Masbury, read this article and you'll see where I'm coming from.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNmNjdmMTk3ZjNkYzQ2MjhmZDA3OGE2MDQyZmI3MmY=


This one pretty much says it all:

An even more audacious accusation came after Obama spoke of “bitter” working people who “cling to guns or religion.” Critics slammed him as an elitist, and many conservatives noted that he was the latest in a long line of liberal snobs. One may think that that likening Obama to Adlai Ewing Stevenson II and John Forbes Kerry is about as un-racist as you can get. Yet journalist David K. Shipler wrote: “‘Elitist’ is another word for ‘arrogant,’ which is another word for ‘uppity,’ that old...

Masbury, read this article and you'll see where I'm coming from.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNmNjdmMTk3ZjNkYzQ2MjhmZDA3OGE2MDQyZmI3MmY=


This one pretty much says it all:

An even more audacious accusation came after Obama spoke of “bitter” working people who “cling to guns or religion.” Critics slammed him as an elitist, and many conservatives noted that he was the latest in a long line of liberal snobs. One may think that that likening Obama to Adlai Ewing Stevenson II and John Forbes Kerry is about as un-racist as you can get. Yet journalist David K. Shipler wrote: “‘Elitist’ is another word for ‘arrogant,’ which is another word for ‘uppity,’ that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.”

And “outlandish” is another word for “absurd,” which is another word for “preposterous.”

Well, quoting the National Review in retaliation for a clip from the Huffington post simply indicates that we come from two very different perspectives. I'm sure you've toyed with the idea that we could find the conservative lens just as suspect as you find the progressive lens. And we could spend a great amount of time and energy in defending our respective positions. Would we change each other's minds? Judging from past comments I doubt it.

Where we may come to agreement is the continuing gaffs that Bush makes in diplomacy.The photo op with President Arroyo was not a spur of the moment get together. It was not a spontaneous event. These are staged and choreographed for the press. Don...

Well, quoting the National Review in retaliation for a clip from the Huffington post simply indicates that we come from two very different perspectives. I'm sure you've toyed with the idea that we could find the conservative lens just as suspect as you find the progressive lens. And we could spend a great amount of time and energy in defending our respective positions. Would we change each other's minds? Judging from past comments I doubt it.

Where we may come to agreement is the continuing gaffs that Bush makes in diplomacy.The photo op with President Arroyo was not a spur of the moment get together. It was not a spontaneous event. These are staged and choreographed for the press. Don't you think that Bush could have prepared just a little better? Or would that have marred his reputation as the President that consults his "gut" more than the facts? I think that given Bush's record on foreign policy anyone would have to admit that that is not his strong suit. Many of his supporters are belatedly but nonetheless coming to that conclusion also.

And regardless of where you stand on politics, you have to concede that Shipler was being ludicrous.

Actually no. I live in the deep south and while racism is not confined
to this region there is a long and brutal history of racism that is not
resolved to this day. Enormous strides have been made since I was
growing up. What racism that exists today is in many ways hidden behind
a polite veneer of acceptability. Given that, I only have to drive 20
or 30 miles outside the city and I'm transport back 50 years in
time.

I suppose a comparison could be made to the Christian Right and their own language that we hear of directed towards their adherents. There are clues and ways of...

And regardless of where you stand on politics, you have to concede that Shipler was being ludicrous.

Actually no. I live in the deep south and while racism is not confined
to this region there is a long and brutal history of racism that is not
resolved to this day. Enormous strides have been made since I was
growing up. What racism that exists today is in many ways hidden behind
a polite veneer of acceptability. Given that, I only have to drive 20
or 30 miles outside the city and I'm transport back 50 years in
time.

I suppose a comparison could be made to the Christian Right and their own language that we hear of directed towards their adherents. There are clues and ways of interpreting speech that are used by any special interest group.

And just to set the record straight, for all the bone headed things that Bush as said I've never viewed him as a racist and would reject an interpretation of him in that regard. IMO, the clip was focused more on Bush's clumsiness and lack of curiosity when it comes to differing cultures or points of view. I don't consider his comments racist, simply immature and lacking diplomacy. That's bad enough.

Bush is an excellent example of recurring ethnic insensitivity, inexcusable in chief executive.

Wonderful turn of phrase. And I agree that for someone in his unique position it's inexcusable. He's not some nordinary Joe that we can defend with a "aw, he didn't really mean that". His words and actions can have far reaching consequences and after nearly 8 years in office if he hasn't learned that by now he's not going to learn it.

I can't help but remember what his mother said about the people in New Orleans after Katrina. It's not much of a stretch to figure out where Bush got his condescending attitude (faux cowboy image aside, we all know what a sham that is). To repeat ...

Bush is an excellent example of recurring ethnic insensitivity, inexcusable in chief executive.

Wonderful turn of phrase. And I agree that for someone in his unique position it's inexcusable. He's not some nordinary Joe that we can defend with a "aw, he didn't really mean that". His words and actions can have far reaching consequences and after nearly 8 years in office if he hasn't learned that by now he's not going to learn it.

I can't help but remember what his mother said about the people in New Orleans after Katrina. It's not much of a stretch to figure out where Bush got his condescending attitude (faux cowboy image aside, we all know what a sham that is). To repeat an old cliche, he's the quy born on 3rd base who thinks he hit a triple.

