Posted on 06/08/2008 8:41:42 AM PDT by Eurale
Perfect example of the start of your "eternal enemies" theory was the first Irishman to step off the boat in New Orleans in the 1800's..they had to fight for jobs from the slaves who had been there for years. Nope..it's not always about hate for the color of their skin, it's about economics in the USA and the fight for food and housing among the working classes. That's were it comes from. Not this eternal, they hate all blacks dogma. That is a sweeping generality and a terrible disease that has been past down through generations among mostly sheltered individuals in liberal land.
If you will notice that Blacks have a huge "problem" with Hispanics. Do you also attribute that to some eternal immortal sin or permanent flaw or just the competition between them?
(is a /s tag necessary?)
Sadly, it is my experience that it is required surprisingly often.
Some historians have reason to believe people don’t really understand the genealogy of past U.S. Presidents. Research shows at least five U.S. presidents had black ancestors and Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, was considered the first black president, according to historian Leroy Vaughn, author of Black People and Their Place in World History.
Vaughn’s research shows Jefferson was not the only former black U.S. president. Who were the others? Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. But why was this unknown? How were they elected president? All five of these presidents never acknowledged their black ancestry.
Jefferson, who served two terms between 1801 and 1809, was described as the “son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father,” as stated in Vaughn’s findings. Jefferson also was said to have destroyed all documentation attached to his mother, even going to extremes to seize letters written by his mother to other people.
President Andrew Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, was in office between 1829 and 1837. Vaughn cites an article written in The Virginia Magazine of History that Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. The magazine also stated that Jackson’s oldest brother had been sold as a slave.
Lincoln, the nation’s 16th president, served between 1861 and 1865. Lincoln was said to have been the illegitimate son of an African man, according to Leroy’s findings. Lincoln had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed “Abraham Africanus the First” by his opponents.
President Warren Harding, the 29th president, in office between 1921 and 1923, apparently never denied his ancestry. According to Vaughn, William Chancellor, a professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy. Evidently, Harding had black ancestors between both sets of parents. Chancellor also said that Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.
Coolidge, the nation’s 30th president, served between 1923 and 1929 and supposedly was proud of his heritage. He claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge’s mother’s maiden name was “Moor” and in Europe the name “Moor” was given to all blacks just as “Negro” was used in America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black.
The only difference between Obama and these former presidents is that none of their family histories were fully acknowledged by others. Even though Obama is half-white, he strongly resembles his Kenyan father. And not only is Obama open about his ancestry, most people acknowledge him as a black man, which is why people will identify Obama, if elected, as the first black president of the United States.
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm
I don’t dispute anything you’re saying, but I’m afraid the attitude described predates all of those things and would survive them. Certainly all those things make it worse.
Exactly.
And, they don't send tingles down the leg of Chrissy Matthews'.
You seem to have completely misread my post. I did not attribute any "original sin" to poor whites. I attributed the "eternal enemies" attitude to both equally. I am a poor white.
I am afraid I must also disagree with the "it's all economics" theory. For some reason there are certain white people who, to this day, spazz out about color and color alone.
Our small town for a while had a Black-owned business. It wasn't an "ethnic" business like a barber shop, but a clothing store. And the old white women couldn't bring themselves to try on clothes in a Black-owned store. Never mind that in the other stores they are trying on clothing that has been tried on previously by Blacks in a dressing room used by Blacks. They simply could not try on clothing in a store a Black owned. The whole business seemed (and still does) insane to me! And I'm so hostile to Black politics that I've sometimes been branded a racist!
I have relatives who despise Blacks, and if it's because of economics they hide it pretty well. Please understand that, unlike liberals, I do not consider white prejudice to be "different from" or "worse than" Black prejudice. Okay? Is that understood? But the whole business is stupid! Four hundred years! DANG!!!
And yes, I have always maintained that American Blacks (especially the poor rural ones) are every bit as prejudiced and (for that matter) "stupid" as poor uneducated whites, although liberals seem to consider them heavenly beings without the slightest blemish of human weakness (or else excuse those weaknesses). Quite frankly, a Black-white alliance against Mexican newcomers (from an alien culture, language, and religion) would make perfect sense, but poor whites and Blacks seem to hate each other so much it will never happen. Either one would rather have the Mexicans as an ally against the Ancient Enemy.
