Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Jeff Jacoby :: Townhall.com Columnist
Historical amnesia at the NAACP
by Jeff Jacoby
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


At an event in North Carolina to mark Black History Month last February, Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, unleashed a blistering attack on the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Among other discourtesies, he compared President George W. Bush's judicial appointees to the Taliban and described former Attorney General John Ashcroft, not for the first time, as "J. Edgar Ashcroft."

"The Republican Party," Bond was reported as saying, "would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side." (According to other reports, Bond said that the GOP's "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side.")

Such partisan bigotry from the chairman of a supposedly nonpartisan organization makes it easy to understand why for five years Bush refused to attend the NAACP's annual conventions. More of a mystery is why he changed his mind this year -- and why, rather than attempt to refute Bond's venomous caricature of his party, he seemed to accept it.

"I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party," Bush said (to shouts of "Yes!" and applause from the audience, according to the White House transcript). "I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community. For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."

Republicans often take this rueful tone when talking about their party in the context of race. Democrats, who routinely get 85 percent or more of the black vote, never do. But the Republican rue isn't justified by the facts. Neither is the willingness of black voters to be taken for granted by Democrats.

Look around. Black candidates are serious contenders for governor in three states this year, and two of them -- Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio -- are Republicans. The third, Democrat Deval Patrick, is running in Massachusetts, a quintessentially blue state that has managed to elect only one African-American to statewide office in its entire history: former US Senator Edward Brooke -- a Republican.

Bush may have given short shrift to the NAACP for several years, but from his first day in office he has surrounded himself with a record number of senior black policy makers. Among them have been the nation's first black secretary of state, Colin Powell -- and its second, Condoleezza Rice.

Of course the Republican Party's record on race is not without its blemishes. For example, at a 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond in 2002, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi praised the former Dixiecrat's segregationist 1948 campaign for president. Republicans were scandalized and forced Lott to resign as Senate majority leader.

Democrats, by contrast, have never moved to purge Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan who wrote in 1947 that he would never agree to fight "with a Negro by my side" and would "rather . . . die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is the only senator to have voted against both of the black justices named to the Supreme Court -- the liberal Thurgood Marshall and the conservative Clarence Thomas. While Byrd has said his racism is a thing of the past, that didn't stop him from using the N-word twice in an interview on national TV in 2001. Remarkably, none of this has harmed Byrd's standing within the Democratic Party, nor the party's standing among black voters.

Bond may not share Republican principles or legislative priorities, but for him to cast the GOP as the party of fascism and racism is beyond surreal. After all, it was the Democratic Party that vehemently defended slavery, the Democratic Party that supported the Dred Scott decision, and the Democratic Party that opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. It was Democrats who founded the Ku Klux Klan, Democrats who repeatedly blocked anti-lynching bills, and Democrats who enacted Jim Crow segregation across the South.

Everyone knows that it was a 19th-century Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But how many know that it was a 20th-century Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the federal government, appointed unabashed racists to his Cabinet, and endorsed "The Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith's celluloid celebration of the Klan?

Eventually -- happily -- the Democratic Party outgrew Wilson's racism. By 1964 a majority of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act -- as did an even larger majority of congressional Republicans.

Today's Democratic Party is nothing like the racist stronghold it used to be; anyone who claimed otherwise would be trafficking in foul demagoguery. That is just what Bond traffics in when he speaks with equal foulness about today's Republican Party. The NAACP is better than that, and perhaps Bush should have said so.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com. href="http://www.townhall.com/Secure/Signup.aspx">Sign up today

Be the first to read Jeff Jacoby's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Mindnumbing!
I continually find it hard to understand what it is that blacks see in the Democrat (Jackass) party. The Democrat socialist elitists are perfectly happy to drop a crumb now and then to the blacks who follow them but never ever invite them to the banquet. A black Republican steps up to the plate and blacks throw Oreo cookies at him/her! And of course, the race warlords Jesse "Shake em Down!" Jackson and Al "Twanda" Sharpton are never far behind to execute black criminals and hoist the victim petard...with their hands out.

