The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape

I tried to read this article, but it is just too darn silly. . .

“For example, on September 3, the Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department told the New York Times about conditions at the Convention Center: “The tourists are walking around there, and as soon as these individuals see them, they ‘re being preyed upon. They are beating, they are raping them in the streets."”

This is the fault of a public official who should have known better. Similar to yelling “fire” in a dark movie theater. We, the public, were deceived by his foolishness. The NO mayor also was worse than nothing in this regard (10,000 dead!). I assume they are both white racists?

“Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true, the stories circulating about them would still be “pathological” and racist,”

Yes yes yes, reporting the actual news is racist (pathological is a new twist!)! We should in fact alter the news to be more politically correct, disregarding inconvenient facts.

For instance, when a black man commits a crime, we should focus on how unfair society was and is to him. Really, whatever his crime might be, it should be made clear that he is the victim.

But if a white guy commits a crime, we should make it clear that, despite having all the advantages, the western European mindset of conquering all and taking the spoils is responsible for his being a criminal miscreant.

Or we could just try to accurately report the facts. . . (oh wait, that is the racist approach, my bad)

“In other words, we would be dealing with what could be called lying in the guise of truth:”

Sure i can see that. Who was it that said: “the lies will set up free”?

It is a Brave New World, i suppose.

One more thing.

While we sit in our comfortable climate controlled rooms typing on our modern computers and sipping diet coke (or coffee) we think we are so very modern and civilized. But it **IS** just a thin veneer. All of us are just animals, and when circumstances get a bit more *rustic*, when survival is at stake, our teeth bare and guttural snarls emerge from our delicate palettes. Evolutionarily we are a tiny baby step from our basest selves.

So of course i believe that poor blacks can degrade into uncivilized savages in a matter of a few days under highly adverse circumstances. I think the process might be EVEN FASTER for the folk (skin color being, of course, immaterial to this type of thing) at the top of the pyramid however, given that they are less used to the struggle and savagery of everyday life, ensconced in their “important” little lives. . .

Anyone remember the Donner party? The Watts riots? The insurgency in Iraq? Humans are a particularly difficult species to tame. . .

And,

Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true, the stories circulating about them would still be “pathological” and racist, since what motivated these stories were not facts, but racist prejudices, the satisfaction felt by those who would be able to say: “You see, Blacks really are like that, violent barbarians under the thin layer of civilization!” In other words, we would be dealing with what could be called lying in the guise of truth: Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false.

Talk about straw man arguments! So, if we had accurately reported on what really happened, by definition we must be racist, because only a racist would have the motivation to report on such things???

That’s it, Jay.  You’re exactly right, you racist son of a bitch.

No, seriously, Jay.  The straw man argument is that blacks, because they loot, riot, rape, rob and murder other people, are looters, rioters, rapists, robbers and murderers.  If you accurately report what really happened, and ignore the rest of what really happened, then you must be a racist, because only racists are motivated to report selective incidents to justify general conclusions.

Let’s try a thought experiment.  Let’s assume that all the colored folk in New Orleans, being the the incorrigible, inveterate thieves that you believe them to be, stole all the food and water, cash and transportation from all the white folk in New Orleans, and evacuated the area before the hurricane hit, leaving all the white folk in New Orleans to suffer the incompetent consequences of George Bush and his merry band of political sinecures.  Using your own implied definition of racial morality, one can only conclude that thousands of white victims of the hurricane would have simply, righteously, starved to death rather than loot and riot, rape and rob, and kill one another.

The hurricane is a social metaphor, Jay.

Let’s try a thought experiment (i love thought experiments!). Lets say Major Major gets arrested for solicting prostitution. Now reporting such an event is clearly not fair to MM - after all, no one reported all the times he was not solicting a prostitute.

This is just silly. Can you say straw man? I think you can. . .

Oh, and btw, nice (insulting annd inaccurate) non-sequitor: “Let’s assume that all the colored folk in New Orleans, being the the incorrigible, inveterate thieves that you believe them to be,”!

If you understood the difference between a straw man argument and an ad hom, wolf, you wouldn’t feel so obsessed with your own projective fantasies of my sexual inclinations.

My point, in case you and your redneck confederates missed it (and, predictably, you did just that) is that, given all the coverage concerning the suffering and social dislocation caused by the hurricane and the inadequate response to it, focusing on the brutal consequences is racist because it promotes racist conclusions with respect to the victims of the hurricane.  In fact, focusing on the rioting and looting conveniently ignores the apathetic response of a government (of predominantly white folks) whose reason for existence is to serve all of the people, not just the rich, white ones.

So Wolf (and Jay), what is the real problem with the article?

1) That it calls out bias that you deny exists.

2) That the hypothesis about why there is apparent bias is out of line.

Big difference.  It seems a little like you are asserting that there was no bias or that it was insignificant in terms of how the situation was reported.  What do you mean?

This is silly. By your logic, we should never mention the holocaust, because it would reflect badly on Germans, or the conquistadors, because it might arouse anti-Spanish feelings.

And withholding negative information can actually hurt the people you’re trying to protect. E.g. if no-one was allowed to mention the high imprisonment rate for African Americans, we wouldn’t even know there is a problem that needs addressing.

And if repeating New Orleans atrocity stories means one must be a racist, does that mean Oprah hates black people? Of course not. Only confirmed racists saw these stories in a racist light. The rest of us were thinking “What if that were me down there? What would I do in that situation?”

This kerfuffle seems to show that PC ideologues are like Straussians, in that they believe there are some things that the common people are not fit to know.

Or, for example, Eyeresist, the displacement and near extermination of the indigenous population for fear of making white Americans feel badly…

It is not surprising that this article has led to much misunderstanding. After all, we are not all Lacanian psychologist-philosophers who can view the hurricane as the social metaphor (as Major Major points out) as the author intended. He didn’t lay out any guidelines about what we should or should not report on - or declare what the common people are not fit to know. Reread the last two paragraphs. That’s ultimately what the article is really about - and there is nothing unclear or misleading here…

“My point, in case you and your redneck confederates missed it (and, predictably, you did just that)”

You misunderstand. It is not so much i don’t understand your “argument”. Rather it is that it is foolish. Note that while i call your argument foolish, i refrain from calling *you* names. Surely we can rise above such things? (And no, i was not asserting you *really* solicit prostitutes, rather i was making a foolish argument in the same style as your foolish argument, hoping you would grasp the silliness of same).

GreyArea - the problem with the article is that it claims reporting objective facts is racist, in and of itself. Frankly i am a bit stunned that *anyone* wouuld defend such idiocy. But i suppose polictical correctness continues to evolve. . .

To restate what I said, the article explicitly states that ,

Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true ... the motives that make me say it are false.

The author is ascribing racist motivation to anyone who reports the truth, just as Major Major did.

I think you are all missing the point. The author is not saying that accurate reporting is racist - although he does not do a good job explaining his thought clearly. I think the point is that people made-up racist stories and reported them. If they had LATER turned-out to be true, they would still be racist stories because when they were reported, they were made-up racist stories.

What if the “boy who cried wolf” had gone yelling about a wolf that wasn’t there, but while he was yelling - a real wolf just happened to show-up?  Would he then be truthful? No, he is still a liar even though chance made him look truthful at that moment.

