Democrats Are Racist? That Can’t Be!

Citizen Tom:

Here is a good post, and I would like it to viral. So here is my contribution.

There is a problem with quotes. Often they are taken out of context, or they are just made up. Nonetheless, when Democrats insist upon race baiting, that they can get away with it is nothing short of amazing. Check out http://tavernkeepers.com/special-reports-democrats-and-race/ too.

Originally posted on Cry and Howl:

Good morning folks! It’s Friday and a lot of “gainfully” employed people are happy now that payday has arrived. (provided Friday is their payday) I saw an article this morning on Yahoo News entitled Republican Are Racist? That Can’t Be. (you can click on the link if you want to take a walk through the Twilight Zone of a liberal) Naturally, the author was quick to point out that when Cliven Bundy mentioned that Negros “picked cotton” that was the one thing that put his “racist” comments over the top. I hate to say it, well, actually I don’t hate to, that Negro slaves actually did pick cotton. Gasp! I must confess though, I’m half Italian and half Irish (I think my right half is the Italian side … who knows?) and I’ve picked cotton. I wasn’t very good at it though.

Now the writer of the aforementioned article pointed out how…

View original 529 more words

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Democrats Are Racist? That Can’t Be!

  1. scout says:

    The linked article makes the valid point that ridiculous racist sentiments emerge from all points of the political spectrum. But it missed two things worthy of mention: 1) there’s nothing “Republican” about Mr. Bundy, so attacks on his stupidity as being somehow “Republican” traits completely fly off into space; and 2) Bundy wasn’t trying to establish as a historical fact that Negroes picked cotton. Of course they did and everyone knows that, including those who have taken exception to Bundy’s remarks about “the Negro”. Bundy’s statement was that he wondered whether African Americans today would not be better off now if they had learned to pick cotton and that chattel slavery in a cotton picking world might be better than current living conditions for African Americans. As noted elsewhere, I really doubt that there are many people anywhere who share Mr. Bundy’s wonderment on that point.

    Going back to the first point, there is absolutely nothing about Mr. Bundy’s position on anything that has been made public that would identify him as a “Republican” in any sense of the meaning of the Party of LIncoln. So it is utter nonsense to equate him with anything remotely resembling the core principles of the Republican Party.

  2. scout says:

    I think you’re implicitly agreeing with me, Tom. My point is that Bundy’s remarks have no resemblance in any way, shape or form to Republican values. There’s no way that he’s a Republican or would ever be welcome in Republican circles. I would hope that this is a self-evident, axiomatic truth. I do not consider it “absurd” in the slightest. If you call it “absurd” (which you have, but I would hope you would reconsider once you reflect), then you are guilty of exactly the fallacy that you seem to accuse the liberal media of: reflexlively (and wildly inaccurately) association Bundy’s foolishness with Republican attitudes).

    • Your statement is absurd, which is why you made it. Not Bundy’s, yours. Bundy’s voiced comparison was ill-considered — a moment’s reflection would have told him that people would misunderstand and the reaction would be harsh.

      You seem to make a career of such misunderstandings. Your approach would not, of course, play out well in court.

      Cliven Bundy’s attitude toward illegal immigrants was one of implicitly supporting amnesty. He is highly respectful of these folks and evidently believes that illegal immigration benefits society. That puts him against many who support the sovereignty of the country’s borders. But Bundy’s take here is not evil, simply not thought through. If we make it attractive to break the law now (as it already is) we continue to add to the problem for years.

      On his comments on blacks, he wondered rhetorically if they were better off. Sophisticated people understand the nature of such a rhetorical question. The media and other leftists, including you, chose not to.

      Almost everyone, including Bundy, would agree that that the atrocities of slavery were much worse than the results of the current pseudo-slavery of economic dependence that the Democrats have gotten blacks into during the past half-century or so. But the current dependency is still a sap on freedom, it is still a form of slavery — and the fact that it’s voluntary (and voted for by the people it entraps, a point Citizen Tom was making earlier) makes it particularly sad in some ways.

