To PP2's point....ask Cheerio's if racism still exists.

Heck, just ask my son and his girlfriend.

And it's not just in America:

 

Bananas Thrown At Italy's First Black Minister - Bananas Thrown At Black Italian Minister, Cecile Kyenge, During Speech

 

Wll you know what I always say...when life serves you banana, make banana splits:dancingpa

Blacks continue to vote for democrats because the people who have the message you just delivered do a poor job of conveying that message to blacks. I'd argue that they don't even bother to try to convey that message. More interesting of note is that there are tons of blacks who fall more in line with the conservative mindset. Especially in terms of gay marriage and abortion. Blacks are raised and reared to be democrats and there are quite a few dropped balls by the conservatives when it comes to convincing blacks that they have their best interests at hand to make it easier for blacks to support democrats. There is a ton of stubbornness in the black community when it comes to politics. That's probably deserving of a thread all on its own.

 

I do not believe white racism is directly affecting unemployment in the black community. Maybe decades ago but not today.

 

 

I do feel that classism is the worst ism affecting our people today. I also feel that race relations are getting better as well. I meant to add that earlier. I think people are able to see past the politics and live their lives accordingly.

I would argue most white people don't want to make this argument because they know they will be call racist. The Left or the Al Sharptons of the world don't want a "discussion" they want us to accept their premises for the worlds problem including one of the most intellectually dishonest theory called " white privlige".

Look at the reaction O'Reilly got this week for his segment on race. Every liberal with a mic is now calling him a racist. Never mind they can't disprove anything he said. Don Lemon left leaning CNN news anchor came out and supported Oreillys comment yesterday. Since then he has been called an Uncle tom , a traitor , turncoat etc... There is no discussion because the Left wants to silence any competing ideas by painting anybody with a dissenting positions racist. Until the black community and the Left can have a true discussion about race without putting all the blame on white people or painting all white people as racist. A majority of white Americans are poor low to middle class. With dozens of their own issues with family , money , work , and home . These people have struggles to and its hard to paint a picture to these people in today's America that they have it so much easier than the black community.

What did O'Reilly say?

What did O'Reilly say?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj4JaCSbhFY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Honestly I almost posted in this thread multiple times but deleted. In today's climate there is nothing to gain for a White male to discuss race. We can't speak open and honestly without it being taken as racist .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj4JaCSbhFY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Honestly I almost posted in this thread multiple times but deleted. In today's climate there is nothing to gain for a White male to discuss race. We can't speak open and honestly without it being taken as racist .

 

I'm a white male and I discuss race here and elsewhere plenty without being called a racist. I also make it a point to not call other people racists unless it is clear they are.

 

I've been too busy to add anything intelligent to this thread, but nothing O'Reilly said hasn't been said in this thread multiple times. But, the sheer rage expressed by O'Reilly isn't conducive to a discussion, especially as a response to Obama's hardly polemical speech on differing perspectives in America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj4JaCSbhFY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Honestly I almost posted in this thread multiple times but deleted. In today's climate there is nothing to gain for a White male to discuss race. We can't speak open and honestly without it being taken as racist .

 

I thought Mitch Rapp and I handled it well. I also think the thread has done a good job of avoiding your concerns.

I'm a white male and I discuss race here and elsewhere plenty without being called a racist. I also make it a point to not call other people racists unless it is clear they are.

 

I've been too busy to add anything intelligent to this thread, but nothing O'Reilly said hasn't been said in this thread multiple times. But, the sheer rage expressed by O'Reilly isn't conducive to a discussion, especially as a response to Obama's hardly polemical speech on differing perspectives in America.

One could argue rage is justified if you see the heart of the problem being ignored. I just don't understand what solution we are looking for. You can't legislate against peoples fear or emotions . You can educate people . But as long as black youths continue to commit crimes at a higher rate than any other ethnicity there is no education out there to fully eliminate the fear factor that brings profiling . We can discuss how to educate youths how to present themselves to society as part of the education process as well. But in the end it all boils down to having to fix the black family in the iurban areas. No matter how much we would like to think this is the white mans fault black urban community must first help themselves.

I thought Mitch Rapp and I handled it well. I also think the thread has done a good job of avoiding your concerns.

 

I agree. That is why I decided to post.

I thought Mitch Rapp and I handled it well. I also think the thread has done a good job of avoiding your concerns.

I agree, PurplePride. You may disagree with what I am about to say next, but if you watched the clip that I posted of Thomas Sowell, you might have noticed the similarities of the arguments that he made during the discussion of welfare and teenage pregnancy in the black community decades ago to the points that O'Reilly rattled off. Except for blaming "gangsta" music for some of the problems in our inner cities, O'Reilly did not say much of anything that Dr. Sowell has been saying for many years - but how many black people have ever heard of Thomas Sowell?.