I think this is the give-him-the-benefit-of-the-doubt reading that we all hope for when writing.

Excellent point Siskiyouz. The boy who cried wolf about a wolf that wasn’t there is a good analogy.

Zizek also seems to be reiterating the adage that the greatest sin is to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.  It may be true that blacks in New Orleans did loot and rape, but to make that claim because “that’s what blacks would do” is dreadful, and the reason that “the right thing for the wrong reasons” is wrong is that it predicts further right things for wrong reasons, or means justified by ends, and this is morally corrupt.  An honest mistake is preferable to a correct statement motivated by dishonesty or avarice, for example racism.

A problem with Zizek’s analysis, that Eyeresist saw, I think, is that it depends on identifying motives, and while Zizek identifies those motives as racist, for many of us our motives for accepting the horror stories weren’t based on confirmed racism but on a general pessimism about human nature.  “Of course they’re looting and raping; we’re so fucked up as a society that when our support systems break down we can’t respond except as selfish brutes.” This exception actually proves Zizek’s general theory, though: we’re trapped by our general preconceptions, racist or pessimist, and miss opportunities to make positive specific changes.

A white woman is reported “scavenging for emergency supplies” in one story.  In another story, a black looter is reported.  If the stores they are taking goods from are, um… not open, then they are both actually looters.  So I suppose the story of the black looter is more truthful than the other, but only superficially so.

These sorts of side-by-side comparisons can be observed from the body of news reporting on Katrina.

What leads the reporters to conclude different things about the same basic action committed by two different people?  .  I don’t think it is unreasonable to explore the possible underlying cognitive models behind the contrasting images.

The article is certainly imperfect, but it seems to me that some are being a bit hasty in dismissing it.  Just because there was looting, rape and murder committed, doesn’t mean that there is no problem here.

wouldn’t the difference between “scavenging for emergency supplies” and looting also have something to do with the type of goods that were taken?  stealing food and stealing an iPod are not quite commensurate, given the situation…

Of course they are different all together… who in your mind was taking the i-pod?

achman:

..oon second thought, if I take something I can trade for food, am I looting?  We are pretty deep into a hypothetical situation at this point.  I’ve never seen very much context presented in any of the headline stories. 

I think it is potentially dangerous to give reporters the benefit of the doubt on assessing the semantic difference between looting and scavenging for emergency supplies.  However, I do believe it is important for researchers to follow up stories like this and look objectively at why the news is reported the way it is reported. 

Reporters are merely human.  It would be silly to deny that they have their own biases or to simply assert that due to their profession, they can turn them off.

Stealing anything is completely commensurate, given the situation.  In a period of catastrophe, when the normal moral constraints of civilized social interactions are suddenly ripped away, people act according to, and are judged by a completely different set of standards.  Property laws, in the face of a locally universal destruction of property, are abandoned and ignored.  People whose lives are in peril are justifiably unconcerned with the value of anyone’s property, and least of all with the property abandoned by those who fled for their own lives.

Condemning a specific group of people for their abnormal behaviour in an abnormal situation, one for which none of them were reponsible, is straight-out racist.

My critical reasonin’ and logic ain’t the best, but I sort of see the point of this article, you know?

In any case, I’d sure like to see you, Wolf, thrown into some god-forsaken hell hole situation like being left for dead in New Orleans, and see how you act.  lol.

As soon as I saw the words of that intellectual pervert, Jacques Lacan, I knew exactly what was to follow. The author’s “ideas” on “walls” (many of which are actually borders of sovereign states) subvert the whole dialogue and, predictably, pervert it. If people are able to escape their lands and get somewhere better, who will be left in the lands of tyrants? Those with the least courage, with the least resources, with the least of everything it takes to make their lives better. And so human capital spills to the lands of plenty, increasing the inequities that presently exist. [Compare the draft-dodgers’ flight to Canada (and those who claimed they’d go if W was re-elected), making Canada increasingly liberal (or Liberal) and America increasingly conservative with the loss of those liberals.]

As for the looting and raping: taking food is one thing, and LCD TV quite another. The real racism is the racism of Big Government’s big hand patting American blacks on the head and saying “there there” and, with tiny stipends exchanged for votes, increasing their dependency on the welfare state. The real racists here are the bend-over-backward whites who, to prove they aren’t racist, created a whole new plantation for fatherless families.

The problem is that Mr Zizek undertakes to mull over a range of topics that is simply too vast - enough can be written to fill a book on each one - the EU’s boundaries, the Walls Present and Walls Past of this world, the Holocaust.

This brings in a lot of noise into what I assume is his central topic - views of the world through coloured lenses, seen in the light of the reporting of the aftermath of the hurricane.

For a start, when I was reading through, I remembered a study I read about, which found out that a discussion immediately loses any further point when somebody brings up Hitler or the Holocaust. In this case the author himself seems to have obliged.

Then while it might be the in-thing to see all races and classes as equal, we must agree that there ARE inherent differences - whether caused by heredity or environment - that we cannot ignore. (By the way my skin is brown in color, and I’m mailing from halfway around the globe)

The way someone who is of, say, Japanese origin sees the world (even if he is a second generation American) has to be different to at least some extent from, well, anyone else.

If someone kills another, or robs him, or beats him up, it is the same crime; and his guilt is no different if his skin is black, white, yellow, brown or - for the matter - green.

But if a look at the prison population says that there are more blacks there, then you have something to wonder about, and try to address. That however cannot be done by simply excusing the individual attacker based on the shade of his skin.

As for the Lurking Savage, just try another thought experiment. Wait on a street corner and, one by one, walk up to skins that are of various shades and occupy different positions in life - and slap each one of them.

Study their reactions.

If there is reporter looking on, and who will write a report, walk up to him, and slap him too. And read his report the next day. So much for objective reporting.

I know, because I was a reporter till three days before. No, I didn’t quit because anyone slapped me.

As it happens WOLF was sreeching for the blood of those desperate looters and Rapists against, all argument for reason and perspective.

WOLF
Let’s try a thought experiment (i love thought experiments!).

You are a thought experiment ...................and a failed one at that..........

Rabbit is in a WOLF wacking mood ........... this will be his last entry for now, but shall return to this thread to add more useful input later. 

The Major says:

wolf, ..............obsessed with your own projective fantasies of my sexual inclinations

Rabbit mentions that Wolf has been known to employ such ‘imagery’ as this before, he has left much of his religion behind but retained his particlular kinks it seems.

The problem with the article is that it cries its own wolf story.

What I see lacking in the responses to this article are the tangible and real implications of this potentially racist dialogue that occured between the media, its viewers and emergency assistance services.  I thought that the most important point Zizek made was that these reports prevented emergency services from coming to the aid of needy people in New Orleans. 

