posted using AOL 9.0 SE browser for Windows XP

uh, pithy comment.

there

Ace: you're getting a little whiny. Ya want a little cheese with that whine?

And what did he mean by "so black"?
Is that as opposed to "moderately black"?

Yes, that's it - Katrina would have been just your garden-variety, run-of-the-mill hurricane if the thousands of dead and homeless had been white. Lily-white. A pale, pasty white.

It is a bit ironic that for the first few days NO ONE in the media would mention the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of those shown in New Orleans were black. It was like the elephant in the room.

Now, it's all they can talk about.

I believe the author of the original article is explaining why this story is having tremendous resonance in the black community. Their point is that after seeing how the vast majority of victims are black this has turned into a racial issue for many. The "so black" comment, while awkwardly written, surely meant the victim population as a whole was predominantly black, not that individual members had especially dark skin.

The point is that in the black community this would have been seen as just another storm if it had been a racially mixed crowd that was hit by it. I don't think the author is making the claim that a more diverse set of victims would have been "better" in any sense, just that it wouldn't have turned into a racial issue.

It would seem logical that when 70% of the populace affected by Katrina in NOLA are black that those suffering would be proportionally represented. But again, that is logic.

I had posted earlier that had the area hit hardest been upper middle class white, predominately Republican, would we have heard from Jesse Jackson, Al Dullton, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc.? I doubt it.

The suffering and misfortune of white Rethuglicans is just not as important as the suffering of black Democrats. If you don't believe me, just look at the people in Mississippi and Alabama who are jumping up and down, waving their arms, yelling, "Hey, what about us? You know, we got hit too."

If a plane chartered by an NBA team crashed into Pike's Peak, the media and at least one professor of African-American studies at a major university would argue that racism must be involved since the proportion of blacks killed was so high. Nothing new here.

uh, I know the author didn't mean they were especially dark-skinned.

And yes, the basic thrust is about the resonance in the black community.

Still, imagine the shoe on a different foot. Imagine whites saying, "Well, thank goodness white people were spared!"

I guess it continues to come down to the double-standard that blacks are allowed to think and speak in expressly racialist terms -- "black solidarity" is fine, but try writing about "white solidarity" -- and that whites just aren't.

You can't have a white guy setting up a educational trust fund "to pay the tuition of deserving and talented members of the white race." You can do just that with most minorities.

Here's the whole article at a site that doesn't require registration: Blacks Rally Around Katrina Cause

The point, as I suspected from the exerpts, is about its impact on the black community. Not only in a negative sense, but also in a positive sense as the black community is apparently donating more money, time, and effort than is typical.

There is a lot I don't agree with in the article (for God's sake, do we need yet another "Bush stole the election in 2000" quote?), but I see no evidence the author is wishing more white people were killed.

Where I would disagree with the author is that this somehow illustrates a huge problem where nobody cares about poor black people. I think it more illustrates the incompetence of the NO/LA governments. I don't think anybody was in a position to help but thought, why bother, it's just a bunch of poor black people.

uh, I know the author didn't mean they were especially dark-skinned.

That was in response to Marcus.

And yes, the basic thrust is about the resonance in the black community.

Still, imagine the shoe on a different foot. Imagine whites saying, "Well, thank goodness white people were spared!"

I basically agree with you, but...

Does any disaster, even if it affects almost all whites, ever make a big impact on white people? Take 9/11 or Oklahoma. The victims were mostly white. Did that shake white people to the core? No.

Part of that is the difference between being in a majority or a minority. The majority is white, so, all things being equal, you'd expect most victims of anything to be white.

If you're in a minority that's 12% of the population and you turn on your TV and see a major disaster, and you notice the vast majority of victims are in the same minority as you are, then I think it's somewhat natural to get a gut feeling that something's wrong with that picture.

Yes, you can look at the relevant statistics and figure out why that is the case, and it will almost always be a non-racist explanation, but that gut feeling is going to be there initially and may even linger after you have the facts.

That doesn't mean we should excuse the gratuitous Bush-bashing, etc., but I think insisting that the black community should not have a bigger emotional reaction than the rest of the public and then, when they do, suggesting that they wanted to see more white people dead is a bit much.

Howard Dean has the answer.

I kinda agree with you and kinda don't.

The double-standard exists for a reason. I get that.

But it's a double-standard we tolerate. We shouldn't exult in it.

There's a limit to how far it can be pushed before it goes from being tolerable to odious.

Here's the great big secret no one wants to discuss: Yeah, people identify more with people who look like them, talk like them, live like them.

