[spacefreak]

Check this out ...unbelievable. If this were a white Republican saying this, it'd be front page news.

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown apologized Thursday to an assistant secretary of state for comments she made about "white men," but refused to back down on her statement that President Bush's Haitian policy is racist.

Brown, during a briefing on the Haiti crisis Wednesday, said the president's representatives were "a bunch of white men." She was speaking to Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, a Mexican-American.

After Noriega told Brown, who is black, that he resented being called a racist and branded a white man, she responded "you all look alike to me," according to witnesses.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Check this out ...unbelievable. If this were a white Republican saying this, it'd be front page news.

errrr....not really sure what you're trying to do here, and in the other thread.
Are you trying to make it seem ok to be racist/bigoted if others are, too?

IF so, not a very good argument.

[phoenixboy]

she responded "you all look alike to me," according to witnesses

/ironie

...


/cynicism


...maybe?


"you all look alike to me"

"you all look alike to me"

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
errrr....not really sure what you're trying to do here, and in the other thread.
Are you trying to make it seem ok to be racist/bigoted if others are, too?

I think he's trying to say the opposite, actually. If a white man with her governmental position had said this, it would be front-page news and people would be calling for his resignation, and rightly so. She deserves the same treatment, and yet it seems nobody cares.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I think he's trying to say the opposite, actually. If a white man with her governmental position had said this, it would be front-page news and people would be calling for his resignation, and rightly so. She deserves the same treatment, and yet it seems nobody cares.

Lerk: First, this is for Lerk. You know what the poster of this thread meant. Don't play dumb, and your sarcastic game.

I was shocked to hear this, and it just goes to show you there is a double-standard in place here, and has been for a long time.

Her resignation should be demanded.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Check this out ...unbelievable. If this were a white Republican saying this, it'd be front page news.

Not forgiving accusations of racism, she still did this for a reason:

Quote:

But she wrote, "I was personally insulted by the anti-Haiti sentiment brought to the table by the State Department and by Republican Members of Congress in attendance." She added that the delegation seemed "callous and out of touch" with Haiti's needs.

______________________________

I wonder what was said exactly at that meeting to trigger her that much...

A rose is a rose is a rose is....

Bullies are always very good at playing victims...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I think he's trying to say the opposite, actually. If a white man with her governmental position had said this, it would be front-page news and people would be calling for his resignation, and rightly so. She deserves the same treatment, and yet it seems nobody cares.

Nobody cares... or everybody is so compromise that no one dares doing anything?

[theolein]

Well, despite the fact that I doubt Spacefreak would have posted this thread if that woman had not been a democrat, I think that was a pretty racist comment she made, ironic (as I've heard the same from whites about black, chinese etc often before) but racist, and while Bush might have originally installed Rice and Powell as token blacks, I would not call them a)a bunch of white men, and b)a bunch of white men.

[Orion27]

According to tenets of liberalism, it's perfectly acceptable to be racist. This is not news and not shocking. It's just not polite to discuss it. Sort of in the same vein as to why 80% percent of the assaults on children by Catholic priests happen to be boys. Does the homosexual community have a pedophilia issue? Let's post that as a subject of discussion and see how the fur flies.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by theolein:
... and while Bush might have originally installed Rice and Powell as token blacks...

Rice and Powell are tokens? Are you serious? There simply is no question about their qualifications for the positions they hold. And Bush clearly listens to both of them. Rice, in particular, was invaluable to Bush during the campaign in getting him up to speed on foreign policy matters.

[BRussell]

This was a bad thing to say. It's really not that hard.

[zigzag]

It's true that if a white Republican had said it, there might've been a bigger outcry, but there are reasons for that. First, it sounds like she said it mockingly, not because she really meant it. Second, common sense tells us that groups that have been (or are perceived as) oppressed by more powerful groups tend to get more leeway in this regard. Thus the constant complaints that it seems OK to bash white males, the Christian church, etc. but not OK to bash blacks, women, gays, etc. - white males and the Christian church have been bashing other people for so long that a lot of people think they deserve some bashing in return. Same reason gays can use the word "queer" but others have to be more careful - when they use it, it carries a lot more baggage. When the scales of power even out over time, attitudes and practices will change. The fact that this incident made the news at all and that Brown apologized is indicative of that - it's pretty tame stuff compared to the rhetoric of, say, the Black Panthers.

