Prometheus 6

It's not a reach if you consider believe in the thermodynamic laws of hatred twds blacks (never destroyed or diminished just changes shape) and take into account that all legalized discriminatory measures's enforcement provisions (immigration, anti-terror etc) will undoubtedly be enforced against blacks (whether or not, most often not, black segment of the population is a significant perpetrator of act being legislated)...any increase in policing or controlled educational powers (i.e. anything that flubs the public school system etc)on the one hand will most definitely be applied to blacks disproportionally to whites (assuming said change is a negative thing/enforcement)...In addition, it is a flood gate openne/gateway hate (not to minimize discrimination against gays) but gets the stormtroops riled and ready for their more accepted targets....think cat calls directed twds blonde USO dancer etc, and the subsequent "more than cat calls" directed twds and into the native girls in A.O...the ability to openly get discriminatory laws/debate etc mainstreamed against gays has coincided, no, facilitated the increased (well not realy increased, just more blatant/successful) incidence of similar measures against blacks, p.o.c. Not to mention the fact that the people empowered and riled up get actual resources which will then be used for other causes whichare hardly P.O.C. positive...think of the churches being funded etc by Bush et al...for the anti-gay crusade and overlap into abortion issues, vouchers, and other "morality laws"....blah blah blah :) Keep up the great work!

Because too many of them are racists who think that a debate about sexual mores entitles them to say outrageous garbage like this. And when they're called on it, they do what the Krl kid just did to you, they tell you in condescending fashion that you're ignorant, or bigoted. Translation: "We're the 'new niggers' ('we' being mostly white men and women who benefit from and are conditioned by white supremacy as much as any white person, sexual predilections notwithstanding). And the 'old niggers'? If they don't like it they can go to hell." And we're expected to be okay with white people with that kind of mentality co-opting our struggle. Promote and celebrate it even. Screw that.

they tell you in condescending fashion that you're ignorant, or bigoted.

Me?

Honestly, I thought he was goofing around.  

Too inflamed.

What's with this Solar cat? What comment were you reading? Where did I approach with condescend? Where in my original posting did I claim promo 6 cat was bigoted or ignorant? The tone was flippant etc...but don't get it twisted...visceral hatred as expressed by these groups twds gays (whatever designated/acceptibly harrassed member of the "untermenschen" as they would see it) invariably leads to reinvigorated hatred (measured in overt expression/legislation against etc) twds the old standbys...blacks (ni**ers), Native Americans (injuns/savages/redskins) and increasingly Chicano(a)s...I don't see how stating this is controversial. They are intertwined (not entirely but so far as the perps of hatred go, they are). I mean there ARENT any groups pinning for anti-gay legislation/telling homosexuals that they are going to hell that are progressive/P.O.C friendly etc. If you find a hate group that hates against blacks, surprise surprise they prolly dont like gays either. If you find an organization (think tank) funding anti-gay bigotry and legislation, guess what, that think tank is 99 percent likely to have or be funding all sorts of measures and treatises also detrimental to blacks etc...

I am confused here because I literally have no idea what comment Solar cat read... I re-read my comment and cant see a singe bloody thing to which I have been accused of: "We're the 'new niggers' ('we' being mostly white men and women who benefit from and are conditioned by white supremacy as much as any white person, sexual predilections notwithstanding)"

Where is any of that in my comment? What is so difficult with getting that all these supposedly "new" bigotries are (as I mentioned before) "gateway"bigotries which always end up leading back to the old/foundational bigotries (the one against "darkies"). You havent been the only black person in a room where whites start talking that anti-immigration nonsense or even when the fundies get on their anti-gay kicks...I have been the only black cat in the room, and I know what I know about whites and them talking about any out groups, they are also talking about blacks- why, because blacks (and Native Americans) are the pinultimate outgroup...the fixed opposite pole to which whites measure all otherness (gay, immigrant etc)...they're niggers if the outgroup is to be beaten/killed/ exploited, and red savages or injuns if the "other" is to be exterminated and wiped out. Hence, filipinos were savages (first) etc, when they were being exterminated and "niggers" during the waning days of the "pacification". Arabs (Iraqis) are "Hadjis" in the polite little left journals, but "sand niggers" out of Lt. Blue Eyed McBlonde from the Midwest in country. Red Zone is Indian Country (especially given free fire status of whole country-like Vietnam being called Injun country)...