America's blacks need to leave the dark side and come over to the GOP. We don't give HAND OUTS but you will get a HAND UP.

Couldn't have said it better
Amen!! It's so frustrating that the stereo type of Republicans as racist still exists. You mentioned all the right parts of history that refute that belief (Lincoln, Democrats starting the clan, Republicans voting in a far greater majority for the Civil Rights Act, et...). I guess its the laziness of the masses not to dig deeper and find out the truth. They just listen to the retoric from the very people that seem to be the racists.

MINDNUMBING pt2
Insert "excuse" for "execute", my bust.

Blacks I have known
Democrats have the black vote sewn up for three reasons.

1. Entitlement

The Democrats and their liberal friends in academia and the media have gone out of their way to create a victim mentality among blacks. As recently as the last Democrat presidential primary, Dennis Kucinich was still talking about slavery reparations. There are now "Hate Crimes" which essentially means a crime committed against one of these protected groups. Since Republicans (usually) stand for keeping government out of people's lives and instead clearing a way for people with drive to succeed, obviously that runs counter to the handout approach of the Democrats.

2. Political correctness

Political correctness is screwing up race relations. If you ever watch comedy shows from the 70s and early 80s (like Flip Wilson's show, old SNL, etc), blacks and whites make fun of each other in a fraternal way that you don't see very often anymore. Because of this weird PC crap that liberals continue to champion, we all get nervous when we might have to say the word "black". If you see three people 30 feet away and want to point one of them out to the person next to you when only one is black, I proudly say "the black one" but many won't. Why? Isn't it racism to worry about their skin color as meaning anything more than a way to identify them from a distance of 30 feet? Add to that speech codes on college campuses, hyphen-filled ethnicity labels on TV, and what you have is a needless wedge between the races that wasn't even there 20 or 30 years ago. What would you call a black person who was born and raised in England? An African-Englishperson?

3. Class Warfare

I've known several blacks over the last couple years who come up with the weirdest conspiracy theories. One told me that Abraham Lincoln's father was black and because of that, the US Mint put him on a dark colored coin of the lowest value and turned his head in a different direction from the rest of the coin heads. I said, yeah, but you're not serious, are you? She was. I wondered aloud about how politically motivated the US Mint is. Another told me that many blacks are pleased that OJ Simpson got off just because he got to stick it to "The Man".

Blacks believe that the GOP is the party of the rich white guy or "The Man", and to some degree that is true because of the GOP's pro-business stance on most issues. But when the head of the NAACP makes ridiculous statements joined by heads of the Democratic party such as Hillary Clinton's "plantation" comment, not to mention the media's love of any inflammatory comment like those of Kanye West (or Cornell West), it just perpetuates the class warfare aspect.

JJ & the everlasting self-flagellation
Jeff, if your point was (accurately) that the GOP has nothing to be ashamed of on raice, why in heaven's neame did you feel compelled to stir up the Lott/Thurmand tempest in a teacup (not even a teapot)? If you felt you MUST bring that up again, the least you could have done was balance it with this account from the Washington Times:

""I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment," [Senator Christopher] Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, said while praising Mr. Byrd last week on the occasion of the eight-term Democrat's 17,000th Senate vote.

Mr. Dodd continued: "He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation."

Mr. Byrd has admitted he joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1942. In a 1946 letter to a national Klan leader, Mr. Byrd wrote that he had held the rank of "kleagle" in the KKK. In the Senate in June 1964, Mr. Byrd made a 14-hour filibuster speech in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the Civil Rights Act."

And, further, calling D.W. Griffith's most famous work a "celebration of the Klan" is no more accurate than calling SAVING PRIVATE RYAN an "indictment of GIs" because one of them yields to cowardice.

If you want to chide Bush for unnecessary "ruefulness," don't engage in it yourself.