If anyone is interested, the National Public Radio [NPR] program “This American Life” did a great radio show, interviewing people who were involved in the aftermath of the storm.  [You can listen to a free, archived stream of the show on their website].  The reporting of the situation led the military and police to harass and distrust anyone in New Orleans because they believed mayhew was ensuing, when it in fact was not.  There may have been wrong or immoral behavior by some people in New Orleans, but that does not mean that thousands had to be deprived of basic human needs because of a perception.  There is an obligation to provide assistance first and ask questions later, stopping only if there is a serious risk to those providing aid.  During the news coverage, I heard some reports of people getting shot at or hearing gunshots, but Zizek is claiming that these fears were unwarranted, and what if he is correct?  Then a gross disservice was perpetrated upon many innocent individuals. 

The other thing that this article does not address is the Bush debacle that led to the depraved conditions in New Orleans.  Though the article does not take this up, it is not a reality we can disregard.  If an evacuation had been planned or levees better supported, no one would have been forced into those depraved conditions in the first place. 

In conclusion, I think Zizek is not crying wolf but explaining in his own philosophical/Marxist way how a perception of people or an imagined community of people can create tangible and/or damaging consequences for society.  It stems from Zizek’s studies of communist/totalitarian regimes, in which discourse propped up unfair political systems.  In the American example, it is the media which determines the main discourse and the government which follows this ‘will of the people’.  If we as the people have nothing to say and allow the media to determine its own views of a situation, we can look forward to many more New Orleans-s.

I wish to cite another psychoanalytic anecdote, for reasons of personal edification, but also because I think it may shed some light on the highly problematic claim on which Zizek balances his entire argument.  Had all the disorder “factually” happened, Zizek writes, even so, the news reporting would have come out biased.  This claim incurred all manner of grumbling and browbeating on this board, and perhaps with good reason.  But if we attend, briefly, to the Lacanian story that foregrounds the claim, we may well be on our way to seeing why, exactly, even one-to-one correspondence between reportage and fact would remain problematic.  At any rate, the story I want to tell goes like this: a woman suffering from persecution phobia comes again and again to her analysts’ couch to tell teary tales of being chased by a swarm of bees whenever she’s out in her garden. The analyst tries every trick in the book, down to hypnosis, to no avail.  The woman returns each week, phobic and unsettled, but one day, the analyst happens to walk past her house and sees (wait for it…) a swarm of bees chasing the unfortunate analysand around the garden.  This anecdote is generally told pejoratively, meant to expose the quackeries and pretensions of psychoanalytic practice.  However, it raises an interesting question: why does this woman presumably initiate and continue her treatment, rather than, say, calling an exterminator?  Seriously, why? 
If we were to speculate, we could say, for instance, that the woman’s desire, not transparent to herself, is, in fact to be chased by bees every day.  Or we could say that she receives a great deal of pleasure from reiterating her story every week, and is thus invested in ritualistic iteration.  Or, perhaps, we could take a view closer to Lacan’s, and say that even if the bees were to be exterminated, the woman’s phobia would persist independently of that event.; that is, she would be persecuted by something other than bees, or she might even feel persecuted by the lack of bees.  Lacan insists (and I am being very reductive, of course) on the primacy of structure over content; in other words, the psyche is organized by certain open slots—structural positions—which get filled in, inhabited, by whatever.  The Whatever matters little.  What matters are the positions—and there is always a vacancy for the position of the Other.  That position exists unconditionally, while the specific Other which fills it may change depending on specific cultural and historical contexts.  At one time it may have been the Jews, at another, fags, and women are generally favored for the spot.  In the United States, blacks have been consistently relegated into that position.  In fact, they are now pretty much identical with Otherness.  It’s a tough place to be in: the Other, both unknowable and intimately familiar, feared and desired, dense and vacuous, is a figure onto which, as Zizek points out, anything at all can be projected, and usually is.  When blacks are complacent with their lot, they are lazy.  When blacks work within the economic system of rewards and punishments, they are accused of being either uppity or else, of unfair advantages.  When blacks rebel against that system, they are rioters and looters, and quickly become the Subject Supposed To Hang In A Tree.  When blacks are maliciously left behind in a flooded city, the nation sits around, scratching its ass and adjudicating on whether or not “they deserved it,” or if they can even be believed in the first place. 

Regardless of the “factual” presence or absence of swarming bees—the specific content of phobia—our analysand is marked by a structural ill.  She cannot tell what that ill is; but, for the moment, the bees seem to inhabit that position, seem to be the cause of it all.  But she, at least, goes to a shrink.  We, proud Americans, are much worse off than the woman with(out) the bees: we suffer from the delusion, against all evidence, that we are healthy.

The reason “Scary Movie” is funny it lets U peep over the balance at comedy; the New Orleans Deluge hurt because
it showed U a glimpse over the edge during tragedy.
“Everybody run here come the whites” is humorous for the underlying truth.  They will lock U up if you dont. Yes the rich feel guilty not the poor.

unfortunately there is no way to confirm what went on in New Orleans.that looting occured is a given,that murder and rape went is a given.to what extent that it occured is speculative at best. I suspect even euthanasia went down in New Orleans.We will never really know what went on.
But it is sure that some of these things if not all occured.
As they all occur in America regularly

Metrosocial says :

Regardless of the “factual” presence or absence of swarming bees—the specific content of phobia—our analysand is marked by a structural ill.  She cannot tell what that ill is; but, for the moment, the bees seem to inhabit that position, seem to be the cause of it all.  But she, at least, goes to a shrink.  We, proud Americans, are much worse off than the woman with(out) the bees: we suffer from the delusion, against all evidence, that we are healthy. ”

Your speculation is brilliant. Sick indeed.

What makes this cognitive structure so controversial is that it appears to be intrinsically human, and universally applicable.  Racism, sexism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, and religious or ideological affiliation seem to be “necessary” to promote social cohesion and co-operation, if also at the expense of those “minorities” which, in the aggregate, constitute a majority of the population.  This universal definition of the “other”, however specifically it’s defined, simultaneously defines the limits of our collective fraternity.  A hundred years from now, the genetically enhanced will regard the remainder of humanity with the same suppressed contempt and concescension which the economically enhanced currently relegate to the indigent and the ignorant.

We are still uncomfortable with the idea that the people from next door, the next village and the next country are the same as ourselves.

We see them, not us. Some see rivals, not equals. Others see enemies, not friends.

The difference is not in the person judged, but in the the person judging.

When, instead of calling them rivals or enemies, we can call them our equal or friend it is not them that have changed for the better, it is us .

As has been said many times before:

“ We have met the enemy. The enemy is us. “

Lacan sounds right to Rabbit. That too is how Rabbit see’s the process of people believing things contrary to evidence or even their own beliefs of yesterday.  They have a need for something which is supplied on a give and take basis by the “machine”. The feeling that everything makes sense and all is known, the black hats are this and we are the white hats, and that can answer all questions, if there are any, which there are not. Questions are just conspiracy theories.

The feeling is provided by faith.  The ideas, are like pills, take this one and say it for this situation.  Tomorrow, that pill is forgotten we have a new one.  It is the way in which Bush has comitted and illegal war and continues to do it.

It is the way in which those people in Katrina were left to suffer and were actually maligned, instead of being assisted.  assistance was witheld and on the basis of what?

several have made comments on this thread about not know the extent of looting or raping and other violence.

The following has been reported and Rabbit contends as true.