Why do white audiences prefer white heroes in their movies? Because it's easier to identify with such a character, to project oneself into their shoes. Why do black people prefer black heroes? Same reason. Why do Indians prefer Indian heroes? Same reason.

And yes, in a tragedy, although we all know it's a retrograde feeling, of course white people identify more with whites, and blacks more with blacks. It's not so much racism as human nature. It's just easier to imagine oneself in the position of someone kinda like you.

Why do missing-white-girl stories get all the play? Because mostly white women are watching these stories, and they can more easily imagine themselves (or their daughters) in this sort of peril than they could were the story about a missing black girl.

Is that racism? Well, it's racial at its heart; but it's just human nature.

So yes, I get why black people have more of an emotional reaction to this.

The thing is, though, that whites are clubbed for this sort of thing, but blacks get a pass.

Perhaps, to some extent, they should get a pass. But only to some extent.

Either we're going to say that it's just generally bad to feel more sympathy for a stranger based upon his skin color, religion, social class, etc., or we're not going to say well, that's sorta unavoidable.

I'm just annoyed by the double-standard. Again, I get it, I tolerate it because yes, to some extent, it's "just different," but still I'd like to see a little more caution about flaunting the double-standard.

I don't like the suggestion that my life doesn't count as much as someone else's. I do understand why blacks would care less about my death than the death of a black person, but it's kind of a nasty thing, and I'd just like to see it expressed -- how do I put this? -- with greater race-sensitivity.

Race-sensitivity. Something the media likes, right?

Uh, wait a minute. These po' folk been livin' in Demo Wonderland least 60 year, an' they's STILL po? That can't be! Demo Wonderland is set up to make sure there ain't no plantation no mo.

Does this mean that, with nearly every elected official from the guv'ner on down bein' Demo, the policies after 60 years still weren't working? My, oh my, Rovian politics at its best, no doubt, 'cause there jist ain't no way Demo Wonderland coulda failed all those folk without GW and Rove subterfuge for the last 60 years.

I guess it continues to come down to the double-standard that blacks are allowed to think and speak in expressly racialist terms -- "black solidarity" is fine, but try writing about "white solidarity" -- and that whites just aren't.

You just made a joke about when Germany used to do significant things on the world stage the world had to tell them to "cut it out".

When whites stood together as a race in solidarity and did significant things in this country, they likewise had to be told to cut it out.

So, yes, it's a double standard, but that's the reason for the double standard.

You can't have a white guy setting up a educational trust fund "to pay the tuition of deserving and talented members of the white race." You can do just that with most minorities.

I have seen tons of scholarship programs for Italian, Polish, Irish, etc., people. Last I checked those were white people.

Why can't you set up a scholarship for whites in general? Because, again, it reeks of the Klan and its ilk. Don't like it? Then build a time machine, go back in time, and stop the Klan before it gets started.

Until you can do that I guess you'll just have to live the the heavy burden of not being able to show solidarity with the white race without being made to feel uncomfortable about it. Life is hard that way sometimes.

Well, first of all asshole, of course I didn't pine for the days of white solidarity at all, and you know it. I was questioning why black solidarity is still kosher.

I would prefer less racial solidarity all around.

When whites stood together as a race in solidarity and did significant things in this country, they likewise had to be told to cut it out.

So, yes, it's a double standard, but that's the reason for the double standard.

It's not like black solidarity has ever caused any problems, right?

I mean, yeah, the Black Panthers. But if you want to make an omlette, you have to kill 20 or 50 people.

When whites stood together as a race in solidarity and did significant things in this country, they likewise had to be told to cut it out.

That's a pretty myopic view, as well as a gross distortion of history. And anyway, doesn't that argue against any solidarity of any form? Or is it just whites who can't be trusted when they join together?

The KKK argument, by the way, is very dated and insulting. Defining whites as incipient Klansmen is not a good foundation for improved race relations.

And most of the people murdered by Black Panthers were black. Go figure.

My basic take is that I understand why women can be expressly sexist (pro-woman), and why blacks can be expressly racialist (pro-black).

Not because it's a good thing, really. But because there are mitigating circumstances which reduce the inherent badness of that sort of thinking. It is less bad for women to think this way than men, and less bad for blacks to think this way than whites.

But "less bad" does not equal "good."

And while such thinking can be tolerated to some extent -- we "understand the root causes" and such -- that doesn't mean it should be celebrated, nor the nastier and most clearly sexist/racist parts of it pressed to the hilt.

And if you do press them to the hilt, don't be shocked when someone criticizes you for basically saying "Act as I say, not as I do."

Well, first of all asshole, of course I didn't pine for the days of white solidarity at all, and you know it. I was questioning why black solidarity is still kosher.

