Tea Party vs. Black Panthers, which is "more" racist?

[Teller]

Damnit HH I wrote a book, hit submit...and do not see my post :mad:

cliff notes version - We agree on almost all of your post to me, I just don't understand the comparison of the two groups because ones irrelevant and small, and the other is pretty damn relevant and large.

We really need to bring these tailgate political conversations to a bar near martinsburg, I need drinking buddies that like the skins and dont like purty lips

Man, I'd cut off my left arm with a butter knife to have a few beers with you, and even Bac. I enjoy talking to people that DON'T agree with me, even more than those that do. I just like it to be on the up and up. And about what I actually SAY.

And I've agreed with you about the size of the movements. No question about that. But as I said earlier, we learned on 9/11 that it only takes a handful of people with hate in their hearts to do serious damage.

I also don't see any tea partiers saying that we need to kill African Americans and their babies, the way King Samir Shabazz has repeatedly. Bigotry is wrong; by anyone, against anyone. Turning that bigotry into a suggestion of violence is even more wrong.

I haven't shied away from the fact that there are idiot racists on the fringes of the Tea Party. But they're in no way comparable to the NBPP or the Nation of Islam. Again, hatred and bigotry are always bad. Promoting violence based on hatred and bigotry are always worse.

[Mooka]

It’s time to view this as a matter of right or wrong, not left or right

Good grief, how many times can you contradict yourself in a single blog piece?

[Wrong Direction]

I agree with you, for the most part. Personally, I wouldn't have made this specific comparison, but to each his own.

I think it would be more appropriate to compare the panthers and the klan, and Tea Partiers to....I don't know, moveon.org? (Maybe someone on the left has a better comparison.)

On the other hand, to call a group who use criminal tactics to influence court cases and elections "irrelevant," I think is a little inaccurate. I understand what you're saying in terms of the scope of the two movements; and I agree with that. But as we saw nine years ago, just 19 people with bad intentions can become VERY relevant, very quickly.

In regards to membership, La Raza and the NAACP certainly have relatively large memberships and a racially controversial relatively recent past. They're better comps in general to the tea party, though tea party membership is certainly more ideological than based on race.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

I never said such fools and idiots make up "all of them," but many on the Right have done nothing at all to resolve these sort of problems within their own movement. And not only that, but, according to polls and such, many in the Tea Party movement DO have rather questionable beliefs, and some of it absolutely stems from White anger in this country" anger towards the belief that minorities receive too many handouts; anger and despair over a feeling of dis-empowerment; anger over the economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-tea-party-movement-is_b_538750.html

You are kidding right? I'm supposed to take that article seriously when it constantly attacks the Tea Party by referring to them as "Tea Baggers?"

Time and time again, conservative populist movements have ALWAYS resulted in some racist attitudes: it is sad, but know American tradition. Especially when you take into account that some of the Tea Partiers are descendants of the Dixiecrats which were absorbed into teh Republican party after the civil rights movement. (A reality which appears to be overlooked.)

That doesn't mean, by all means, that all Tea Partiers are racists, but it IS a part of the movement. (And if you don't believe me, go to Stormfront and read about their excitement over the "racial awakening" in the Tea Party movement.)

You are better than this...

You want me to accept that a racist, extremist group which is excited "over the "racial awakening" in the Tea Party movement (your words, I'm trusting you that this is the case) is representative of the Tea Party?

Essentially, anyone that endorses a group in some way (no matter how minor), is reflective of that group? Seriously?

I want to add this point: Most of these conservatives had nothing to say when Bush was spending like crazy, but suddenly Obama gets into office, and BAM! "Tax Enough Already!" It apparently took a black liberal to get the anger rolling, and you would have to do a lot of convincing before you can change my mind that Obama's complexion was not a factor in this sudden conservative anger.

....and back to this we go....