Freemen have to think like freemen and reject handouts from these corrupt salesmen for a Republic to survive.
I strongly reject the thought that Americans are racist by way of their DNA. It's a ludicrous charge and opens up the question of manipulation by European/Socialist foreign powers that would prefer that we all think like them. We don't.
All that you said has considerable truth to it.Yet I agree with Zionist.
I grew up in California in the 1950’s,way before affirmative action,hip hop,aggressive blacks,Jesse Jackson,urban riots or any of the other modern maladies infecting the black community today.
Yet it was agreed almost across the board that”niggers”were inferior to “us”.They belonged on THEIR side of town and we whites were to have NO social or cultural contact with them.They were there as maids and hired help.That was their”place”.End of story.
A lot has changed for the better since those days.Yet the mentality of the rural white Appalachian folk seems very similiar to my California upbringing of over fifty years ago.
And we all would be right behind you.
If Obama loses the November election, he only lost because the United States is a racist country.
That will be the spin. Count on it.
There is one way I would take that bet. McCain should nominate a conservative black for VP. 'Course there isn't any such animal who has the kind of resume which would qualify him for the Republican presidential nomination - but in our republic the POTUS is analogous to a king, and the VP is analogous to a prince. Since presumptively the POTUS will serve out his term, the office of VP is basically ceremonial and the Constitution institutes an Affirmative Action criterion in the selection of the VP:The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves Twelfth AmendmentIf McCain nominates a conventional white VP and wins, the cries of "racism" will be piteous to behold. But if McCain were to choose a black conservative, four things would happen:The bottom line would be that nomination by the Republicans of a black conservative would serve a unifying purpose for the country - which is the actual intent of the section of the Twelfth Amendment quoted above.
- Black voters would not be impressed, there is no case to be made that they would vote for a Republican ticket against a black Democrat running for POTUS. But
- White voters who are seduced by the claims of white guilt would be liberated to vote for a black they could trust for VP rather than a black racist who they can't trust, for president. The potential market for votes which this would open up would compare with the number of black voters in the country. McCain wouldn't get them all, by any means - but at least he would get a hearing.
- McCain's VP would, by virtue of being patriotic and moderate on race, stand as a rebuke to Obama's refusal to salute the flag and his expressed antiwhite sentiments. And even his thin resume would emphaize how very thin Obama's own resume is.
- And when the ticket won, the story would not be only "black defeated by racism" but also "black wins VP position for the first time."
Hey, if it were Walter Williams, he’d also be an academic and a smoker as well as black!
No, NOT CONDI RICE either.
I believe in many ways the "southern racism" (so-called) of the most hateful variety was actually a post-slavery creation. Certainly the ante-bellum South thought Blacks were inferior, but it most certainly did not hate them. It fought a war to keep them, and you don't fight a war to keep something you hate!
The post-Reconstruction jim crow days were in many ways much worse than slavery. For one thing, it was slavery in everything but name. For another, at least as official owners of their slaves the masters actually had to care for their slaves just as they cared for their other property. During jim crow Blacks had all the responsibilities of slaves but no one had any responsibility to give a flip about them. The wealthy whites who had previously scorned poor whites (and taught their slaves to look down on them, an attitude still present in the Black community today) suddenly made the poor whites their partners, and the one thing they had in common was skin color. These were the years of "southern populism," which was both fanatically racialist and borderline socialist.
My whole point has been that America's poor Blacks and poor whites (of the Anglo-Celtic variety, anyway) are basically mirror reflections of each other. They have the same language, same accent, same dialect, same religion, same socio-economic status, same educational status--everything. Yet there is a hostility between the two groups that, much as I would like to blame it totally on modern leftism, sadly transcends that.