Asshole? I don't see how I deserve that. I thought I was being civil when discussing this with you. But, hey, it's your site.

I didn't mean say you were pining for the days of white solidarity, although I guess how I could see how it could be read that way. My point was that white solidarity gave itself a very bad name with lynchings and so on, while black solidarity (with some exceptions) is more associated with demands for civil rights. I was merely explaining the roots of the double standard, why one is more acceptable than the other.

I would prefer less racial solidarity all around.

As would I.

When whites stood together as a race in solidarity and did significant things in this country, they likewise had to be told to cut it out.

So, yes, it's a double standard, but that's the reason for the double standard.

It's not like black solidarity has ever caused any problems, right?

I mean, yeah, the Black Panthers. But if you want to make an omlette, you have to kill 20 or 50 people.

The difference is that you can find many examples (Martin Luther King, etc.) of black solidarity for good causes, where you'd be very hard pressed to find a examples in American history of people standing together in solidarity as a white race and doing anything positive.

The reason for that is it wasn't necessary to do when whites were as dominant as they were in the early days of this country. When slavery ended and blacks began gaining power, the whites that stood together as whites did nasty things, and ever since then there's been the taint and the double standard.

Yes, it's unfair, but that's life. I agree that less racial solidarity of any sort would be a very good thing, but when it happens I know the white version is going to get frowned on more.

It's not "civil" to suggest that someone pines for the days of Jim Crow and the Nightriders, dude.

Uh, yes, you deserved it. No, you were not being civil.

not that September 10, 2005.

When whites stood together as a race in solidarity and did significant things in this country, they likewise had to be told to cut it out.

That's a pretty myopic view, as well as a gross distortion of history.

If it's a gross distortion then you will have no problem coming up with a significant example from American history of white people standing in racial solidarity and accomplishing something positive.

And anyway, doesn't that argue against any solidarity of any form? Or is it just whites who can't be trusted when they join together?

I don't if it argues against solidarity of any form, though I'm personally not a fan of racial solidarity. The issue of white solidarity isn't so much one of trust as one of having a past to live down.

The KKK argument, by the way, is very dated and insulting. Defining whites as incipient Klansmen is not a good foundation for improved race relations.

Who defined whites as incipent Klansmen? Not me. I said because of the Klan there is a taint to white people standing up in solidarity as white people. That's why you only see the likes of David Duke doing it.

When I was in grade school we had several incidents where kids drew swastikas (in art class or whatever) and were told not to do that. Now, these kids had no idea what that symbol had meant. And that symbol had existed before the Nazis. Besides that, it's fun to draw and kind of neat looking. But, unfortunately, it has a history now, and most people don't want to be associated with it.

It's just not worth defending your right to draw lines in that pattern to most people, just as to me it's not worth defending the equal right of white people to stand in solidarity as a race. The taint is there, and I'd rather push for people to be less race-conscious than worry about people getting more upset with whites standing together than with blacks.

Tell me again why you don't write about race more often Ace?

It's not "civil" to suggest that someone pines for the days of Jim Crow and the Nightriders, dude.

I did not mean to suggest that. What I was attempting to suggest was that any attempt to stand in white racial solidarity is going to be seen that way, fairly or unfairly, by a lot of people.

I apologize for apparently not making that clear.

Anonymous Asshole,

No one's arguing for white solidarity. White solidarity is being brought up as an example of something that is bad, and yet other expressly racist solidarities are given a pass.

You're just being a dick. You understand that, it seems, and concede the basics of it, but you continue to want to call people racist for saying basically the same thing as you, only not quite the same way.

Whoops, I seem to have gotten one anonymous poster confused with another.

I don't get this no-name thing. You don't have to use your real name. But for crying out loud take the two seconds to write a made up name like "Craiggers" in the author line to keep everyone straight.

Now some prof from Virginia says that the whole world now see's America's third world country in a country/NOLA and it's all the repub fault and he longed for the early days of LBJ, and the great society.

What the hell? The last time I checked, most of us were badly shaken by the Oklahoma bombing and Sept. 11th.

Guess what? At no point when those events were happening did I give any thought at all to the racial categories of those killed. All that mattered was that mass murder had been inflicted on civilians by some fanatics. Nor did the race of those fanatics particularly matter either. They were just variations on a theme.

It seems we're just seeing the umpteenth rendition f the old joke about a NYT headline: 'World to End, Blacks and Women Most Affected.'

It could be argued that those who put race above all other concerns but only when the victims are black are hogging the spotlight. The LA Times managed to cover a wider range including a family of Vietnamese who had come to this country completely penniless and knowing but a few words of English and built their way up into a solid middle-class life only to have it all swept away in the space of a few hours. Can it be argued that they deserved greater sympathy or do they lose credit in some grotesque point system for having had a good life for a few years?

