Bang the Drum - Latest Comments in David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:08:35 -0000

Tanstaafl,

It's one thing to say birds of a feather flock together, and another to oppress the other birds because they look different.

Whites have oppressed blacks for centuries. That blacks would push back on that is unsurprising.

As a white person, I don't view applause for calling out racism for what it is spewing anti-white hate. I do think it's high time that all of us, black and white and brown and any other color, start figuring out that it's in our best interests to look beyond race to other, more important issues. That is as true for whites as it is Hispanics, Asians, blacks, etc.

Since I'm the owner of this particular blog, I will say what I want here, just as I've given you a forum to express an opposite view. Not only is your characterization of what I said erroneous, it's intended to bully me and it's not going to work.

And with that, I think we've all had an opportunity to say what needs to be said, so comments will now close on this post.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Tanstaafl — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:44:23 -0000

So now that, as you say Karoli, race has become an issue in the campaign, you accept that it affects the way blacks vote without denouncing them, but Whites who behave similarly you denounce as "racist". It's an double standard.

Clearly race is an issue. It long predates Clinton. It is both primal and universal. "Racism" is the attempt to pathologize Whites for having perfectly natural human instincts to favor their own - which ironically they express in far weaker form than can easily be found amongst blacks, jews, latinos or asians. But you seem not at all interested in that.

Stop spewing anti-White hate. Is that coherent enough for you?

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:24:26 -0000

Danielj,

You're hardly coherent. If you look at the polls as we progressed through the primary process, the shift for blacks factoring in race to their vote happened after the Clintons made Obama's race an issue in the campaign. Also, the polls have consistently indicated a higher percentage of whites voting based on race than blacks.

Your comment about blacks 'not being able to recruit...' speaks volumes. As if they were PERMITTED to recruit when they HAD NO VOTE.

Does anyone not see through Daniel? He comes and tosses around big words that he doesn't fully understand while baring his racism wantonly in the statements preceding.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

danielj — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:09:49 -0000

Yes Mr. Obama's Reverend and Mr. Obama's wife are not racist!

Only White people are capable of racism.

Does anybody not see through Karoli?

Karoli how many Blacks were polled and asked if race was a factor in the election? What does that mean? I would vote for a Black man who had the best interests of Whites at heart!

Kevin, you are right that it is disgraceful that Black people could not recruit a decent and legitimate candidate from amongst their ranks for over two hundred years!

Candy, will Barrack get rid of NAFTA? Is he simply a Black Pat Buchannan? An economic nationalist?

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Sat, 24 May 2008 21:02:38 -0000

neonpinklime,

You have affirmed the exact point upon which we disagree. This is not a point we will ever agree upon; however, I appreciate the civil discussion, at least, for the most part.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

neonpinklime — Sat, 24 May 2008 20:35:40 -0000

Karoli,

According to you, "The second phrase standing on its own doesn't imply much of anything until it's combined with the first phrase, which clearly then distinguishes hard-working people as white."

That's what it says explicitly. That whites are hard-working. I agree. What's racist about that? It seems to me calling whites rednecks is hateful and racist. Calling them hard-working is a compliment.

And combining the two phrases, "hard-working people...hard working white people" still means she's singling out white people as hard-working. That's a good thing.

One often hears the praise of illegal aliens that "they're so hard-working." Using your logic, that's racist. Calling browns, blacks, or orientals hard-working isn't racist. Calling whites hard-working isn't either, unless you're racist against whites.

You're the person who needs to "live in reality."

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:45:25 -0000

neonpinklime,

Why did you edit the statement? The statement was "hard working people...hard-working white people".

The second phrase standing on its own doesn't imply much of anything, until it's combined with the first phrase, which clearly then distinguishes hard-working people as white.

that's what's inherently racist. Get serious. There's racism in many cultures around this country. Then there are folks like Flanders there, who sort of ramble on about utopian ideas that no candidate or country will ever achieve because yes...there are oppressed people (white, black, brown and mixtures), there are racists and there are media conglomerates. Let's all at least live in reality.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

neonpinklime — Sat, 24 May 2008 13:32:34 -0000

Karoli,

It doesn't imply anything to me. What it explicitly says to me is that there are hard working white people.

Now explain to me what is "inherently racist" in the statement "hard working white people?"