The police who claimed rapes and murders and shootings by armed looters have been sacked and these reports were untrue.  The national guard had control of the situation at the superdome things and despite investigating a couple of assault allegations, with no result, they said no rapes.  One death from shooting but maybe suicide and nobody shot at any national guardsmen or at their helicopters.

If anybody wishes to say otherwise, then Rabbit will gladly provide all info but he assumes it must be widely known?

By the way, some of us did the math at the time of the most extreme claims of violence and found the rate to be less than the same crimes among that many people on a daily basis.

Re major major’s thought experiment:

Let’s revise the assumptions and pretend that the underclass is white and not black.  The blacks plan ahead and have the means evacuate themselves.  They do so not by stealing (as they do in mm’s experiment) but by behaving like responsible adults.  Let’s assume the whites left behind are there not because they have been robbed of everything by blacks but because they are have all the qualities that marks an underclass.  No, they would not starve “righteously.” They would behave as underclass people behave.  They would act as New Orleans’ black underclass did act, which is to do nothing but complain that help did not arrive as fast as a free breakfast at the Head Start program and then to engage in various sorts of anti-social behavior. 

Under your own thought experiment, the choice for the whites would not be (1) starve righteously or (2) loot, riot, rape, rob and kill.  Not being members of an underclass, they would have skills to find other alternatives.  Even if the blacks in your experiment had robbed the whites of all their material things, the whites would still have the possessions that count: ability to organize; to lead; to follow; to cooperate; to help oneself and others; to take care of and rely on one’s familty.  Etc, etc. 

Re major major’s racist language: 

Many people who find “nigger” to be a vile term think nothing of using words like “redneck” and “hillbilly.” One sort of racist insult is simply not tolerated in our society.  Saying “nigger” in public can end one’s career.  But high minded liberals can use derogatory words describing poor rural Southern whites and poor Southern highlanders as synonyms for ignorance, prejudice and violence and no one seems to mind. 

I am about to conduct my own experiment: let’s see if the moderator of this forum permits me to write “‘nigger’” or tones it down to “‘n----r.’” If the moderator does so I have a request.  Tone down the other bad words too:  “‘r-----k’” and “‘h--------y.’”

Geebee,

Rabbit does not detect a reasonable tone behind your words, indeed you sound somewhat full of preconceptions..

You wouldn’t be a “poor rural Southern white” by any chance?

Of course, you’re right. geebee.  The whites would have done the same thing the blacks did.  They would have organized among themselves to provide each other with the mutual support required to survive the disaster, including those isolated incidents of mayhem which the racists feel compelled to relegate to racial or ethnic categorties.  People don’t bleed black or white, fascist or communist, blood.  The response to disaster is completely human, and not all of it is noble or virtuous.

GhostRabbit:  Your comment (the first sentence) lacks substance.  I have no response because there is nothing to respond to.

Re your question (second sentence): rather than comment on the content of my argument you ask about my race and my regional and socio-economic background. 

Is my race relevant?  I disapprove of racist language.  “Nigger” is an offensive term and so is “redneck.” I use neither. 

Major Major:  Maybe there was another hurricane and another city named New Orleans.  In the events I am familiar with there was very little self help by the members of the black underclass.  There were tens of thousands of people doing what they always do: depending on the government to do everything. 

You seem to think it is racist to note that the helpless victims and the criminals were black.  I suggest that the opposite is true.  Willful blindness about these facts points to a belief that blacks are inferior and cannot be held to the same standards as whites.  That is the most profound sort of racism.

Geebee, your lines drip with racist undertones - the blacks doing what they always do, huh?:
complain about having to wait too long for their free breakfasts, live off government handouts, etc. You’re spreading bad, bad vibes, here gee…

You are (indirectly, though not *that* indirectly) denying that blacks have always been given - and still are being given - a raw deal in American society. Your innuendoes are far worse than using the word “nigger”.

And your claim that “redneck” is racist language - on a par with “nigger” - is laughable. The latter refers to an entire race of people. The former refers to a sub-class of a race of people (people who belong to this sub-class by their own choice): those with an ignornant, racist and bigoted mindset. It is not the *term* “redneck” that is offensive - it is
*being* a redneck that is offensive.

Another difference: black people are offended when white people refer to them as “niggers”. Many rednecks (even most?) tend to wear the term like a badge of honour. They even take pleasure in being referred to rednecks by their “enemies”. I’ve heard them use the term “redneck pride” in self-reference. I can well imagine a modern-day “Oakie from Muskokie” (spelling?) with the word “redneck” in it…

Anarcho-Sozi:

You should take a lesson in reading comprehension.

I did not say that “blacks [are] doing what they always do.” In reference to the black underclass, I said that “There were tens of thousands of people doing what they always do: depending on the government to do everything. “

There is a distinction.  Perhaps your mind is not subtle enough to grasp it.

I did not say “blacks’ are any certain way.  I did say that many thousands of underclass blacks in New Orleans are dependent on government support.  You think one must be racist to state facts. 

As to “redneck.” What is laughable is your denying that the term is offensive.  You cite the fact that many whites refer to themselves as “rednecks” as proof that the word is OK.  Many blacks use the word “nigger” in a similar fashion.  That makes this term OK too, I guess. 

You fail utterly to understand the point about “redneck.” “Rednecks” were poor white rural Southerners, people who worked in the fields and got sunburned necks as they plowed and hoed under the hot sun.  Maybe you think people “choose” that lifestyle but I assure you they don’t.  It is a hard way to make a living.

The offensive character of the term displayed very accurately in your argument.  People choose to be ignorant and racist therefore they choose to be “rednecks.” In other words all poor white Southerners are ignorant racists.  That attitude is known as “prejudice.”

You’re right again, geebee.  There was another hurricane and another New Orleans (the “other” ones).  The problem lies in your selective filtration of the “facts” which were themselves initially filtered by the media.  When supplies of food and are limited, people share them.  When those supplies are depleted, they forage for further supplies of the same.  The media reported all of this, although they referred to the search as “looting”.  When these subsequent supplies are quickly depleted, people attempt to evacuate themselves from the scene, since, of course, no other alternative course of evacuation was made available to them.  When their attempts to evacuate themselves from the source of disaster is blocked by the police and inhabitants of adjacent neighborhoods, they continue to forage for food and water in their own neighborhoods, and vent their frustration and rage by looting, rioting and, not incidentally, fulfilling the expectations of racists.  None of the above indicates in any way any specific preference for anyone affiliated with any given race, gender, sexuality, religion or ideology.  Any comprehensive account of Sherman’s march through the South describes essentially the same process.

Sharing.  Yes.  What we saw was sharing. 

Some policemen shared a dealer’s Caddies.

A policewoman was caught by MSMBC sharing WalMart’s shoes.

One more thing:

The accounts of the violence came thru the media.  The panicky NO officials said things (10,000 dead floating in the streets!) and the media repeated what they were told.

Now we are told over and over again that there was little violence and that the accounts were wildly exaggerated.