Not at all, but they go out of their way to attack groups whose interest lie in these areas, or they go out of their way to attack "social justice," or anything which smacks of "welfare." I must add that I have been hearing this stuff ("crackhead welfare mothers," etc.) from conservatives for YEARS, so it's really nothing new.

Now, any group that fights for a group of people is untouchable. If they are spoken against (in any way, for any reason), they are prejudice against the people that that group is for.

....I'm learning a lot here.

[Wrong Direction]

When was the last time the Tea Party showed any interest for issues which affect minority groups the U.S., outside of mockery or insults?

Conservatives in general aren't going to argue for what's best based on race, gender, religion, etc. That's not their ideology.

I'll say this, as a conservative, I absolutely believe that my policies on things like education would be vastly superior for minorities than the policies of the Democrats.

[Baculus]

Go back and read both of these comments in context for yourself. Then join the rest of the idiots who have attempted to accuse me of racism, or ignoring racism perpetrated by whites.

You have gone out of your way to defend the Tea Party while giving barely a word to the racism that we have discussing. I think that is where some folks' opinions are formed. In fact, the general sentiment from many of the Tea Party supporters has been, "What racism?"

I don't know why people like you feel compelled to completely fabricate my position in order to attack me. Maybe it's because you're pissed off that you can't attack facts, or what I actually say. And that being the case, I feel even more secure in my position.

I didn't fabricate your position -- I have always asked you to clarify your feeling on this issue, which is why I said, " . . . perhaps you are in agreement with some of these sentiments," because such sentiments ARE popular on the Right. I go to conservative websites, and I hear such rubbish frequently enough.

Show me. Where have I said anything of that sort? Did I choose to support him in the last election because I figured he would attempt to destroy my life as I know it?

I never said you absolutely made those statements -- show ME where I did say, "You do believe these are you are a racist like the rest of them."

Let me ask you this: Why do you think he would "attempt to destroy your life?" Statements such as that are the reasons why some people question your stance on this, because "Obama wants to destroy my life" is often followed by "because he is a Black Muslim socialist!" THAT is the reason why some have wondered to where you stand, because, in the past, you have used the exact same sort of language used by some of the folks who have a racial-axe to grind against the President.

You've been exposed. And like I said, you're no better than the idiots who have tried before you. I've always seen you as someone who was informed, could debate issues, and could debate what a poster actually says. It's unfortunate that I've been proven wrong.

I have been on this board for nine years and I am very upfront about my positions. There is little to "expose" on me. That being said, we sometimes get into heated debates on here, and there is no reason to take everything to heart.

You can think what you want though -- it's a free country!

[19Skins72]

HH - from what little I know of what went down with King Samir Shabazz it sounds like he should be in jail - if there is more to the story that somehow justifies his continued status as a free man fine so be it but I'd really like to hear the specifics to make up my own mind.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist on this one topic, but I really don't want to believe that under oath statement from the DOJ employee...I agree, it's a solid source, but the claim is...overwhelming.

As for the Tea party. I don't see them as racist as a group. I agree that there are racists in their ranks calling themselves Tea Party members, but I do not judge the Tea Party as a whole by the actions/beliefs of a few - I see these guys as fringe hangers-on trying to pervert the cause of a fiscally conservative movement to suit their own agenda.

Do I sound like I'm making an excuse for the Tea Party? No, really I'm not. I'm think any new political movement would attract the ugly fringe that leans in their direction. Form a left version of the Tea Party and you'll get Truthers, peace at any cost peaceniks, true socialists etc. that will do what they can to screw it up ... it's just the nature of these things imo.

You are right about a little group being able to cause big problems though, I hadn't considered that angle.

[NavyDave]

Back to the OP question, the answer is The new Black Panther Party and their enablers.

I still laugh at the notion that all of the Bigots in the Democratic party bolted to the Republican party after the Voting rights act was passed with the help of the GOP, and the Democratic party is now pristine and is looking out for all minorities and yet after blindly voting for them over 40 years there are still complaints and issues.