So, yeah, she shouldn't have said it, it is hypocritical, but it's useful to consider the historical context. If you want to blame a liberal conspiracy, or if you feel bad because you can't use racial epithets yourself, that's fine, but it's really a pretty ordinary sociological phenomenon.

[Orion27]

Yeah, it's all a big yawn until it translates to quotas, segregation of institutions to protect the "heritage" ( refusal to accept whites into the YMCA, Charleston, SC), and the trashing of the rule of law ( gay marriages SF). We make these allowances, without sanction, at our peril.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:
... The fact that this incident made the news at all and that Brown apologized is indicative of that - it's pretty tame stuff compared to the rhetoric of, say, the Black Panthers...

So? What Trent Lott said was pretty tame compared to the rhetoric of David Duke. That didn't mean he got to keep his job. He apologized too.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Rice and Powell are tokens? Are you serious? There simply is no question about their qualifications for the positions they hold. And Bush clearly listens to both of them. Rice, in particular, was invaluable to Bush during the campaign in getting him up to speed on foreign policy matters.

I don't doubt their general qualifications (although I'm not as impressed with Rice as others seem to be), but at the same time there's nothing wrong with recognizing that there are political calculations involved in such appointments. At this stage in the game, it's expected that either party will make a certain number of minority appointments - if they didn't, they'd be vulnerable to criticism and would tend to alienate important voting groups. It doesn't mean that Powell or Rice themselves are mere tokens or are necessarily unqualified, but their ethnicity certainly enters into the overall political calculations. Democrats make the same calculations.

I still laugh when I think of George Sr. calling Clarence Thomas the single most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court (not that I think he was unqualified, but the idea that he was the most qualified is silly). Republicans aren't supposed to like affirmative action, so when they use it, they either pretend that the person is the most qualified, or they call it "enlarging the tent." But you know what? I think Bush did the right thing. The only thing that bothers me about it is the inconsistency on the affirmative action issue. The Thomas episode was an excellent demonstration of why it has a place.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So? What Trent Lott said was pretty tame compared to the rhetoric of David Duke. That didn't mean he got to keep his job. He apologized too.

That's true, but it doesn't invalidate my analysis. It just means that we're still adjusting to some very large-scale social changes.

[Orion27]

"That's true, but it doesn't invalidate my analysis. It just means that we're still adjusting to some very large-scale social changes."

I'm waiting for the a new Democrat campaign ad with a pick-up truck dragging chains.
The fact is, Republicans are portrayed as calculating racists while Democrats are portrayed
as inclusive saviors.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"That's true, but it doesn't invalidate my analysis. It just means that we're still adjusting to some very large-scale social changes."

I'm waiting for the a new Democrat campaign ad with a pick-up truck dragging chains.
The fact is, Republicans are portrayed as calculating racists while Democrats are portrayed
as inclusive saviors.

That's often true. It seems unfair, especially to younger Republicans for whom race hasn't been an issue, but again, there are historical reasons for it. A number of respected Republicans - Arlen Specter, Jack Kemp, among others - have acknowledged this. I believe the President himself has said that the Republican Party needed to do a better job of understanding minority issues and "enlarging the tent." And I think that's admirable - there's no shame in admitting that change is needed. The Democratic Party has its share of skeletons as well. My point is that you have to consider these events in the context of history - we're talking about huge social changes that will take further decades to work out.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Orion27:
The fact is, Republicans are portrayed as calculating racists while Democrats are portrayed as inclusive saviors.

Not by you they're not. Not by the endless hours of right-wing radio they're not. Not by all the talk about PC and reverse discrimination and Hollywood elites they're not. I see at least as much victim whining by whites and Christians and other dominant groups as I do by minority groups.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Not by you they're not. Not by the endless hours of right-wing radio they're not. Not by all the talk about PC and reverse discrimination and Hollywood elites they're not. I see at least as much victim whining by whites and Christians and other dominant groups as I do by minority groups.

And now they're threatened by those fearsome homosexuals, all of 2% of the population.

People wanting respect from the majority - will it never end?

[Orion27]

" Not by the endless hours of right-wing radio they're not. Not by all the talk about PC and reverse discrimination and Hollywood elites they're not"

I know it's frustrating that the market doesn't support your view on radio. So we all chip and give you National Public Radio.