      Bundy was drawing attention to this, in the ham-fisted way of an unskilled orator possessed of language no longer considered polite in society. That’s too bad. But he has not evidenced a perception that one race is inherently superior to another, which should be the only case where the term “racism” is used. There are real racists around, by their speech — and these days, as before, this is an area where the Democrats have shown themselves to be the largest congestion of such notions. From Woodrow Wilson re-instituting segregation and re-launching the KKK to countless attacks on blacks large and small, emasculating them bit by bit, the Democrats in the US have created a culture in which many blacks now are taught that to be successful is to have “sold out to the white man.” That’s the literal phrasing used. On C-SPAN, black leaders made it clear: “If you’re successful, you’ve sold out to the white man. If you’re not, then you’re for sale.” They spent four hours in the “Black Media Forum” focusing on this message. I wrote about this when it occurred — their side message of “let’s kill all the white people” was a distraction, and the discussion in the comments includes the “success is bad” notions that filled this conference. Offered by black people in expensive suits, incidentally — but who seemed unaware of the hypocrisy.

      Today, you can read of one black man’s reaction to Bundy’s message: He’s there at Bundy’s side, because Bundy is basically correct on this issue, however inelegantly he expressed it.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • Citizen Tom says:

        Thanks for the comment and the added information. Let’s hope Bundy’s position on illegal immigration does not become the official position of the Republican Party.

  3. scout says:

    I sure seem to touch a prolix button with you, Keith. Where to begin?

    I understand Bundy’s question perfectly. It’s not one asked by people with their wits about them.

    My only point (and it is a narrow one) is that it is a question that Republicans never ask. We Republicans know that chattel human slavery was so profoundly evil, so completely alien to the values of the Republic, that it had to end, and that there is no way that any subsequent condition of victims of slavery or their descendants can be worse than that. You think that is an “absurd” position. That conclusion says far more about you than does my contrary view about me.

    The Republican Party exists in reaction to slavery. That is our core DNA. Mr. Bundy and the Republican Party have nothing in common. Apparently it is not only the leftist media who take a contrary position as part of their campaign to discredit us and make the country forget our history as a political party, it’s also people like you who are somehow attempting to elide his views into something that can be mistaken for Republican principles.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      scout – There is such a thing as being too clever. When we misunderstand someone and as a result misrepresent their words, that is excusable so long as we have given them an opportunity to correct themselves. On the other hand, if we deliberately choose to misunderstand someone so that we can attack them with their own words, that’s simply dishonest. It is lying. Such is what much of the news media has done to Cliven Bundy. And it seems to me you are effectively are doing the same thing. You are defending condemnations of slavery? But nobody is defending slavery.

      Frankly, I am puzzled as to why you bother. You have a decent mind. Why resort to such devious word play? What do you gain by trying to pervert other people’s words? Do you do it for attention? Then that’s like an ugly woman putting on a bikini. Yes. She does get attention, but why would she want that kind of attention?

      Have you read The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien? One of the major villains is a character named Gríma Wormtongue (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%ADma_Wormtongue). If reading Tolkien’s trilogy did nothing for me except to create a revulsion at the very thought of being anything like Wormtongue, that would have been enough to justify the time I took to read it. Unfortunately, in spite of the popularity of Tolkien’s trilogy, much of the corporate news media is populated by Wormtongues. Do you really want to part of such a company?

      With each betrayal of the truth, in the end it is our self we most deceive.

  4. scout says:

    Mr. Bundy in addressing things he claims to “know” about “the Negro” (note: he’s not talking about “a Negro” with whom he has some personal familiarity or a particular “negro” who might be well know to a large number of people at least by reputation (e.g., LeBron James, he is talking about all African Americans as a class), professed to wonder whether, rather than partaking of government programs, it would have been better for them to have learned to pick cotton and have the benefits (including the “family life”) of being enslaved. That’s what Bundy said. There’s no word-twisting required. My simple point, one that you and Keith seemed determined to resist, is that that puzzlement is not a Republican misapprehension and that liberal media trying to make Mr. Bundy’s confused, addled view of the world into a “Republican” affliction are being mischievous. No need to defend Bundy. His words are quite clear.

Comments are closed.