Did I call it or not? You’ll recall that the denizens of the Free Republic were huge fans of Condoleezza Rice - in fact there was a draft Condi in 08 movement there. However, I was certain once she commented positively about Obama’s speech about race, the love affair would be OVER in the swamps. These are the mild, straightforward comments that landed Dr. Rice in the conservative dog house.
“Black Americans were a founding population,” she said. “Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together - Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That’s not a very pretty reality of our founding.”She wasn’t claiming victim status, she was simply making a statement of fact that opening up an honest conversation about race is necessary — and that it is difficult to do so.As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, “descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that.”
“That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today,” she said.
Miss Rice declined to comment on the campaign, saying only that it was “important” that Mr. Obama “gave it for a whole host of reasons.”
See the Freeper filth below the fold; I think the reaction should tell black folks in the GOP where they stand should they dare to acknowledge the existence of white privilege in this country. You can be at the highest levels of government, work hard for your wealth and join that country club, but in the end, you’re still an uppity nigger if you mention the obvious legacy of this country when it comes to slavery, Jim Crow — or even suggest that our country needs to move forward by talking about it, not denying it.
This was back in the day:
And now? Not only do they stoop to naked racism, they toss in a serving of misogyny as well.
Actual Freeper QuotesMs. Rice…..your forefathers were betrayed by their brothers….and sold into slavery. The white man brought them here to help settle this country….. and God blessed you in that white men helped set them free……so you could be blessed even more……by being born to live in the greatest nation on earth….with freedom and prosperity.
She’s got bad teeth, no boobs and loves the Palestinians and other enemies of Israel and the U.S.! How could ANY patriot want Sleeza for VP?
I didn’t realize Rice was hoping to run with Obama, yet that’s how bad these comments are. This is a sad commentary. I used to respect this woman. Just dang…
Racism of a couple a hundred years ago is a birth defect? Well honey, you just made the case for euthanasia. What a maroon.
Ms Rice, you’re a typical RINO. Yes your people came here as Negro slaves, were freed by the courage of one true Republican but then again enslaved to a new Master - the Federal government which drugged your people back into submission with handouts that sent a message that “You’re incapable of making life better for yourself; you need government in order to survive.” So Ms Rice, direct your comments to the Democrat party and its co-leader Barak Hussein Obama and his socialism and what it means for your people. Oh, one last question, can you tell us why the Asian Americans and Latino Americans in the same span of time that the “Great Society” has been in place, have managed to integrate themselves into societal entrepreneurship so effectively - why is having dark skin more of a handicap than having slanted eyes or being unable to speak the language?
Is she getting ready to back the candidacy of B. Hussein Obama, or what????
clue condi seems to have been praying at the alter of rev run wright and b. HUSSEIN’S racist church…no wonder clue condi is such a fan of the f’n pali muzzie terrorists and wants to fund their terrorism of Israel…jorge bush should get rid of this incompetent…and many republicans want this a-hole as a VP???
No doubt… I wonder if Rice spoke of these things and the reporters at the Times ignored those parts of the interview, or if she even bothered to address those issues at all… I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as a fellow conservative, but I’d like to hear her say SOMETHING about this — perhaps a personal press release, a speech, or something where we can hear everything she has to say and not just what the MSM chooses to print???
What scares me about all of this is I’m beginning to wonder if the Dems did this (pushed Obama forward) on purpose in an attempt to keep the Black Community under their thumbs and set back the progress they have achieved over the last 40 years? And, no doubt, the MSM loves anything that bleeds — even if it’s our own citizens, so I’m sure they’d love nothing better than to drive a further wedge between people just HOPING for something juicy to sell papers with - like a riot…
As far as I’m concerned, she just jumped the shark.
I guess all the talk of her intelligence and education was just hype. Just like HRC.
Condi is another mealy mouth dufus. In pure pander mode. This is the least racist nation on the planet. Tons of affirmative action and welfare money available. If you don’t like it GTFO. Find a better place to live like Zimbabwe maybe
Maybe she should go back to Africa, where she could get a “founding” experience.
81 Responses to “Freepers turn on Condi Rice over comments on Obama’s speech on race”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“Did you know that in the early 1800s, it was legal for white people to enslave African Americans? But then Abraham Lincoln, a white man, set them free.”
These people are literally beyond parody.
One of those Freeper slimebuckets asked:
Well, heres one part of the answer, and here’s another part.
Money quote #1: “Because just as kept happening over and over again, just when the American Dream started to work for black Americans, it was taken away from them by fraud by white investors and by government action by white politicians.”
Money quote #2: “Ever since I learned that, I haven’t marveled that so many black men have given up on the American Dream, choosing to instead gamble on insane long-shot professions like music or pro sports, or turning to crime. I’ve marveled that so many of them haven’t.”‘
As I said earlier, setting aside the politics involved and acrimony to get to the discussions is gonna be HARD.
Is this guy really saying that slavery was an act of benevolence? As though the Africans who were “betrayed by their brothers” would have been enslaved anyway, and the early American slave traders saw this and were… what, shocked? And decided to buy them, not because they were SLAVE TRADERS and it was what they were after anyway, or indeed because they had set up the whole horrific situation, but because they somehow knew America would be the “greatest country on earth” and figured the slaves should at least go to a good home?