[BRussell]

White male christian conservatives have a dream that one day their oppressed, disenfranchised community will be empowered.

[zigzag]

I meant to add that I was once at a deposition where a black witness was asked to describe an Asian. She struggled and might as well have said "They all look alike to me." The fact is that it's a natural human tendency to perceive other groups that way until you're more familiar with them. You see them as white or black or red or green first, and absorb the details later. The reason it causes controversy is because it was a standard joke among white people for so long, and reflected both their oppressive attitudes and practices as the group in power. Hopefully we'll all be able to laugh about it one day, that day just hasn't arrived yet.

[theolein]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Rice and Powell are tokens? Are you serious? There simply is no question about their qualifications for the positions they hold. And Bush clearly listens to both of them. Rice, in particular, was invaluable to Bush during the campaign in getting him up to speed on foreign policy matters.

Calm down, roger, old man. For once I was not taking pot shots at the hallowed right. If you'd have read the sentence you might have seen the word might in there. That means that I don't know why Bush installed Powell and Rice. He might (note the word again) have done it as you said, because they are two of the better, and possibly less corrupt people in his administration, and he might (watch it, the word's there again) have done it originally in order to get black votes. In politics, as you well know, and would be BS'ing me if you claimed that you didn't, not everything is always on the straight and level.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Check this out ...unbelievable. If this were a white Republican saying this, it'd be front page news.

I don't think so. Perhaps if she were a white male Republican with a long, questionable history who was about to become Senate Majority Leader, it would be front page news. But she's just some random local representative. Republican or Democrat, few care.

[macvillage.net]

I agree. We've got enough people capable of doing the job that we don't need more racists in government.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:
... I still laugh when I think of George Sr. calling Clarence Thomas the single most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court (not that I think he was unqualified, but the idea that he was the most qualified is silly)...

No it isn't. With the benefit of hindsight I have little doubt that President Bush is far more proud of his appointment of Thomas than he is of Justice Souter. Thomas never was evaluated by his critics or his supporters simply for his understanding of the law. If he had been, his nomination would not have been controversial. He was clearly qualified. President Bush was taking the measure of a man when he said that. Justice Thomas has taken a lot of fire over the years and has acquitted himself well. He has shown himself to be a man who clearly owns a judicial temperment. Moreover, he has advanced a view of the law that many see as absolutely crucial. I can say without hesitation there are few men I admire more than I do Justice Thomas.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I agree. We've got enough people capable of doing the job that we don't need more racists in government.

So...

Who is a racist...?

The people who seemed "callous and out of touch with Haiti's needs?

Or the person who called them racists?

[rambo47]

Bottom line: She's a racist and went public with her views. She's gotta go. Period. This kind of behavior us completely unacceptable in any elected official.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No it isn't. With the benefit of hindsight I have little doubt that President Bush is far more proud of his appointment of Thomas than he is of Justice Souter. Thomas never was evaluated by his critics or his supporters simply for his understanding of the law. If he had been, his nomination would not have been controversial. He was clearly qualified. President Bush was taking the measure of a man when he said that. Justice Thomas has taken a lot of fire over the years and has acquitted himself well. He has shown himself to be a man who clearly owns a judicial temperment. Moreover, he has advanced a view of the law that many see as absolutely crucial. I can say without hesitation there are few men I admire more than I do Justice Thomas.

That's all very nice - I didn't say he was unqualified - but it doesn't change the fact that he was nominated ahead of a number of equally or more qualified jurists because of his race. That makes it a form of affirmative action. Republicans just don't like to admit it when they do it, just as Democrats don't like to admit to their own race-based political calculations.

Bush had to appoint a black jurist to replace Marshall. It was a simple political reality. A Democrat would've done the same thing. I would've done the same thing. It was both a political reality and the right thing to do.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by rambo47:
Bottom line: She's a racist and went public with her views. She's gotta go. Period. This kind of behavior us completely unacceptable in any elected official.

So, bottom line, she made a mistake, therefore she's good for the trash. Right?

Tell me, when you make a mistake, should we put you to the trash as well?

Being an elected official, I would do EVERYTHING to hide my faults, because in your view, one has to be totally perfect. Spotless. No dents.

I hope these politicians of yours are virgins, 'coz you are not done with their faults! But then, that depends of what you want to look at...

I am starting to wonder if it is true that there are no double-standards.