That is the lense through which whites in this country/hell the west view outsiders...as either niggers or injuns. To be exploited or exterminated...

This has nothing to do with conceding or stating that gays are "new niggers" (they are not, and oft times if you want to talk about gentrification etc opposed to the "old niggers" as it were ) just stating that in this country/society any legal or legislative measure that is negative (i.e. stops/bars one from doing something) and punitive, not to mention openly discriminatory, will be applied overwhelmingly to blacks. RICO laws -more brothers locked up over that bit than any Italians by orders of magnitude. Immigration Deportations? I'm Haitian and no for a fact that blacks (those that can be identified or come from countries where one would be considered such upon entry here) are deported and detained in numbers totally disporportionate to the amount of said persons attempting to enter country (http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c9d2f96c300783e98295b308080bca6d)

Anti-Terror laws (bill clinton years to now) - I can t believe that you cant see how they are being used against "gangs" etc (gangmember being, to the govt/law enforcement/whites any black or hispanic who didnt go to college and happens to live in a neighborhood solar and pals want to gentrify)...

IN any case, P6, keep up the good work (as said b4), and solar, read a bloody comment before slapping out totally irrelevant/cut and pasted paranoid responses.

One

"that Krl Kid"

Krl:

I see you were serious too. Now I'm conflicted. So let's do this in two parts.

Part one. Reread the quote from the article. It says that when Southerner Strategists say "gay slur" they really mean "anti-Black slur"...euphemisms because you are enjoying saying bad words too much) and no translation is needed. Now look at all the translating you've done.

It makes no sense.

Part two. I got gay friends. Therefore I support gay rights on the personal tip. There are gay people that are Black. Any internecine homophobia concerns me as a Black partisan.  The enemy of my enemy may well be my friend. However, he is never me. If the goal is to inspire Black people to respond to anti-gay rhetoric as though it were anti-Black rhetoric, you should give up on that goal and transfer whoever thought of it...the person has too low an opinion of Black folks' intelligence to work with them successfully.

Gay people have a legitimate civil rights case, but it actually stands on its own.

I never intended to get blacks etc or any one group to fight for gay rights as if it was an assault on their own people. I was just stating that while Southerner Strategists say "gay slur" they really mean "anti-Black slur" is a bit, well, fantastic true sensee of the word...steeped in fantasy), (especially given the recent "slips" via Imus, R.I. Law school cat etc that they have no qualms with using "anti-black slur" in public, and for damn sure no fear when using it amongst "fellow travelers" as it were), it is true that gthe parties behind said push for various legislation etc are usually the same think tanks etc that push that anti-black agenda in all facets...I do not believe that say, legislation against gays is a sublimated/secret/code worded legislation against blacks, nor do I believe that blacks should fight for gay rights etc like its their issue (it most certainly is not)...just putting out that "usual suspects" public service announcement...especially in light of current administrations buying of various black preachers/pastors etc (wherein said preachers feel they can ingratiate themselves with a system/administration that despises them, by joining fight against another group (gay groups do it like a mofo to blacks as well...)) I read quote given in following light: Southern Strategists etc used to call em "anti-black slur", and legislated openly (when not lynching/burning etc em outright), times changed a bit, so they started using code words (inner city youth, "thugs", gang bangers, freeloaders, "special interests") but found said code words losing their punch (given the overwhelming success of the anti-black project as is evidenced by any indicator you want to look at), and needed a "hot button issue" to get rank and file rabid again...included gay rights ( I would say immigration more so, given its got all the things they love to hate: non-white, i.e. non-humans, economic scapegoats, culture and foreigners "stealing jobs") amongst other things....I do not equate gay legislation/slur to anti black slur/anti black mobilization...I stated, perhaps unclearly, that the "majority" mobilizing (i dont care if its about tadpoles, taxes, or whatever) has usually been bad for black people...particularly when it is around some "Other".  "If the goal is to inspire Black people to respond to anti-gay rhetoric as though it were anti-Black rhetoric"- the goal was to state that in this country, the more openly whites go about doing what they do to "Others", the more brothers need to get ready for the punch which inevitably/always will be directed twds the old standby/punching bag/most hated group...us. That's the reason I brought up the anti-terror legislation (beefed up police presence for "safety reasons"- articles u posted about cops in schools) and anti-immigration fervor/sentiment will always (like clockwork) slide into conversations about "being american" and american values etc - i.e. some more overt ridiculousness twds blacks.