Aaaaaahh.
The crazy burns. It burns so hard I cannot write sentences that are ot completely run-on.
Can you imagine the meeting in her office when a fresh faced Rove disciple bounces in to declare that she WILL be McCain’s running mate and that she should be grateful because it’s the closest she will get to being president.
Well then he has to add that she will not be really in control of anything because McCain will be ‘handled’ from day one by ‘persons unknown’ to insulate him from the levers of power and that she won’t really have much to do but show up and maybe give a few speeches about how wonderful it is to be a woman in a position of power and other ‘nice touches’ to wow the imbeciles that voted for McCain.
If I was her, I’d say ‘Bite me, white boy!’ as a walked out of that office and out of the White House but the seductiveness of power can be a very powerful and addicting drug.
Can you imagine the meeting in her office when a fresh faced Rove disciple bounces in to declare that she WILL be McCain’s running mate and that she should be grateful because it’s the closest she will get to being president.
Well then he has to add that she will not be really in control of anything because McCain will be ‘handled’ from day one by ‘persons unknown’ to insulate him from the levers of power and that she won’t really have much to do but show up and maybe give a few speeches about how wonderful it is to be a woman in a position of power and other ‘nice touches’ to wow the imbeciles that voted for McCain.
If I was her, I’d say ‘Bite me, white boy!’ as a walked out of that office and out of the White House but the seductiveness of power can be a very powerful and addicting drug.
Is this an insult I don’t understand? Or can he just not spell “moron”?
Condi’s an ass-hat for reasons other than the ones stated by the one or two select maroons who posted comments anonymously on this blog. You might focus on the *good* reasons why she’s completely unfit to run for President: like she’s a total piece of shit liar.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing9.htm
It is a reference to an old Loony Toons cartoon where Bugs Bunny would, in exasperation at the stupidity of one of his rivals, would say, “What a maroon!” (WikiQuote)Perhaps one character calling another a “moron” was considered inappropriate for kids to hear at the time.
Foucault has a point. When Rice is being held up as an example of a decent member of this administration, that says more about the rest of the corrupt gang than about her.
(”What a maroon” is a reference to the Bugs Bunny corruption of “what a moron”, but that in turn goes back to “maroon” as a racial classification along the lines of “quadroon”, “octoroon” and so forth designating percentages of african blood. A quick google yields one reference saying that “maroon” wasn’t about percentage per se, but about [descent from] runaway slaves, fwiw. )
If the Freepers think racism has been dead since the 60s, I wonder how many of them wouldn’t honestly mind being a black man in America? I’m going to go with “zero”.
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of who said it, but I agree with Condi Rice.
I figured Condi’s status as Honorary White Male wouldn’t last forever.
Just like Bush Jr. was the Epitome of Conservative Leadership as long as things were going well - who then became a “liberal” when things were in the toilet - Condi was riding high (not on any actual accomplishments - she seems as incompetent as Bush Jr.) on the appearance of cool competence.
Her high position in the administration could be seen by her virtually hourly appearances in various MSM outlets, always
lying aboutdefending indefensible administration bungling, etc. She was an excellent tool for deflecting closer examination of the real Cheney/Bush administration and its doings.But she was really on a leash. Step out of line, say the “wrong” thing, attempt (lamely) to avoid drowning with the rest of the Bushites, and worst of all: acknowledge her race in a venue which doesn’t promote the goals of the Reichwing…and she gets slapped down.
Now that she’s “jumped the shark” and made her race fair game for Reichwing goons to attack, I wonder when her gender and (unclear) sexual orientation are going to become common points of attack…?
BTW, I’d feel a lot sorrier for her if she hadn’t signed up at the beginning. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas…
My personal favorite is:
I’m beginning to wonder if the Dems did this (pushed Obama forward) on purpose in an attempt to keep the Black Community under their thumbs
for its unabashed use of bizzaro universe logic. Although this:
This is the least racist nation on the planet. Tons of affirmative action and welfare money available.
comes a close second.
“BTW, I’d feel a lot sorrier for her if she hadn’t signed up at the beginning. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas…”
Thats exactly how I felt about Colin Powell, too. Especially after his lying in front of the U.N. When he refused to resign in the run-up I lost whatever respect I had for him. Now hes only good in comparison to Shrub and Vader.
Well, I guess some blacks might take some solace in the fact that in this country there were about as many slaves after importation ended as there were imported. In Brazil (which is a shorter boat trip over, which should make things so much better) most of the slaves were worked to death. And so many people are descended from slaves that schools take attendence using first names, since so many people never gained another (and that’s why so many Brasilian soccer players have one name.) In the tropical paradise of Haiti, slaves were worked to death in numbers so great that the slaves revolted in a manner so bloody that the country is known for four things: lots of AIDS, speaking French, having dictators, and having lawlessness when there is no dictator. So those in the USA who have descended from slaves could really count their blessings.
As long as they overlook the fact that they were descendants of fucking slaves who were stolen from their lands, robbed of their culture and language and family, stripped of dignity and free will or any real way to express it, beaten senseless if they didn’t really like it, raped at will, told to shut up about it, and then told that there should be no hard feelings.