For GunnyG: Re: Mindnumbing
GunnyG writes: "America's blacks need to leave the dark side and come over to the GOP. We don't give HAND OUTS but you will get a HAND UP."

Welcome to the 21st century. Republicans, by their actions in Congress under George W. Bush, have demonstrated that they no longer believe this.

The mantra for the 21st century Republican is, "OUR hand-outs are BIGGER than the Democrats'."

This is really a shame. Had Republicans stuck to their principles, maybe they would have won over more blacks -- maybe not. But at least we could start to get public discourse in this direction. At least we could TALK about self-determination and self-sufficiency. As it is, with Republicans trying to out-socialist the Democrats, we don't even talk about it anymore.

I think if we could get more public discourse, that would win over more blacks. Certainly since so many blacks are running their own businesses, getting big promotions, etc., and the black middle-class and rich are growing in such huge numbers -- certainly more and more fit the Republican stereotype vs. Democrat, except for skin color. But, if not, well, what have we got to lose? Blacks can't hate Republicans too much more than they already do, so sticking to principles is a can't-lose proposition.

Instead, Republicans switched to being Bigger and Better Democrats -- and not only do blacks STILL hate Republicans, but now they're going to lose a lot of their principled conservative base as well.

Bad decision.

It is not "foul demagoguery" to accuse democrats of racism- still- when you consider what democratic policies have done to education and urban families. Is that not just another form? To pound it into the heads of young blacks that they don't have to work or achieve because they are "entitled" is NOT a form of paternalistic racism? To enact policies designed to cement a population group to the party through failure is NOT racism in its entirety? To convince young men and women that they cannot make it without the help of the democratic party is not a form of racism.
I politely disagree...

Blacks and the Democratic Party
Wasn't it Lyndon Johnson who said, "I'll have the (offensive term) voting Democrat for the next 200 years."? He certainly is off to a good start.

What the Republicans need to do is become more articulate and courageous in their efforts at illustrating how the Democrats have hurt blacks. They should try to win the support of blacks by offering viable alternatives to the paternalistic and degrading programs of the Democrats instead of watered-down versions of the same.

Blacks and the Democratic Party
Wasn't it Lyndon Johnson who said, "I'll have the (offensive term) voting Democrat for the next 200 years."? He certainly is off to a good start.

What the Republicans need to do is become more articulate and courageous in their efforts at illustrating how the Democrats have hurt blacks. They should try to win the support of blacks by offering viable alternatives to the paternalistic and degrading programs of the Democrats instead of watered-down versions of the same.

Just a few thoughts here
I think we should just keep saying that we can more about 'the content of your character' than about skin color/ethnic background. I drives the dems crazy, besides being true.

I was going to use the phrase 'million man march' but then I got to thinking about that phrase... a million MAN... why was it singular?

I think we could do a takeoff on your brain with dems...

How about "free youself... vote Republican?"




the naacp can't speak for me
And I dare say that they do not speak for a lot of blacks. I have an essay at my blog on this very issue and would invite any that want to read it to go to flagwaver.townhall.com to check it out. That said, the NAACP long ago stopped caring about the struggles of ordinary Blacks and put its considerable influence to work in shaking down movie studios, television companies, and corporations to make sure that Halle Berry can make close to what Julia Roberts does, there are more black characters in primetime shows, and that enough blacks are promoted in businesses to keep the NAACP off the company's back. They don't care about Black people and have sold us out to have a seat at the table under the Democrat political tent. That is why the mebership has hovered around 150-250,000 members for the past three decades. Tha NAACP derives its power from constant media exposure and the politicians that pander to it, and ufortunately the President just helped this group of race-baiters get a lot more exposure.

GW Bush had a great line once
In one of our President's speeches, he defined racism today as "the soft bigotry of low expectations". This is the difference today between the GOP stance on race and the "soft bigots" of the Democrat party. I only wish that more blacks were enlightened like Flagwaver.

democRATs give lip service to blacks.
Consider this. In 2004 2 prominent blacks ran for the democRAT nomination. Ok, we can dismiss al sharpton as an opportunist who was not really taken seriously by anyone. But, then we get to Carol Mosely Braun. Sen Braun was very well qualified to run for President and should have made a big splash.