Your politicians have lied to you in your face for so long (democrats, republicans, whatever! What's the difference?).

But one talks from the heart about her frustrations, slipped (a major faux pas for sure!) and she should resigned/be expelled?

And what about what was discussed to make her that angry? Of course, we will not talk about that... Let's avoid the topic...

Because as long as you act as a racist, it is not a problem. It is a problem when one accuses another of being a racist...

Sacro-saint reputations... Image is so important!

But what is being done is totally irrelevant. Of course.

My understanding is that, as Christ said, those who will go in paradise will have to go through the eye of a needle. In this case, people handle the needle.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Lerk: First, this is for Lerk. You know what the poster of this thread meant. Don't play dumb, and your sarcastic game.

I was shocked to hear this, and it just goes to show you there is a double-standard in place here, and has been for a long time.

Her resignation should be demanded.

No, I think I have a legitimate question.

If you are against racism, when you think it occurs, you are upset at racism, no matter the source.
If you feel you cannot express your own racism freely, then you will complain of double standards.

If you feel feel racism should never occur, there is no need to moan about "well if someone like ME did it, you can bet there'd be hell to pay". When you add THAT to a complaint of racism, its the same thing as saying "Why do THEY get to be racist and I dont? I'm jealous".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So? What Trent Lott said was pretty tame compared to the rhetoric of David Duke. That didn't mean he got to keep his job. He apologized too.

I was unaware Lott became unemployed.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
No, I think I have a legitimate question.

If you are against racism, when you think it occurs, you are upset at racism, no matter the source.
If you feel you cannot express your own racism freely, then you will complain of double standards.

If you feel feel racism should never occur, there is no need to moan about "well if someone like ME did it, you can bet there'd be hell to pay". When you add THAT to a complaint of racism, its the same thing as saying "Why do THEY get to be racist and I dont? I'm jealous".

Excuse me? You are calling me a racist?
You have a gift for twisting a person's words into whatever meaning you desire. I demand that any racist be punished. Even if they allow a racist to have a method to express it, like Howard Stern, or any radio, television station, or open mike on a fire truck. I don't care what race anyone is who is being racist. I have been the victim of reverse racism a number of times so I would understand the feeling one would have. How dare you attempt to lump me in with someone like that!

"Brown, during a briefing on the Haiti crisis Wednesday, said the president's representatives were "a bunch of white men." She was speaking to Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, a Mexican-American.

After Noriega told Brown, who is black, that he resented being called a racist and branded a white man, she responded "you all look alike to me," according to witnesses."

That is racist, and if a WHITE person in her position were to say to a white audience that the president's men were a "bunch of black people", then there would be a huge uprising and outrage in the media, and this person would be out the door! Fired! Gone! Goodbye! and I would be all for it. Yet, she can just apologize and all is ok.

n:

[djohnson]

I find this completely racist! Just because she is a woman means she gets away with this??? Talk about double standards...

I would love to see a white man stay something like this and blame it on her saying it first! Now that the white man is the only "race" not allowed to be racist...

You know what? All you humans look the same!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
White male christian conservatives have a dream that one day their oppressed, disenfranchised community will be empowered.

Originally posted by djohnson:
I would love to see a white man stay something like this and blame it on her saying it first! Now that the white man is the only "race" not allowed to be racist...

[rambo47]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
So, bottom line, she made a mistake, therefore she's good for the trash. Right?

Tell me, when you make a mistake, should we put you to the trash as well?


Sacro-saint reputations... Image is so important!

But what is being done is totally irrelevant. Of course.

If I were an elected official representing the people who elected me, people of many different races, creeds, and colors? Yes, to the trash heap with me. This is not about reputation: it's about character. Hers has been proven to be severely lacking.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by rambo47:
---snip---

people of many different races, creeds, and colors? Yes, to the trash heap with me. This is not about reputation: it's about character. Hers has been proven to be severely lacking.

What do you mean, "people of many races"?

There is only one race: it is called the Human Race!

And it comes with a variety of shades and skin colors (like eyes). How can you judge a person of racism when yourself promote such divisions between human beings??? Using the term "race" to differentiate people is a preclude to racism!

As for character:

1) she apologized, (which is honourable)
2) acted out of care for the destiny of the people whom are neighbours
3) tried to responsibilize her fellow government decision-makers to do something (overdoing it for sur but see 1)).