All it takes is a strong desire to believe that the dialogue about race should consist of “There there, it’s all better now” from one side and the gracious receipt of generous head pats from the other. We can solve sexism, poverty, and a host of other problems in the same way.
I know these are Freepers and all but how many racist cliches can they fit in one screed? They even say she should be grateful, for god’s sake.
BTW Pat Buchannan made very similar comments in his column, but he still gets his comfy seat as an analysit on MSNBC. If we reversed it and he were a black guy saying similar things about whites, you can bet it would be Rev. Wright Part Deux.
I don’t get Buchannan. The guy seems smart enough and is in the right place on the war and trade, but my God is he a bigot. Just goes to show again that education and intelligence doesn’t necessarily prevent you from being a racist.
I never understood the Republicans who would say, with apparent seriousness, that they thought Condi Rice would be a strong Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate–not because of her connections to the Bush administration, but because of her race and gender. I’d ask them, “Do you not know who your base is?” and they would act as though racism was a thing of the distant past in the Republican party. Blows my mind.
Incertus, as long as nobody actually talked about it, it didn’t exist. The same approach is used in abstinence-only education.
And I should add that for these people, the real racists are the blacks for bringing up all that unpleasantness, you know.
“And I should add that for these people, the real racists are the blacks for bringing up all that unpleasantness, you know.”
I’d go farther. They, like gay people, are at fault for not spontaneously ceasing to exist, thereby making the whole issue a non-issue.
Steadfastly refusing to simply evaporate is a clear sign of being unwilling to compromise, and really, if someone isn’t even willing to try, what’s the point of even trying to work with them?
I’d go farther. They, like gay people, are at fault for not spontaneously ceasing to exist, thereby making the whole issue a non-issue.
Steadfastly refusing to simply evaporate is a clear sign of being unwilling to compromise, and really, if someone isn’t even willing to try, what’s the point of even trying to work with them?
And it’s that zealous attitude that makes it utterly impossible to compromise and “work across the aisle”. How can you confront that kind of denial and the subsequent viciousness and get anything but ripped to shreds?
The Freepers sound like Jim Crow racists who are upset that this Uppity negro is stirring up “their” formerly happy, compliant one.
The problem with finally having a national conversation about race is that there are a whole lot of opinionated idiots out there.
I love it when they say “This is the least racist nation on the planet. Tons of affirmative action and welfare money available.” and then turn around and argue against affirmative action and welfare. Either they believe in the magical fairy land of meritocracy and think those things are unnecessary, but are willing to take credit for them when they need to prove they’re not racist and that America is the bestest country ever, or they do see those things as fighting racism and resent that they live in a country that’s not completely accepting of racism.
And it’s that zealous attitude that makes it utterly impossible to compromise and “work across the aisle”. How can you confront that kind of denial and the subsequent viciousness and get anything but ripped to shreds?
It depends on what you’re trying to work on when you reach across the aisle. When I hear Obama talk about doing that, for instance, he’s not talking about trying to convince the entire Republican Senate to compromise on something–he’s talking about getting 3 or 4 votes from the people who are open to discussion on that particular issue, like he did with Tom Coburn on ethics reform. Coburn’s never going to vote to recognize a right to privacy, for example, so there’s no use trying, but Olympia Snowe might, so you reach across the aisle to her on that issue.
Of course, if you’re Joe Lieberman, you think “working across the aisle” means running to the other side and begging for the right to provide them with oral sex with absolutely nothing in return.
It was called “the southern strategy,” started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue — on matters such as desegregation and busing — to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was “wrong.”
“By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
“BTW, I’d feel a lot sorrier for her if she hadn’t signed up at the beginning. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas…”
Thats exactly how I felt about Colin Powell, too. Especially after his lying in front of the U.N. When he refused to resign in the run-up I lost whatever respect I had for him. Now hes only good in comparison to Shrub and Vader.
No. NO ONE deserves to be attacked for their race or in racist ways, just as NO ONE (not even Ann Coulter) deserves to be attacked for their sex or in sexist ways. Racism and sexism are never legitimate tools of critique or disagreement.
I do not support either Powell or Rice; I think their actions have frequently been despicable. But that does not mean that they should have this kind of hate directed at them. When racism and sexism become acceptable as an implicit threat against those who disagree with us, we are complicit in promoting white supremacy and patriarchy.
“It was called “the southern strategy,” started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue — on matters such as desegregation and busing — to appeal to white southern voters.”
It’s always been interesting to me that Lyndon Johnson - a politician who could match Nixon dirty trick for dirty trick, who pulled nearly every kind of political manipulation allowed by the laws of physics over the course of his long political career - was the man who set the stage for Nixon and the Rethugs to take over.
Dr. King probably forced Johnson to act, along with all of those nameless protesters, the earlier efforts of Malcolm X, the TV images of marches and their aftermath that betrayed the truth of America that belied our idealistic self-image - all these went into getting a man to buy back a small piece of his soul from the devil by pushing and signing legislation to help some Americans be treated more like all Americans should be treated.