Maybe.  I wasn’t there.  But I did read about life in the Superdome in the Manchester England and Melbourne Australia newspapers.  Tourists from these places were holed up in the Superdome along with the locals.  Their story was not a pretty one.  These tourists were under constant threat by black predators.

geebee,
your response to my last post is some of the greatest nonsense I have read in a long time. Unfortunately, it is now 1.00 in the morning in Europe and my Lebensabschnittsgefährtin (sorry, don’t know how to say that in English...) is waiting for me to join her in bed. I’ll respond to your nonsensical defence of what “redneck” means tomorrow…

If your English is deficient perhaps you should not attempt to lecture native American English speakers about the subtle meanings of unusual words.

Here’s the story from another perspective:

Denise Moore, 42, from the Convention Center:

“Lots of people were dropped off, but no one was picked up. We thought we had been left there to die. There were young men with guns, but they were the only ones who people could count on. They were the ones that brought us food and water. Nobody had eaten in days. They got the food and water for the old people and babies. Cops would come by, then speed off. The National Guardsmen rolled by with guns, they never brought us anything. They left us there to die.”

Alva Harris, 58, From Jefferson Parish:

“When we got there, we were hopeless and hungry. What did we have greet us? A line of military police with M-16 rifles. They watched us, caged us in barricades, laughed at us, took pictures of us with their camera phones. I saw a young man get down on his hands and knees and beg for water for his little baby, and I saw that child die right there on the concrete. This was murder. That’s the truth. They wanted us dead. They just didn’t think so many of us would survive.”

Shelly Sorina, 31 from the Superdome:

When the buses came to take us from the Superdome, they were taking tourists first. By that I mean White people. They were just picking them out of the crowd. I don’t know why we were treated the way we were, but it was like they didn’t care.”

Geebee....Rabbit shall be more specific for you then.

Nigger was and is a racist term, a form of bigotry.  That doesn;t stop one using the words and it shouldn’t. What is supposed to mean is we don’t call each other such things in a disparaging way, unless we mean to insult someone.

Redneck, Hillbilly and A*sehole are not necessarily Racist terms. They, like White trash for that matter, are not specific to any race, but intended to label people, for whom bigotry is a defining part of their character.

It is not bigoted to call a bigot a bigot or to treat him like one.

Rabbit was trying to be polite but will on your insisitence specifically say you
seem to be a Redneck.

Rabbit goes with the second definition in this instance.

Specific enough for now. Rabbit see’s others are engaging you in fair debate.  Rabbit is just borrowing the moron for a moment.  Wack Wack

From Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Editon

* redneck or red-neck n [[from the characteristic sun-burned neck acquired in the fields by farm laborers]] [slang] a poor, white, rural Southerner, often. spec. one regarded as ignorant bigoted, violent, etc.

(The asterisk indicates an Americanism)

From Merriam Webster On Line

Main Entry: red·neck
Pronunciation: ‘red-"nek
Function: noun
1 sometimes disparaging : a white member of the Southern rural laboring class
2 often disparaging : a person whose behavior and opinions are similar to those attributed to rednecks
- redneck also red·necked /-"nekt/ adjective

From dictionary.com

redneck

n. Offensive Slang

1. Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

“Redneck” has a fairly close synonym, “cracker.” Recently I emailed a letter to the black editor of a black-oriented online magazine.  I commented critically on one of the publication’s articles.  The editor responded: “I suggest you kiss my ass cracker.”

Perhaps I am too sensitive but I believe he meant that in a disparaging way. 

Once my son got into a dispute with a schoolmate, a boy from a small town some distance away.  My son called him an “inbred redneck.” Oddly enough, the boy felt insulted. 

Ghostrabbit, you write:  “Redneck, Hillbilly and A*sehole are not necessarily Racist terms. They, like White trash for that matter, are not specific to any race, but intended to label people, for whom bigotry is a defining part of their character.”

Surely you do not believe these assertions.  These terms are not specific to any race???  Do you realize how silly this sounds?  “White trash” is not specific to any race? 

English is my mother tongue.  I have lived in the Souitheastern United States all my life.  I have heard these terms used for more than half a century.  I have never, not once, heard “redneck,” “hillbilly,” or “white trash” used in reference to members of any race other than the white race. 

If you think that I am an ignorant bigot and assert that, you have made a statement about me, an individual.  If you call me a “redneck,” you are insulting white, rural laboring Southerners by implying that “bigotry is a defining part of their character.”

Saying that “bigotry is a defining part of their [i.e, “rednecks” or white, rural, poor Southerners’] character is closely akin to saying that laziness and criminality are defining parts of the character of “niggers.”

The fact that you can make these racist assertions, and simultaneously deny that you are doing so, shows how profound the double standard is. 

One question: you write “a*sehole.” I imagine the skipped letter is R.  We don’t use that pronunciation here.  Where are you from?

That’s right White Trash has been defined as including not only Black people sometimes but also Bush, including Babs.

This is the definition Rabbit directed you to, Redneck.

2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

Oz uses that pronunciation and English is thus closer to my mother tongue than that Pidgin you call American.

Just because Rabbit is calling you a white person with a provincial, conservative, and bigoted attitude, it is based only on a reading of the attitudes inherant in your writings. As a non bigoted person, as far as race, Rabbit can actually see other entirely prosaic explanations for failings you consider to somehow be inherant within a race of people.  The socio-economic factors especially, combined with other social historical ones, are more than enough to explain the disparity in certain crimes, their detection even more so, and to the economic situations some people find themselves in.

There is a whole world of nuanced ideas about human interactions and history generally which is denied to some people by their own doing, their own willful ignorance. 

It is from the position of relative freedom, to consider many more possibilities than a closed mind can, that Rabbit calls you a redneck, by the above definition.  there are indeed more appropriate words and Rabbit has had this private reservation all along, if you would prefer Rabbit examined your postings more carefully and found a more fitting term, it could be arranged.  You have in the least displayed reasoning and a willingness to engage a subject directly.

For this Rabbit will re-trace, and re-consider.  However, the Rabbit is somewhat irreverant and has a knack for naming things, all Rabbits do.  So it is only a good idea if you consider yourself to be hard done by with the term Redneck, and that any potential replacement is not likely to be a step back.

Lebensabschnittsgefährtin = lifelong companion

or, more colloquial, love of my life

actually, that would be idiomatically, not colloquial.

Sorry.

Sorry, if this is getting posted a second time - but the first time it didn’t seem to go through…

Okay, geebee, your stereotypically reactionary statements were not about blacks specifically, but about *all* people at the bottom of the socio-economic class ladder. But the obnoxious sub-text - that it is their fault that they are there - is still there. It has nothing to do with the nature of turbo-capitalism, right? I’ll not comment further on that.

So my English is deficient because I don’t know how to translate one word? Well, I’ll give it a try:
Lebensabschnittsgefährtin = (female) (probably limited-)chapter-of-life-partner. Okay? (Jay, you missed the potential aspect of temporariness in this. The word you translated is “Lebensgefährtin")

Of course “redneck” is derogatory. So what? That’s not what anyone was talking about. Derogatory is not the same thing as racist. I think for a term to really be called racist it has to be all-inclusive. Once again, the term “nigger” slanders all black people whereas “redneck” does not slander all white people. As the rabbit and I have both stated, you are a redneck (taken in the main - his second - definition of how it is used today) by choice. In one of his sources, Wikipedia I think, someone is referred to as a “self-described redneck”. If this makes sense, then it is proof of the fact that “redneck” is not a racist term. (In this vein, you didn’t respond to my comments about some people using the term proudly to refer to themselves.)