Believe me, I am mad as ned at Blacks who get to be fanatical rightwing (African) nationalists, anti-white segregationists, and chr*stian fundamentalists (in style if not in substance) and have every one of those things excused by liberals who cite those very things as the "reasons" they don't like poor whites. Heck, the Commies for a while advocated that Blacks move to the Deep South and secede from the Union (what does that sound like???) But all this did not create poor white hostility. It was already there. And much of it that is still there has nothing whatsoever to do with the Black community's rotten political alliances and proclivities.
Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is to admit that most poor white creationists are racists? How in the name of sam hill does monogenistic creationism authorize or even harmonize with racism? It doesn't! Of course, neither does atheistic evolutionism provide a logical basis for anti-racist crusades, however much loud-mouthed atheist creationists act as if it did. We've got two positions here, neither of which make any sense whatsoever!!!
Perhaps the most poignant and telling similarity between the two communities is that each is backed by a group of elitist intellectuals who have absolutely nothing in common with them (Blacks have Ivy League liberals, poor whites have the Jared Taylors and Sam Francis's, neither of whom probably ever lived in a trailer or interpreted the Bible literally in their entire lives). The relationship of each elitist group to the group it "supports" is identical--rich high-@$$ed intellectuals have seized on a group with which they have absolutely nothing in common as an icon on which to project their own fantasies.
G-d help us all. The entire world is crazy.
If Obama had a caucasian father, he wouldn’t have even been elected to the Senate, much less elected to be the democrat nominee.
Racist. Bah.
You can stilll find racists in America but "racism?" I doubt it. The ideology of racial (White)supremacy as a consequential force is dead as a doornail. Aside from ugly looks and snarky comments and the rather rare racial white on black crime you have to go back forty years or more to find significant concerted actions based on racial ideology which did actual harm. If it were otherwise the newspapers and court dockets would be filled with the news. of this epidemic of civil rights offenses. As it is, they hardly can gin one up--usually at the level of someone making a crude joke in the workplace.
The left loves to preach about how "racist" America is but I challenge anyone to come up with the data in 2008.
No, NOT CONDI RICE either.
Even if I thought her qualified, and I don't, I wouldn't recommend a black woman.Too cute by half.
You know, nothing I've read here at FreeRepublic in the last few months has stuck with me the way this quote has (I read it yesterday Sunday June 8).
I think this gentleman is exactly right. His statement resonated within me, and touched something that came out of my life experience over many years.
You see, a close childhood friend of mine is black. His parents moved to the same suburb my parents moved to, back in the second half of the 1960s, and they moved for the same reason: to get away from forced integration of nice neighborhoods with thug neighborhoods in the city.
As I said, I grew up with this person. We were in elementary school together, straight up through high school graduation. He was accepted at a far more prestigious university than was I, and he crashed and burned there in his first year. Long story, and I won't go through the details for obvious reasons.
I saw him a few times over the years, and was shocked and discomfited by how he had changed. He had become bitter, quick to take offense, and constantly on the lookout for any racial slight. Things we had once said to each other in jest were now verboten, at least in one direction.
There was a period of time in recent years (I won't say the exact time frame) in which we spent a lot of time together socially. During that time, I noticed that he liked to be very... well, I don't know anyway else to say it, but bossy with me. He liked to order me around, treat me like a younger brother, even though we are the same age. He also had taken up the habit of humiliating me in front of others, although he only did this when we were with other friends from our old circle, so it didn't happen much.
Eventually I couldn't take it any more, and I tapered off seeing this person. Finally our paths diverged once again, and we never talk any more.
I spent too much time thinking about this period, and the incidents to which I alluded above. I'm a little bit embarrassed to admit that the conclusion to which I came was this: he wanted to treat me as he would a servant. Doing so gave him enjoyment.
I won't go any farther with this line of reasoning here, again, for obvious reasons. It would get this post deleted, and for good reason.
Let me just say, though, that the conlusion I came to was exactly that articulated by Mr. Telvor in the quotation. It gives me no pleasure to say this, believe me. I don't want to go into the reasons why I think this, either, other than to say that my own experience with an old friend led me to conclude the same thing.
Oh yeah, I forgot to change my tag line, which I’m doing as a result of thinking about this story for the past day.
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.