ELECTION 2008 PROS AND CONS: BLACK ANGER
Is it taboo for Repulicans to talk about racism? Well, let us see.
The American Civil War is now history, but we still have memories of civil strife. For the most part, this strife lingers from an era when Americans still owned slaves. In fact, when Baby Boomers think of civil strife, their first thought is often what some now call the African-American Civil Rights Movement. What was this movement about? What brought on riots and mass civil disobedience by Black Americans? Blacks wanted equality.
The African-American Civil Rights Movement is now past tense. While racism still exists, it appears most Americans think that Blacks have achieved equality. So why does Black anger still linger? Because men are not wise enough to strive for exactly the right cause, EVERY movement contains flaws. What was the great flaw in the African-American Civil Rights Movement? I believe the African-American Civil Rights Movement overemphasized equality at the expense of liberty. To verify this perception, I tried a little experiment. I did a google search on the following: “civil rights movement” history. Then I counted the number of occurrences of the terms “equality” and “liberty” in the text of some of the top hits. Here are some examples:
- Introduction to Historic Places in the Civil Rights Movement: 7 – “equality” and 1 – “liberty”
- African-American Civil Rights Movement: 9 – “equality” and 0 – “liberty”
- The Civil Rights Movement – Lesson Plan Library: 1 – “equality” and 0 – “liberty”
- Home page of Voices of Civil Rights: 3 – “equality” and 0 – “liberty”
On one web page (here), the top article on Zimbio’s Black History Month, I did find three instances of the term “liberation.” Unfortunately, these instances came in combination with Marxist economic theory. Marxism is about class warfare, not the pursuit of liberty.
What is the depth of “Black anger”? Of course, there is no way to accurately measure such a thing. Nonetheless, we can make a rough qualitative estimate. If you google “black anger” and racism, you will get about 8,310 hits. “White anger” and racism will provide 1,510 hits.
When Blacks put the emphasis on equality instead of liberty, did they gain what they truly wanted, control over their own lives? Perhaps not. When went wrong? Consider when President Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society Program. Just as the African-American Civil Rights Movement neared its end, welfare expanded humongously. Instead of giving Blacks control over their own lives, politicians, predominantly those in the Democratic Party, offered Black Americans welfare and a protected status enforced with punitive civil rights laws. By offering Blacks special protected status and a welfare bribe, the Democratic Party succeeded in virtually monopolizing the Black vote for several generations.
As the result of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, when most Americans think of civil rights, they now think of equality. However, Equality before the Law is a means to an end, not the end itself. Consider this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — (from here)
Government exists to protect our rights, not to make us equal. Only God can make us equal. When we demand that politicians try to make us equal (by spreading the wealth around, for example), we give our leaders the power to demolish our liberties. We give our leaders control over our lives. That leads leads only to unhappiness and anger.
We all, whether Black, White, or Brown, have something to learn from the failures — and the many successes — of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Equality before the Law exists for the sake of Liberty. When we define Freedom, we must be careful that our definition gives each of us control over how we live our own lives, not how others live their lives. If we insist of upon an equality of outcomes instead of Equality before the Law, all we will succeed in doing is making each other poorer.
Look carefully at what Barack Obama and the Democrats are offering us this year. Is the Democratic Party offering this generation another huge welfare bribe? Will the Democratic Party divide us all into specially protected minorities and pit us against each other? In return for the nightmare of socialist equality, will we allow Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to purchase our liberty from us? How would that be change for the better?
What truly is the great civil rights issue of our day? Is it equality? Civil rights struggles are usually fought between economic classes, between the haves and the have nots. To preserve their status, the elites oppress everyone else. Is that going on today? In our era, educational choice is something only the rich easily enjoy. Everyone else has little alternative except to use equally expensive, but less competently run, government-run schools. Should we have the freedom to choose how we educate ourselves and our children (See here.)? I think so, and, perhaps more than any other group, intercity Blacks would benefit from educational choice. Unfortunately, when the Democratic Party talks about choice, it is not about allowing Black Americans educational choice.
