The Face of Racism

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
You want racism? Here it is. According to Roland Martin, Obama should have appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court simply for being a black woman. Using race for the justification of an action the real definition of racism. Using gender for the justification of an action the real definition of sexism. Is it ok to be openly racist if you're black?

I absolutely support Roland's right to write racist garbage like this. That said, I think the fact that this piece was not pointed out by anyone else in this forum is indicative of a bigger problem: everyone is afraid to call out true racism when it rears its ugly head. Instead, half of you are too busy calling everyone who wants to enforce existing illegal immigration laws racist to even acknowledge the fact that a rational basis for such an argument might even exist. If you want to heap scorn on someone for being racist, Mr. Martin is surely an easy target, so please proceed to do so.
Why no black female court nominee?

(CNN) -- The nomination of Elena Kagan to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has caused quite a stir on the political left and right, as operatives on both sides try to ascertain exactly where she stands.

But it has also opened another fissure in the complex relationship that exists between black organizational leaders and President Obama, the nation's first African-American president.

Over the past year we have seen criticisms leveled by grass-roots activists, civil rights groups and the Congressional Black Caucus.

But instead of taking on the president, the beefs are largely aimed at "those around the president." In previous administrations, these same individuals wouldn't have hesitated to call out Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Why the hesitance? Because they also understand that a direct attack on President Obama could hurt them in two ways: They could find themselves cut off from the administration or they could anger their base by making the president's job more difficult when he is facing daily attacks from Republicans.

Even among African-American commentators, columnists and radio and TV show hosts, if you are too harsh on President Obama, the backlash has been swift and vicious.

The organizations know this, and trust me, the White House knows this, and has used it to its advantage.

That's why I call it the Obama-Black-Two-Step.

I've been told countless times by folks on both sides that Obama can't be seen as favoring African-Americans over others, and his White House has been especially scared of touching anything dealing with race.
As a result, black civil rights leaders and prominent Democrats have largely bitten their tongues, unwilling to publicly take on the president and some of his decisions. Instead, they quietly fume, mumbling under their breath and offering their critiques in measured tones.

Yet I have gotten the sense that black civil rights and political leaders may stop the racial solidarity and stand up on the principles they have long fought for. I've been expressly told that some have no interest in working hard or raising money in the fall on behalf of Democrats to hold on to the House and Senate.

The nomination of Kagan has become a flash point in this uneasy relationship, because this is the second time in a year that President Obama has made a Supreme Court appointment and his administration didn't seriously consider an African-American woman for the job.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor certainly was historic in that she became the first Hispanic to sit on the high court, and it was embraced by civil rights groups. Yet this time, for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, to never make the cut for a face-to-face interview with the president has ticked off a number of leaders I've talked with over the last several days.
What's the big deal about including a black woman? A Democratic pollster told me that black women have a higher voter turnout than any other ethnic-gender demographic -- 65 percent -- and it's vital for Obama to appeal to them. When Obama was behind Sen. Hillary Clinton in the polls, it was because black women hadn't embraced him yet. When they did, the race changed.

The uneasiness with Kagan's appointment among civil rights groups has focused on the hiring record of minorities during her tenure at Harvard Law School, which was followed by the White House pushing back to insulate her from criticism by saying the Harvard faculty makes the recommendations about hiring for tenured positions.

They were quick to blast out blogs, columns and articles written by African-Americans at Harvard to make clear Kagan is a major advocate of diversity.
When a meeting with civil rights leaders and administration officials was held at the White House on Tuesday with senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, I was told "more listening than talking" was done by the administration.
Civil rights leaders made clear that they felt they were being taken for granted in the process, and were expected to rubber stamp the choice.
When Kagan's nomination was unveiled Monday, the only prominent African-Americans in attendance were Charles Ogletree, a Harvard professor who taught both Obamas, and Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. That's a stark contrast to Sotomayor's unveiling, when a number of civil rights leaders were there to back her bid.
That's why if you look at the public statements released this week by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Urban League and others, they are more neutral on Kagan's appointment, saying they look forward to hearing more about her views on a variety of issues as the nomination plays out.