One

So what you're saying is that straight-up racism has become passe. Racists need new flavors and colors to keep things fresh. I don't think I buy that. I think it's more the case that any structure that can be put to racist uses will be, even if that wasn't the original intent of creating the structure. But even if that were the case, it's still no justification for what Ms. Bright wrote i.e. gay is the new Black, or as she put it, the new nigger.

I have been trying to follow this discussion but it has been difficult because, to be truthful, KRL writes in long, windy convoluted sentences and paragraphs that I don't enjoy reading. In any case, I don't think that Susie Bright is claiming that gays are the new blacks or new niggers. I think she is trying to say, albeit a little clumsily, that white politicians and their followers in the southern United States can't get away with using overt racial slurs or even less overt codes words and phrases to appeal to racist sentiment in the electorate.

Consequently, she believes, they have either substituted, hidden, subliminated or transferred their anxieties and animosities about blacks over to homosexuals who are considered fairer game in the 21st Century. When they do, Bright is claiming, these politicians and their followers are still talking about race and they know they are even if their knowledge is at only a subconscious level. This type of intellectual disconnection may seem far fetched but I recall once watching a documentary about David Duke that contained several interviews with southern whites that were so remarkable in terms of this pattern of denial and disconnection that the film's narrator did not even bother to add a comment.

The interviews took place inside and in front of a bar and club where many of the patrons were dancing to music produced by Stax-Volt, Motown and Vee-Jay Records. In short, all of the records featured well known black singers and groups such as Gene Chandler and the Temptations (David Ruffin singing lead). When the narrator approached some of the club's patrons and asked them if they were supporting David Duke's bid for the U.S. Senate they all replied in the affirmative. When he asked one couple why they were supporting David Duke the woman said, "Why? Well, because he hates niggers that's why." I presumed that this woman later returned to the dance floor and continued shaking her booty to what can only be described as black soul music.

white politicians and their followers in the southern United States can't get away with using overt racial slurs or even less overt codes words and phrases to appeal to racist sentiment in the electorate

Since when?

Council of Conservative Citizens

Neo-Confederate

Try George Allen, the former U.S. Senator from Virginia. There are too many "macacas" living in Northern Virginia and that kind of talk makes white Christian suburban moms uncomfortable. It is too raw.

There are too many "macacas" living in Northern Virginia

I would say that's the only reason he's not a senator anymore. It's a statewide office and he had to appeal to more than one constituency. I feel confident Southern voters in white dominated areas are just fine with "that kind of talk", because they consistently elect politicians who say the same and worse to public office.

Allen lost white voters in the northen Virginia suburbs. Southern white voters are not, in the main, comfortable with that kind of talk. Again, it is too in-your-face for this era. It makes them feel conflicted. They don't want trouble. George Allen was talking too much and too loud. That's fine for Uncle Henry to spout off like this on Thanksgiving because, good Lord, you're only going to see him once a year.

Southern white voters are not, in the main, comfortable with that kind of talk. Again, it is too in-your-face for this era. It makes them feel conflicted.

You're not from the South, are you. "Conflicted." That's cute. If you're ever down my way, I'll take you for a drive down Jefferson Davis highway where they use Confederate flags for mile markers and let you go for a stroll through some all white suburbs along the way. Then you can decide for yourself how "conflicted" they feel.