This is the eighth and the last post in a series on the 2008 election candidates. Here are the earlier posts.
- DOES DISASTER LOOM BEFORE US?
- ELECTION 2008 CANDIDATE PROS AND CONS: CANDIDATE WEBSITES
- ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: BARACK OBAMA WEBSITE REVIEW
- ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: JOHN MCCAIN WEBSITE REVIEW
- ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: MARK WARNER AND JIM GILMORE WEBSITES REVIEW
- ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: GERRY CONNOLLY AND KEITH FIMIAN WEBSITES REVIEW: UPDATED
- ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: CONGRESS IS WHERE THE POWER RESIDES
Other Views
Democrats have not had much luck with the race issue. Raising Kaine tried its worse with this bow shot (see here).
Cobalt6 posted one of Keith Olberman’s inflammatory rants (see here). Cobalt6 further pursued the racism angle here and here. What Cobalt6 does not seem to be interested in doing is distinquishing truth from fiction. The McCain/Palin campaign has not attacked either Obama’s race or religion. What McCain/Palin has questioned is Obama’s proposed policies and his experience.
Yankee Philip explains how Democrats will excuse their defeat (see here).
From On High ridicules the New York Times effort to define unconscious racism (see here).
Heaven forbid! Blacknell has found a racist in his neighborhood (here). Well, maybe. This fellow apparently believes that people are supporting Obama because of White guilt over racism. I do not know if Blacknell’s neighbor is right; I cannot read minds. So I just have a couple of questions. Why it is okay for the Liberal news media to talk about unconscious racism, but a neighbor cannot do it? If it is wrong to vote AGAINST someone because of his race, is it not equally wrong to vote FOR someone because of his race?
What Blacknell’s post demonstrates is the futility of the race issue. The counter argument is simple. If you are not voting for Obama, you can point to where you differ on issues and his lack of qualifications. If you are voting for Obama, you should (most, of course, cannot) be able to explain Obama’s qualifications and point to his record.
There is apparently one political race where racism has been a most effective issue. This resulted because a Democrat called his constituents “racists.”
From On High reviews the results of calling your constituents racists (see here).
Yankee Philip provides a post this subject too (see here).
Cartoon from here.
Cartoon from here.
Black anger? This smells a whole lot like white fear. Amusing as always, Tom.
MB – I am perfectly willing to admit I am afraid of socialism.
Tom, putting the issue of black anger and welfare into one post like you have done is pretty insulting. What are you trying to say? This reads like a generalization.
“Black anger” has more to do with socioeconomic rifts that African American communities have yet to overcome. Years of oppression that lasted through at least the 1960’s can’t be overcome in a single generation. African Americans are not only living with a legacy of being behind the eight ball, they must contend with present life as well. Many of us have never had to endure such duel pressure.
Consider these stats:
Did you know more than 52% of all minorities have NO health insurance?
More than 25% of African Americans live below the poverty line?
The median worth (or wealth wealth) for whites is $81,700 but for black is $10,000 and Hispanics $3,000?
Once arrested, minorities are THREE times as likely to be incarcerated as whites?
50% of African Americans inner city schools will not graduate?
With stats like these, in spite of tremendous efforts to overcome challenges, it is no wonder there is “black anger.”
I don’t think we ought to be judging people’s feelings, and anger is a feeling. People have the right to be angry. What we DO about that anger is important, and millions of African Americans are trying to pull their communities out from destructive trends like those stats illustrate.
kgotthardt – I did not insult Blacks. The people who enslaved Blacks insulted Blacks, and the people who made Blacks dependent upon the welfare of others insulted Blacks.
What I try to do is deal honestly with what I understand to be the facts. As your own recitation of facts points out, welfare has not done Blacks much good.
What are best welfare programs?
