topic:
(photo of Jared Taylor)
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 30 23:23 CDT
Your characterizations of American Renaissance come from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League - hardly unbiased organizations.
You write: "I found that hotels did cancel the American Renaissance Conference, but there was no threat of violence at all, and instead the various hotel managements were informed of the ideology of the concerned organization."
My earlier posting cited the following as examples of violent threats: " However, this article does state that the Dulles Westin hotel, one of the places sought for the convention, 'was getting 50-60 nasty phone calls a day and, in light of the experience at the Crowne Plaza, feared for the safety of its employees.' The article also discloses that 'The Manassas Sheraton got death threats, including one stating “If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you'. It capitulated and cancelled on Monday, February 15, just four days before the conference was scheduled to begin."
Are you saying that you have information that the above threats did not happen? If so, I’d like to know more. To say "I will go in there and shoot you (if you allow the conference to be held at your hotel)" is a violent threat.
Howevermuch you dislike Jared Taylor's views, I would challenge you to show how he or others in his organization use violence or advocate violence. In my book, people of all political views have the right of free speech and the right to assemble peacefully to exercise that speech. It does cross a line when some persons set themselves up as arbiters of what is allowed to be said and use violence or threats of violence to disrupt peaceful meetings.
Do you agree?
From: Marnita Schroedl Date: Mar 31 02:41 CDT
Free speech has consequences . . . As a supposed supporter of the free market, I'm surprised to see that this poster has any problem with a hotel chain deciding that they'd rather have clientele of a different sort. I'm assuming that as a supporter of the free market that one can chose who they want to do business with . . but many it is just that it is inconceivable to this poster that a hotel would rather appeal to a different clientele and group.
BTW . . . I'm pretty sure the poster on this thread was a poster who previously equated the left with Hitler and wanted us to look at our behaviors and the slopes that we might slip down . . . Does anyone notice that this poster doesn't seem to have any problem defending this specific type of speech against a specific population . . . so hate speech isn't a slippery slope, yet ensuring that your neighbor's children are not rescinded from healthcare is a slippery slope?
I'm really struggling with the values demonstrated by the people and viewpoints that this poster most seems to value protecting . . The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League (although I'm not a fan of Abe Foxman's on Palestine . . but my guess this poster might be on this issue) are pretty much the good guys . . . unless you live in another era where you really believe that melanin has any impact on your actual IQ and in racial superiority and inferiority . .. I have to say the number of times I've seen the words Politically Correct and references to IQ from this poster . . . well as my mother used to say birds of a feather flock together . . . I find it interesting that in a country where a woman of color makes on average $.65 for every $1.00 a white man makes . . . when a woman of color has $110 in material assets for every $14,000 of an equally situated dominant culture woman . . that this free market poster is choosing to complain that a business decided that it wasn't in it's best interest to sell its services to an organization with whom would not align with their own values of hospitality (and would anger their workforce and potential guests).
We aren't saying the AR movement can't promulgate their views/hate speech . . . but there will be consequences . . . that's the idea of free speech . . sometimes negative sometimes positive consequences accrue. A "conservative" proponent of personal responsibility should be able to appreciate that notion . . . You eat too much you get fat . .. You stay up all night you are tired. You attempt to rent rooms in a hotel in a multicultural community that values its multiculturalism when you are a promulgator of hate speech and biased viewpoints on people of color and as a consequence you might just find there isn't room at the inn . . . I find it odd that some people don't really understand the idea of free speech at all . . they aren't stopping them from saying the speech . . they just don't get to do it in their private hotel chain . . . I recently chaperoned a high school trip and the privately owned building demanded the 80 youths I was with be completely silent in a giant brick building with horrible acoustics . . . they were a private enterprise and we had to abide by their belief in what best suited their overall clientele . . . No one whined that our rights had been trammeled . . . Or that we weren't allowed our right to assemble or gather.
Maybe this hotel chain realized that as potential customers and clients demonstrated how negatively this would impact their bottom line they thought better of it, just as other boycotts and demonstrations have swayed public policy and shamed people into changing behaviors . . . I work with a hotel chain at times . . .the catholic church as been exerting pressure for the chain to stop having pay-per-view porn . . . They are intricate issues . . . but the worst I see from the poster is that somehow they want free speech, but want it to be divorced from the outcomes that might accrue to the exercise of free speech. Say certain things to me . . for instance "politically correct." and I will say back to you . . . You are a bigot . . I know Zero people who use the term politically correct who aren't bigots. . . see that's how free speech works . .