It was Johnson, doing something good, that lead to Nixon, Reagan, both Bush’s, and maybe to McCain.
Johnson, a man deservedly hated for Vietnam, who always had the shadow of JFK’s assassination hanging over his presidency, Johnson, the southern bigot, who was the one president who could have done what he did.
I always disliked him. When I think of the concept of President of The United States of America, Johnson’s grizzled face is the first that comes to my mind. His role in the Vietnam War is a black mark that can never be erased.
But as I’ve gotten older, and realized just how weird and tough the years of my youth were for a man like Johnson to navigate through, I’ve built up a grudging respect for him. He didn’t have to help. But he did. And for that, at least, he deserves credit.
Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights greats rightly earned and deserve the lion’s share of credit for directly addressing some of the festering sores of race relations and politics in America. But Johnson played no small part…
MikeEss,
You have me thinking that the saying “only Nixon could go to China” should be rephrased “only Johnson could sign the Civil Rights Act.”
“No. NO ONE deserves to be attacked for their race or in racist ways, just as NO ONE (not even Ann Coulter) deserves to be attacked for their sex or in sexist ways. Racism and sexism are never legitimate tools of critique or disagreement.”
Betsy, you are absolutely correct. Speaking for myself, I can say that I would never attack either Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell, or any other POC, simply for being POC.
When I said my sympathy was limited, it had nothing do do with Dr. Rice’s race, and everything to do with her choice of political affiliation.
Any disrespect I have for Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell has entirely to do with their actions, not their race.
The same is true of Coulter. She is vile. But she’s not vile because she’s a she, she’s vile because of the sewage that comes out of her mouth and the ideas she supports.
I think we’re on the same page…
:)
“You have me thinking that the saying “only Nixon could go to China” should be rephrased “only Johnson could sign the Civil Rights Act.””
I think there’s a lot of truth to both of those statements…
Is this guy really saying that slavery was an act of benevolence? As though the Africans who were “betrayed by their brothers” would have been enslaved anyway, and the early American slave traders saw this and were… what, shocked? And decided to buy them, not because they were SLAVE TRADERS and it was what they were after anyway, or indeed because they had set up the whole horrific situation, but because they somehow knew America would be the “greatest country on earth” and figured the slaves should at least go to a good home?
All of which is double hilarious considering that, had the ancestors of today’s African-Americans been sold into other African nations, the Arab world, most parts of Europe, or really ANYWHERE besides the US South and European colonial Caribbean, they would have been treated far better, had a great many more opportunities, and further generations would have been free at birth and eventually intermarry with the locals.
I’m not condoning slavery in other historical and geographical contexts, but the American/Caribbean version was probably the nadir. Which makes all this “African Americans should be grateful” bullshit especially hard to swallow.
Brazil (which is a shorter boat trip over, which should make things so much better) most of the slaves were worked to death. And so many people are descended from slaves that schools take attendence using first names, since so many people never gained another (and that’s why so many Brasilian soccer players have one name.) In the tropical paradise of Haiti, slaves were worked to death in numbers so great that the slaves revolted in a manner so bloody that the country is known for four things: lots of AIDS, speaking French, having dictators, and having lawlessness when there is no dictator. So those in the USA who have descended from slaves could really count their blessings.
I’m going to say a big “ummmmm, no.” to most of that. Not that it’s worth bringing this thread into pedantic historical arguments.
1. shorter boat trip has nothing to do with it, not to mention that when you factor in the travel routes, I’m not sure it really would have been. The problem with American slavery wasn’t that it was really far away from Africa, but the fact that humans were owned as property and treated probably worse than most modern Americans treat their iPods.
2. many/most American slaves were worked to death, too. Brazil and Haiti also have much larger percentages of African-descended population than the US does, so I don’t really see your point at all.
3. Brazilian soccer players go by one name in the same way Victoria Beckham is often referred to simply as “Posh”. Pele’s full name is Edison Arantes do Nascimento. Likewise, every Brazilian of African descent I’ve ever heard of has a name that fits in with western naming conventions. Seu Jorge being another good example.
4. I, for one, see the Haitian revolution as a good thing, not a foreshadowing of future chaos. I’m also not sure that Haiti is much worse off than any other developing nation with a majority Black population and a long history of getting screwed over by Whitey. Whitey, in Haiti’s case, being primarily the good ole U S of A. And the AIDS thing isn’t because OMG blak peepul kant rool! but because a lot of educated Haitians were able to find good jobs in newly liberated West African countries. Countries which were the first breeding grounds for AIDS. This doesn’t seem to have much to do with the slavery or the revolt, except of course the fact that it produced a population of French-speaking Black people who had the political experience to help set up new governments.
5. OK, that’s enough, back to the Freeper bashing.
One irony of the slave trade from Africa was that its peculiar brutality derived precisely from the growing importance of the idea of freedom and “all men are equal.”
If you believe on the one hand that all men are equal, but on the other hand have a need for work to be done that no free man will dream of doing, the natural conclusion, the one most comfortable to your bottom line, is that the people who you do force to do it are not “really” human. Add in a bit of surface justification (literally so) in the form of skin color and there you have it, a peculiarly nasty form of slavery, where the slave is not merely someone stuck with a degraded or disadvantaged status (the usual classical model), but not even a member of the human race at all.