The etymology of a word (and as one of the sources rabbit referred to pointed out, even that is not entirely clear in this case) is generally of no consequence as regards how it is used today. “Redneck” has taken on new senses which have nothing to do with the sun shining on the back of a farm labourer. Okay, it is not normally used to refer to non-whites (though it is imaginable - I could imagine someone referring to a reactionary non-white as a “black redneck” or a “Japanese redneck” etc.), but since it is not all-inclusive, it is not racist.

Finally, I think the accusation of being “racist” is only legitimate in the one direction. It is patently absurd for a member of the oppressing group to complain of racism.

Jay, you missed the potential aspect of temporariness in this. The word you translated is “Lebensgefährtin”

My apologies. I did miss that.  There are a whole host of idioms for that kind of relationship. “Girl I am shacked up with” is probably the best I can do on the spur of the moment, though it is a bit crude.

English is more like French when it comes to making up new words, though there are plenty of Germanic words in English that combines two (though rarely more) words together to make a new one.

Hyphenation is what is usually done with phrases that become single concepts (which I unfortunately omitted above).

Redneck is not necessarily derogatory. It can refer to an unsophisticated earthy common sense lifestyle devoid of pretension.

Check out Jeff Foxworthy’s views on unsophistication. It is a hoot, if only because it is so grittily true.

Finally, I think the accusation of being “racist” is only legitimate in the one direction. It is patently absurd for a member of the oppressing group to complain of racism.

No, of course not. When a black calls a white ‘honky’ or an asian as ‘slant-eys’, it is meant as a term of endearment.

Of course, you would never hear that in the ghetto, would you?

Racism is not unidirectional. There are plenty of black, hispanic, and Asian racists in America. The whole stupid construct about how racism and sexism are unidirectional is crap. Attitudes are attitudes, prejudices are prejudices regardless of your race or sex. The unidirectional argument is just a way of excusing everyone in the world except for white males for any crap they want to shovel.

And outside of academia - does anyone believe that? its just too absurd to take seriously. A black man that says all whites are scum is not racist?

wake up!

Okay, let me reword that. A black in America has every right to be prejudiced against whites. It’s probably not going to do him much good in life, but it is understandable and not to be set on a par with racism on the part of the oppressor.

Obviouisly, whites are not the only racists in the world - even if you take my original standpoint that only the oppressor can be a racist - I’ve heard a lot, for example, about Japanese racism.

But still, you’re the one who had better wake up, Siskiyouz. White males - and their system of imperial domination and subjugation - *are* the world’s main problem - and they have been for a long, long time.

The perceptions created of Blacks in New Orleans as looters, rapist and criminals appears to be the primary role of U S corporate media; to substantiate and justify the rationale for white supremacy.  If this distorted view of Black Americans had not been promoted, corporate media would have been accused of not reporting the full Katrina “story” because white folks “just knew” this would happen the way it was reported and can now skirt any remote sense of responsibility and justify their lack of remorse by saying to themselves “those niggers deserved to suffer”.  In reality white folks all over the gulf coast suffered the affects of weather disasters too but those stories weren’t/aren’t being broadcast because Americans don’t expect bad things to happen to white people since they’re inherently “good people”.  Is it racist for any Black person to hate white people since they buy into this?

A black in America has every right to be prejudiced against whites.

Huh?! Since when does ANYONE have the right to be prejudiced?

It’s probably not going to do him much good in life, but it is understandable

The fact that it is understandable in no way justifies it. Would it also be understandable if someone (white, asian, hispanic, whatever) were to nurse resentment into prejudice against blacks, if they lost a promotion to someone who was black merely because of affirmative action?

Would that justify their prejudice? Would that give them the right to be prejudiced?

More unidirectional logic here, I’d say.

I’m sorry, Jay, but I’m going to stand by my statement. It is laughable for whites to complain about racism on the part of blacks.

I agree, it is laughable.

Until individual whites, who have never demonstrated a solitary prejudical bone in their lives, start to lose job opportunities because of it.

To condemn a man’s future merely on the basis of their race is racist.

Unless we are to have different standards for different races, but then that would destroy the whole argument, wouldn’t it?

Quotes from several posters and my comments:

“Once again, the term “nigger” slanders all black people whereas “redneck” does not slander all white people.”

I see.  If one say “nigger” I am slandering all black people, but if says “redneck” one is not slandering all white rural poor Southerners. 

“That’s right White Trash has been defined as including not only Black people sometimes but also Bush, including Babs.”

Note the passive voice.  “has been defined” By whom?  Right!  Every day people say “white trash” and use the term to cover people of all races. 

“2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.”

Note the selective quote.  Omitted is the key point, “ n. Offensive Slang”

“So my English is deficient because I don’t know how to translate one word?”

Yes.  It is deficient.  You do not know how to translate the German word.  That is not a serious deficiency.  You also do not understand the meaning of “redneck.” That too is a less than serious deficiency.  What is more serious is that you do not let your ignorance get in the way of your opining. 

“Redneck is not necessarily derogatory. It can refer to an unsophisticated earthy common sense lifestyle devoid of pretension.

Check out Jeff Foxworthy’s views on unsophistication. It is a hoot, if only because it is so grittily true.”

I am familiar with Foxworthy’s comedy and his jokes about “rednecks” I am also familiar with black comedians who use the word “nigger” liberally.  This use does not make the word acceptable in either case.

“A black in America has every right to be prejudiced against whites.”

Same old story.  Excusing blacks for things that whites would not be excused for.  Holding blacks to lower standards.  This is racism at its most profound.

geebee,

Apologies. I will refrain from using that moniker here.

Jay Cline:

Thanks.

Some people can be persuaded with facts and reason.  Others cannot.

geebee,
you repeatedly refuse to address any of my points about the word “redneck” - and then accuse me of ignorance. And yet many American sources seem to agree with me that the main meaning of “redneck” today is rabbit’s Nr. 2 meaning, *not* “all rural white southerners”. Here is my argument one last time:

Of course “redneck” is derogatory. So what? That’s not what anyone was talking about. Derogatory is not the same thing as racist. I think for a term to really be called racist it has to be all-inclusive. Once again, the term “nigger” slanders all black people whereas “redneck” does not slander all white people. As the rabbit and I have both stated, you are a redneck (taken in the main - his second - definition of how it is used today) by choice. In one of his sources, Wikipedia I think, someone is referred to as a “self-described redneck”. If this makes sense, then it is proof of the fact that “redneck” is not a racist term. (In this vein, you didn’t respond to my comments about some people using the term proudly to refer to themselves.)
The etymology of a word (and as one of the sources rabbit referred to pointed out, even that is not entirely clear in this case) is generally of no consequence as regards how it is used today. “Redneck” has taken on new senses which have nothing to do with the sun shining on the back of a farm labourer...

Going off list on this topic now. Your obstinacy is really starting to bore me…

Quote from geebee:

Excusing blacks for things that whites would not be excused for.  Holding blacks to lower standards.  This is racism at its most profound.