How can places like DC and other major cities that has only voted Democrat since the 60's and tax the heck out of the rich there and has plenty of liberal policies in place still be in such sad shape?

Mayor Fenty is getting the same grief that Mayor Williams received about not looking out for black people and is just trying to entice more to whites to move into the city. :doh: What more is he supposed they supposed to do for them?

[Teller]

You have gone out of your way to defend the Tea Party while giving barely a word to the racism that we have discussing. I think that is where some folks' opinions are formed. In fact, the general sentiment from many of the Tea Party supporters has been, "What racism?"

I've spoken up at least twice to contradict those who completely discounted any racist element to the Tea Parties. I really don't know what else I should feel obligated to do to make my position any clearer.

And where have I gone out of my way to defend the Tea Parties? The only statements I remember making in ANY thread on them was that I considered joining early on, but was disappointed by the traction some of the fringes were able to gain within them. I shied away because of that.

As for the general sentiment of "many" of the tea partiers, I take no more responsibility for that than I do the positions of any other group I'm not a member of.

I didn't fabricate your position -- I have always asked you to clarify your feeling on this issue, which is why I said, " . . . perhaps you are in agreement with some of these sentiments," because such sentiments ARE popular on the Right. I go to conservative websites, and I hear such rubbish frequently enough.

So here again, you're trying to assign the positions of conservative websites you choose to me? Again, I've clarified my position on this matter at least twice, by contradicting those who discounted any racist element within the Tea Parties. (And now twice more in this post alone.)

I never said you absolutely made those statements -- show ME where I did say, "You do believe these are you are a racist like the rest of them."

Granted, you used the word "probably." I would like to know where you even got that notion.

Let me ask you this: Why do you think he would "attempt to destroy your life?" Statements such as that are the reasons why some people question your stance on this, because "Obama wants to destroy my life" is often followed by "because he is a Black Muslim socialist!" THAT is the reason why some have wondered to where you stand, because, in the past, you have used the exact same sort of language used by some of the folks who have a racial-axe to grind against the President.

You made the accusation that

You probably believe that Obama IS a racist, or that he is attempting to destroy "white culture" or some such.

My response that I supported Obama in the last election was intended to demonstrate the fallacy of such a statement. You were the one who assigned the (probable) opinion that Obama is attempting to destroy white culture. If I believed that, would I have supported him? And if so, why???

I have been on this board for nine years and I am very upfront about my positions. There is little to "expose" on me. That being said, we sometimes get into heated debates on here, and there is no reason to take everything to heart.

Fair enough. I admit it is a personal "flaw" of mine to take it personally when people say, or even imply, that I might be a racist. I loathe racism in all its forms. And to be cast in that light, even by inference is offensive to me.

You can think what you want though -- it's a free country!

As can you, of course. I will effort to stick to our usually heated, but not personal, debates. I've enjoyed them in the past, and hope that will continue.

[Baculus]

Conservatives in general aren't going to argue for what's best based on race, gender, religion, etc. That's not their ideology.

The problem is that White conservatives see themselves as being "race neutral," when that isn't always the case. Majority and minority groups each have their own concerns and goals, and sometimes neither side crosses the boundaries to explore each side's views.

When conservatives imply that unemployment shouldn't be extended because it "makes people lazy," who do you think they are talking about? When conservatives in Tennessee suggest the need for a "civics test" in order to vote, who do they think are targeted (and have been targeted in the past by such "tests)?

I don't think the Right realize how they come across, or they do, but they are using "code words" and "dog whistle tactics" to appeal to their White American base.

We have to remember that conservatism is a frame of mind that can mean different things -- we can speak about a "conservative" approach to society, or conservative that applies to a conservative-classical liberal fusion. In the case of cultural conservatism, it can result in a concern over a poor, black or Hispanic underclass using resources as unproductive members of society, which in turn can lead to a sort of social Darwinist attitude.