OK, so what is the reason for Sen Allen's defeat, if his constituents are confortable with racist talk?

The problem here is that you want to control the entire board. I don't want to defend white southerners. What I am saying is that politicians who talk publicly in the way, for example, George Allen did makes certain segments of this electoral group uncomfortable. We are not having a discussion about what their true feelings about blacks and other minorities may be.

They don't want the troubles associated with the not so-recent past to revisit their communities. They may, in fact, have no greater tolerance for black folks than their grandparents did. The law, however, does not care what their feelings may be. It dictates what is required of their behavior. They don't want their region seen as a backwater. This means, in part, not electing or catering to politicians who publicly use racial epithets.

So, PT, do they think their legal, political, or financial interests are being served by voting out Allen?

I don't understand what what the law proscribes has to do with white southerners leaning against Allen.

publicly

Were it not rude, I'd edit your comment so that word looks like this:

publicly

Throwing out laws, policies, regulations etc. that supported state sanctioned racial segregation has resulted in a corresponding change, for the most part, in the public behavior of whites both in the south and in the north. Some black people may have hoped for a change in white folk's attitudes and this has happened to some extent but the great overwhelming majority of black folks wanted to see a change in their public behavior.

The result over one or two generations is that politicians like George Allen become extinct. Elements of his base begin to peel away because they view him as a troublemaker. It doesn't matter whether they agree with him or not. They want their crazy uncles to stay in the attic.

The result over one or two generations is that politicians like George Allen become extinct. Elements of his base begin to peel away because they view him as a troublemaker. It doesn't matter whether they agree with him or not. They want their crazy uncles to stay in the attic.

That is utterly untrue.

Ron Wilson is the former national commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. . . As of June 2006 Wilson is the Republican candidate for Anderson County Council District 6 with no opposition in the November general election. A native of Easley, South Carolina, Wilson is a proponent of the right to secession (although he does not advocate modern secession), and wants "Confederate Southern American" designated as a demographic minority group, citing them as a "separate and distinct people". . .Wilson formerly hosted a thirty-minute program titled "The Hour of Courage" on shortwave radio. Wilson currently serves on the South Carolina Board of Education. -Ron Wilson

And have you paid attention to who Giuliani's South Carolina lowcountry campaign chair is? Sons of the Confederate Veterans member Arthur Ravenel, of "National Association of Retarded People" fame? If you really think this brand of politics is uncharacteristic, I encourage you to peruse a book written by a self-described "southern nationalist" titled The Southern Nation: The New Rise of the Old South, which, incidentally, you can purchase at your local military exchange. All of this goes back to your original thesis:

...white politicians and their followers in the southern United States can't get away with using overt racial slurs or even less overt codes words and phrases to appeal to racist sentiment in the electorate.

That is simply not true. It's hard for me to believe that anyone can be so blindingly naive as to think that it is true. Every year, when I file my state tax returns, there's an option inviting me to make a contribution to the "War Between the States Heritage Preservation Fund." A Confederate flag flies in a place of honor in front of the state house. Maurice Bessinger sells barbecue  and pro-slavery tracts in the heart of the state's capitol. How much more overtly white supremacist can a political system possibly be?

In the first place, brother, I might be wrong but I have never, never been blindingly naive. Ron Wilson is the elected council member for the 6th District seat of the Anderson County Council. Anderson County, which is located about midway between Atlanta and Charlotte has a population of nearly 180,000 people. Anderson City is the county seat.

Assuming the council districts are properly apportioned then each district contains roughly 30,000 residents. For the sake of argument let's assume that District 6 has 20,000 residents who are eligible to vote. Again, for the sake of argument, let's say that 75 percent or 15,000 of them are actually registered to vote. Let's continue our policy of generosity and assume that 60 percent or 9,000 of those registered actually voted in the last county council election.

I don't know how many votes Ron Wilson received but suppose we assume that 65 percent of the voters gave him their votes. So Ron Wilson was the possible favorite of 5,850 voters in a small voting district in a small rural county in South Carolina.