The former Senator and Ambassador, Braun ran mostly in the democRAT strongholds of New England and the
white bigots who infest New England refused to vote her. These white, yankee bigots give lipservice to blacks who vote overwhelmningly for democRATs but gave less than 2% of their votes to the highly qualified black woman who ran for the Presidency in 2004.

Reverse Discrimination? Get Real...
So according to the repubs/cons in this site:

"we live in a colorblind society where each person is judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin"

Oh really? So none of this happens anymore?

Highly qualified Minorities are routinely passed over for promotions by less qualified whites.

Less qualified whites are allowed admission to prestigious universities than more qualified
minorities because of their race and connections.

Minorities are not allowed to purchase and move into homes in predominantly white communities,
despite having the funding to do so.

Minorities are still refused service at certain resturaunts and are denied membership to certain country clubs.

Qualified minorities are denied bank loans that otherwise less qualified whites receive approval on.

Left angle????
Is this sarcasm??

Zeus
the first four sentences are sarcasm. yes.

the rest is stuff that actually still happens to minorities in this country as we speak.

I'm just sitting here reading the comments in this thread and it's rather amazing at how repubs/cons look at the race issue.

It's as if they dont believe that racial discrimination and racism itself no longer exist in the U.S. in 2006. T

Then they keep repeating this crap about how the blacks vote 95% for democrats because they are "beholding to them for entitilements,handouts, and preferences they dont deserve and recieve by playing the "race card of vicitmization". It's as if poor whites & women dont use these some of these same "socialistic social aid programs" youre speaking of. Your attitude is not only wrong, it's insulting.

If you ask most blacks why they dont vote Republican they will tell you its because they correctly sense that the modern Republican Party is HOSTILE to their agenda and that they have used the racist "Southern Strategy" to get their last four presidents elected.

correction:
"Is as if they believe that racial discrimination and racism itself no longer exist in the U.S. in 2006."

Left Angle once again the Wrong Angle
Left Angle - the only institutionalized racism still remaining in this country is of the reverse nature -- affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, black gerrymandered districts, and a hundred other programs that currently escape me. Does racism exist in 2006? Of course. Will it exist in 2010? 2020? 2050? The year 5000? Yes to all of them! Racism will remain an element of human thought and behavior throughout eternity as it has throughout human history just like other forms of human thought and emotion both positive and negative will endure as well. Do we continue to institutional reverse discrimation until every last vestige of discrimation is wiped from the face of the earth?

Let's talk about some of your perceived injustices...

"Highly qualified Minorities are routinely passed over for promotions by less qualified whites." I'm sure that it happens in some cases just as it happens where better qualified whites are passed over for lesser qualified whites. Should we institute a program to prevent this from happening? I would argue that there are a lot more blacks being unfairly promoted in order to fulfill diversity targets then instances of what you are alleging as a pervasive example of racism.

"Less qualified whites are allowed admission to prestigious universities than more qualified
minorities because of their race and connections". The key word here is connections. If you have connections then I don't care what color you are, you are going to have an advantage. Again, thanks to academic diversity targets I will guarantee you that the reverse of what you allege is a lot more prevelant.

"Minorities are not allowed to purchase and move into homes in predominantly white communities,
despite having the funding to do so". Does this ever happen? Well I can't guarantee that there isn't an isolated example somewhere, but if it does happen it is extremely rare. How do you prevent someone from purchasing a home? I suppose that the seller could refuse to sell, but isn't that their perogative? And why would they care if they are going to be moving anyway?