The inconsistency of the position was seen best by those it did not affect economically, such as Northerners in the US. The talent of thinking clearly when your money is involved is one that is sadly very rare.
The inconsistency of the position was seen best by those it did not affect economically, such as Northerners in the US.
Bullshit.
Double Bullshit.
Triple Bullshit.
Learn your history before spouting off. New England’s wealth is just as much built on slavery as ever was Old Dixie’s, to our enduring shame.
Paul,
Are you serious about the “maroon” history? I’d always assumed that when Bugs Bunny called someone a maroon he was humorously mispronouncing “moron”. Wonder if I was wrong.
opoponax —
Actually the place where slaves really were worked to death was Jamaica, not the future US. In Jamaica the profits from sugar in the eighteenth century were so immense that the “labor inputs”, that, is, the slaves, were a relatively negligible expense, except for a small minority that had valuable skills in refinement of sugar. Most of the enslaved Africans died before they could have children. And a majority of them were men.
In North America, agriculture was somewhat more diverse during large stretches of the long history of slavery, and more slaves had valuable skills. I read somewhere that whereas current African-Americans are descended from 500,000 to 600,000 enslaved Africans, some thirteen times that number were imported to Jamaica.
This is a complex issue. Ira Berlin’s books are informative.
Jake, agreed.
“What an embezzle! What an ultramaroon!” - Bugs Bunny
Yep, Jake - the word ‘maroon’ comes from the Spanish “cimarron”, meaning “fugitive”. It was first used to describe populations of free blacks who were the descendants of runaway slaves in the Caribbean.
I’m not sure it’s actually related to words like “quadroon”, though, aside from having that “oon” ending which is an Anglicized version of the Spanish “on” ending (for instance the word “doubloon”, which comes from the spanish “doblon”). Quadroon, Octoroon, etc. are Spanish loanwords.
Also, the color maroon has a completely different etymology, coming to English from the french “marron”, or “chestnut”. “cimarron” and “marron” are not in any way related.
Addendum to a post in moderation:
Regarding the use of ‘maroon’ in Bugs Bunny, my assumption would be they were referring to the color, not the people. The use of ‘maroon’ as a word for ‘descendant of runaway slaves’ is extremely minor in the US, whereas prior to the Color Name Revolution of the mid-1990’s, most people called any dark red color “maroon” as opposed to burgundy or any other J. Crew influenced term (garnet, crimson, vermillion, etc).
Yes, Celsus, I know that outside the US, other colonies worked slaves “more to death”, if you can even make a measure like that, and that other colonies had somewhat different economic relationships with slavery.
However, just because the average Jamaican slave lived 2 years, while the average USA slave lived 10 (or whatever the stats actually are) doesn’t mean American slavery was “not really that bad” or whatever. American slaves still had lifespans drastically shorter than free people, could still be murdered at will by their owners, and were still seen as mere property meant to be used until it fell apart at the seams. That American slave owners were a little more careful with their property doesn’t actually make them any “better” than their neighbors.
My fave on slavery was the 6 yo child (slave) that had work-related degeneration that was not usually seen until 60 yo. Since then I’ve felt the US should end slavery by any means possible. Yes, that includes SEAL teams.
They liked her when she was the worst National Security Advisor in history and loved her as the head of a State Department that has done essentially nothing at all in years, but they turn on her when she says that slavery has continued relevance today.
If there was a time to call her judgement into question it’s when she didn’t know what AQ was, was obsessed with cold war thinking, wrote her NYT smoking gun editorial, etc.
Sunsin, as I told a few days ago on Amanda’s post (The word is definitely not “grateful”), one of my ancestors in Maine had many slaves from the 1750’s until the 1800’s. And oh yeah, he definitely benefitted financially from them.
In fact, when Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1808, he saw it as an opportunity to give his very elderly slaves their freedom/ ie, not have to care for them in their final years. One man essentially told him to get stuffed, quoted as saying “You had the meat, now chew on the bones!” and stayed.
Brian, Olympia is more apt to lean across the aisle. Every time she does, I cheer.
While the HISTORY of the word “maroon” is probably accurate, I still think Bugs Bunny (Mel Blanc) was merely mispronouncing ‘moron’ for comic effect, and not making a racist remark.
And I add: HUGE ::eyeroll::.
Ow, that wascally wacist Wabbit! These twelve episodes were banned for their potential to offend Indians, Nazis, Africans, and Australian aboriginees alike.
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/aknightstale/16.html
MikeEss, I’m sure we are on the same page. I had read your post as saying that because of their politics, your sympathy when they were attacked in racist ways was limited. I think that perhaps that was a misunderstanding.
Before anybody thinking Condi is actually thinking.
Here is one of her handy work resulting from her decision a year back to topple somalian Islamist government and start bombing the area + war by proxy using ethiopian army.
And this is not the only one. Kenya, nigeria, etc. Her incompetence kill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/world/africa/29somalia.html
By its own admission, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia is on life support. When it took power here in the capital 15 months ago, backed by thousands of Ethiopian troops, it was widely hailed as the best chance in years to end Somalia’s ceaseless cycles of war and suffering.