You say "politically correct." I say "bigot." I'm not keeping you from free speech . . . but just as you have free speech . . . I have the freedom to judge the content of the speech and also speak and act freely. It's not I get to say objectionable inflammatory things and then when you call me on it I get to say you are stopping my right to free speech . . . you are on the wrong part of the continuum . . The AR can say it . . . But then the AR also get to experience the consequences. In this case, no rooms at the inn.
From: Chuck Repke Date: Mar 31 08:32 CDT
In a message dated 3/31/2010 7:24:03 A.M. Central Daylight Time, < email obscured> writes: Politically correct simply means that there is a preferred cultural narrative and that narrative attempts to protect itself from alternative interpretations that should have equal opportunity but are denied expression because they do not have the proper sanctioning from the chosen enlightened.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO...
Here is what people who actually advocate the positions that have been deemed by the right to be "politically correct" actually mean by the some of those positions.
1. It is not proper to express your blatant racist/sexist/homophobic positions out loud or on the keyboard.
2. The correct response to seeing blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic positions is to call the person out on it and let them know that the position sounds racist/sexist/homophobic.
3. It is never proper to allow someone to get away with calling their blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic positions "alternative interpretations."
4. To be quiet is to be complicit.
The expression "politically correct" is used to excuse racist/sexist/homophobic positions and deem those who stand up to bigots that spew racist/sexist/homophobic positions as being "elites" or worse yet to make them appear to not actually believe that people should be treated fairly but that they are just mouthing the positions to be "politically correct." It is an effort to marginalizes the confrontation of their racist/sexist/homophobic positions. It is the classic "good old boy" response to being confronted on racist/sexist/homophobic positions, that, "I may not be able to say it now, but, you and I know that my racist/sexist/homophobic position is true..."
So, yes Kevin the only way to fight bigotry is to actually confront it. Someone has to actually point out to both the listeners and the teller that the position expressed stinks and is a racist/sexist/homophobic position. So, if you want to call confronting bigotry to be "politically correct,"
well then fine. But don't try to get away without being confronted on those racist/sexist/homophobic positions.
From: Marc Asch Date: March 31, 2010 12:31:10 AM CDT
this is becoming surreal.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill McGaughey) wrote: “Your characterizations of American Renaissance come from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League - hardly unbiased organizations.”
"Hardly unbiased" as in leading documenters and exposers of racist extremists?
Kevin and Bill are amazingly facile in their Goebbels like technique of repeating "big lies" (historical reference) and using misdirection. Until Bill began going down this road of defending a segregationist and racial supremacist, I thought he was a semi-reasonable person but I am
really having my doubts. I have followed him over the years with his landlord's rights efforts and his interesting political campaigns but recently he seems to slipping towards a set of positions I find very hard to understand.
From: Bill McGaughey Date: Mar 31 11:45 CDT
Let's be honest, in referring to a "poster" who "has any problem with a hotel chain deciding that they'd rather have clientele of a different sort", Marnita Schroedl is referring to me.
Four hotels in the Washington D.C. area did decide to host the American Renaissance conference. They all backed down when they, their staff, or guests started receiving threats from the anti-racist protesters, including death threats. This shows the depravity of the cultural left. Hotels and other business organizations don't make booking decisions based on the political views of their clients. They accept any group that pays the freight and behaves itself. If Schroedl can't or won't see the difference between an ordinary business decision and a decision inspired by death threats against the staff, there’s really no point in continuing a discussion with a person like this.
No, I have never claimed that Hitler was a leftist as Schroedl suggests. No, I'm not a fan of Foxman's views on Palestine. But - what the heck - go ahead and insinuate that I am. Others on this list might believe you.
Let me be clear on another point - to use the term "politically correct" is not hate speech. Political correctness is a term to describe a certain coercive attitude or compulsory opinion about race and other elements that are at the core of today's politics. Yes, many people who use this term are political conservatives since cultural leftists don't like to look at themselves in the mirror. And yet, political correctness is not a derogatory term directed at a particular person as the word "bigot" is. The two are not comparable. I do not accept Schroedl's attempt to legislate the proper use of speech. She is not queen of the world.
