Skip to comments.The Rising Tide of Anti-Black Racism
Posted on 02/17/2013 4:04:45 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Racial resentment is increasing, and it plays a major role in how Obamaand the Democratic Partyis perceived.
Thomas Edsall has a fascinating column in todays New York Times on the persistence of racial resentment in the Obama-era. For those not familiar with the term, racial resentment is defined as the convergence of anti-black sentiments with traditional American views on hard work and individualism.
Its measured using questions that focus on race and effort. People who answer in the affirmative to questions like thisIrish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favorsand in the negative to questions like thisGenerations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower classare assigned a high place on the resentment scale.
Edsall runs though recent research from a variety of sources to show the extent to which President Obamas term has coincided with a sharp increase in the proportion of Americans who express anti-black attitudes. In one survey, for example, The percentage of voters with explicit anti-black attitudes rose from 47.6 in 2008 and 47.3 percent in 2010 to 50.9 percent in 2012. This wasnt a uniform changenot only were Republicans more likely to express anti-black attitudes, but people who identified themselves as Republicans in 2012 expressed such attitudes more often than their counterparts of 2008:
In 2008, Pasek and his collaborators note, the proportion of people expressing anti-Black attitudes was 31 percent among Democrats, 49 percent among independents, and 71 percent among Republicans. By 2012, the numbers had gone up. The proportion of people expressing anti-Black attitudes, they write, was 32 percent among Democrats, 48 percent among independents, and 79 percent among Republicans.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
Hispanics are less like blacks because they are more immigrant then slave by history. Like immigrants before they want to come to the US (legally and illegally) to take advantage of our economic opportunity to make money even if it means menial jobs. They cannot fathom why many blacks refuse to take these jobs when they can manage to eke out a decent living. Many Hispanic immigrants see blacks as lazy and look down at them. Here is the irony of ironies. If Amnesty is passed, illegal hispanic immigrants will come out into the open, and being poor will move into poor black neighborhoods. They will take over the neighborhood economy, gov and the school boards. Judging from Los Angeles, and southern CA, blacks will be treated as second class citizens and driven out of their current neighborhoods. Can’t blame the white man when it is the hispanic teenager beating up their kids in school and shooting their homes up and telling them to leave because they are black. Will be interesting to see who the Dems will support if racial riots pit black against hispanic. My other fun Dem coalition to watch is the jews vs the growing Arab immigrant in the party. When they start killing each other I wonder who the DNC will support. If the GOP is smart, arm both sides and break out the popcorn.
I'd bet heavily that blacks would agree with this statement by a huge percentage. Are they also resentfully anti-black?
Insane even.I believe the source of this article has pulled numbers and the means to arrive at them out of his butt.
A very interesting insight, Fee.
Got to go get some popcorn!
“This article is incomplete as there is an even larger wave of anti-White racism.”
You as well as I are not getting it. Hating whites because of the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character is not racist. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Take a drive through the intersection of Chelsea and Hollywood some Saturday night. You’ll be amazed
Do you see from this what is in store for all of us?
“There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” Booker T. Washington.
July 22, 2010
What the NAACP/Tea Party Battle is Really About
By Robert Weissberg
The recent dust-up between the NAACP and the tea partiers over charges of “racism” appear to be yet one more instance of blacks accusing whites of insensitivities, real or imagined. In reality, however, these exchanges reflect far deeper animosities that will not vanish with “clarifications” or expelling “racist” tea partiers.
The NAACP and its numerous allies have for decades led the charge to expand government power, including intruding into areas once considered absolutely off-limits to Washington, let alone local government. Tea Partiers are not libertarians but they’ve had enough with government power run amok. This disagreement is, to use Thomas Sowell’s words, an unbridgeable conflict of visions: the tea party’s agenda, even stripped of any racial component contravenes the NAACP’s raison d’être so when the NAACP complains about insensitivities, it is just saying “You intend to destroy us.”