Affirmative action as a form of racism. Even the most “profound” form of racism. This is a very old argument, geebee. And it’s pretty sickening. The alternative is, of course, doing absolutely nothing to try to correct all the wrongs done to blacks - over the centuries and right up to the present day.

Blacks have the same chances on average as whites in modern-day America, right? That’s why most of the prison population is black - and why most of the death-row candidates are black, right? And the average black American has attended a school equal in quality to the average white American, right? And the fact that far more than 12 per cent (which is I believe the percentage of blacks in the US) of those left behind in New Orleans is pure coincidence, right?

Anarcho-Sozi

Yes, so called affirmative action is racial discrimination. 

New Orleans’ population is 67% black.  The US as a whole is 13% or so.  It would be odd indeed if the population left behind in New Orleans after Katrina were 12% black.  To accomplish this the government would have to take white people INTO the stricken area.

Note your choice of words: “left behind.” This implies that some people were taken out (by the gov’t or some other agency) before the storm and others left behind.  The people who evacuated in time did so by their own actions.  They did not wait for the government to provide transportation. 

Like every other large American central city New Orleans is largely populated by poor blacks, many worse than poor, i.e, underclass.  These are the people who lacked the wherewithal to get out on their own.  They waited for the gov’t to act and were let down, largely by the corrupt local gov’t which is the first responder.

And the fact that far more than 12 per cent (which is I believe the percentage of blacks in the US) of those left behind in New Orleans is pure coincidence, right?

The facts are correct, but if you want to make a conclusion of racism about those left behind in New Orleans, you need to compare those left behind in New Orleans with the percentage of blacks in New Orleans, not the US in general.

I am not discounting the argument, just the statistics being employed.

Geebee,

That’s not what I meant to say. I expressed myself very poorly. Worse than poorly. I totally misled the reader.

What I meant was: the fact that the percentage of inner-city poor (actually not just in N.O. but in all big US cities) is well over 13 per cent black.

How can such a high percentage of inner-city poor be black if blacks and whites have equal chances in general?

Sorry, that was Jay, not Geebee.

Back off list on this topic…

It iIs a very valid question. But to ascribe it to current racism is not an foregone conclusion.

Thought experiment: if you have a magic wand and could wipe out racism in an instant, will the effects of centuries of racism also be wiped out?

No.

As I have argued re: the Cosby Debate, the racism of the 50s and 60s has been greatly diminished. But now we have to rebuild our communities devastated by decades of welfare state mentality. In the 40s and 50s and 60s, the African-American communities arguably had much stronger family institutions than other communities. Now, that community is in disarray, broken. And the children have suffered the most.

What is needed is a reinvestment of affirmative action dollars into real educational programs and communities where our children don’t have to dodge gangs as they run from school to home.

What is holding back black progress is not just racism, but the vicious cycle that encourages self-victimization. Charges of racism in the wake of Katrina only serve to divide and polarize the whole community.

“How can such a high percentage of inner-city poor be black if blacks and whites have equal chances in general?”

70% of black children born in US are born to unmarried women (and girls).  Many live in a culture of inter-generational poverty, a kind of poverty that is spiritual and moral more than material and financial. 

They do not have the same chances that my children had.  Not by any stretch of the imagination. 

My wife and I married when we were 28.  I had a job.  I worked and took care of my children.  My wife and I stayed married.  We raised our children and prepared them for a self-sufficient life.  My own parents did the same for me and my siblings.  As did their parents for them.  Intergenerational success. 

Your question seems to imply that we all start off the same, and that government confers advantages on some and not on others.  And that the goodies are divided up by race. 

That is not the case.  What people do, how they behave, is the greatest factor in their succcess and the success of their children.  We are not passive recipients of government largess.  We are actors.  We do things.  And what we do is the biggest factor in how we do.

absolutely!

Geebee If Rabbit said he has seen it, then you need but ask and he will produce something, but until he has had a chance to reply to an initial query, best not to go making assumptions.  This is a start, where a definition of White Trash is alluded to which can include Dubya, it is not the article Rabbit has in mind which is an essay on the subject, but it will be forthcoming.

Everybody understands that it is no longer acceptable to be rude to racial or ethnic minorities; see how Bush’s conservative Republicans go out of their way to avoid insulting Islam. The one group that is considered fair game, however, is the kind of ‘white trash’ who can be branded racist. White trash from, say, Essex are an easy target. White trash from backward Texas are easier. And rich white trash from Texas are the easiest of all. President Bush has thus become the symbol of one minority it is deemed politically correct to hate.

source

Maybe Rabbit should make one thing clear, he is aware that Redneck is offensive slang.  It did not seem necessary to actually label it as an insult. It seemed self evident to Rabbit and since he didn’t say stupid redneck, he gave you the benefit of the doubt in this regard, my mistake. Rabbit shall try to clearly label his remarks if he percieves any misunderstanding hereover.

The definition of number two, which is a choice, is the one Rbbit originally alerted you to, and the others are not in this instance approriate, and in fact Rabbit would not use the other definition, for he feels it is bigoted.

Although Anarcho-Sozi has had a little trouble articulating precisely what he means, less his fault than yours, since you are the American speaker, his point is nonetheless reasonable.  The resentment of disadvantaged minorities of the majority which has shown rascist attitudes towards them in the past, to their disadvantage, is not the same as the racism which led to the disadvantage.  Then the minorities too may find Labels with which to show their resentment, and these will in reflection seem to have a rascist bent, but this was seldom the choice of the minority which first suffered at the hands of the Oppressor group

This is rubbish If you call me a “redneck,” you are insulting white, rural laboring Southerners by implying that “bigotry is a defining part of their character.”

You just quoted the two definitions and and now you mix up the two into one agglomerate?  No way buddy, you made that mess, that is nothing of Rabbit’s saying.

As for talking about Jay Cline being persuaded by facts and reason, to anybody familiar with Jay Cline, that is the epitome of Irony.  Jay Cline avoids facts, displays NO reason when his pitiful few ideas are challenged and GeeBee, even you are far above Jay Cline in reason, Rabbit has not frankly questioned your reason, you seem not unreasonable actually, and really Rabbit is not saying more than at this point your views of the world around you are so far slanted towrds what Rabbit would call rednecked.

The word is not the best under the circumstances and it was hastily selected, Rabbit has offerred to try for a second go.

Rabbit also now feels obliged to mention he cannot generally find MUCH of consequence with which to disagree with GeeBee’s position.  ..............................He reasons well and the matters we are disagreeing on are really only opinions and largely semantic.

Rabbit was a Ratbag.....................
GeeBee is not a Big Redneck.....................

The thing which Rabbit would say about the Racial stuff from Katrina, and much of it can be traced back to an earlier thread on ITT which was actual at the time of the disaster, and when the reports of Looting and Violence were at their peak, is this.

The impression we got, from the reports was that all these things were going on, and even then the numbers from the reports seemed over dramatised, they were not actually that high or unreasonable under the circumstances. See the link above and you will see what Rabbit said then and what he is saying now is being said with the benefit of hindsight. 

The impression was of all this bad stuff happening, which was depicted as being predominantly Black and some Poor Whites, and that this was partly to blame for help not being provided.