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Flanders Fields — Sat, 24 May 2008 04:02:39 -0000

The matter which is of the biggest concern seems to be being overlooked, and that is that someone in a forum with a captive audience of millions has an unchallenged platform to engage in the bashing whites and conservatives for their beliefs. That has become so accepted that it is not even mentioned as a factor. The Marxists in media know that there is no similar outlet for those who disagree, or nationally recognized spokesmen for those whom they bash (because they allow on their media only those of their choice) and that there has not been for more than forty years.

Those "brown lips" who are the Marxist media have consistently promoted the interests of blacks, browns, and other spectrums of the "rainbow" which they aspire to use in order to disarm and destroy traditional America. They are a vanguard and spokemen for the disparate elements of minorities and the divisions of society (much of it their creation) which can be termed most appropriately as anti-American.

It does no good to argue that it creates discussion among the people and challenges them to do better. That is the classic thesis/anti-thesis of the leftist dialogue which they promote. Division and change of any type, guided and led by their exclusive national ability to communicate, is their objective. They create dialogue because they have the power to do so, and that dialogue consistently challenges American values and the values of the whites who are (or who, at least, once were) the representatives and proponents for American values. Those values were once for the interests of all races and promoted a better society for all. Media and leftists would not want that message to prevail because it does not promote their interests.

The consistent oppression of whites and America by media is plainly led by leftist anti-Americans. That this is overlooked and so weakly denied in the face of evidence otherwise emboldens the anti-white elements and the loonies among the anti-American "disaffected" groups to mouth about the various ways in which they are "oppressed". I think we are sick of hearing all of them.

I would vote for anyone for President who would disband national media and let the people create their own, and who would ban the use of that most objectionable of terms - racist. Anyone, white or black, who has a legitimate belief of any type can be and will be banged over the head with it. That is a Marxist creed used to create division. It is not a descriptive term for any other reason.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Sat, 24 May 2008 02:26:15 -0000

That she hasn't resonated with them. That making statements like the one about it taking a President (rather than MLK) to get civil rights legislation passed sent the message that she truly believes in the superiority of her race? That all the posturing about civil rights was just that -- posturing?

I don't know, show me where she's specifically reached out and tried to meet black voters where they are. Knocking back shots of crown royal and talking about shooting out in the wilderness with Daddy isn't likely to say much to them.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Tanstaafl — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:55:31 -0000

Yeah, she wanted to specifically acknowledge Whites who are voting for her. I think it implies she can read polls. Among other things the polls show blacks are not voting for her, despite years of championing their causes.

Why do you think it implies?

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:08:25 -0000

neonpinklime,

think about it for a minute. the exact quote was "hard working people...hard-working white people.."

Does the specificity of the correction imply anything at all to you? Anything?

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

neonpinklime — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:06:29 -0000

Karoli said:

When Clinton said she appealed to “hard-working white voters” she legitimized the racism inherent in that statement.

What is the inherent racism in appealing to hard-working white votes? The only inherent racism is that they are white.

Appealing to hard-working black voters, there is no inherent racism.

Appealing to hard-working latino voters, there is no inherent racism.

But appealing to hard-working white voters, that's inherently racist.

Some people might think this is strange, or wrong. But in America it is situation normal. Whites are considered inherently racist by virtue of the color of their skin. They cannot be victims of racism only perpetrators. I'm glad that there are people out there like Tanstaafl who are willing and able to embrace the concepts of equality and respect for all, including whites. That means not degrading any race -- including whites -- at any time for any reason. Such truly fair minded person find Gergen's comments hateful, shameful, and denounce them.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Tanstaafl — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:54:01 -0000

I see. So what you dislike is "idiotic" or "UNTRUE", and my examples of analogous issues are "of no concern" or "red herrings". You give blacks and jews a pass, but Whites get the full force of your distrust and cynicism.

Many blacks vote as they do because they think it is in their best interests as blacks. They say it out loud. That's why they call blacks who vote republican "uncle Tom" or "oreo". And that's fine by you. But if Whites learn about Wright, and black liberation theology, and they say it affects their vote, you just can't abide it. You call it "idiotic". You dismiss White concerns as "UNTRUE". You assume Whites are driven by ignorance and hate rather than driven by a legitimate concern for themselves.

That's anti-White.

You don't absolve yourself of that charge by dismissing White concerns as illegitimate. You cement it.

Accusing Hillary of "playing the race card" is an absurd inversion of reality. As usual the race card is being played against Whites - we're the ones being called names here, we're the ones you're smearing.

You're not alone in this twisted thinking. Most of the media pundits and politicians and professors are in agreement with you. Whites are ignorant racists and everybody else is just doing what is normal and natural. That's anti-racism. It means anti-White. It's a poisonous, reality-denying, genocide-inducing idea.