Begin by recognizing that the post-1960s civil rights agenda has been the single most powerful force in expanding Washington power. Nothing even remotely comes close. During WW II Washington set prices, rationed consumer goods and limited business profits, but this infringement was correctly understood as temporary and was universally welcomed as vital to national survival (and it was soon ended). Neither the environmental movement nor consumer protection legislation have penetrated so deeply into the every-day life of Americans.
Documenting this expansion is endless. In education, for example, the push to integrate America’s schools has affected the lives of millions, especially those who fled cities to avoid forced bussing, while judicial degrees have shaped everything from tax rates to the racial composition of school staffs. Urban demographics were radically altered by forced integration, and this remains true today. The 1964 Civil Rights Act brought federal intervention into local restaurants and movie houses and even constrained peoples’ ability to choose their neighbors. The 1965 Voting Rights Act and subsequent extensions now make every city and town in America vulnerable to Justice Department oversight if their election system slights minority representation. Employment based affirmative action has exploded from a narrow presidential directive targeting federal government contractors to a bureaucratic colossus. There is scarcely a person alive, from professors to blue collar cops and firefighters whose life-chances have not been shaped by government race policy. There is no escape — those in rural Idaho seeking a mortgage will probably experience the repercussions of the government’s push to promote home ownership among blacks and Hispanics.
Yet, thousands of civil rights successes aside, the political appetites of groups like the NAACP seem insatiable. It is no exaggeration to say that they believe that government is sufficiently powerful, if only vigorously prodded, to level outcomes across nearly all of human existence. This faith-based relentlessness soon resembles the classic gambler’s fallacy — if one lawsuit does not bring racially proportionate equality of admission to law schools, file two and if that comes up short, file four, and eventually, it is believed, victory will arrive. Scarcely a day passes without some civil rights group going to court to challenge an exam that allegedly hinders black job applicants or demanding that Washington forcefully intervene to protect poor blacks from allegedly discriminatory financial practices.
At some point, even those sympathetic with the civil rights agenda — and this undoubtedly included most tea party fans — will recognize that this relentless craving for government imposed racial equality is deeply antithetical to limited government.
In the final analysis, then, the NACCP and its allies are on a collision path with the tea party movement. Put more formally, given what is already on the books and vigorously enforced, new civil rights measures only serve to expand government with scant pay-off for intended beneficiaries. The point of diminishing returns on political pressuring has long ago been reached. In a nutshell, the very existence of the tea party is a message to the NAACP: stop.
Make no mistake, civil rights groups are not the only fans of big government. There are those who would radically expand defense budgets; others demand gargantuan expansion of social welfare. Further add nanny-state meddlers obsessed with our diets. But what makes the civil rights agenda so contrary to the principles of limited government, over and above its ceaseless character, is it penchant for invading what was heretofore politically off limits. It is one thing to demand free universal medical care; quite another to attempt to micromanage the workplace to root out any vestiges of alleged discrimination. To those unfamiliar with this Kafkaesque madness, consider just one of hundreds of anti-discrimination strictures from the U.S. Equal Employment Commission:
For example, a “no-beard” employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps).
There are also rules about non-job social events so, for example, a firm that favors golf outings may be guilty of racial discrimination if its black employees prefer basketball to golf. A firm might also risk lawsuits if refuses to promote a white person who has a black spouse or if the white employee socializes with blacks. Or if the firm’s insurance policy had a race-related illness as an excluded existing pre-condition. The list of prohibitions and requirements is not only far-reaching and murky but navigating them requires legal staffs trained in the equivalent of Talmudic interpretation. Who would have ever guessed that firms must now consider shaving bumps when setting grooming standards? Or must inquire about the race of an employee’s friends or spouse before announcing layoffs? No, these are not hypothetical illustrations,
The NAACP/tea party conflict would vanish if the NAACP and its allies suddenly abandoned their infatuation with federal coercion and instead embraced a strategy more in tune with the non-political approach of Booker T. Washington or Father Devine — working one’s way up the economic ladder via self-help. So, instead of piling on yet more made-in-Washington rules and regulation to exorcise the demons racism and discrimination in education, civil rights groups would, for example, create after- schools cram academies to help struggling students earn a legitimate high school diploma. And I’d guess that they would have no problem recruiting tea party sympathizers to help teach these courses.