Folks, that's lukewarm at best.

I've heard the previous complaints that congressional and civil rights leaders have been ignored by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, with one saying he has never attended a meeting with them ("Even Bush sent Andy Card to meet with us," one leader told me). And that extends to others surrounding the president in various parts of the White House.

"These problems are valid and BIG, and we cannot let them off the hook," I was told by one frustrated organizational head.

Yet this time is different.

White House officials would quickly suggest that they are on excellent terms with the Rev. Al Sharpton, but this goes beyond him. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is clearly on the outs with this administration, as seen in his banishment from the West Wing. But this contentious relationship is with civil rights, religious, economic and social justice officials. And it's getting worse.
One civil rights leader opined that President Obama is "losing his emotional connection with black leadership and black voters."

This has huge ramifications for the president and his agenda, because Democrats are facing a major battle to hold on to the House and Senate in November.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released Thursday shows that voters are split over who should control Congress -- Democrats and the GOP both got 44 percent. But of those most interested in the midterm elections, Republicans garnered 56 percent to 36 percent for Democrats.

Yet according to a study released in April by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on African-Americans, upwards of 80 percent of black voters say they are very likely to vote in November. The group surveyed 500 African-Americans in Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas and South Carolina.

What helped catapult President Obama into the White House was a high black turnout, especially in the South, and he garnered 95 percent of the black vote. A drop of 10 to 15 percent by black voters for Democrats in November would be catastrophic.

As the Kagan nomination goes forward, White House officials have told me they expect no problems from civil rights groups.

That may be the case. But the distance is growing between this president and what many figured are his natural allies. In a year when you have energized your enemies, the last thing you need is to push away your friends.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/17/martin.obama.nomination/index.html?hpt=C2
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Liberal logic: any kind of 'ism' is fine as long as it's done to push a goal we agree with. If not, it's clearly wrong and despicable.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
What is so racist about that? Now if a white person says that the President should nominate a white judge, now that's pure racism.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
I absolutely support Roland's right to write racist garbage like this. That said, I think the fact that this piece was not pointed out by anyone else in this forum is indicative of a bigger problem: everyone is afraid to call out true racism when it rears its ugly head. Instead, half of you are too busy calling everyone who wants to enforce existing illegal immigration laws racist to even acknowledge the fact that a rational basis for such an argument might even exist. If you want to heap scorn on someone for being racist, Mr. Martin is surely an easy target, so please proceed to do so.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/17/martin.obama.nomination/index.html?hpt=C2

Did you ever stop and think that no one posted this garbage because its downright idiotic?

I like how you try and paint liberuls as racists for NOT posting this article and condemning this Martin guy, what about non liberuls who didn't do so either!?

Want me to go and find every stupid/inflammatory/racist article I find and accuse you of supporting them because you haven't posted them and condemned the authors?
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Pat Buchanen was lamenting how there are too many jews on the SCOTUS just last week, everyone has their favorites. *shrug*

However, the poor down-trodden white man syndrome just isn't flying as well these days, sorry kids.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Did you ever stop and think that no one posted this garbage because its downright idiotic?

I like how you try and paint liberuls as racists for NOT posting this article and condemning this Martin guy, what about non liberuls who didn't do so either!?

Want me to go and find every stupid/inflammatory/racist article I find and accuse you of supporting them because you haven't posted them and condemned the authors?
I never called liberals racist. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of labeling everyone on one side of one issue racist when the labelers fail to point out racism in their own ranks.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
It's not about poor downtrodden anything, it's about the hypocrisy of the left crying racism about things that have nothing to do with race, yet perfectly OK with people making racist statements and promoting racism if they share a political ideology.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
I never called liberals racist. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of labeling everyone on one side of one issue racist when the labelers fail to point out racism in their own ranks.