Take, for example, the issue of "social justice." This has been attacked by some conservatives as virtual "communism," and yet social justice has been very important in shaping gender and racial equality in the United States. But when Leftist and liberal organizations, who strive to help the lower class and the disenfranchised, are attacked by conservatives, we have to wonder, "What is the goal of these conservatives?" especially when they offer to alternatives to organizations such as ACORN or the ACLU.

When Pres. Obama is attacked as a past community organizer in Chicago, with his efforts to help low-income families, what do you think that says to some people?

Sometimes we take our cue from history (conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, opposing civil rights -- moderates and liberals supporting it) to draw our own conclusions.

I'll say this, as a conservative, I absolutely believe that my policies on things like education would be vastly superior for minorities than the policies of the Democrats.

That may be the case, but the fact is, Democrats tend to pay more attention to these issues -- they make greater efforts at outreach -- and they have more political representatives from the concerned minority groups. And you have to ask yourself why? It takes more than self-serving pandering from the Democrats to accomplish this, doesn't it?

This isn't to say, of course, that conservatives don't share some of the same concerns and they don't also work side-by-side with liberals on civil rights and economic issues relating to minority groups in America. Many, such as yourself, do, but it takes more than ideologically discussions on "freedom and liberty" to resolve problems facing minorities in our country.

These problems often require direction action -- the dreaded "community organizing" -- that some conservatives are not willing to take.

[NavyDave]

I'll say this, as a conservative, I absolutely believe that my policies on things like education would be vastly superior for minorities than the policies of the Democrats.

Same here. There would be an increase in the school voucher program in the Metro DC area and Montana for starters.

[Teller]

Bac, candidate Obama said that ideologically, he opposes race-based affirmative action. He made the point, specifically, that his daughters have no need for racial preference. Their name, and their family's wealth and influence eliminate the need for any preference based on race.

He continued, saying that the poor son or daughter of a coal miner in Appalachia is in far greater need of affirmative action, based on that level of need. I happen to support that position 100%.

I guess I have two questions for you. Do you agree or disagree with the position espoused by the president? And why?

I fully admit that conservatives tend to have a more rose-colored view of race in this country. I look at where we are now, and I don't see any opportunity that is available to me that isn't available to an African-American, or any other minority group.

Meanwhile, most liberals, IMO, tend to see things as worse for minorities than they actually are. Surely the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We haven't reached a post-racial era yet, nor do we suffer from the travesties of things like segregation, or impossible-to-break glass ceilings.

But again, what, if anything, is wrong with looking at society in terms of need, as opposed to in terms of color?

[Baculus]

I've spoken up at least twice to contradict those who completely discounted any racist element to the Tea Parties. I really don't know what else I should feel obligated to do to make my position any clearer.

I do recognize that you made those statements.

And where have I gone out of my way to defend the Tea Parties? The only statements I remember making in ANY thread on them was that I considered joining early on, but was disappointed by the traction some of the fringes were able to gain within them. I shied away because of that.

Maybe it was the impression that was more formed than the reality. To be honest, sometimes these threads become a big blur, and words become transposed. I know on more than occasion it has been inferred that I have said or implied something when that wasn't the case.

As for the general sentiment of "many" of the tea partiers, I take no more responsibility for that than I do the positions of any other group I'm not a member of.

Nor do I hold you responsible for things said by folks such as Williams. That would be unfair.

So here again, you're trying to assign the positions of conservative websites you choose to me? Again, I've clarified my position on this matter at least twice, by contradicting those who discounted any racist element within the Tea Parties. (And now twice more in this post alone.)

I merely explained to why I made in inquiry to your beliefs.

Granted, you used the word "probably." I would like to know where you even got that notion.

You made the accusation that

I admit that I should have either (1) used a more open-ended, neutral qualifier to my interrogative, or (2) avoided using terms that could be construed as "heated" or emotional. For that, I admit my phrasing was off-key and outside the usual debate tone that you and I employ.

If I believed that, would I have supported him? And if so, why???