The NAACP/tea party conflict over limited government cannot be resolved, though it is all too easy to paper it over. Tea party fans are not anti-black or anti-civil rights; they certainly do not favor repealing civil rights legislation or enfeebling the Justice Department. They just prefer limited government versus pursuing an aim — racial equality — that appears unreachable. It is one thing to expand government during wartime when national survival is at stake or to achieve a worthy and reachable goal; but to empower Big Brother and accomplish nothing other than bigger government is hardly an acceptable sacrifice.
When confronted with the inevitable charge of racism, tea party folk should resist the urge to fight the battle on these acrimonious grounds. Battling a civil rights group over “racism” is an unwinnable, pointless battle. Blacks will always claim the high ground moral authority to define “racism.” The debate should be about sustaining a bedrock principle of our Republic — limited government — versus some egalitarian dream. This is a classic clash of principles and transcends who said what when. It is, moreover, about time that the virtues of limited government enter the public debate next time the NAACP or its sympathizers demands yet more government intrusion into private life.
Of the utmost importance, African Americans should be reminded that, after all, they are a minority and the purpose of limited government is to prevent tyranny, especially the tyranny of the majority over the minority. In the long run, African Americans — like all Americans — should dread an out-of-control government no matter how seductive government’s mission. The NAACP has, sad to say, forgotten perhaps one of the most basic lessons of American governance. Doubters should just observe what happens elsewhere in today’s world when government power is unchecked.
There is an oft-repeated Jefferson quote that captures this dilemma exactly: A Government Big Enough to Give You Everything You Want is Strong Enough to Take Everything You Have.
The dust-up is about power and tyranny, not insults.
Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana.
I used to live in Oxford, MS and would drive up to "Mogadishu on the Mississippi" on a regular basis. I know what you're saying.
“However, as I’ve watched the blacks (they are NOT Africans) keep building their welfare/gimme base and their racist attitudes towards whites over the years, along with their racist pimps, I am becoming extremely negative towards them. I freely admit under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that I being forced to become a racist.”
I have to agree that is what is happening with me. Watching what is happening to our country and what is going on is forcing me into that direction. Obama is the great divider.
You wrote: “Rugged individualism, hard-work and love of country defines American in my book.”
Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
This I blame on Lyndon Baynes Johnson and his Great Society. His policies and politics were the beginning of the end of this great nation......
“Cant blame the white man when it is the hispanic teenager beating up their kids in school and shooting their homes up and telling them to leave because they are black...”
Oh yes, they can.
No matter how bitter the struggle between blacks and Hispanics becomes, it will _still_ be blamed on the legacy of “white racism”...
Since just being white makes a person a racist, then whites ought to act like it and be racists since they get punished for it anyway. I don’t think blacks will like it one bit.
You have hit the nail on the head. Articles like only prove that libs who use the race card are dumb as a box of rocks. These dolts think that conservative, Marxism-hating Americans would vote for the most leftist president in American history if he were white.
If I had said it any better, would have earned a banishment, for sure.
Eventually this is going to come to a head. For blacks to keep pushing, they obviously think the US government will protect them or that after enough whites die fighting this time, reconstruction will work out better for them, this time.
Only fools think all the guns the gubmit can muster will overcome all the guns patriotic Americans can muster. Even at best (hedged in their benefit) 100 to 1, is mighty poor odds, unless they intend to nuc us.
Life would be so much easier if I could just judge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
I suppose they’ll cry wolf again, and not having learned the lesson of that fable, will find the wolf hungry and not amenable to discussing “ what’s for dinner”..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.