I'd guess the poverty pimps don't like it when they see stories of a different minority group who were even more disadvantaged yet made successful lives for themselves. Makes the favored oppressed minority look bad.

It is a given that any disaster striking a city that is majority black will have a black majority among the victims. It's just a detail amidst the tragedy. But if some people want to make an issue of it they should remember that same black majority has long had absolute control of who their elected officials would be and the kind of local government they could expect. IF the race of the victims is supposed to entitle them to extra sympathy then it must also invite scrutiny of their choices

What I was attempting to suggest was that any attempt to stand in white racial solidarity is going to be seen that way, fairly or unfairly, by a lot of people.

Which I have to say is kinda obvious.

My point was that the nastier, more forward-leaning (if you will) bits of black racialist solidarity ought to get some scrutiny and criticism as well.

As I said-- mitigating circumstances? Yes. Less bad? Yes. But less bad is not the same as good.

The difference is that you can find many examples (Martin Luther King, etc.) of black solidarity for good causes, where you'd be very hard pressed to find a examples in American history of people standing together in solidarity as a white race and doing anything positive.

What a load of hooey. First of all, it can be argued that Martin Luther King's actions, admirable though they were, were directed by self-interest. So now give us an example where black solidarity was used to do "anything positive" that didn't benefit themselves.

On the other hand, I think the Civil War is an immediate example of whites acting in solidarity to improve the lot of non-whites. Whites joining in solidarity in the Civil Rights marches (in greater numbers than the Klan every enjoyed) would be another example.

But this whole argument is stupid. Regardless of race, people have always banded together to either challenge the status quo or to protect the status quo. Cherry-picking a few instances from history to say that whites can't be trusted when they act in unity is ridiculous. There's more than enough nasty history to go around - massacres and invasions in the muslim, asian, and african pasts.

The Klansmen were indeed an ugly part of American history. But they are and were reviled by an overwhelming majority of white Americans.

Asshole? I don't see how I deserve that.

Annon targets get cut a LOT less slack than other assholes, asshole.

Anonymous Asshole,

I guess that would be me.

No one's arguing for white solidarity. White solidarity is being brought up as an example of something that is bad, and yet other expressly racist solidarities are given a pass.

Show me where I once said anyone was arguing for white solidarity. I understand completely that people are merely making the point that in theory white solidarity shouldn't be any more or less of an issue than black solidarity. I merely made a few points about why in practice is is more of an issue for most people.

I do not think anyone that has commented here has said anything racist. I never meant to suggest that, and when something I said was taken that way I quickly replied that it hadn't been meant that way.

You're just being a dick. You understand that, it seems, and concede the basics of it, but you continue to want to call people racist for saying basically the same thing as you, only not quite the same way.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I haven't called anyone a racist. And you understand that (or should).

Whoops, I seem to have gotten one anonymous poster confused with nother.

All anonymous posts in this set of comments through September 10, 2005 03:09 PM were mine except two (the comment about Black Panthers murdering blacks and the one saying I deserved to be called an asshole.

I don't get this no-name thing. You don't have to use your real name. But for crying out loud take the two seconds to write a made up name like "Craiggers" in the author line to keep everyone straight.

Point taken. "Craiggers" it is.

Tell me again why you don't write about race more often Ace?

my mother accused me of heckling once.

ONCE!

Craiggers,

I said above (scroll up) that I confused your anonymous post with another anonymous post which said "I deserved it."

"Craiggers?" What a stupid name!! What kind of moron would use "Craiggers?"

Jest kiddin'

What the hell? The last time I checked, most of us were badly shaken by the Oklahoma bombing and Sept. 11th.

Shaken as people, yes. Especially shaken as white people? Not that I saw.

I think it is a fact that, for right or wrong, many black people were especially shaken as black people when seeing so many black victims in NO. I think such a reaction seldom happens among white people in reaction to an event where whites were not specifically targeted such as a natural disaster or an attack on a building.

Guess what? At no point when those events were happening did I give any thought at all to the racial categories of those killed.

Good for you (seriously). And that's my point -- many black people today are very affected by the race of the NO victims.

It seems we're just seeing the umpteenth rendition of the old joke about a NYT headline: 'World to End, Blacks and Women Most Affected.'

I don't. Blacks were more affected here. Yes, it's simple demographics of the area, I know, but many black people are taking it more personally because of that.

The rest of your post is interesting but kind of off the issue I was discussing so I won't comment.