But now its leaders say that unless they get more help — international peacekeepers, weapons, training and money to pay their soldiers, among other things — this transitional government will fall just like the 13 governments that came before it.
Less than a third of the promised African Union soldiers have arrived, the United Nations has shied away from sending peacekeepers and even the Ethiopians are taking a back seat, often leaving the government’s defense to teenage Somalis with clackety guns who are overwhelmed.
The Islamists have been gaining recruits, overrunning towns and becoming bolder. The new prime minister, credited as the government’s best — and possibly last — hope, is reaching out to them, and some are receptive. But it is unclear whether he has the power within his own divided government to strike a meaningful peace deal before it is too late.
I’m really not surprised that they would turn on Condi because she dared challenge the cult of limbaugh that gives them cover … Walter Williams does this too … there will always be those and you wonder why, just like you wonder about Log Cabin Republicans.
What I think is so interesting is the argument the cult uses to say that they weren’t alive when all this was going on so Affirmitive Action unfairly punishes them for a rime done in gnerations past . . . then these same people go to church on Sundays and blame and hold women for the Eve eating the apple.
Bellatrys:
That’s a little exaggerated. The region that abolished slavery earlier, tolerated abolitionists more, and provided the political impetus to bring about the end of slavery obviously has less moral responsibility for American slavery.
The Grimke sisters didn’t settle above the Mason-Dixon line because of its salubrious climate; same same Frederick Douglass.
(This is not to say that the North wasn’t, by our standards, a horrible place of racial bigotry and casual oppression. No region of the United States has much to be proud of when it comes to race relations. But of course they were better than the South.)
Forget about slavery for a second. I’m old but I’m not ancient. But when I was a little kid, black people were denied the vote. Blacks went to segregated schools. The white students went to modern new schools with libraries while the black students had one room school houses with no heating and no books. This isn’t ancient history. Even into the 70’s, white people were rioting IN THE NORTH to keep black kids out of “their” schools. Black people who are my age were denied a decent education. Is it any wonder that black people are still behind? America has been one of the the most racist (if not the most racist) nation on earth when it comes to treatment of minorities. But we deny it. Republicans pat themselves on the back and point to the three or four black Republicans and say “see, if only all black people were like them, there wouldn’t be any problems.”
I think the continuous use of the phrase “your people” sums this up.
They don’t think Blacks are Americans to start with, so who is Dr. Rice to say different?
Thanks, Tom. Srsly. It would’ve been nice if, post-emancipation, blacks were deemed equal citizens and automatically imbued with all of the rights and opportunities that that status entails, but it didn’t happen that way, and it’s silly to approach history as if it did. Black people that lived in the Jim Crow era are alive today, as well as many of the people who are directly responsible for their past travails, which is probably why while slavery is definitely an uncomfortable topic to broach, Jim Crow may be more so, because there are less generations for America to hide behind, and no one really wants to say… “Yeah, it’s my grandpa’s fault.”
I went to the original thread, and while she’s being attacked in a pretty nasty fashion by some commenters, others are actually being less asstastic than I expected, correcting the factual errors of her detractors and defending her. There may be hope for humanity, yet, but then again, my expectations are abysmally low.
Indeed. There are a lot of words in English that sound the same (if not identical) to an insult (or other type of derogatory term) that don’t have the same origin. The main example that springs to mind is, of course, “niggardly” and the problem that word causes, but there are others. “Dyke” coming out of the mouth of a geologist probably isn’t referring to a lesbian.
Actually, you may be underestimating the insidious and vile nature of some of the comments.
maroon:
A fugitive Black slave in the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Or a civil engineer. Or a Dutch person.
>;^D
The Republicans aren’t turning on Condi. That’s just some cranks in an unmoderated comments thread.
And Condi isn’t throwing her chips in with Obama. She said she wouldn’t comment on the politics, but if you listen to the audio of her full comments, she pushed the Bush educational policy as a part of the solution to the “birth defect,” and praised Bush for his work in righting the historic inequalities.
Don’t make a mistake in thinking that, because she’s intelligent or because she’s accomplished, or because she’s black that she’s not a dedicated conservative. And don’t think that just because she doesn’t say outrageous things for Fox News airtime like Ann Coulter that she’s not widely recognized as one of the leading right-wing thinkers.
If she’s picked as McCain’s VP nominee, it’s because she shores up his credentials on the right, because she’s one of the few people affiliated with Bush who is not totally damaged right now, and because she takes a lot of steam out of the Democrats “historic candidate” pitch. She’s no more a secret liberal than Barack Obama is a secret Muslim.
And when you sneer at the idea that Condi might be told to “take the vice president nomination” because it’s the best she’s going to do, you have to consider that the idea that a black woman would be on the short list for the first in the line of succession for a presidential nominee who is 71 years old is a pretty breathtaking idea, especially coming from the Republican party.
The Republicans aren’t turning on Condi. That’s just some cranks in an unmoderated comments thread.