Can you handle that truth?

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:41:40 -0000

Adrienne,

Your point is well-taken. Getting out the vote is crucial. I just wonder if it's too much to ask that the vote be informed, too.

Taanstafl,

In response to your specific questions:

Can’t you give Whites the benefit of the doubt and say, you know what, these race-related issues swirling around Obama, despite the press’ attempts to downplay them, they really are something Whites might have legitimate concerns about?

Not when they parrot idiotic and UNTRUE statements like "He's a Muslim, I know it." even as they cite Rev. Wright and his involvement with Wright's church for 20 years as a reason not to vote for him. Since when does color disqualify him from leadership? Moreover, why isn't the fact that he's half-white ever mentioned?

Do blacks who fret about whether White candidates really have their best interests in mind freak you out too? Do you assume they hate Whites?

Blacks have traditionally come out in force for white candidates. They are the one voting bloc that Democrats have been able to count on. I certainly don't see a lot of 'fretting' about that.

Do jews who are very concerned that their children only marry other jews concern you? Do you scream “racist” in their face? Do you think they do it because they hate anyone who isn’t jewish?

Who Jews marry is of no concern to me. It has absolutely no bearing on the leadership of the country I live in and love.

Do you think pundits should call for politicians to reject the votes of blacks and jews who think this way?

The Jewish issues you raise are red herrings. They do not have any bearing on the outcome of an election. I see no evidence that the black vote in this election was made on a racial basis until Bill Clinton and subsequently, Hillary Clinton, as well as Hillary Clinton's surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro tried to marginalize a legitimate contender for the Democratic nomination on the basis of his race.

Of course, Geraldine Ferraro's argument AGAINST Obama was a dog whistle calling all good white voters to reciprocate, which was the point of Gergen's comments.

The only players of the race card here have been the Clinton campaign, and they've played it over and over again. What's pathetic is how easily it's used as an excuse to bolster racism in this country.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Tanstaafl — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:43:48 -0000

I don't understand how appealing to "hard-working white voters" translates into hating blacks. That's exactly the anti-White leap of logic. You and Gergen and Toobin assume that Whites who are conscious of their race, and concerned about their racial interests to the extent it affects their votes, are not only wrong, but BAD. Thus you think denouncing them is GOOD.

Can't you give Whites the benefit of the doubt and say, you know what, these race-related issues swirling around Obama, despite the press' attempts to downplay them, they really are something Whites might have legitimate concerns about?

Do blacks who fret about whether White candidates really have their best interests in mind freak you out too? Do you assume they hate Whites?

Do jews who are very concerned that their children only marry other jews concern you? Do you scream "racist" in their face? Do you think they do it because they hate anyone who isn't jewish?

Do you think pundits should call for politicians to reject the votes of blacks and jews who think this way?

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Adrienne — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:43:17 -0000

Why in this country are people being criticized and classified for whom they vote? It was my understanding that a person's vote is private and that their reason for their vote is "None of your damn business".

The bashing is shaming, and a scare tactic to keep people who vote differently than you to stay away. It is a sad day in our world, when the supposed leading country of Democracy, does not actually practice freedom.

Instead of bashing people for who and why they vote, we should be encouraging more people TO VOTE.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:17:06 -0000

Tanstaafl,

I object to all of it. I object, and have said so on this blog more than once, to the assumption that I should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I object to the notion that the topic of Israel is tiptoed around by everyone for fear of offending someone or invoking Godwin's law.

People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, from the way they comb their hair to the way they talk. That's their right. But Jews are not racist for wanting to choose a candidate that they believe will protect Israel any more than Iranian-Americans are racist for choosing to vote for a candidate that they believe won't attack Iran. A vote SHOULD express the hopes, desires and best interests of the voters.

Again, don't confuse a call to reject a premise for a vote by a candidate with the voter's right to vote that way.

When Clinton said she appealed to "hard-working white voters" she legitimized the racism inherent in that statement. Are there "hard-working black/hispanic/asian/indian/etc voters"? Of course. But if you're someone who really hates blacks, that single phrase gave permission to vote for Hillary on the belief that she would stand for the white folks who worked hard, to the exclusion of others.

That's what Gergen said she should reject, and not only did she NOT reject it, she embraced it.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Tanstaafl — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:36:06 -0000

The elephant in the room is more than 90% of blacks voting for Obama. Nobody criticizes that. Another even bigger elephant is that jews openly and explicitly discuss which candidate would be better for them as jews. These groups don't just vote more lopsided than Whites do, they discuss it beforehand. Nobody in the media ever calls them racist or calls on candidates to renounce those votes.