This has been shown to have been completely false. There was no basis for any of the reports of Rapes, Murders, shooting at National Guardsmen or widespread looting.  Some looting and yes, some serious organised scale looting by Police has been uncovered, was evident, but what do you expect?

the things was shown as being there when it wasn’t. There was a racial component involved at the time in the depictions and since the depictions were false they indicate deepseated Racism. Like it or not.  It was a mirror to society in the larger picture, I think.

Intergenerational poverty?

Intergenerational success?

Good Grief, GooBer.  I haven’t read such a load moralistic crap since, well, since you last posted your redneck truisms to this site.  You think whites are superior to non-whites because they’re married and maintain stable marraiges throughout their working lives?  No shit, Sherlock.  Any couple, white or not, married or not, who maintain a stable relationship throughout their working lives will achieve a more affluent social staus.  The operative terms are “stable relationship” and “working”.

Racism, by definition, is the maintenance of “intergenerational poverty” by one racial or ethnic majority group over another racial or ethnic minority group through means of social and economic restraints, like job and housing discrimination, substandard public and private education, and, of course, adherence to those cherished racist cultural truisms for which you feel such a fond regard.

The “intergenerational poverty” of the urban black commuinity was created over generations of American institutional racism.  It is currently aggravated by the limited “intergenerational success” of the Liberal project, which you hope to abolish.  Voting rights, welfare rights, abortion rights, affirmative action and anti-discrimination statutes all combined to allow some members of the black community to escape the “intergenerational poverty” which you so eloquently describe, by escaping from their formerly segregated communities.  The people who remain, white or black, are the ones who fell through the safety net which you and your racist representatives hope to dismantle.

Definitions:

In addition the definition of racism given earlier, I have another.

“Institutional racism” means there is no identifiable racism at all but we have to blame something or someone for our troubles so we choose unnamed institutions. 

“Any couple, white or not, married or not, who maintain a stable relationship throughout their working lives will achieve a more affluent social staus. “

It seems you agree with me. 

I have been labled as racist in this forum but I don’t take it seriously.  The definition is dumbed down so much that the word is meaningless. 

BTW, have I identified my race?  Some people seem to jump rather quickly to conclusions. 

I would also be interested if you could cite one thing I have written that is racist. 

Here is the definition of racism:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ‘rA-"si-z&m;also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Please cite any sentence in which I have expressed the belief in the first definition or shown the characteristics specified in the second.

You think whites are superior to non-whites because they’re married and maintain stable marraiges throughout their working lives?

No. But someone who comes from a stable family background, regardless of race, as significant advantages over someone who doesn’t.

If 70% of the children of whatever race is being raised by unmarried woman, if they live in a society where that is a disadvantage to the children’s social environment and intellectual and emotional development, if that is contributing to a gross disadvantage throughout their lives, then we need to focus on why that is happening, and come up with solutions.

Spouting racist nonsense is stupid. How have whites created that situtation?

Correction:

No. But someone who comes from a stable family background, regardless of race, has significant advantages over someone who doesn’t.

geebee says:  “70% of black children born in US are born to unmarried women (and girls).  Many live in a culture of inter-generational poverty, a kind of poverty that is spiritual and moral more than material and financial.”.  The operative phrase in this flawed premise is “culture of inter-generational poverty”.  Such a culture is not derived or driven by spiritual or moral values but by perceived options for survival while maintaining a little dignity.  Cosby implies that the culture he berates is a drag on the progression of Blacks in America but I don’t think he would argue people are spiritually dead or immoral, only that they continually limit reactions to their situation in self defeating and destructive ways.  He promotes education as the best remedy because educated informed people perceive their options to be more broad and varied.

At the risk of sounding stupid, um… who do you think created the situation Jay?  I mean it is pretty clear that whites in this country have a lot more to do with maintaining and fostering the status quo than blacks do, wouldn’t you agree?

By the way, has anyone given thought to what *poverty* does to the stability of a family?  Surely families that function well do better, but is there no point where doing badly enough causes families to fall apart?  I think we can safely say that the solution to poverty is not as simple as getting married.

Rabbit has nort really got any substantial issues with any opinions on this thread, and as a courtesy only is letting people know this.. Of course he shall look back in case anybody felt a need to reply directly to anything posted by him, but overall, Rabbit feels he has wacked someone, mostly for fun and has not even made any specific points worth mentioning, so cheerio, and Cheers, GeeBee, sorry, you don’t actually seem too bad at this point, Rabbit was a bit hasty and doesn’t detect a real rascist so much as a slightly slanted viewpoint, not much different to his own natural upbringing at least.  The Redneck word was used too loosely and was only justified in retrospect.

If 70% of the children of whatever race is being raised by unmarried woman ... Spouting racist nonsense is stupid. How have whites created that situation?  ... come up with solutions.

who do you think created the situation Jay?

I guess the underlying assumption there is that those 70% are mulatto???

Persistent poverty is certainly an onerous factor. But, as I have said earlier,

the racism of the 50s and 60s has been greatly diminished. But now we have to rebuild our communities devastated by decades of welfare state mentality. In the 40s and 50s and 60s, the African-American communities arguably had much stronger family institutions than other communities. Now, that community is in disarray, broken. And the children have suffered the most.

My own opinion is that the welfare state has done more to contribute to the damage evident in the current conditions of the poor than anything else.

The welfare state provided little, if any, encouragement and motivation for the poor to find ways out of it. Instead it entrenched the poor into the recipients of the “nanny state” and made them beholden to the party that refused to fix it long after the dangers were evident.

If FDR’s and LBJ’s welfare state is the answer, why after 60 years, three generations!, is it still so critically needed?

Katrina definitely exposed the underbelly of the poor and their condition. But encouraging and reinforcing tired old racist cliches, white or black, is NOT the solution.

I think we can safely say that the solution to poverty is not as simple as getting married.

simple? Yes, I agree.

But it is good and necessary start!

my point about marriage is that the statistics pointing to unmarried parents are, by and large, poorer than married ones does no good if we don’t consider which is the symptom and which is the cause. (ie: does being impoverished make it more difficult to stay married?)

If this is the case, then getting married is not a first step.  Dealing with the conditions that lead to poverty would be a more effective first step.

Does the welfare state really lead to poverty?  I mean it is such an age-old argument, why is the matter not settled by now?  Don’t you think it is really an oversimplification?  During feudal times, there wasn’t a very effective welfare state, yet plenty of people lived in poverty.  Isn’t that a bit inconsistent with the assertion that if we simply stop helping people, they will take care of themselves?

Do you really think that lowering taxes and unleashing unfettered capitalism is supposed to result in a thriving middle class?  Would eliminating the minimum wage and abolishing unions help solve the problem?  Why were these institutions created in the first place?  Was everything just fine before ‘big government’ got in the way?

Does the welfare state really lead to poverty?

Never said it did. But in the second half of the last century, the implementation of the welfare state without incentive to better oneself has led to an entrenchment of the existing poverty.

Isn’t that a bit inconsistent with the assertion that if we simply stop helping people, they will take care of themselves?

Never advocated that either. In a free market econ