And Condi isn’t throwing her chips in with Obama. She said she wouldn’t comment on the politics, but if you listen to the audio of her full comments, she pushed the Bush educational policy as a part of the solution to the “birth defect,” and praised Bush for his work in righting the historic inequalities.
If you think those are just cranks, you haven’t been in the FR swamps much. Those threads are heavily moderated, and entire threads are yanked if the step outside of the belief system in there. Those folks are the base of the GOP, along with the Dittoheads, and the followers of Dobson, Perkins, Sheldon and the like.
The Republicans know this base is required because it is compliant and key to the GOTV efforts through churches. Make no mistake - many of those pious folks in the pews are probably the same commenters and callers who are able to let their barely inner bigot out in the anonymity of the Internet.
And yes, Condoleezza Rice is conservative; she isn’t a secret liberal. The point is that all she did was compliment Obama for raising the issue of race in his speech, something she clearly felt strongly about, regardless of his politics — and the fringe right turned on a dime. That’s the message that seems to be lost on many on the right and left who want to politically polarize everything. My fear is that people so reflexively harp on core political beliefs to avoid talking about the impact of white privilege on this country.
You can in fact be against racism and for opening a dialogue about it regardless of whether you are coming from the right or left.
Exactly, Pam- there has to be a willingness among all to set politics and acrimony aside to really work on discussions. Without that first step, there’s no hope for further progress.
I may disagree with Rice on a matter of other issues, but agree with her statement.
“…one of the leading right-wing thinkers.”
Oxymoron?…
Pam Spaulding March 30, 2008 at 5:43 am
The point is that all she did was compliment Obama for raising the issue of race in his speech, something she clearly felt strongly about, regardless of his politics — and the fringe right turned on a dime. ”
With the right incentive she can be made to kill black. She is incompetent and unable or unwilling to grasp the fundamental. Remember she is SOS and before that NSA. Keys powerful position. She is in no position playing ‘oh but I can’t hold the sweep of political force.’ I didn’t know. I am helpless/didn’t know …whatever.
on top of that, she is in no position to say anything with a degree of moral authority. She is a war criminal and disastrous SoS. She made decision to project national power that does not promote racial harmony in the world, and downright homicidal.
Birth pang anybody?
So. She has nowhere to go but war crime tribunal. As far as I am concern, anything she says between now and then is only to placate her crime.
In short. no dialog is possible against war criminal. NONE.
It’s the biggest crime there is.
I agree with squashed: I only listen to what people say about racism if I am able to assume that they themselves are not murderous, lying, two-faced scum who will do anything or say anything to advance their own careers.
I wonder what Condi has to say about the descendants of the hundreds or thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and enslaved for the sake of her white pals’ oil interests? Perhaps they, too, did not receive the “head start” that they might have received if scum like her did not lie and mislead people?
Her “birth defect” is that she is morally bankrupt.
Wasn’t she dubiously enough compared Iraq occupation to ‘civil rights movement’ few years back? I seriously don’t know how anybody can say Condi is smart.
It’ll be amusing to compile what the Bush administration has compared Iraq occupation to.
I remember Philippine occupation, German/Japan postwar, civil right movement, WWII.
Philippine occupation
Which is probably more apt than they know — the occupation of the Philippines was GRISLY, pointless, and helped no one but wealthy industrialists. Reading about it is one of those times when you really see the wisdom of the old adage about how ‘those who forget history are doomed to repeat it’. Very few people study it in school, and yet if you take the trouble, it’s line for line almost exactly the same as the war in Iraq. Except, like, 100 years ago…
And let’s not forget one more thing about the Philippine occupation: It involved waterboarding.
The observation that Rice has, in the past, generously toed the R party line on a variety of topics - with all the disastrous effects thereof - doesn’t change the fact that the base was ready to turn on her and eviscerate her for expressing a vague hint that race is important to talk about. Even absolute proof that her statement was insincere and purely self-serving wouldn’t change that. Regardless of why Rice said what she said, the reaction on Free Republic was to bring out the racist knives they’d never really put away.
In other words, this isn’t about whether Rice herself is someone with which one can have a dialog on race. It’s about how much the freepers aren’t. It’s about how the Republican base contains a huge contingent that greets acknowledgment of race with instant vitriol.
Is this all the R base? Probably not. But it is large and significant.
(*) I’ve recently been updating my killfile greasemonkey script, and added freerepublic.com to the sites it handles. I told myself I would do that if someone asked politely, and they did. As a result I needed to wade through some large comment threads.
Can someone just tell me what a “freeper” is supposed to be? I have never heard of this term, nor of the “Free Republic.” I like to think that I am somewhat politically informed, though clearly I am totally missing a key set of constructs.
Do these “freepers” actually have some sort of a website where I can read more about them?
freerepublic.com
Oh, I see that Daniel Martin has already done this in the post above. Thanks. I will go check out these freaky freepers. They already give me the creeepers, jeepers!
“Can someone just tell me what a “freeper” is supposed to be? I have never heard of this term, nor of the “Free Republic.””