What really bothers Schroedl may be that, with the Tea Party movement, her comfortable political world is starting to crumble. Grass roots movements are not supposed to happen among people like this. I do not know how far this movement will go but I do wish people success - even white people - who may be getting into politics for the first time to oppose the oppressive structures of government and the media. Yes, we the American people have been let down by our leaders, and it’s good to see democratic processes come into play.
Just looked at Marc Asch's posting -- So I am being compared to Dr. Goebbels and purveyors of "big lies" for suggesting that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are "hardly unbiased"? Well, that's true. Both organizations are politically biased. Your hysterical but comfortable North Oaks political belief structure may be at risk as well.
From: Marnita Schroedl Date: March 31, 2010 4:04:58 PM CDT
Well . . I guess that's where freedom of speech comes in . . . it isn't hate speech to you and it is to me, I've just always heard it used like this . . It isn't PC for me to say this but . . . black people really aren't as smart based on IQ tests . . or they are more violent or they can't be trusted . . . the statement that is not spoken and is masked by the using the air quotes around the term "PC" is invariably one that is a comment that is racist or bigoted. You make it sound like it's a bad thing to be anti-racist? I mean I thought it was a good thing not to be a racist. Maybe you don't agree?
Now you know that it is being perceived and reacted to in that way . . .you can keep on using it . . . But it means you don't care/respect how it impacts others. Which is fine . . You have your first amendment right to keep saying it . . I have my first amendment right to keep saying what it says to me . . which is BIGOT all caps, underscored, bright shiny lights and bells and whistles too . . .
I said you "might" agree with foxman's views on Palestine . . not that you did. Many conservatives are fans of Foxman's views on Israel . . Sorry . . didn't mean to make that assumption. I thought that during Kevin's throwing of stones about Hitler you were agreeing with him as to why Hitler was a leftist I'm sorry if I didn't remember and misattributed posts to you . . .
Explain the political bias of the SPLC and the ADL? Or are you saying it's bad to be biased against hate groups and to track them and that no one should track what hate groups are saying or promulgating?
I don't agree with death threats, but I do agree with boycotting and hitting organizations in their pocketbook . . . So I say good that there are citizens with a conscience in this country who stood up for the rights of the "other."
You know nothing of my life and world. You know nothing of what I have accomplished or achieved or what I have lived through . . . My life has not been comfortable but I do also recognize that there but for the grace go I.
Would the comfortable world you are suggesting is being shattered would that one be the one where I had crosses burnt in my yard because my family took in a black foster child? Would that be the town hall meeting that occurred when I was three years old because although my family had produced 7 salutatorian or valdectorians from the local high school prior to their adopting me . . that the town came together to discuss what impact I would have on dragging down the entire school. Would that be the world in which I found out as a Sr. Executive leader who exceeded all goals I found out that i was making literally $200,000 a year less than all the other executives at my level who were white men . . . and the white man who replaced me was given a $200,000 salary and didn't achieve the outcomes or goals that I had? (although in that case I will attest . . . because I did not value myself . . I did not know to ask for what I was actually worth) Would that be the comfortable world in which when I was administered an IQ test at age 7 and being found to have an IQ of 198 that six white teachers put me in a room and made me take the test until they got my score as low as they could get it at 156? They actually demanded to know . . "what had I done to cheat to get such a high IQ" Or would that be the comfortable world in which I live where I have two children one white and one black the same age both educated within the same school system . . my child of color has been reading at a college freshman level since kindergarten . . . he is an IB honors student who has a 3.80 GPA in all honors classes . . . my white son has a GPA of 3.25 (also very bright and a great student). They both just got their PLAN tests back (which is basically a P-ACT) . . . My black child scored in the top 99% in the nation with a score 99% in science, 98% in math, 98% in english and 98% in reading . . . My white child in the 90% percentile . . .