Actually, in this case, I type too fast for my own good, and I simply forget you had supported him. I thought you said that Obama would try to "destroy your life." As I said, perhaps this is whole debate is becoming a big blur and I need to go back to boxing up books (for a move I am doing. This was supposed to be a break, and I have been sitting here debating! Ha).

Fair enough. I admit it is a personal "flaw" of mine to take it personally when people say, or even imply, that I might be a racist. I loathe racism in all its forms. And to be cast in that light, even by inference is offensive to me.

HH, I really meant nothing by it, and I shouldn't let my finger typing get ahead of cool, rational debating, or at least I need to make sure my ideas are coherently communicated. So if I came across a bit on the personal side, for that I apologize, and I can understand to why a racist inference would be insulting.

As can you, of course. I will effort to stick to our usually heated, but not personal, debates. I've enjoyed them in the past, and hope that will continue.

And I also hope can continue our debates in the future. :-)

[Teller]

And I also hope can continue our debates in the future. :-)

We're cool, man. Thanks very much for taking the time to clarify the way you did. I really appreciate that.

[NavyDave]

Majority and minority groups each have their own concerns and goals. Just how different are their concerns and goals? I viewed my own as being the same as the majority.

When conservatives imply that unemployment shouldn't be extended because it "makes people lazy," who do you think they are talking about? When conservatives in Tennessee suggest the need for a "civics test" in order to vote, who do they think are targeted (and have been targeted in the past by such "tests)

Dude unemployment payments are not earmarked for only black people and other minorities, the demographic getting the majority of it is white. And yeah knowing you are going to get an unemployment check, indefinitely, has led to a lot of people not having the incentive to get a job or two.

[Baculus]

Bac, candidate Obama said that ideologically, he opposes race-based affirmative action. He made the point, specifically, that his daughters have no need for racial preference. Their name, and their family's wealth and influence eliminate the need for any preference based on race.

He continued, saying that the poor son or daughter of a coal miner in Appalachia is in far greater need of affirmative action, based on that level of need. I happen to support that position 100%.

I guess I have two questions for you. Do you agree or disagree with the position espoused by the president? And why?

A good question.

I agree with him in that poverty knows no bounds: A poor man or woman is a poor human being, regardless of their ethnic affiliation. It's just that many of these issues, in this day and age, still butt up against both race and class issues, and no matter how much even the President may desire, we are not a post-racial or post-class society. sure, all Americans are plagued by many of the same problems, but resolution for these problems can differ from group to group.

I fully admit that conservatives tend to have a more rose-colored view of race in this country. I look at where we are now, and I don't see any opportunity that is available to me that isn't available to an African-American, or any other minority group.

Sure, opportunities are there -- things certainly have improved in this country, through social struggle and legislative efforts. I wouldn't want to suggest that racial (and gender) matters are just as bad as thirty years ago, because that would be a false assertion.

Meanwhile, most liberals, IMO, tend to see things as worse for minorities than they actually are. Surely the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We haven't reached a post-racial era yet, nor do we suffer from the travesties of things like segregation, or impossible-to-break glass ceilings.

I can agree with you on your last statement: We aren't quit there yet, but we've made good steps towards a "more perfect Union."

You can look it in this way: Liberals are often more aware of the issues facing minorities, which include economic and basic sustenance and health care issues. I have heard more than one conservative make statements such as "there are no hungry Americans" or "all Americans have health care," when it just isn't the case. It's out of touch with reality. Even Rand Paul shrugged off lower-class issues by saying that poor Americans have it better than most poor in Third World nations. That may be true, when you're dirt poor in America, that sort of statement really doesn't matter too much.

This is partially due to the conservative ideal of American exceptionalism, and that America is great and has few, if any faults. That we are the greatest country in the world, and hey, "Be happy you are an American."

The great debate to how we solve society's ills comes to a head between the methods of wealth redistribution -- either via the state, a more democratic economic means, or "trickle down" capitalism.

But again, what, if anything, is wrong with looking at society in terms of need, as opposed to in terms of color?