 

Although O'Reilly is correct when he says that the decision to use drugs and commit crimes is a personal decision and I agree that is the bottom line - I also find fault with the predominately white media, including O'Reilly. I wonder how many times O'Reilly and other Fox hosts have invited race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on the air to give a "black perspective" on events like the Trayvon Martin shooting? For those who do not watch Fox regularly, I believe that they would be shocked at how many times those two guys have been guests on Fox. Why is that? Are Sharpton and Jackson really qualified to speak on behalf of the "black community?"

 

The media does not invite a small cadre of white people to speak for the "white community" in similar circumstances. Why does the media think that the opinions of two black men with checkered pasts are qualified to speak on behalf of an entire race? Other networks are even worse. At least Fox has a few successful conservative black men like Charles Payne featured on some of its shows. Juan WIlliams, who also works for FNC, was fired from PBS for making some of the same points that O'Reilly did and WIlliams is a very liberal supporter of Obama.

 

It seems to me that in American media, positive black role models tend to be mostly athletes and entertainers. Successful doctors like Ben Carson, entrepreneurs like Herman Cain, economists and columnists such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are rarely seen on TV. When Justice Clarence Thomas is mentioned on TV, it is more often than not done in the context of a liberal black person criticizing him for political reasons. In short, the news media in general, and especially the liberal media do not celebrate and showcase black success stories in the same way that they depict successful people of other races.

 

IMO, pushing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson onto the stage to blame white people for most of the problems in black neighborhoods does nothing positive for race relations in this country and every time that they are invited to give the "black perspective" on events, an opportunity to show a positive black role model, whose perspective is at least as valid as Jackson's and Sharpton's is squandered.

I just discovered that there was an assault and robbery in the Adams Morgan neighborhood yesterday morning. The crime took place between my son's apartment (about eight blocks away) and the restaurant (four blocks away) where he works. He bikes or walks to and from work, so my son could just as easily been the victim. He has accepted a new job in a DC suburb and will only be in Adams Morgan a few more days. The only thing that surprises me about the robbery is that DC police is investigating it as a "hate bias" crime, whatever that means, instead of a "random act of violence." FTR, I don't believe in hate crime laws at all. I wonder how much national coverage this crime receives and when Obama will condemn those who committed it.

 

(It would actually be a very smart political move for Obama to comment on the crime to reassure white voters that he is not the racist that many of us believe that he is - but this is just another local crime in which the federal government has no legitimate role, IMO.)

 

Police: Assault, Robbery Investigated as Hate Bias

 

Metropolitan police are investigating Saturday morning assault and robbery as a hate bias incident.

Police said a man, 28, from Bethesda, Md., was attacked in the 1700 block of Euclid Street, Northwest, in Adams Morgan. The victim said he was approached by three black males who kicked and punched him to the ground.

According

t

he victim, one of the attackers yelled, “This is for Trayvon,” during the assault. The victim suffered lacerations to the face from the attack.

I just discovered that there was an assault and robbery in the Adams Morgan neighborhood yesterday morning. The crime took place between my son's apartment (about eight blocks away) and the restaurant (four blocks away) where he works. He bikes or walks to and from work, so my son could just as easily been the victim. He has accepted a new job in a DC suburb and will only be in Adams Morgan a few more days. The only thing that surprises me about the robbery is that DC police is investigating it as a "hate bias" crime, whatever that means, instead of a "random act of violence." FTR, I don't believe in hate crime laws at all. I wonder how much national coverage this crime receives and when Obama will condemn those who committed it.

 

(It would actually be a very smart political move for Obama to comment on the crime to reassure white voters that he is not the racist that many of us believe that he is - but this is just another local crime in which the federal government has no legitimate role, IMO.)

 

 

According the victim, one of the attackers yelled, “This is for Trayvon,” during the assault. The victim suffered lacerations to the face from the attack.

Serious question on the bolded.

 

If one of the attackers had instead yelled, "This is because of Zimmerman," would that have been fundamentally different?

According the victim, one of the attackers yelled, “This is for Trayvon,” during the assault. The victim suffered lacerations to the face from the attack.

Serious question on the bolded.

 

If one of the attackers had instead yelled, "This is because of Zimmerman," would that have been fundamentally different?

I don't see any difference. If the alleged victim is telling the truth, then the assault was racially motivated regardless of the exact wording of the alleged perpetrators. However, your question goes to the heart of why I think hate crimes are wrong under any circumstance. Suppose the victim is just making up the "This is for Trayvon" story because he thinks that he is more likely to get his iPhone back or he thinks he might get his 15 minutes of fame? From a victim's perspective, what difference do the thoughts of an attacker make? A beating by "haters" does not hurt any more than a beating delivered for economic purposes.