But when I walked my white child through school for high school orientation and we met with all of his honors teachers . . . they all just accepted this very bright and engaging kid was in the right class. . . in the afternoon I walked through the same school and introduced my same-aged black child to his teachers (Sammy had football practice in the afternoon so he went in the morning, while Elijah wanted to sleep in on his last days of summer so off I went twice to school) and although it was a requirement that Elijah not only had to complete algebra in 8th grade (which was complicated because the school he went to only gave it 9th grade and we found out in the middle of 8th grade he had to start all over and take a full year of Algebra in 1/2 year . . . In addition to having to have at least a B+ in algebra 1, he also had to have a letter from his 8th grade teacher saying he was able to take honors geometry in 9th grade .. . well, we walk into the same classroom I had been in with Sammy in the morning (they both had the class in 4th period) and his teacher looks at his schedule and knowing nothing about my child (unless you count that he had to have a letter from his previous teacher as well as a B+ in the previous year's class) and says "Are you sure you are in the right class? I can move you to something easier that won't be so demanding." Elijah squeezes my hand because he doesn't want me to embarrass him by accusing the teacher of being a bigot even though it is clear that she is . . . but then we go to his honors Biology class and the teacher looks at his schedule and says "are you sure you are in the right class . . .it moves really fast and will be very challenging. At this point--E realizes that mommy is about to explode and he leans in and says . ." yeah I'm pretty sure I'll need to engage science with this amount of rigor since I'm planning to go to MIT so I'll need the most academically challenging classes I can take."
A funny thing happened last week . . my son Sam and two of his friends who happen to be white and have all been in school with Elijah since kindergarten where hanging out on the couch in their bedroom . . . I dropped in for a chat and one of the boys Paul said . . "Hey Sam does Elijah help you with your homework" and Sam said "when I'm lucky he does." And then Joe said "I'll bet Elijah is getting offers from every college because he's black." And my son Sam just looked at him . . bored into him with his eyes and then Joe said "Okay . . . you're right, Elijah has been the smartest kid in class since kindergarten. It really isn't fair of me to say that he is getting offers from the best schools in 10th grade because he's black. He'd be getting those offers if he was white because he truly is the best of the best as a student." It is my understanding that Obama likewise showed this type of academic excellence from kindergarten on . . . And I know I've seen you post that he just got to where he is because of what I assume you were referring to affirmative action . . . Do you have any problem with legacy or the affirmative action of the rich to keep the rich in seats of power?
I personally dropped out of high school because my counselor in Junior year informed me that I wouldn't get into any school and why would I want to go to college . . . I didn't know until a few years ago that in fact I had received in the 99% of the nation on my SATs and as a 3.5 student myself had been a national merit scholar. But I didn't know that I was valuable.
While I do acknowledge that race/racism have had a huge impact on my life although I in no way consider myself or live as a victim, nor have I ever used racism as an excuse not to be my best or perform and achieve at the highest levels . . . I feel honored to have opportunity to add value wherever I go . . . In fact, my guess is I'm the type of person with the type of values that if you met me in person . . you'd really respect me and actually--dare I say it--like me . . . so don't be politically correct . . say the things you want about people and see how people respond . . .Maybe the things you are attempting to say don't really reflect the values you'd like to show to the world. Maybe they aren't really reality, just the way that Joe wanted to believe for a minute that Elijah was getting opportunities he didn't deserve and had to be reminded of reality.
BTW I don't hate white people . . . I'm over 70% white . . my whole family is white . . two of my children are white . . . I just know what it means to walk through this world as a woman of color in the US . . . Do you?
From: Elaine Friedland Date: Mar 31 16:15 CDT
ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center have an historic record of accurate descriptions of hate groups. The so-called "American Renaissance" appears to be reinvention of the KKK and it appears that you approve of such political orientation.
From: Mike Fratto (forum moderator) Date: March 31, 2010 4:46:51 PM CDT
When Kevin Kervick first changed the original subject line to the one I have in the subject line above, I had hoped this would be a short lived diversion. Unfortunately, it hasn't.
It is my opinion that this subject, while not directly violating our rules, serves as a basis for making a number of statements that do not encourage actual discussion of various policy issues affecting the United States; our goal.
I am therefore, asking all members to cease responding to or sending messages using this subject or anything like it. I recognize that due to the way various email accounts handle posts from e-democracy that there may be a comment or two still in the process of being received by all members. However, failure to abide by this request will result in a private warning to every member who posts or responds to a post with the above subject. This includes any post to the forum in response to this post.
I am encouraging all of you to move on to another subject. Thank you for taking this serious.
US Forum Manager
to: main page to: e-mail wars