Friday, November 09, 2007

The amazing race

Race race race. I don't understand how we are still so obsessed with race. When talking about schools people tell us what percentage of blacks are doing this and what percentage of whites are doing that. (we don't EVER mention the Asians though) Didn't we integrate schools? Can't we just give an overall dropout rate?

And for the record: Mexican is not a race. It is a nationality. Baby Gabriel is not "half-Mexican." He is half-hispanic. And maybe I'm 1/56 Irish but that doesn't give me any cultural ties to Ireland. Why do we count percentage points when it comes to racial background? Half this, quarter that, how about 100% American? (American is not a race as they don't let me check that on my census form.)

Attention opponents of illegal immigration: please do not preface your opposition to lawbreakers by stating that "this isn't about race." That would be like me prefacing anything I said about football with "this isn't about flying saucers." If the two have nothing to do with each other then it's a complete non-sequitur and doesn't need to be said.

You may think you need to be on the defensive against the charge of racism but only if you also you think you need to be on the defensive against the charge that you have seen UFO's when talking about football. (I sure am glad that my political party isn't having issues with that one)

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

you are right on this one. More should be pointed out about religion as all the same applies there also.The war is about oil but religion rules.dumb dumd dumb or de da dee.

Another Illegal Alien Gonzales said...

Another result of our illegal alien problem. This is just like Illegal Alien Gonzales, everyone wants him to be an American, because he is in foster care. He should go home and live with his family, period.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the open borders crowd found a new poster child. Send him back to Mexico, we have enough children being funded by our tax dollars.

lynda said...

This little boy is an American. His mother is an American citizen. We cannot allow our government to send our citizens out of the country and at the same time allow law breakers to stay. Illegals OUT Citizen IN!

Stevie said...

Daniel,

Here’s the problem: While you claim that race is not an issue for many opponents of illegal immigration, the fact of the matter is that such a claim is often empirically false.

While I have no doubt that some opponents of illegal immigration really don’t give a hoot about a person’s race or nationality, my experience in talking with and hearing many of these opponents is that there is frequently an underlying current of disdain traced not towards the fact that someone has hopped a fence to come to America to work, but rather directly towards the culture, perceived habits, economic status and other perceived characteristics (almost always negative) of those who make up a particular race (almost always Hispanic).

Sometimes manifestations of this racism are loud and clear, and sometimes they are much more subtle. A subtle example can be seen with someone like Lars Larson. Larson frequently talks about illegal immigration, and he often focuses on legitimate topics related to such immigration such as job loss. But mixed in with such serious discussion is the occasional (some would argue frequent) display of race-baiting, where Lars will do something like insinuate that illegal aliens engage in crime at disproportional rates…an argument easily refuted by Justice Department statistics that don’t back up that claim. Lars also like to play the xenophobia card, constantly repeating the tale of the Hispanic man who had sex with a minor, and presenting this as if it’s the norm among illegal aliens in this country (It’s not). And all of this is unfortunate, because it creates the very opening you talk about for allegations of racism.

And of course, there are more direct and blatant displays of such racism, such as I evidenced when listening to the Michael Savage show this past summer. A caller was complaining about illegal immigration, and then went on to say something to the effect of (and I’m paraphrasing here), “You’re damn right I’m a racist. I don’t like them [Hispanics] coming to my country, I don’t like their sick and dirty culture, I don’t like the disease they bring here, I don’t like their music, I don’t like anything about them!”

Now Daniel, you can claim that this caller to the Savage show was in the minority. But I think it would be very disingenuous to assert that this caller’s views don’t represent a far larger number of the anti-illegal immigrant crowd than you’d probably care to admit. While many opponents of illegal immigration wouldn’t come right out and say what that caller to the Michael Savage show said, you’d be naïve to think that many of them don’t feel the exact same way. And if that ain’t racism, I’d love to know what you call it.

Sorry Daniel, but there are some very valid reasons that many illegal immigration opponents constantly find themselves fending off charges of racism. Continuing to deny this won’t do anything to bring credibility to your side of the argument. And trust me…these days, the right-wing in this country can’t afford to be surrendering any more of its credibility.

Simon Templar said...

Stevie Said:

"you can claim that this caller to the Savage show was in the minority. But I think it would be very disingenuous to assert that this caller’s views don’t represent a far larger number of the anti-illegal immigrant crowd than you’d probably care to admit. While many opponents of illegal immigration wouldn’t come right out and say what that caller to the Michael Savage show said, you’d be naïve to think that many of them don’t feel the exact same way."