Are you seriously arguing, my brother, that Ron Wilson's election disproves my point? If so, how and in what way? Given the poverty rates and the county's efforts to promote economic development I doubt if Ron Wilson's brand of politics has enough legs to promote him to any higher office in South Carolina. Again, I am not denying nor am I blind to the degree of racism that is still prevalent in South Carolina but Ron Wilson cannot win a U.S. Senate seat standing for South Carolina's right to secede from the Union.

That kind of talk might go over well with his fishing buddies and the guys at the local garage but business people don't want to hear that stuff because it alienates customers. Toyota and Honda are not going to set up a car plant in a state where a U.S. Senator is publicly spouting racist epithets. It is bad for business. Somehow you keep trying to insist that I am asserting that there has been some wholesale attitude change among white southerners. I am not making any such claim. I am arguing that there has been a behaviorial change as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and other factors. You can hate niggers all you want but don't get on Front Street with that stuff. 

Toyota and Honda are not going to set up a car plant in a state where a U.S. Senator is publicly spouting racist epithets.

Local and national politics don't run by the same rules.

That kind of talk might go over well with his fishing buddies and the guys at the local garage

That's who you want on the local level. Nationally you have to encode it. 

Again, I am not denying nor am I blind to the degree of racism that is still prevalent in South Carolina but Ron Wilson cannot win a U.S. Senate seat standing for South Carolina's right to secede from the Union.

True, being overt to that degree won't fly at the national level, but South Carolina has no problem electing officials with those views at the state level, obviously. I'll never get over seeing an option to contribute to the "War Between the States Heritage Memorial Fund" on my tax returns. And BMW, which manufactures 1 out of every 6 of its vehicles at its SC plant, doesn't seem to have any problem with that at all. In any case, the difference between national and state level politics notwithstanding, the argument that southern white folks are using gay people as a proxy for agression against Black folks seems no less ridiculous to me. It's nothing but a metaphor that has no grounding in reality whatsoever, if for no other reason than that publicly abusing Black folks has never gone out of style.

And BMW, which manufactures 1 out of every 6 of its vehicles at its SC plant, doesn't seem to have any problem with that at all.

BTW, BMW will not place print ads in black owned magazines such as Black Enterprise but that does not appear to have stopped elements of the new black bourgeoisie and the so-called hip-hop generation from passing through its dealers' door and signing on the dotted line. 

Have you ever been to Bavaria? It's beautiful in the spring.

Anyway, I really appreciate the dialogue you two (with a little assist from P6) just had.  I believe it is particularly useful because it illuminates the value of empirical and experiential approaches to understanding political, social and economic phenomena.  I've learned alot about South Carolina this morning.  Thanks to all.

I'll leave you with one more tidbit to chew on. Maurice Bessinger flies the Confederate flag over all his restaurants, sells pro-slavery tracts in all of them, and makes enormous campaign contributions to some of the most virulently racist politicians in the state (he contributed $75,000 to the aforementioned Ron Wilson). None of this is news to any Black South Carolinian. And you know what? Black folks still go into his restaurants to eat on a daily.

...of our own destruction. And if you were to urge black folks not to patronize these restaurants you would be treated like a leper, especially by the good Christian folk in our community. Amazing isn't it? I can see why some folks sold out and have never looked back. The contradictions became too large. I bet Clarence Thomas doesn't patronize Bessinger's restaurants. That may seem like a cynical statement on my part but I suspect it is true.

And if you were to urge black folks not to patronize these restaurants you would be treated like a leper, especially by the good Christian folk in our community.

It's not like that. I had a homeboy in high school who worked at Maurice's. He used to come home at night with grease burns all over his hands because they didn't give him any protective gloves. They worked him to damn near death. I never could understand why he worked there, and I rode him about it. My memory's too fuzzy to remember his exact rationale, but he seemed to feel like it was necessary to have that particular job out of all the jobs he could've had, even if it was a racist hell-hole. Some people just don't see alternatives until you visibly demonstrate that they exist.