Social justice is supposed be color blind, since we are all human beings.

When I think about the poor, I don't think about Black, Whites, or Latinos: I think of people in need. In my rants about, for example, the need for a universal health care system, I tend speak in broad terms outside of "race," because it's irrelevant, generally and structurally speaking. (Though the health care woes of Black Americans can come into play when debating the pros and cons.)

That being said, it's just that certain organizations attend to the need of certain minority groups mainly since challenges facing ethnic/racial groups can vary, and some groups have greater challenges than others.

[Baculus]

We're cool, man. Thanks very much for taking the time to clarify the way you did. I really appreciate that.

Sure, and thanks for listening. I had no intention in getting us into a huff!

[twa]

Dude unemployment payments are not earmarked for only black people and other minorities, the demographic getting the majority of it is white. And yeah knowing you are going to get an unemployment check, indefinitely, has led to a lot of people not having the incentive to get a job or two.

Yep,I have two in my family that beyond a doubt put off getting a lesser job simply because of extended benefits.

99 weeks is insane,much less extending it again.

[Baculus]

Dude unemployment payments are not earmarked for only black people and other minorities, the demographic getting the majority of it is white. And yeah knowing you are going to get an unemployment check, indefinitely, has led to a lot of people not having the incentive to get a job or two.

I am not sure if you've ever been on unemployment, but it isn't that much money. First, you have to work to even get unemployment, and second, the amount you receive is determined by how much you have earned.

I think this whole "unemployment is an incentive not to work" is a myth when you consider that unemployment checks are not a livable wage. Unless you live on the streets or something, you will barely get enough to maybe make a car payment -- maybe pay rent if you have very low cost housing. Other than that? No way -- you are still living far below the poverty line.

If one's goal is to lose your house, your car, your apartment, etc., then sure, don't work and collect those checks. But that doesn't seem like a very realistic outlook, does it? Plus, the inference is basically that the unemployed are lazy, in that they are unemployed due to their own fault, and they just want free money.

The fact is, most people have worked for years and put money into the system without ever collecting from it.

Yes, there are practically poor white Americans than black Americans, all told, and many whites will receive these unemployment checks. But in spite of that reality, some conservatives use welfare and unemployment as a stick to wield their views on race. I am not talking merely to make up some line of attack against conservatives: When welfare reformed took place in the early 90s, the Welfare Queen meme was repeated ad nauseum as an example to everything wrong with social programs.

Now, in some cases, yes, this may not be about race at all, but more so class, so implying racial tension doesn't tell the whole story by any means.

[Baculus]

Yep,I have two in my family that beyond a doubt put off getting a lesser job simply because of extended benefits.

99 weeks is insane,much less extending it again.

Do these people live with other people? that is the only way I can see them putting off finding work.

And 99 weeks? In MD, it is 27 weeks . . . which, for the long term unemployed isn't that long at all.

[Teller]

A good question.

I agree with him in that poverty knows no bounds: A poor man or woman is a poor human being, regardless of their ethnic affiliation. It's just that many of these issues, in this day and age, still butt up against both race and class issues, and no matter how much even the President may desire, we are not a post-racial or post-class society. sure, all Americans are plagued by many of the same problems, but resolution for these problems can differ from group to group.

I'm glad you said that we're not post-racial, nor post class. I respect that. And I think that shows a desire on your part to cross ideological boundaries, and understand the other side.

In a lot of these debates, the more liberal poster seems to take the position that it's about race. Where the more conservative poster (me) takes the position that it's about class. Both are a problem. And both need to be addressed in terms of the solution.

Again, I make no assertion that racism is dead. Nor that some minority groups don't face unique challenges. I guess what frustrates me a little is that many, if not all, of those minority groups have organizations that represent them.

Meanwhile, I don't know of any group that supports poor, rural whites, specifically. (And frankly, I don't want one. I'm of the opinion that racially exclusive advocacy groups should be going away, not growing in numbers.) But at the same time, that lack of advocacy adds to the perception that if you're white in America, you have it made. When, as you yourself have pointed out, that's not necessarily the case; and often isn't.