This is simply an assumption on your part Stevie. I believe that people on the "Pro Illegal Immigration" (for lack of a better term) have a tendancy to see racism where there is none, simply because it's a convenient way to put the opposing side on the quick defensive. Case in point: I was called a "Racist" by my sister in law when I stated my position on illegal immigration. Not once when explaining my position did I mention any specific race or country. "Illegal Immigrant" is the only way that I described people who were in the country illegally. She then flew into a tirade about me hating "brown people".

You'll note that she brought race into the discussion, not me. But there I was, defending myself against a charge of racism.

I believe that you are doing a dis-service to yourself by making assumptions of racism when it comes to the opponents of illegal immigration.

A good number of the opponents by the way, are of Hispanic descent, and there are plenty of races involved in the fight against the illegal influx of foreigners into this country. Black, Asin, White, and Hispanic.

Stevie said...

Simon,

Of course my comments are assumptions on my part. But as stated, both with examples and other commentary, those assumptions are based on empirical observation. You’ll also note that I very specifically did not state that everyone who is against such immigration can be accused of racism. On the contrary, I said, “I have no doubt that some opponents of illegal immigration really don’t give a hoot about a person’s race or nationality.” And it would appear, at least from your comments here, you are one of those people who doesn’t care about race or nationality. But this doesn’t negate nor refute my larger point. Which was, again, that there are some very valid reasons that many illegal immigration opponents constantly find themselves fending off charges of racism.

Now, are there some invalid reasons that immigration opponents would find themselves fending off charges of racism? Of course there are. As you said, some people will just accuse a person of racism as a cop-out from discussing the real issues. I did not deny that in my initial post, nor am I denying it now. But this is what fringe elements do in ANY political debate. It’s no different from, say, a person on the left wanting to have a rational discussion of why national health care might be necessary and actually good for American business, and in turn having their argument summarily dismissed with the accusation that such person is simply a socialist and thus unworthy to discuss the topic. So yes, Simon, fringe elements on both sides of the political debate sometimes engage in this type of non-productive banter.

Nonetheless, I think you are mistaken to claim I’m doing a disservice to myself by making assumptions of racism when it comes to the opponents of illegal immigration. Your claim would be true IF I couldn’t back any of those assumptions up with examples. But I gave two examples that illustrate my point. And if you want more examples, I would invite you to do a search for “immigration” on the Free Republic website. There, you’ll read some of the most vile, hate-filled, racists comments you could ever hope to see with regard to illegal immigration. And it’s not exactly like Free Republic is considered a fringe website on the political right. On the contrary, it is considered fairly mainstream by the political right. So what am I supposed to think when a mainstream right-wing website has a disproportionately large number of unmistakably racists comments on it, and when I so often hear similar comments on right-wing talk radio and in casual conversations (both direct and overheard)?

Essentially Simon, it’s the old theory of, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…it’s probably a duck.” When it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, if the right-wing in this country doesn’t like being accused so often of racism, then it should not leave the door to such charges wide open by so vocally saying things that could very reasonably be construed as racism. In other words, if anti-illegal immigration forces would actually concentrate more on the substantive reasons they believe what they do, and less on the side banter that so often could rightfully be construed as racism, that might go a long way towards solving the PR problem that the political right has on this issue.

Just food for thought.

Anonymous said...

Gabriel belongs with his blood relatives. Foster parents are just that, foster parents. When they signed up to be foster parents they understood that DHS could decide what is best for Gabriel. His blood relative, maternal grandmother wants him--she can provide a good home in his cultural heritage.

Anonymous said...

Dear Friend:

I want to hear from you and that’s why I’m holding my first “town call” conversation on Tuesday, November 13. Please join me and fellow Oregonians to discuss issues before Congress. To participate in the live conference call, please call toll-free 1(866) 447-5149 and enter access code #13340.

I hope you will join me on Tuesday!

Tuesday, November 13
6:45 – 7:45 p.m. PST
Oregon “Town Call” Conversation
1(866) 446-6539, access code #13340

Sincerely,

DARLENE HOOLEY
Member of Congress

Simon Templar said...

Stevie,

While I do agree that there is quite a bit of hate that can be found on a variety of sites regarding the illegal immigration issue, again I would have to suggest that it is a fringe and non-organized element that is producing the lions share of it.

My comment was to voice my dis-agreement that the pro-illegal immigrant crowd simply jumps on the racist bandwagon when it's convenient.