"Minorities are still refused service at certain resturaunts and are denied membership to certain country clubs". I would argue that an owner of any business should have the right to serve whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose -- it's their business and should be run however they decide (that's why I hate restaurant smoking ordinances despite hating smoking). I just don't see any real evidence that this happens anyway. Please don't use the Denny's example as evidence -- I guarantee that was probably an opportunistic lawyer representing some easily offended black patrons who got lousy service. That never happens to whites by the way. As far as country clubs -- if it's private then the members have every right to choose who they want to admit under whatever set of requirements they choose. Of course there is no such thing as an all black organization that refuses to admit members outside of their race...right?!?

"Qualified minorities are denied bank loans that otherwise less qualified whites receive approval on". This has been proven to be false by numerous studies that don't get much press since it doesn't fit the liberal media template. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have cited these under reported studies before.

Sammy: You PROVE My Point...
That most MODERN repubs/cons simply dont beleive that institutional racism and racial discrimination still exist in the U.S. in 2006. Accordingly all these issues have been long settled according to repubs/cons.

If you made that statement to any intelligent black person, they would probably LAUGH in you face in disbelief ..lol

Listen man, you live in a dream world. ALL of the practices I mentioned (and it's just a short list) is stuff that is still happening in a rampant manner in the U.S.

The very concept of "reverse discrimination" of whites is ludicrous.

Left Angle
Wow, that's what I was afraid of.

This may have been true 40 years ago but today it's an anachronism. If anybody could come up with any evidence that any of this still actually happens, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson et al, would be on every news channel shrieking at the top of their lungs! Well, they do that anyway but they never seem to be able to point to any specific examples, just general "feelings".

The race baiters have become so desperate for examples of racism they have been making them up. Remember Jesse "The biggest issue facing Black America is Washington DC statehood" Jackson? Must not be that many issues facing Black America if that's true.

What about the ongoing controversy about LOWERED admission standards for minorities at American Universities?

Blacks have are routinely refused service in restaurants? Where? Any investigative reporter in America would run over his/her mother to get a story like that.

I happen to be a Mortgage Banker for a large international bank and I can tell you your points 3 and 4 are decidedly not true. My firm has an entire department full of highly paid people whose only job is to reach out to the minority community. Among other things, they offer free counseling and privately subsidized loans to encourage minority homeownership.

Even if this were not true, the mortgage industry is cripplingly regulated to prevent exactly what you speak of.

See www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm

Racism is an unfortunate part of the human condition and will always exist to some degree but your accusations are simply no longer true.

Sammy: On Institutional Racism...
"Institutional racism is a term that describes the way government and other public and private institutions systematically afford White people an array of social, political and economic advantages, simply because they are White, while marginalizing and putting at a disadvantage African Americans and many other people of color. White people often cannot see and do not question the sources and legitimacy of their privilege and power, whereas people of color experience daily its consequences. Even without conscious, personal racial animosity, these institutional structures, policies, and practices generate and maintain racial discrimination, segregation, and inequalities of opportunity that keep African Americans and other people of color apart from the mainstream of American economic and political life.

Institutional racism is a legacy of American slavery and White settlers' determination to systematically exclude Africans from every aspect of the newly formed democratic society. Institutional racism is still rampant today and remains embedded in every institution, school, and system in society despite efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans and other people of color."


You're right Left Angle
The world is so unfair. Let's implement a policy, a program, a law, a directive, and a mandate that will preemptively thwart every possible negative result, thought, action, and/or deed possible by human beings. The solution to every injustice in this world is easily solvable through a large government program that will dictate every possible human interaction and endeavor in a mutually harmonious and acceptable manner.

No one will ever have to suffer an injustice in this world. No one will ever have to be offended. We can effectively eliminate greed, lust, hunger, racism, bad posture, snobbery, etc. etc. etc if we could just enact more laws and bureacracy to make this world right! It's all possible if we will just turn over our lives to our ever benign and omniscient government. They have all the answers! Individuals should never be left to fend for themselves in this imperfect world. Imperfection is solvable if we just turn over our lives to the dictates of a big controlling government.