I think that it may not be helpful, the way we make things into
either-or dichotomies. There are not two groups: racists, and
non-racists. There is a vast continuum, and where the line is is an
unproductive debate, because it descends into whether one "is" or
"isn't",

To refocus this discussion somewhat, when it comes to Bush I believe he's simply, as you so eloquently put it, prone to "recurring ethnic insensitivity". But I really don't buy into your racist continuum theory. I can't grasp someone being just a little bit racist. It is possible for someone to be racist and not overtly display his or her racism. That doesn't negate the fact that it still exists. If a person judges another person based on the color of their skin or their ethnicity, instead of getting to know the person on their merits alone, then I have no problem in viewing that person as a racist.

I've known man people from the south who are not racist, but for example they still don't agree with "mixed" marriage

And if that's not racist I don't know what else to call it.

So it is a complicated issue to be sure.

Not that complicated. You can put lipstick on a pig...

racism from a non-white point of view would have an entirely different definition, and would be more about white privilege

As I said before, lipstick on a pig...

However you choose to paint it, when you make decisions based on race alone it's racism.

And before someone brings up affirmative action, that takes into consideration numerous factors such as socio-economic st...

I've known man people from the south who are not racist, but for example they still don't agree with "mixed" marriage

And if that's not racist I don't know what else to call it.

So it is a complicated issue to be sure.

Not that complicated. You can put lipstick on a pig...

racism from a non-white point of view would have an entirely different definition, and would be more about white privilege

As I said before, lipstick on a pig...

However you choose to paint it, when you make decisions based on race alone it's racism.

And before someone brings up affirmative action, that takes into consideration numerous factors such as socio-economic status, background, demographics, and acedemic performance to name a few.

Racism is much more than overt hatred. It is a generational issue and will unfortunately be with us for quite some time.

Atl it's tradition.

Oh, please don't be condescending to me now. I don't really care what you call it. If you don't see that this is plain and simply racism I can't help that.

BTW, "tradition" was the same reasoning used by slave holders. Along with a boatload of other rationalizations.

A lot of them were very good friends with people all accross the spectrum.

You really appear to be tone deaf about this. "Some of my friends are..."! Please!

I'm sure these folks you're referring to have good qualities. They, in all likelihood don't abuse their children, if they have any. They may contribute to charities. They probably hold down jobs and obey laws. Nonethe...

Atl it's tradition.

Oh, please don't be condescending to me now. I don't really care what you call it. If you don't see that this is plain and simply racism I can't help that.

BTW, "tradition" was the same reasoning used by slave holders. Along with a boatload of other rationalizations.

A lot of them were very good friends with people all accross the spectrum.

You really appear to be tone deaf about this. "Some of my friends are..."! Please!

I'm sure these folks you're referring to have good qualities. They, in all likelihood don't abuse their children, if they have any. They may contribute to charities. They probably hold down jobs and obey laws. Nonetheless, if they make decisions based on race alone, such as mixed marriage, interracial dating, moving to the other side of the side walk because a black man approaches or any one of a thousand instances like this then they are still racist.

There's another level of racism, seen much more commonly by people of color and often invisible to white people. I guess you'd call it something like institutional racism.

I had a rather life-changing encounter with an article some years ago that, as it happens, has been recently clipped by Lexica. It's called White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, and I think it is hugely important. I strongly recommend not only the clip but also the piece itself (it's almost impossible to communicate it in a thousand characters). It has been revolutionary to me through the years.

It may start you thinki...

There's another level of racism, seen much more commonly by people of color and often invisible to white people. I guess you'd call it something like institutional racism.

I had a rather life-changing encounter with an article some years ago that, as it happens, has been recently clipped by Lexica. It's called White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, and I think it is hugely important. I strongly recommend not only the clip but also the piece itself (it's almost impossible to communicate it in a thousand characters). It has been revolutionary to me through the years.

It may start you thinking about why being "color-blind" avoids what may be the biggest part of the challenge of racism.

You're welcome! The difficulty - of which white people generally are unaware - is that all we who are white benefit from racism. So, when we talk about racism, we can't just mean racial hatred, or we will never undo the societal hold that racism still has on us. We could have no racial hatred, and still be part of a hugely racist society.
Further - another hard part - is that being "color-blind" aggravates the problem. For white privilege exists by being invisible to white people. And the only way to undo it is to focus specifically on race, and take steps to equalize privilege. Whites, for instance, now have unfair access to, say, Yale (think GWB), by virtue of the existence of legacy adm...

You're welcome! The difficulty - of which white people generally are unaware - is that all we who are white benefit from racism. So, when we talk about racism, we can't just mean racial hatred, or we will never undo the societal hold that racism still has on us. We could have no racial hatred, and still be part of a hugely racist society.
Further - another hard part - is that being "color-blind" aggravates the problem. For white privilege exists by being invisible to white people. And the only way to undo it is to focus specifically on race, and take steps to equalize privilege. Whites, for instance, now have unfair access to, say, Yale (think GWB), by virtue of the existence of legacy admissions, created by the admission patterns of previous generations. How do we create genuinely equal access? And similar systems exist, often unspoken, in business and government. To simply become color-blind at this point is to ignore the fact that the system is not color-blind: it favors whites, because whites are the legacy holders. Thus, previous generations' racism is still perpetuated.