While you put it in a more educated and well thought out manner, you still basically stated that there are more racists on the issue than those who oppose illegal immigration care to admit.

I simply say that we agree to dis-agree. Quite frankly, the "racist" card has been played out and it's boring.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

The right needs to face up to the fact that they've done much to promote racism in this country.

It's certainly true that not all on the right are racists, but the reality is that the political party most favored by the right, the Republican Party, has cozied up to Southern racists for the last 45 years.

I haven't seen any people on the right distance themselves from the race-baiting on a wide range of issues (not just immigration) by the likes of Lars Larson and Michael Savage.

It's easy to toss around claims of racism on the right because in far too many cases it seems to be accurate.

Calhoun said...

stevie said : "[etc]...of those who make up a particular race (almost always Hispanic)."

"Hispanic" isn't a race. Spaniards and their descendants are Caucasians, not some other race.

But it's funny to see some Hispanics tryin' to NOT be white. That's one of the biggest con games going on right now. You can be 100% Spaniard (that is, white), yet in America you can claim yourself to be a member of a racial minority!

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Actually most Mexicans aren't Spaniards--most of them are Mestizos who have a heritage that's a mixture of Spanish and New World natives--descendants of Aztecs and Mayans.

eddie said...

On Gabriel and "blood relatives"... both biological parents have expressed their desire that their son remain with his foster parents. The "blood relative" in question only learned about the child from DHS inquiries. Now, admittedly the parents have lost parental priveledges, yet if blood ties are what's important to you, shouldn't their expressed wishes be of some weight?

been here, done that said...

Stevie, you strike me as a pretty decent, intelligent guy -- perceptive, calm, rational, thoughtful. Which raises a question:

What are you doing in Miglavia?

Anonymous said...

Ferd Schnerkele said;"Southern" 3:42 p.m.

I believe that makes you guilty of bigotry; bigot!

as I sees it said...

It doesn't really matter what his biological parents say as they lost custody. DHS has custody. They are responsible for Gabriel. They have always been most concerned about reuniting families, which in my book is good. The grandmother is the next of kin to the child. If she wants custody, is capable of taking care of him, which by all reports she has more than enough to provide the boy with, that trumps any foster parents that may want the boy.

Bobkatt said...

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."Ron Paul.

Anonymous said...

What's really hilarious is this visual:

Imagine a couple of Mexicans (legal or illegal) coming to this site's forum and asking, after having been bullied (in all likelihood) by Miglavian
sreet thugs dressed in their brand spankin' (no pun intended) new Dungeon Sex regalia, "why do you treat us like this, we're white?"
to which the Miglavian thugs respond in a cacophony of howls.

Anonymous Eatibus Almost Anythingus

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul said that. Figures.

He also said this:

I wouldn't back away from saying that AIPAC is very influential in our political process. That's a little bit different than saying the Israeli government, but I think that the Israeli position is very influential, which is very interesting because some of you may have seen this—just recently, there was an article out that studied which groups of people were most opposed to the Iraq War. And the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war. Yet the group that is most opposed to the Iraq War are the American Jews. Seventy-seven percent are now opposed to the war, which is a powerful message.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Actually Bobkatt, this is a good example of a racist, and apparently a wee bit 'o anti-semitic. We weren't really looking for an example of one, but thanks for letting us know. Just another racist, biggotted Republican to add to the list of many.

R Huse said...

this is astounding:

From Ferd Schnerk...

>I haven't seen any people on the right distance themselves from the race-baiting on a wide range of issues (not just immigration) by the likes of Lars Larson and Michael Savage.

Why should they have to? This is never asked of people on the left?

Look, the reason why people on the right are associated with racism is a combination of two reasons, one, there are racists on the right, just as there are on the left. But two, it is considered reasonable to call people on the right racists, and unreasonable to call people on the left racists.

1) Who is the party with a former Klansmen in the Senate? The democrats. Who is the party that got castigated for Klan association when David Duke ran? The Republicans.

Democrats can time and time elect a former Klansman, but Republicans get tarred and feathered for Duke, who they clearly distanced themselves from.

2) Who promotes blacks to substantive office in the Whitehouse? Republicans, Who draws Aunt Jemimah cartoons of those blacks time and time again in the major newspapers? Democrats.

Democrats can draw the most racist and vile cartoons of Rice, Thomas and even Powell, yet no racist stigma ever adheres to them.

3) What party goes insane at the slightest misstep in political speech, and is backed up by the press every time when they charge of racism? Democrats.