If you're going to make a big deal about Whites but not these other groups then your're anti-White. If you can't admit that you're in denial. Most liberals have both problems.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:35:35 -0000

neonpinklime,

Those Kentucky/WV folks are my relatives too. And they're rednecks. I have never, ever heard the term redneck associated with genetically inferior.

As you point out, wikipedia definitions are often incorrect, particularly when you get to the secondary definitions.

Also, if you listen to what Gergen said, he didn't denounce the people saying what they said. He denounced Clinton's embrace of it.

They're entitled to have racist opinions. They're also entitled to read and forward idiotic emails invented by racist missionaries working in Africa, of all places. He didn't deny that. All he said was that Clinton should reject it.

You can spin what he said, but you're not being intellectually honest if you continue to assume he took aim at the voters as some kind of personal attack. He never said they weren't entitled to their opinions, or to vote the way they wanted. He DID say that Clinton shouldn't court them.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:31:26 -0000

Oh, what a lot of bullshit that is. In my mind, redneck is more of an attitude. And it happens to be an attitude that comes straight from people who are probably related to my ancestors.

Gergen's remarks were right on the money. He pointed at the elephant on the table that no one wants to identify.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Tanstaafl — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:47:01 -0000

Obviously if you're "white" and somebody using slurs like "redneck" doesn't bother you then you're deracinated. Good for you.

If you're an anti-racist and you don't like people making judgements based on race then you should be upset about David Gergen. Unless you're a hypocrite and anti-racist really means is anti-White.

What Gergen said was anti-White. He assumed voters who were White who said race mattered to them were bad people. He didn't try to account for why they might say that. He didn't show any interest whatsoever in what the black statistics were or how they might compare.

I wrote about this at my blog. You anti-racist liberals think it's historic when somebody disparages Whites. You are what you hate.

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

neonpinklime — Fri, 23 May 2008 00:33:32 -0000

Redneck is a racial slur, as defined by Wikipedia:

“Destitute whites were increasingly labeled “poor white trash” (meaning financially and genetically worse off than others) and worse; “cracker,” “clay eater,” “linthead,” “peckerwood,” “buckra” and especially redneck only scratched the surface of rejection and slander.”

So, genetically worse off. In other words, whites are genetically inferior. I can't imagine a more hateful thing to say about a race.

Can you imagine the reaction if blacks, latinos, or orientals were referred to by Mr. Gergen using a similar term that, among other things, means that their race is genetically inferior? Calling a race genetically inferior sounds like, hmmm, uhhhh, racism? Yeah that's it. Oh but wait a minute, whites can't be the victims of racism. Gee whiz. You got me there.

If Mr. Gergen had referred to blacks or latinos as genetically inferior, it would be an outrage. But when it's done to whites, that's not racist, it's not even objectionable.

Kudos to Karoli for the citation. :)

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

neonpinklime — Fri, 23 May 2008 00:25:35 -0000

Redneck is a racial slur, as defined by Wikipedia:

“Destitute whites were increasingly labeled “poor white trash” (meaning financially and genetically worse off than others) and worse; “cracker,” “clay eater,” “linthead,” “peckerwood,” “buckra” and especially redneck only scratched the surface of rejection and slander.”

So, genetically worse off. In other words, whites are genetically inferior. I can't imagine a more hateful thing to say about a race.

Can you imagine the reaction if blacks, latinos, or orientals were referred to by Mr. Gergen using a similar term that, among other things, means that their race is genetically inferior? Calling a race genetically inferior sounds like, hmmm, uhhhh, racism? Yeah that's it. Oh but wait a minute, whites can't be the victims of racism. Gee whiz. You got me there.

Afterall, whites in Kansas deserve to be called genetically inferior by Mr. Gergen because they're white. That's why it's not something to be upset over. Blame the victims for being white. If they'd been black or latino, it would be an outrage.

Kudos to Karoli for the citation. :)

Re: David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote

Karoli — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:39:02 -0000

Hey, I didn't say it wasn't disparaging. It is. It's also a stereotype. But it's not RACIST, which was what you were attempting to link up. It's also not defamatory unless one says to another individual falsely, "Hey, you're a redneck".

Referring to the "redneck vote" is not a defamatory term. Disparaging, yes. Negative, yes. But not racist.