It seems that this "pop" culture with throw away-things and use-once-wipes has reduced people to not much.

It is not because she is an elected individual that she is perfect. You want perfect, seek for God!

[rambo47]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
What do you mean, "people of many races"?

There is only one race: it is called the Human Race!

And it comes with a variety of shades and skin colors (like eyes). How can you judge a person of racism when yourself promote such divisions between human beings??? Using the term "race" to differentiate people is a preclude to racism!

As for character:

1) she apologized, (which is honourable)
2) acted out of care for the destiny of the people whom are neighbours
3) tried to responsibilize her fellow government decision-makers to do something (overdoing it for sur but see 1)).

It seems that this "pop" culture with throw away-things and use-once-wipes has reduced people to not much.

It is not because she is an elected individual that she is perfect. You want perfect, seek for God!

So you want to pretend that Asians, Africans, etc, etc, are really only one race, that differences don't really exist?! Why don't we accept that we are all of different and varreid races and simply try to live together. Perhaps the racial diversity we live with might actually teach us something, like tollerance. Although this concept seems lost on Ms. Brown.

As for her actions, it simply looks like a panic reaction to being outed as a racist. Reelection is never more than 4 years away.

[Orion27]

I think it instructive to visit Brown's website:http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/press.shtml

and:http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/pr...40123haiti.htm

Typical intolerant liberal socialist: You can protest, just don't protest in front of my office. Even if you are Haitian. Interesting how she is also a member of a group, segregated by race, The Congressional Black Caucus. This kind of institutional racism
must really inspire the "children".

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by rambo47:
So you want to pretend that Asians, Africans, etc, etc, are really only one race, that differences don't really exist?! Why don't we accept that we are all of different and varreid races and simply try to live together. Perhaps the racial diversity we live with might actually teach us something, like tollerance. Although this concept seems lost on Ms. Brown.

As for her actions, it simply looks like a panic reaction to being outed as a racist. Reelection is never more than 4 years away.

Would you qualify blue-eyed people as a race?

Eye-color or skin color, it may not be more than one gene different!

There is actually more diversity among the individuals of one so-called "race" than there is between these so-called "races".

Differentiating people according to their differences is dividing the human race. When you divide, you start to compare. It is then extremely easy to say that "this colour is better than the other".

You want everyone to live together?

Stop dividing them in small boxes for "ease of discussion". If you have to tolerate, one might also wonder what it is you have to tolerate...

...tolerate the difference? What is it about the difference we have to "tolerate"?

And there is no such thing as "RACIAL" diversity,

it is simply "INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE".

What is so cognitively convenient for many, is that groups of people sharing similar characteristics are in the same geographical location, and that facilitates a descrition of the world, of that reality. But that cognitive convenience cannot be transferred in situations where geographic factors are irrelevant. Mix them all (human beings) up and after a few generations, and some more travelling, you may find difficult to tag someone.

For Ms Brown, she has certainly been victimized more than once; when you show empathy in a racial ridden context, you are bound to react using the same tools. It is my belief that "black" people are more disadvantaged politically because they are more often challenged for criteria regarding so called "racial characteristics" than "white" people, and even so, more as women than women in general... Ms Brown was certainly doubly-challenged...

The thread could have been posted differently: are "black" people allowed to call "white" people racists? Oh.. we could also explore this "fantastic" topic: Are Mexican "black" or "white"? And waht about First Nation Mexicans?

I just passed a job interview with 2 Mexicans; they were "white" as snow, whiter than me...

Man I wish I had been a fly on the wall of that meeting...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I think it instructive to visit Brown's website:http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/press.shtml

and:http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/pr...40123haiti.htm

Typical intolerant liberal socialist: You can protest, just don't protest in front of my office. Even if you are Haitian. Interesting how she is also a member of a group, segregated by race, The Congressional Black Caucus. This kind of institutional racism
must really inspire the "children".

Did you only read texts of these links?????

Why don't you post the part that hurt you so much?

[Orion27]

I've read many of the press releases. I haven't seen one about creating a climate of reinvestment by private enterprise in her District.

[Spliffdaddy]

If they'd fire you saying it on your job - they should fire her. too.

...she is also a member of a group, segregated by race, The Congressional Black Caucus. This kind of institutional racism
must really inspire the "children".

lol. yup. racist.

edit: I'm gonna do my level best to see her gone.