I'm a liberal, I have no connection to Roland Martin. I have no duty to due anything in regards to pointing out his or anyone elses racism.

Just because I don't personally post every*single*article that might by racist by people you consider liberuls doesn't mean I support them and its fucking stupid that you would even make that connection.

I'm assuming you're a teabagger?
 
Last edited:

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Pat Buchanen was lamenting how there are too many jews on the SCOTUS just last week, everyone has their favorites. *shrug*

It is odd in a way that the Supreme Court has no Protestants anymore although 200+ million Americans are Protestant. I can care less although it's interesting, particularly when many people believe things should always "look like the population."
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,844
10,605
147
Please. Pushing for having ONE black woman on the Supreme Court is interest group, identity politics far more than it is RACISM. Get a grip.

Was pushing for a woman on the SC primarily sexism? Also no!

Was pushing, in the past, for the one Jewish guy also ZIONISM? Also no!

Stop being so hysterical! Again, a grip, get it!

You want to see one example of therealfucking face of racism?

Here ya' go!


:rolleyes:
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I'm a liberal, I have no connection to Roland Martin. I have no duty to due anything in regards to pointing out his or anyone elses racism.

Just because I don't personally post every*single*article that might by racist by people you consider liberuls doesn't mean I support them and its fucking stupid that you would even make that connection.

I'm assuming you're a teabagger?
You'll note, if you are indeed literate, that the word "liberal" never appears in the OP, nor did I ever claim that you have a duty to do anything. Your entire post is simply a poorly formed strawman which appears to be based on your inability to understand the simple sentences constructed by myself in the original post.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Please. Pushing for having ONE black woman on the Supreme Court is interest group, identity politics far more than it is RACISM. Get a grip.

Was pushing for a woman on the SC primarily sexism? Also no!

Was pushing, in the past, for the one Jewish guy also ZIONISM? Also no!

Stop being so hysterical! Again, a grip, get it!

You want to see one example of therealfucking face of racism?

Here ya' go!


:rolleyes:
Would you think that the guy in that picture was racist if he was black and wearing a shirt that said, "No more crackers on the Supreme Court!!!"?
 
May 11, 2008
22,457
1,461
126
What is so racist about that? Now if a white person says that the President should nominate a white judge, now that's pure racism.

Although it must be something stupid that i am writing, but should not be the best man/ woman for the job be the best man /woman for the job ? And that someones physical appearance should not be a reason ? Now i know in reality it is more of a favour business and friends (business) favours begets friends (business) favours.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,844
10,605
147
Would you think that the guy in that picture was racist if he was black and wearing a shirt that said, "No more crackers on the Supreme Court!!!"?

Yes. And a stupid one at that, just like the guy in that photo.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Perknose, you pretty much fit into my earlier post. You're trying to justify the racism as being something else because you agree or disagree with the goal behind it. Racism is racism, regardless of the reasons for it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Corbett.jpg
lmao.gif
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
You'll note, if you are indeed literate, that the word "liberal" never appears in the OP, nor did I ever claim that you have a duty to do anything. Your entire post is simply a poorly formed strawman which appears to be based on your inability to understand the simple sentences constructed by myself in the original post.

Yes the accusation of liberals being the issue was from the second poster. Since you did did not "heap scorn" on him and you 2 apparently share the same views you must actually agree with him or you are a hypocrite for not calling him out if we follow your logic:

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of labeling everyone on one side of one issue racist when the labelers fail to point out racism in their own ranks.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
It is odd in a way that the Supreme Court has no Protestants anymore although 200+ million Americans are Protestant. I can care less although it's interesting, particularly when many people believe things should always "look like the population."
With the anti-intellectualism that is rampant in American protestantism, it's no surprise that they tend not to rise very far. Not that law is a profession whose vaunted academics I respect all that highly, but it does at least take a very strong intellect to build a reputation worthy of such a nomination. I thank the benevolent Presidents and Senate for not appointing some darling lawyer raised in the SBC to SCOTUS. :eek:

In a country full of pig farmers, I sure as hell don't want my surgeons to smell like shit after scrubbing in, demographics be damned. In a country full of fundies I sure as hell don't want my SCOTUS justices to have their brains permanently turned off.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
You'll note, if you are indeed literate, that the word "liberal" never appears in the OP, nor did I ever claim that you have a duty to do anything. Your entire post is simply a poorly formed strawman which appears to be based on your inability to understand the simple sentences constructed by myself in the original post.

He's a liberal, what do you expect? :)
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
With the anti-intellectualism that is rampant in American protestantism, it's no surprise that they tend not to rise very far. Not that law is a profession whose vaunted academics I respect all that highly, but it does at least take a very strong intellect to build a reputation worthy of such a nomination. I thank the benevolent Presidents and Senate for not appointing some darling lawyer raised in the SBC to SCOTUS. :eek:

In a country full of pig farmers, I sure as hell don't want my surgeons to smell like shit after scrubbing in, demographics be damned. In a country full of fundies I sure as hell don't want my SCOTUS justices to have their brains permanently turned off.

Really? So with one brush you tar every protestant denomination which include Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, and Baptists of numerous flavors from liberal to conservative as being fundamentalists?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Really? So with one brush you tar every protestant denomination which include Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, and Baptists of numerous flavors from liberal to conservative as being fundamentalists?

I agree with you there. In addition a huge number of those who claim they are Prots really aren't practicing Prots except on Christmas and usually that's just lip service. Though almost all Christian Fundiesare Prots, most Prots aren't Fundies.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Really? So with one brush you tar every protestant denomination which include Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, and Baptists of numerous flavors from liberal to conservative as being fundamentalists?
I intended to slant it more heavily to the fundies with the SBC comment, but my apologies for the initial broad stroke ("American protestantism"). It was poor wording due to an overly rushed posting. I certainly wouldn't lump the non-fundies in with the whacko strains. However the fundamentalist strains of baptists, the Pentecostals, and some of the other more "out there" sects tend to lead to deficient minds. I'd say the broadest brush that begins to approximate accuracy is the rabid assertion of plenary verbal inspiration. For good measure you can toss in every denomination with impeccably coiffed pastors (you know, the ones with "Ken" hair) and pastors' wives with feathered bangs. Yeah that starts to be a little reckless with the paintbrush again, but it's all in good fun!

Back to my comments: It is within the PVI strains that you have rampant anti-intellectualism. I fully agree with you that many strains of protestantism (Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.) don't have the same contempt for education.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Yes the accusation of liberals being the issue was from the second poster. Since you did did not "heap scorn" on him and you 2 apparently share the same views you must actually agree with him or you are a hypocrite for not calling him out if we follow your logic:
At this point, I can only assume that you are, indeed, illiterate. I will therefore ignore future posts from you. Moving on...
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
You want racism? Here it is. According to Roland Martin, Obama should have appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court simply for being a black woman. Using race for the justification of an action the real definition of racism. Using gender for the justification of an action the real definition of sexism. Is it ok to be openly racist if you're black?

I absolutely support Roland's right to write racist garbage like this. That said, I think the fact that this piece was not pointed out by anyone else in this forum is indicative of a bigger problem: everyone is afraid to call out true racism when it rears its ugly head. Instead, half of you are too busy calling everyone who wants to enforce existing illegal immigration laws racist to even acknowledge the fact that a rational basis for such an argument might even exist. If you want to heap scorn on someone for being racist, Mr. Martin is surely an easy target, so please proceed to do so.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/17/martin.obama.nomination/index.html?hpt=C2

Idiot,
somehow i get a feeling he's not happy about this *very black* man sitting on the highest court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
 
Last edited: