Why do U-People always think everyone is a racist?
Well, everything in America is looked at through, measured in terms of, categorized and stored by race. So we know you have thoughts and opinions about us. Then we look at everything the society produces that depicts us. We consider that to be tangible evidence of the collective attitude. So now we know that the collective opinion of our race is negative.This is a competitive disadvantage, and when our abilities are immediately discounted to the degree that we can be made to fit people's preconceptions as a tactic, we feel the tactitician and the one who executes the tactic is racist. When the tactic succeeds, we feel those who hold the preconceptions that were played on are racist.
and this...
Now, about the Philadelphia story: in December 1979 the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party’s nominee speak at the Neshoba Country Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964. It would, he wrote, help win over “George Wallace inclined voters.”
Sure enough, Reagan appeared, and declared his support for states’ rights — which everyone took to be a coded declaration of support for segregationist sentiments.
Reagan’s defenders protest furiously that he wasn’t personally bigoted. So what? We’re talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant.
in mind as we watch this.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Perfectly.
"It was perfectly benign."
Which is why 10,000 rednecks whooped and hollered when he said it.
I had never seen Taranto before. He looks just like the cheap little thug he portrays in print.
Looks like he's related to
Looks like he's related to Kerik...
Is that cuz we can't read?
But, it's funny (not in a ha ha way) what they think will slip over our heads.
In this case, Krugman and
In this case, Krugman and Herbert were responding to David Brook's assertion that Reagan's campaign stop in Mississippi was not a carefully articulated racist ploy to attract white voters. Thus it stinks of dishonesty to suggest that they commented on this event merely to spite Republicans. Why did Brooks feel the need to resurrect a current incarnation of the conversation in the first place? This whitewashing of Reagan's legacy fits into the same pattern which saw Eisenhower honored in a New York Times op-ed not too long ago as one of the key heroes of the civil rights era. The Republicans seem to be trying to rebuild their party by denying its place in history.
And as their secular saint,
And as their secular saint, if Reagan continues to be associated with anti-Black racism and white supremacy the entire party has an expiration date.
Republicans thought they'd have a permanent majority before they had to deal with this. Sorry...
This know defunct notion
This know defunct notion that a Republican majority was possible is something that occurred to me as well. What strikes me as most interesting is that the man most responsible for leading the GOP to the right, Barry Goldwater, is now being embraced by moderates in the party who are unhappy with the party's steady rightward drift. They highlight his acceptance of homosexuals and dislike of fundamentalist Christian activists as cornerstones of his "moderate" political philosophy. His opposition to civil rights, however, is still the big elephant in the room which many would like to ignore or downplay.