Sammy: White Male Supremecy...
Is no joke...laugh all you want that's the way it is in this country and around the world. The white man wants to control everything and he practically does. Thats the real struggle that's going on and many people dont even see it and it could very well set the stage for the real Armagedon of this world:

All Peoples of Color world wide VS.

All Caucasians world wide.

A scarry thought for you...the people of color around the world combined outnumber the caucasians. It's slowy happening here in the U.S.

THINK ABOUT IT..LOL

GOODNIGHT!!

American flag and the swastika , side by
This MISadministration does not want American flag and the swastika, side by. They only want the swastika. This MISadministration has done more damage to this country and its constitution than all previous administrations in history. If the democrats do not take at least on house, and preferably both houses of congress in November, in two mo'fourth reach', if we still exist at all re years, we will be the.

Questions and Comments for Left Angle
Quoth the Left Angle:

"Highly qualified Minorities are routinely passed over for promotions by less qualified whites."

ROUTINELY? Do you have any evidence to prove this?

"Less qualified whites are allowed admission to prestigious universities than more qualified minorities because of their race and connections."

That's utter nonsense. Prestigious universities in this day and age are almost more liberal than Mao Tse Tung, and bend over backwards to find reasons to admit more minorities, sometimes even when they're less qualified.

Remember that controversy where UofMichigan was giving applicants extra points for minority status?

"Minorities are not allowed to purchase and move into homes in predominantly white communities, despite having the funding to do so."

Bullcrap. Any housing development with even a HINT of such a practice faces lawsuits, penalties, even possible jailtime. Same for any realtor who deliberately steers people into neighborhoods based on race. And realtors have to take periodic "ethics" classes and such where this is repeatedly drummed into their heads.

If you know of such a community, let us know. I'd love to see somebody get busted.

"Minorities are still refused service at certain resturaunts and are denied membership to certain country clubs."

Where? What restaraunt, what country club? Again, I want to hear something more specific than "certain". I want names, places, people we can sic the EEOC on. We'll call Jesse Jackson and I'd bet he'd set up a picket line in 10 minutes.

"Qualified minorities are denied bank loans that otherwise less qualified whites receive approval on."

There *is* some evidence of this, but only because blacks and whites have this tendency to move to separate areas, despite the absence of any rules requiring it. Many blacks are moving out of some areas, and Hispanics are moving in (and I can give you concrete examples if you'd like). The neighborhood I grew up in was once predominantly German (Larry Elder's father still live there, I believe). There's still (I think) a German delicatessen there, which had been there for over 50 years.

My point is that the lenders take areas into account in determining lendability, and some predominantly black neighborhoods are also predominantly unlendable. A white person living in such a neighborhood will have the same difficulties getting loans.

Move to a predominantly black neighborhood that's wealthy, and all lending problems evaporate.

To conclude:

What you're essentially accusing people of doing is cutting their own throats over some stupid prejudice. I.e., some white person is going to refuse to make profit from some black person, simply because of race. That just doesn't happen as much as it used to. In the world of business, there is no "black" and "white", only "GREEN".

The reasons for being racist are much less prevalent today (one oft-cited reason is that the neighbors would complain -- today, for the most part, the neighbors don't have any problems with mixed neighborhoods), and the reasons for NOT being racist are HUGE (bad publicity, penalties, and, not the least of which, lost profit from customers who just *happen* to be minorities).

The only people these days who find racism hiding behind every nook and cranny are the people who profit from it, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, etc. People who actually live real lives simply don't find anywhere near as much racism as once plagued the nation. They don't find anywhere near as much racism as Julian Bond would have you believe.

That's what's supposed to be the "Republican" message, or "Conservative" since Republicans have long abandoned conservatism. Democrats are still in the category of profiting from keeping people scared of the Big Bad Racism Boogieman.

Blacks, unfortunately, still buy into this mythology, even ones in positions to know better. Democrats win by shoveling this myth into willing minds, telling the people what they've grown up wanting and expecting to hear, while giving only lip-service to any real reform.

To UncaAlby
Great post, and your almost right except the part about the "unlendable" neighborhoods.