Sure, opportunities are there -- things certainly have improved in this country, through social struggle and legislative efforts. I wouldn't want to suggest that racial (and gender) matters are just as bad as thirty years ago, because that would be a false assertion.

Agreed.

I can agree with you on your last statement: We aren't quit there yet, but we've made good steps towards a "more perfect Union."

You can look it in this way: Liberals are often more aware of the issues facing minorities, which include economic and basic sustenance and health care issues. I have heard more than one conservative make statements such as "there are no hungry Americans" or "all Americans have health care," when it just isn't the case. It's out of touch with reality. Even Rand Paul shrugged off lower-class issues by saying that poor Americans have it better than most poor in Third World nations. That may be true, when you're dirt poor in America, that sort of statement really doesn't matter too much.

I couldn't agree with you any more, here. And I would assert for the record that the conservatives you've heard making those statements are at best misinformed. Maybe dangerously so.

This is partially due to the conservative ideal of American exceptionalism, and that America is great and has few, if any faults. That we are the greatest country in the world, and hey, "Be happy you are an American."

Here again, the view that we have no faults is pretty foolish. Anything built and maintained by human beings is going to have flaws. I do believe we are the greatest country in the world. But I don't say that from a position of arrogance, I say it from a position of intense love and desire to make it remain always true. Kind of like every branch of the military says, and believes, they are the best. And frankly, I wouldn't want to be a part of any country, or organization that DIDN'T think it was the best.

The great debate to how we solve society's ills comes to a head between the methods of wealth redistribution -- either via the state, a more democratic economic means, or "trickle down" capitalism.

Yes, it does. And I don't claim to have a solution here. Macro-economics makes about as much sense to me as Mandarin Chinese. In theory I support a flat tax, but I fully grant it's a lot like communism. It's a great idea in theory, but not so much in practice.

Social justice is supposed be color blind, since we are all human beings.

When I think about the poor, I don't think about Black, Whites, or Latinos: I think of people in need. In my rants about, for example, the need for a universal health care system, I tend speak in broad terms outside of "race," because it's irrelevant, generally and structurally speaking. (Though the health care woes of Black Americans can come into play when debating the pros and cons.)

Again, I respect this position. I get frustrated with those who want to BASE policy on race. But those who simply CONSIDER race when making or discussing policy have a very legitimate point.

That being said, it's just that certain organizations attend to the need of certain minority groups mainly since challenges facing ethnic/racial groups can vary, and some groups have greater challenges than others.

I think that's true. But again, having grown up in rural Western Maryland, and having spent time in most of WV, it frustrates me that poor whites in those areas aren't represented by an advocacy group. (As I said before, I don't really want them to be, but it is frustrating that other groups of people have advocacy groups and lobbyists, but rural white America doesn't -- at least as far as I know.)

Ideally, I would like to see the need for such groups disappear. But I know full well that we haven't reached that point yet.

[twa]

Do these people live with other people? that is the only way I can see them putting off finding work.

And 99 weeks? In MD, it is 27 weeks . . . which, for the long term unemployed isn't that long at all.

Yes they do

btw MD is 59 weeks according to this

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.html

Which does not include the last extension the feds are trying to grant

[Baculus]

Yes they do

btw MD is 59 weeks according to this

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.html

Which does not include the last extension the feds are trying to grant

I have a feeling the state extended the benefits due to the last year's federal government's benefits extension, because it was 26 weeks in MD before last year. (I said 27 weeks earlier, but I believe they base it on 13-month cycles.) Also, I noticed Texas has 59 weeks -- what state has 99 weeks? I couldn't find any that have that long of a time period.

[Bang]

The person who's posts I most agree with on this page is Navy Dave.

~Bang

[cjcdaman]

The person who's posts I most agree with on this page is Navy Dave.

~Bang

Scary!