 

When and if the DC Police Department apprehend the three alleged robbers, then it will probably be the victim's word against the words of three accused attackers. Who should have more credibility? So, based on the testimony of the victim, who has every reason to carry a grudge, the attackers could receive an additional penalty for the same crime that they could have and may have committed in total silence.

 

Hate crime laws rarely work in favor of white victims, but no matter what the color of the attackers and victims, they are unjust, IMO.

Im not racist. I hate everybody equally.

I agree, PurplePride. You may disagree with what I am about to say next, but if you watched the clip that I posted of Thomas Sowell, you might have noticed the similarities of the arguments that he made during the discussion of welfare and teenage pregnancy in the black community decades ago to the points that O'Reilly rattled off. Except for blaming "gangsta" music for some of the problems in our inner cities, O'Reilly did not say much of anything that Dr. Sowell has been saying for many years - but how many black people have ever heard of Thomas Sowell?.

 

Although O'Reilly is correct when he says that the decision to use drugs and commit crimes is a personal decision and I agree that is the bottom line - I also find fault with the predominately white media, including O'Reilly. I wonder how many times O'Reilly and other Fox hosts have invited race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on the air to give a "black perspective" on events like the Trayvon Martin shooting? For those who do not watch Fox regularly, I believe that they would be shocked at how many times those two guys have been guests on Fox. Why is that? Are Sharpton and Jackson really qualified to speak on behalf of the "black community?"

 

The media does not invite a small cadre of white people to speak for the "white community" in similar circumstances. Why does the media think that the opinions of two black men with checkered pasts are qualified to speak on behalf of an entire race? Other networks are even worse. At least Fox has a few successful conservative black men like Charles Payne featured on some of its shows. Juan WIlliams, who also works for FNC, was fired from PBS for making some of the same points that O'Reilly did and WIlliams is a very liberal supporter of Obama.

 

It seems to me that in American media, positive black role models tend to be mostly athletes and entertainers. Successful doctors like Ben Carson, entrepreneurs like Herman Cain, economists and columnists such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are rarely seen on TV. When Justice Clarence Thomas is mentioned on TV, it is more often than not done in the context of a liberal black person criticizing him for political reasons. In short, the news media in general, and especially the liberal media do not celebrate and showcase black success stories in the same way that they depict successful people of other races.

 

IMO, pushing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson onto the stage to blame white people for most of the problems in black neighborhoods does nothing positive for race relations in this country and every time that they are invited to give the "black perspective" on events, an opportunity to show a positive black role model, whose perspective is at least as valid as Jackson's and Sharpton's is squandered.

 

Fox has a target audience they want to reach and none of them are Jackson or Sharpton supporters. There is an agenda on both sides also and if Fox can send the perception that Sharpton/Jackson speak for black people then they will continue to have them on there and allow them to do so. As long as Sharpton and Jackson can go on Fox and be presented as the spokespeople for blacks they don't care if their message is heard or not. They'll keep doing it as their agenda is filled as well. Sharpton and Jackson's target audience will see them on Fox and incorrectly believe they are standing up to them and the evil Fox News when they appear on there but that isn't the case. It's buffoonery at its finest. It took Alan Colmes years to realize he was a pawn. Alan Colmes' meekness and inability to get in a full sentence helped raise Sean Hannity's conservative image. I quit watching Fox News when Colmes was on there. It was painful to watch.

 

The stories about successful blacks will never be in the the media excpet for on ESPN in a 30 for 30 episode. Just the way it is. I'm sure if people tuned into the Oprah Winfrey channel, TVOne or gave BET a chance they would see many stories of succsessful black role models but those aren't deemed as credible sources. The media doesn't have to invite small cadres of white people to speak for white people. They just have to start the news at the top and bottom of the hour and the speaking begins. The mainstream media is dominated by white people. White opinions. White beliefs. Liberal and conservative. People like Roland Martin and Tavis Smiley need a louder voice. Juan Williams as you mentioned. Even Stephen A. Smith has proven to be a better political voice than Jackson and Sharpton. Bomani Jones, LZ Granderson, Boyce Watkins and even the author of this piece Keith Boykins...there are plenty of blacks out there more credible than Jackson and Sharpton but those two keep getting trotted out as our spokespeople. The answer to why is pretty obvious IMO.

 

I do find it interesting that the blacks you named as successful and worthy of celebration all lean conservative and then you ask why the liberal media doesn't celebrate their stories. Part of it is ratings. The other part is obvious. At the same time the liberal media isn't celebrating successful blacks that lean liberal unless they can sing, dance or dunk a ball. Let's not act like they are purposely ignoring the black conservatives you named. They are ignoring all of them. Except for Al and Jesse and a couple of others sprinkled in.