–Faith in God
–Sound famly relationships
–An education
–A job
Socialism is notorious for undermining all the above. The poor in this nation do not need my sympathy. What they need is more control of their own lives. That starts with educational choice.
BTW – By reciting all the facts you cited, have you insulted Blacks? Did you point out the failure of Blacks or the failure of the welfare system? If the welfare system is such a good idea, why is it not working?
No, I got the stats from the NAACP.
It’s not the failure of a welfare system that has done this. It’s a history of an uphill battle that continues. Get people empowered, educated and employed and these issues improve.
It IS getting better, but I can understand the anger. It’s exhausting fighting for generations only to still see how much has to be done. It’s exhausting when some people won’t acknowledge how hard that struggle has been. It’s infuriating when people say things like, “Quit whining and get over it.” It all goes back to that “walk a mile in my shoes” thing. We don’t do that often enough.
Without a helping hand, people often can’t pull themselves up. That doesn’t mean you hold their hands forever, but to not extend that hand, IMHO, is the biggest sin of all.
kgotthardt – Socialism does not empower people. Socialism empowers government by removing competition and alternative choices.
The Civil War ended in 1865, and slavery ended shortly after that. How many generations does a People need to recover from slavery? That depends on what follows.
Racism did not with the Civil War or Reconstruction or the Jim Crow era or with the Civil Rights movement. But racism is not by itself the issue. What is important to note is the tool used to hold Blacks back. It was not racism by itself. It was government.
After Reconstruction, politicians instituted the Jim Crow laws. Then, when Blacks succeeded in overturning those laws, a new generation of political opportunists bought the Black vote with welfare and punitive civil rights law. Whether intentional or not, this welfare system worked to make its clients dependent.
If you want to give someone a helping hand, I suggest you reach into your own pocket. When you empower politicians to reach into other people’s pockets, all you do is make yourself and your neighbors poorer. Too many politicians like power and money.
“Tom”,
I’ve gotta tell you that as one of the R’s I respect the most, it’s comforting that you are writing these detailed posts and not out canvassing or phone banking ’cause you might really persuade some folks.
If you are doing the GOTV AND writing you have much more capacity that an old man like me!
After this is over we gotta sit down and have a beer. Unfortunately the sour economy has caused Kirkpatricks to go under at Dominion Valley ;-(
see you at the polls.
b
Tom, WHY is everything to you all about Socialism? I agree that government has held African American communities back, but that has more to do with racism than anything else. When racism is instituted through and in government, it’s far more dangerous than any sense of “socialism” (which, btw, we have no real concept of in this country, according to my international pals).
kgotthardt – I have several questions for you.
1. The collapse of the mortgage lending industry was a socialist debacle. How much of a sense of socialism do you want?
2. Without government on the side of the racists, how much practical effect does racism have in people’s lives?
3. If government owns or controls the means of production, how much more practical effect can racism have in people’s lives?
1. I call the bailout Corporate Welfare. Corporate welfare doesn’t create jobs or educate or help US become fully functioning members of society and the economy. It helps CEO’s, lobbyists, and fat cats and creates a larger underclass of poor.
2. Racism works its way into the workplace causing discrimination. It comes out in the form of hate crimes. It generates an undercurrent that oppresses and persecutes select groups, with or without government support. When government condones racism, it’s just worse and more blatant.
3. Government can only control racism to the extent it doesn’t condone it or support it.
kgotthardt — For the most part, I agree with your answers to Red Defender?’s question. I think most would agree that the bailout was corporate welfare, but what precipitated it? So that people who could not afford to buy could buy homes, Democrats insisted that banks make bad loans. Then Democrats had Government Sponsored Agencies buy those loans. Various people took advantage of this corrupted process.
I would also add a couple of observations to your second and third answers. Racism is bad for business. When a business participates or allows racism, it reduces the number of its potential customers and employees. In a competitive environment racist practices will eventually destroy a business. On the other hand, government has no competition. While idiotic beliefs and practices may reduce tax revenues, government will still collect the tax revenues available to it.