Monkeybot

Damn, livius took the words right out of my mouth.

I think Jesse Jackson's an ass, but comparing him to lynch mobs strains credibility, methinks.

donaldkilroy

Oh...well, since you put it that way then the first thing that comes to my mind in answer to this is basically that she made a statement of opinion based on the totality of Mr. Jackson's life and the negative things he's done that has invariably hurt his community, among the American people as a whole.

The only example I can think of, if it's truly relevant or not, is the case of Tawana Brawley. How Mr. Jackson and Al Sharpton to this day still defend what she did and protest it's because of racism she did it and that alone is proof that white on black racism exists therefore gives rhyme and reason to their so-called "leadership." Hence, the end justifies the means. The end being their position of power and the money they make because of it. Which is, of course, at the expense of their community (and America) on charges of racism existing, real or fabricated, and their 'preaching' that they will have a hard time making it in the "white" world without their quote unquote leadership paving the way.

Other than that, I am not really all that committed to proving that statement and I think it's best left up to her to do so since she was the one who specifically said it. Sorry Loren...

donaldkilroy

livius drusus

Again, the issue is not whether Jackson's antics have hurt his community or the American people as a whole. The statement was that Jesse Jacksons words have cause far more harm than the words/actions of the KKK or lynch mobs. That is a very bold assertion and cannot be waved away as a matter of opinion. I'm sure it's Loren's opinion. If he wishes it to be taken seriously, however, he will have to make a case instead of simply reiterating it.

As for Tawana Brawley, exactly how was Jackson's support of her con more harmful to blacks than the KKK?

contracycle

So, this, uh "race hustling"...


"Shakedown is the inside story of how Jackson virtually invented "race hustling" "

Tell me about this 'race hustling'. Is this not alleged to be the practice of convincing people that they have been discrimiated against, rather than at fault for their own failures?

Does this not imply that there is no real discrimination, only the persecution complex of imagined discrimination?

Is this not the same allegation made here by Capitalism magazine at http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2016 ?

Note the closing line referring to "black victicrats"

intellecutalconservative.com also refers Al Sharpton as "a race hustling pverty pimp" over here http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle2038.html

And then, my very favourite Uncle Tom, Thomas Sewell, gives us the joyous article "Don't Distract Us From the Main Task of Hustling Whitey", described as:

'Although race realities have changed dramatically in this country, race hustlers continue to view any black achievement as "elitism" to be downplayed.'


Thats right folks, racism is just enother Liberal Elite Media Conspiracy!

This trope occurs consistently accross the American republican right. If it is not a party plank, it may as well be. It has no bearing on reality, and actually consitutes an organised and deliberate assault on the civili liberties notionally achieved in the 60's. It seems to to assert, rather amazingly, that all vestiges of racism must have been banished into Limbo as soon as the legislation was signed - a remarkable achievement for a central government by conservative lights, no? This fact is taken as a given (perfectly in line with the conception of America as a beacon of perfection for the world) and despite clear evidence of continued, institutionalised, racism in, for example, police forces.

This then is combined denial of the existance of racism, culpability for racism, and a claim that those who tackle racism are the real problem. It is highly unsavoury and completely bogus.

Monkeybot

It wouldn't surprise me. If I had to explain it, I'd suggest a variety of factors.

Part of the discrimination may truly be racist assumptions like "blacks are dishonest/lazy/whatever." Of course these are pretty unacceptable assumptions, and I don't think more needs to be said on that count.

Part of it might be fear of people who are different from you, or discomfort at the idea of having to deal with it. It wouldn't surprise me if some bosses looked at "Jill," and then looked at "Tameka," and said, "I probably won't have to leave my comfort zone if I hire Jill, but who knows what will happen if I hire Tameka?" IOW, I think there are unconscious assumptions about "black culture" and "white culture" at play. If I hire someone from my own "culture," we'll be on the same wavelength and we won't have to deal with cultural barriers. I'm not endorsing this view, of course, since it's fraught with a lot of assumptions, but I'd wager that something similar goes through the minds of people who make hiring decisions. And of course this sort of racism isn't limited to white people, but in the USA whites are generally the ones with power, so it makes more sense to talk about white racism than any other kind. (Am I making sense here?)