When Trent Lott says at Strom Thurmonds retirement "He's a good man, and this country might have been better off had he been elected" (Im paraphrasing). The Press goes wild, this is clear evidence of racism according to them. When Chris Dodd says of Klansman Robert Byrd at an honorarium dinner several months later "there isn't a single decision Byrd made that I disagree with, I would have followed his leadership anywhere" (again paraphrasing) the press barely mentions it. Dodd is so unharmed, he is currently running for president.


The fact of the matter is that sure, there are racists in both parties. The press just seems to give a little more hang time to infractions by one party than the other. How else could the democrats still have a Klansman in their party, and Al Sharpton, another vile racist and anti Semite, and still be able to call anyone a racist with a straight face?

Anonymous said...

Fred, you're an idiot.

I'll simply re-iterate what Huse stated. Strom Thurmond gets elected time and time again. He's a "rock star" in the Democratic world of D.C. He wields a ton of power and influence and cozies up to everyone including the Clintons.

Now, if a Republican Presidential Candidate even had something as simple as having his photo taken with a former Klansman, the press would crucify him.

Anonymous said...

Why can a black comedian refer to white people as "crackers", "White Boys" or "Peckerwoods" and get laughs, but a white comedian says the word "nigger" and his career is ruined?

Why is there the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", and nobody questions it? But try and start the "National Association for the Advancement of White People", and you'll be branded a supremecist Nazi.

Two words: Al Sharpton. That's why.

Racism exists in America, on all sides. It's time for everyone to take personal responsibility for thier own actions, and treat all men as equals. Get rid of the Affirmative Action, get rid of the NAACP, get rid of race oriented Scholorships, get rid of the "Rainbow Coalition", get rid of MECHA, get rid of the JDL, etc..

These are all racist organizitions that should be abolished.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the racists are trying to force Gabriel to Mexico to be with people who "look like him". I am not kidding.....read the editorials in yesterday Oregonian.

The way I look at that case is that not only has Gabriel never met his grandmother, but the state would be sending him to a country where his chances of ending up in poverty is a lot higher than it would be if he stayed in the US.

Also, I look at the kid and he does not look hispanic in the least. And if Mexico was so great, why is half of their citizenery here?

Anonymous said...

Why is there the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", and nobody questions it? ... Two words: Al Sharpton. That's why.

Miglavian philosophy at its best: Simple, stupid, gleefully ignorant and/or contemptuous of history, a question answered by scapegoating, void of complexity or rational argument. Etc. One does not have to be a fan of Sharpton ...

[And let me be TOTALLY clear about this: I am NOT a fan of Al Sharpton. Do you understand me, assholes? Go back and read that again. I am not a fan of Al Sharpton. I am not defending Al Sharpton. I am not an apologist for Al Sharpton. I am not a supporter of Al Sharpton. Got it? No? Then read it again, Miglavians. And again. Why? To save yourself from the embarassment of replying to this post by implying that I can be dismissed out of hand because I am a supporter of Al Sharpton.]

... to look at Anon 9:14's idiotic interview with himself and laugh out loud.

Anonymous said...

Can you EVEN IMAGINE what would be happening if the Gabriel Allred situation were reversed? Let's go there....

January 2006:
Timmy O'Donald lives in Chiapas with his parents. They're American missionaries. Timmy's Mom was born in Mexico and has dual citizenship (Mexican and U.S.). She is the only surviving member of her family.
Timmy was born in Mexico, but also has dual citizenship (Mexico and US). Timmy is just 8 months old. two months ago, Timmy's parents were killed in a terrible auto accident. Timmy has never even been to America. Mexico is all he knows. The Mexican government and the US government worked together to find any next of kin, but so far have been unable to locate any paternal relatives. Timmy is placed, thru Mexico's foster parent's program, with John and Maria O'Donald's dearest friends from Chiapas, a Mexican Lutheran pastor and his wife. They are also Timmy's God parents. Timmy has been in their care since the day of his parent's deaths. Timmy, for all intents and purposes, has been their beloved son for the last year. Last month, a miracle! Timmy's paternal grandparents have been found! Right here in Oregon! The whole snafu started when the authorities didn't realize that John O'Donald, Timmy's father, bore a different surname than his parents (John O'Donald's father died when he was just two months old. His mother re-married and has a different last name.) Well, Grandma and Grandpa are elated! They're still young, only 48, and they are overcome with joy at the thought of having Timmy come to live with them. They're not so well off, they live in a manufactured home on a dead-end street in Lafayette, but they are kind, hardworking, responsible and God-fearing Americans. Besides, things are looking up, they've got 12 acres and they've just planted wine grapes. They've got another son, he's a meth junkie, robbed a few convenience stores, got caught with a 17 yr old girl, and now he's in prison. When he get's out he'll probably want to come and visit them. They don't want him around to influence Timmy, and they're confident they will be able to deal with that when the time comes. They have prepared a bedroom hangout any boy would be thrilled to call his own: complete with bunkbed, Legos, Hotwheels, Transformers, and a children's Bible on the nightstand. There's even a bike in the garage, waiting just for him. It's not much, but he'll be happy, and most important, loved by people who have the same blood flowing thru their veins. As the years pass and he grows curious about his father, his grandparents will be able to tell him all the funny stories of his father's youth, show him the photo albums and share family history. Timmy's identity will be complete, no doubts, no questions, no longing.

Screeeeech....not so fast, Grandma and Grandpa. The foster parents back in Chiapas are devistated. They don't want to send him to America. He's a Mexican citizen! Mexico is all he's ever known! He doesn't speak a word of English, worse, he doesn't have fair skin or anglo features. Maria's genes won out. He's got black hair and brown eyes! He doesn't even look "American!" (to quote Anon 10:20)

Hmmmmmm....what to do? Leave him in Mexico? He's an American citizen with grandparents ready and waiting for him.... Yeah, but.

Anonymous said...

Well, sounds like this boy's father was a real creep. Had some run ins with the law. Did some things that are illegal. Sound's like he's done his time, paid his debt to society. Now he's got a son to raise. Deserves a shot. Maybe fatherhood will turn him around. Maybe it will all work out swimmingly. Sounds like a familiar story...hmmmmmmmm....sound's like Miglav's story.

Eli Barnhardt

MAX Redline said...

The right needs to face up to the fact that they've done much to promote racism in this country.

What an amusing comment!

Ever heard of folks like Conoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Albero Gonzales? A Supreme Cout Justice by the name of Clarence Thomas?

Now, who where the folks appointing them, and who were the ones tearing them down?

Anonymous said...

... have seen UFO's when talking about football. (I sure am glad that my political party isn't having issues with that one)

Yeah. YOUR party only has issues with ... um ... shit. What's that place called? The country, over there in the Far East? No. MIDDLE East. Yeah! I-something. OH YEAH! IRAQ!!!

[Something Daniel Miglavs consistently declines to talk about. Like. It. Doesn't. Even. Exist ...]

Ferd Schnerkele said...

So much to respond to, I know I won't come anywhere near getting to it all.

First of all, though Strom Thurmond started out as a Democrat, he switched to the Republican Party in 1964.

It seems some here believe that Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas should be immune from criticism because they're black Republicans. That's absurd. Powell will forever bear the burden of lying to the U.N. in bringing the case for the invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, Rice's part in building the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush administration has earned her great criticism.

Judge Thomas's only distinction is that he's been a reliable right-wing vote. Unlike he predecessor, Thurgood Marshall, who had a distinguished career before and during his time on the court, Judge Thomas is a man of few accomplishments.

Clinton had at least seven different African-American Cabinet members.

Yes, Robert Byrd was as member of the Ku Klux Klan in his youth, which he now regrets. It is not accurate to refer to him as "a klansman", since he long ago renounced the KKK.

If you wonder why it's okay to have a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but not okay to have a National Association for the Advancement of White People, ask yourself what the difference in experience in this country has been for black people versus white people.

Anonymous said...

Daniel, the census allows you to write in whatever the fuck you want as your race. You, I believe, would enter "dipshit".

I don't anticipate that you've taken any time to survey the reams of social science literature that has been written on the concept of race in the past 50 years, but you should be informed that it's not a fixed term like tree or mountain. Its meaning is socially constructed and varies from context to context. In the U.S., we have have a rather peculiar notion of race, and the whole "Hispanic" ethnicity bit was CREATED in the 1970s by federal government fiat.

The dictionary defines race as "a group of persons connected by common descent or origin; a tribe, a a nation or people regarded as of common stock". Essentially, it means whatever you want it to mean. In many places, such as Mexico, and in most European countries, race and nation are conflated.

Anyhoo, you should actually do some serious reading before you go off bloviating about racial issues. You might be surprised to find that this country, and our government, is attentive to racial disparities in important stratifying mechanisms in our society (wealth, education, place of residence), because nearly the first 200 years of sovereignty witnessed either de jure or de facto (i.e., Jim Crow) racism. To think that racism would just immediately vanish from our cultural memory would be utterly naive. In recent years, the racial divide on such important indicators, in fact, has grown.

The more you go on with your ignorant belly-aching about America's racial consciousness, the more you sound like an ignorant bigot.

Anonymous said...

Here's your 100% American, Asshole!

By Ralph Linton (1936):

Our solid American citizen awakens in a bed built on a pattern which originated in the Near East but which was modified in Northern Europe before it was transmitted to America. He throws back covers made from cotton, domesticated in India, or linen, domesticated in the Near East, or wool from sheep, also domesticated in the Near East. He slips into his moccasins, invented by the Indians of the Eastern woodlands, and goes to the bathroom, whose fixtures are a mixture of European and American inventions, both of recent date. He takes off his pajamas, a garment invented in India, and washes with soap invented by the ancient Gauls. He then shaves, a masochistic rite which seems to have been derived from either Sumer or ancient Egypt.

Returning to the bedroom, he removes his clothes from a chair of southern European type and proceeds to dress. He puts on garments whose form originally derived from the skin clothing of the nomads of the Asiatic steppes, puts on shoes made from skins tanned by a process invented in ancient Egypt and cut to a pattern derived from the classical civilizations of the Mediterranean, and ties around his neck a strip of bright-colored cloth which is a vestigial survival of the shoulder shawls worn by the seventeenth century Croatians. Before going out for breakfast he glances through the window, made of glass invented_in Egypt, and if it is raining puts on overshoes made of rubber discovered by the Central American Indians and takes an umbrella, invented in southeastern Asia. Upon his head he puts a hat made of felt, a material invented in the Asiatic steppes.

On his way to breakfast he stops to buy a paper, paying for it with coins, an ancient Lydian invention. At the restaurant a whole new series of borrowed elements confronts him. His plate is made of a form of pottery invented in China. His knife is of steel, an alloy first made in southern India , his fork a medieval Italian invention, and his spoon a derivative of a Roman original. He begins with an orange, from the eastern Mediterrianean, a canteloupe from Persia, or perhaps a piece of African watermelon.With this he has coffee, an Abyssinian plant, with cream and sugar. Both the domestication of cows and the idea of milking them originated in the Near East, while sugar was first made in India. After his fruit and first coffee he goes on to waffles, cakes made by a Sandinavian technique from wheat domesticated in Asia Minor. Over these he pours maple syrup, invented by the Indians of Eastern woodlands. As a side dish he may have the egg of a species of bird domesticated in Indo-China, or thin strips of the flesh of an animal domesticated in Eastern Asia which have been salted and smoked by a process developed in Northern Europe.

When our friend has finished eating, he settles back to smoke, an American Indian habit, consuming a plant domesticated in Brazil in either a pipe, derived from the Indians of Virginia, or a cigarette, derived from Mexico. If he is hardy enough he may even attempt a cigar, transmitted to us from the Antilles by way of Spain. While smoking he reads the news of the day, imprinted in characters invented by the Semites upon a material invented in China by a process invented in Germany. As he absorbs the account of foreign troubles he will, if he is a good conservative citizen, thank a Hebrew deity in a Indo-European language that he is 100 percent American.

Ralph Linton

R Huse said...

Gee, ya know, I just sure wonder, hmmmm, if the Republicans criticized someone by drawing an Aunt Jemimah cartoon because they didn't like their foreign policy I wonder if the Democrats would scream racism.

Hmmm, I wonder.

I mean, lets say the Republicans didn't like Thurgood Marshells decisions and they drew Uncle Tom cartoons, would people like Fred refer to them as just simple disagreement?

Ya just gotta wonder.

If a Republican referred to black people as "buckwheat" do you think that it would be all over the front page? Do you think the treatment of a democrat would get the same weight?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jol1stoHanScCbli9oDkzKFgjiBgD8SSDCQG0

Gee, I wonder.

"I want a cabinet that looks like America" said Clinton, and thus we found Clinton felt America looked like a bunch of rich white guys with a few minorities thrown in meaningless low level positions.

Come on, we all know who the real racists are. Its those who are obsessed with race, and building a constituency based upon kow towing to the race hustlers.

Anonymous said...

R-Huse - if ever a party decided that your website selling ball-busters and electric catheter toys was a social ill, which one do you suspect it would be?