Ministry of Plenty => all about shortages of food and goods…
Ministry of Truth => All about lies and propaganda…
Ministry of Peace => All about continual warfare…
Ministry of Love => All about evil and torturous hatred…
Free Republic / Freepers => All about denying freedom to everyone who isn’t a jack-booted, Koolaid-drinking, mindless, camp-following, Reichwing Authoritarian Cultist…
Daniel Martin March 31, 2008 at 6:55 am
In other words, this isn’t about whether Rice herself is someone with which one can have a dialog on race. It’s about how much the freepers aren’t.”
If you remember during “Will Rice run for prez or not”, freeper happily play the propaganda game.
To put it mildly, freeper is highly controlled propaganda environment, with editor, sock puppet, etc. They exist to create public opinion. (no, there is no ‘free speech’ in wingnut site.)
The racist behavior was cultivated by republican party to maintain base. And Condi IS aware of the party game plan. She didn’t say a damned thing or try to change it.
Now that she is fairly useless and a lame duck. Somebody more powerful come along and use that machine to get her.
I have ZERO sympathy.
Again. Condi controlled a magnificant machine. (SOS, and she was Ns a before that.) Both agencies exist in realm of information. Analysis, shaping, and alteration.
You think pandagon is the only place where people talk about “framing”, use of language, and shaping political direction?
I repeat, she cannot play innocent.
freeper is a party asset. It cannot run without party resources.
“Free Republic / Freepers => All about denying freedom to everyone who isn’t a jack-booted, Koolaid-drinking, mindless, camp-following, Reichwing Authoritarian Cultist…”
I’ve clearly missed the boat here. So I guess these “freepers” are distinct from your run-of-the-mill Republicans?
I still find it odd that I have never heard of freepers before this posting, but if these are the people attacking Condi Rice’s statements on race, then I am not surprised. It sounds like freepers would be threatened by anything remotely deviant from their particular and limited world view.
I guess what’s weirder is the notion that such people favored or supported a black person and a woman in the first place. These sort of gender and racial differences sound like they should enough to send a freeper over the edge!
“So I guess these “freepers” are distinct from your run-of-the-mill Republicans?”
They represent the extreme side of the wingnut phenomenon. If they were any more extreme, they’d have shaved heads and swastika tattoos…and some of them probably do…
It’s all about being white, male, and “right”-wing. They never REALLY liked Condi - any more than a rabid racist likes the best (Black) player on his favorite ball team.
As long as they are delivering Rethug talking points and promoting wingnut causes, everything is cool. Step outa line? The Freepers turn on you like a rabid dog. Condi isn’t as useful when she goes off the reservation.
Malkin is living the same kind of dichotomy as Dr. Rice - once you’re on the tiger’s back, how do you get off?
Coulter is much more their style. Her only problem is being a “her”, otherwise she’s perfect: White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and Reichwing.
Of course, if the revolution goes any further, she’ll be up against the wall, just like the rest of us…
Thanks MikeEss for your explanation. See what happens when you live in New York? You miss all the freaky stuff.
Well, I wouldn’t worry too much what these ass-hats think of Condi (though I don’t think much of Condi myself).
And a final thing: Is Ann Coulter *really* a woman? I have my doubts…
MikeEss March 31, 2008 at 9:51 am
“So I guess these “freepers” are distinct from your run-of-the-mill Republicans?”
They represent the extreme side of the wingnut phenomenon.”
No they are not, they are just larger because they are first. (tho’ relatively speaking, they are not as large anymore compared to competing site.)
One thing that keep surprises me. Propaganda exist and active people. Any blogger knows that. It is not possible to run “completely” open web site. It’ll explode into nothingness of random noise.
All information and its flow is shaped! (In fact the point is politics is to create coherent mass perception based on ideology.)
“No they are not, they are just larger because they are first.”
When I say “more extreme”, I’m recognizing that there are an awful lot of “solid”, middle-class (whatever that means), run of the mill Republicans who, if they were aware of FreeRepublic, would not approve at all of Freeper behavior and “philosophy”. In that respect Freepers are certainly extreme.
I’m sure they would think the same of Pandagonians - and maybe they’re right (but I don’t think so). But it’s pretty hard to argue that Daily Kos, Eschaton, AmericaBlog, Firedoglake, Hullabaloo, etc., are extremely rabid Left-wing sites. At least we don’t get our knickers twisted if somebody drops an F-bomb…
my thought, the control system is only a matter of degree. There are certainly things that can’t be said in various lefty sites despite being part of larger political conversation.
A control system must exist. A system of thought/ideology.
No site can have absolute free form for it to still have political goal. I was saying about degree of information control, not actual “information” in a site. That’s what I was thinking.
Of course the actual freeper content itself, can be fairly extreme. (calling on for war, assassination, agreeing on torture, etc.)
This clip I think is an amusing commentary about freeper and all that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya46wfeWqJk
This again?
I think it has already been established by our good hosts that here, on this progressive site, statements like this aren’t okay. Ann Coulter is open to attack on so many positions, going the “heh heh, she’s a HE!” route is really unnecessary and harmful to progressive discourse.
I wish people would stop saying this, because I hate having to defend her. It makes me feel dirty.
These eedjits even have the noive to invoke Abraham Lincoln. It’s hard to imagine him being part of the modern Publican Party.