The practice you are describing is called "red lining" and it's illegal as well. As long as the borrower is qualified based on pre-established underwriting guidelines, you cannot refuse to give them a mortgage just because they may be in a less than desirable zip code. Even if one neighborhood has a disproportionately higher default rate, your underwriting guidelines must remain constant.

Beverly Hills = South Central = Gross Pointe = Scarsdale = Harlem = Martha's Vineyard

See my post below under "Zeus"...I was unable to sign on from my home computer so I had to establish a new profile.

Other than that you're right on. Well done.


Pitiful
As a black man who has lived through and experienced white racism and hostility I feel entirely qualified to assess that racism.


It is largely a thing of the past. Of course there will always be a few racists among us. They are sick people who are of no real consequence. Yes, occasionally a drunken skinhead, or a few of them together, will swill enough beer to go looking for a black person to attack. The fact is that these crimes are few and far between. There will always be losers like that around.


The truth is that Left angle is nuts. He/she spouts leftist propaganda that has nothing to do with reality or rational thinking. My message to Left angle is, Shut UP! I don't need your goofy help. People like you are responsible for the degeneration of the Democratic Party, and of the society as well. Get lost!

What is wrong with being rich?
It is the rich man's fault that the poor man is poor. It is the white man that is keeping the black man down. It is the Jews fault that the plague hit the country. It is the Jews, the White's, the rich.

Hogwash. If you want to get rich, get to work. I would much rather live in a wealthy country with big business flourishing than in a say for example, a place like Mexico. What is wrong with being rich?

So the Republicans are for the rich big business type, and the Democrats are for the poor uneducated downtrodden. Well which do you prefer to be? Which do we aspire to be? Do we want to provide incentives for the poor, uneducated or the rich big business type.

Would you rather have your country full of rich, educated people, or poor uneducated? The question is as simple as that. You can continue to blame the other guy, and stew in your nothingness, or you can get off your ass and realize that it is noone else fault but your own. Get a clue and get your ass in gear. Only when the Democrats stop blaming big business and discrimination will they once again become a party with any chance gain control over the branches of government. Until then, they are the poor victoms.


Racism
LeftAngle:

Hilarious posts, by the way.

I spent 20 years in the Army and watched the complete integration and acceptance of all minorities into positions of power and responsibility. It was fun. Only losers played the race card and they usually got it rammed up their fundament.

I have since retired and gone into the private business community and have carried the attitudes that I developed in the Army to this endeavor. That attitude is "I don't care about your racial status, sex, religion, disability or anything else. Can you do the job? If so, great! If not, goodbye."

Affirmative action programs make the problems worse because they cause an undue awareness of race.

Would you say it is fair to set aside seats for Asian students? If not, why not? How about Hispanics? How about Arabs? How about Jews? How about whites?

If you said no to any of the above why is it right to set aside seats for blacks based merely on race?

Someone once said, and I agree, that when talking about race two questions should be asked.
1. What is your definition of racism?
2. How does that apply to this situation?

All in all, though, your left angle posts show the modern liberal attitude towards minorities. That is "They can't make it without help, the poor dears. So sad, they just can't.

What a load of crap.

Another thing on Redlining
It's tough being a realtor in racially polarized cities.

On one hand, if you show blacks [whites] the houses in black [white] neighborhoods, you can be accused of "racial profiling" and lose your license.

On the other hand, if you show blacks [whites] the houses in white [black] neighborhoods, the customer will ask, "Where are all the black folk [white people]?" and you might lose a customer.

Even if the customer doesn't complain, showing blacks [whites] the houses in white [black] neighborhoods, you might be accused of "block-busting," the practice of selling one house in the neighborhood to a minority in an attempt to drum up sales from the majority getting scared and deciding to leave.

It's kinda like anti-trust legislation. If your prices are below the competition, you're dumping, if higher, you're gouging, and if the same, you're colluding. No matter what price you pick somebody can slap a lawsuit on you.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.