Part of unconscious racism may simply be the familiarity of a name like "Jill" over a name like "Tameka." Again, I think it goes back to the comfort zone mentioned above. It might not be a negative reaction to the "black" name per se, but simply a more postiive reaction to the "white" one. It may not be intentionally malicious, but of course, it's just as harmful when you're looking at hiring and/or renting decisions.

I suspect a lot of these thought processes are unconscious -- or kept well-hidden by employers who wisely choose not to broadcast their racist views (if they have them). As such, you can't really legislate against them. I think the best we can do is raise awareness about these issues and hope that employers are more willing to take a good, hard look at themselves and their assumptions when they make hiring decisions.

Blixy Sticks

You know, it's interesting. You rarely see Orientals, Hispanics or Eastern Indians shouting racism from the hilltops. You don't see employers turning their noses up at applicants with names like Sonjay and Chan. Why is that?

Maybe it's because Sonjay and Chan most likely weren't raised with a chip on their shoulder. Most likely, Sonjay and Chan weren't raised to blame whitey when the chips are down.

livius drusus

Your hyperbole makes this statement hard to refute. I've never seen anyone shouting racism from the hilltops. If you mean to say that only black people complain about being discriminated against, then that is easily enough countered.

ModelMinority
Ethnic Majority
El Centro De La Raza
MANAA

Again, an unproven assertion. I'm sure there are employers who don't hire Asians. However, even if I qualify your statement into something more reasonable, I can think of several reasons why Asians might face less discrimination in hiring, like, for instance, the stereotype of the hardworking, uncomplaining Asian and the relative cheapness of imported labour.

This imo unconstructive and pointlessly sarcastic generalization does not in any way reflect my experience with black people. If it's a sense of entitlement that outrages you, then I suggest you avoid rich white men because in my experience, nobody is more likely to demand attention and blame others for their problems than the most privileged of all.

Loren Pechtel

We aren't saying there is no racism now. We are saying that it's by far not the only reason black people are poor.

Saying that whitey is *THE* cause of all black problems means the blacks won't be motivated to fix the problems that aren't from whitey. Thus the main part of the problem won't get fixed--and so they will remain in poverty.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Monkeybot
What I don't see is how Jackson is "keeping people in poverty"

By covering up the real problems that are keeping them in poverty.

For example, a report came out some months ago in which employers were more likely to hire people with "white" names than "black" ones, all other qualifications being equal.

That was discussed on here when it came out. One thing I notice--the names they listed as getting hired more are common names, the ones not hired are uncommon.
People remember common things better than uncommon ones. Until they address that I don't think much of the study.

Or look at the Florida debacle in Election 2000. Blacks were overwhelmingly stripped from the voter rolls for, well, no apparent reason. This is modern-day disenfranchisement. And we're saying that Jesse Jackson is the real problem?

Again, this has been discussed on here. There's no reason to think there was anything racially motivated here. The target wasn't blacks, it was Democrats.

I guess what I'm saying is, HOW is Jesse Jackson keeping people down? Throw me a bone here. Do you have any concrete examples of people slacking off directly because of something Jackson said or did?

Of course we can't! However, again and again the blacks blame whitey for things that weren't one bit racial. Jesse Jackson promotes such attitudes.

I have no problem with criticism of Jackson, I just think it's pretty ludicrous to blame him for ALL of the problems black Americans face today.

He isn't responsible for all of them. He's just one of the big causes of the problems not getting fixed.

Gurdur

Heya, LiviusDrusus, while you're replying to Blixy Stick's various agitprop assertions, you might like to know that when Blixy Sticks first came onto this board, he accused the "White/Caucasian" "race" of being genocidal by genetical determination, and the most genocidal "race" in the world, and he implied me of being racist and genocidal solely because I am "white/Caucasian" (plus I had committed the crime of refuting all his statements simply on the facts).
In combination with his recent statements, it really makes you wonder where he's at, no ?