Craiggers, I said above (scroll up) that I confused your anonymous post with another anonymous post which said "I deserved it."

My response was to "craiggers" not you. In the context of the thread it was clear. You just beat me in responding to him and screwed it up.

The difference is that you can find many examples (Martin Luther King, etc.) of black solidarity for good causes, where you'd be very hard pressed to find a examples in American history of people standing together in solidarity as a white race and doing anything positive.

What a load of hooey. First of all, it can be argued that Martin Luther King's actions, admirable though they were, were directed by self-interest. So now give us an example where black solidarity was used to do "anything positive" that didn't benefit themselves.

Why? I never made such a claim, so why should I defend it?

You, on the other hand, claimed it was a "gross distortion" that white people standing in solidarity as a race weren't known for doing. If it's a gross distortion, coming up with a single example should be easy.

On the other hand, I think the Civil War is an immediate example of whites acting in solidarity to improve the lot of non-whites. Whites joining in solidarity in the Civil Rights marches (in greater numbers than the Klan every enjoyed) would be another example.

These are not examples of whites standing in solidarity as the white race. These are examples of whites standing in solidarity with principles. I certainly never denied white people did anything good. They have done lots of fantastic things. Yay, white people! But I'm hard-pressed to think of anything in American history that starts with "we are standing together in solidarity as the white race" and ends in anything positive.

Cherry-picking a few instances from history to say that whites can't be trusted when they act in unity is ridiculous.

If I'm cherry picking then the counterexamples should be so numerous that mentioning one would be very easy. (In fairness to you, you apparently didn't because you thought I was denying whites ever did anything good.) But I, again, honestly can't think of anything.

I'm sure there are some small examples where, say, someone wanted to help a white person go to college, just because they wanted to help a white person, and perhaps they chose someone that really benefited from their help. Yep, that would be a good thing. But on a broad scale, I can't think of any "white rights" movement that didn't do things that make me cringe.

The Klansmen were indeed an ugly part of American history. But they are and were reviled by an overwhelming majority of white Americans.

Right. If not for them and their ilk perhaps there would be white scholarships, etc., and nobody would think any less of that than they do of black scholarships.

I have seen tons of scholarship programs for Italian, Polish, Irish, etc., people. Last I checked those were white people.
Yeah, 'white' since put into that category for the purpose of being able to separate us all on racial lines, during the 60's. They (Italians, Irish, Poles, etc) too were treated as second-class citizens in many places, in many ways.
Yet making them all 'white' was a way of then setting up programs for 'blacks' 'hispanics' 'asians', and later women, gays, trans-genders(!) and basically anyone who is not listed as a hetero white male.
you'd be very hard pressed to find a examples in American history of people standing together in solidarity as a white race and doing anything positive.
That's because before the 60's, most 'whites' didn't realize that they were part of a 'white race'. They were Italian, Polish, Irish, etc as you said!
In some places, with some folks, (KKK types) they certainly believed in racial superiority and called themselves 'white'. But look to the 60's for when we were ALL classified by our government as colors, and later the rest of it.

What I was attempting to suggest was that any attempt to stand in white racial solidarity is going to be seen that way, fairly or unfairly, by a lot of people.

Which I have to say is kinda obvious.

Earlier you said this:

"I guess it continues to come down to the double-standard that blacks are allowed to think and speak in expressly racialist terms -- "black solidarity" is fine, but try writing about "white solidarity" -- and that whites just aren't.

You can't have a white guy setting up a educational trust fund "to pay the tuition of deserving and talented members of the white race." You can do just that with most minorities.

At that point to me it wasn't obvious to me that it was obvious to you why that was the case, so I merely offered up a few points for your consideration. I meant no offense. I have known many intelligent people who have made similar statements and honestly had no idea why there was such a double standard. They were strictly looking at it from a theoretical view that it should be consistent and/or they were young and didn't grasp the historical context in which the double standard was created.

I did not mean to insult your intelligence, to call you a racist, to suggest that you were an incipent Klansman, to be an asshole, etc. I was just offering up some points for discussion.

My point was that the nastier, more forward-leaning (if you will) bits of black racialist solidarity ought to get some scrutiny and criticism as well.

I agree with that completely. However, I must say in your comments from earlier quoted above that point does not come through clearly. I think a lot of people reading it could actually think that you were arguing for the fairness white scholarships, etc., rather than arguing against any race-based considerations.

As I said-- mitigating circumstances? Yes. Less bad? Yes. But less bad is not the same as good.

Then we are in complete agreement. Yes, you're in complete agreement with an anonymous asshole. You're just going to have to live with that.

One last time...
I mentioned it the other day on your site, Ace, but the BIG reason the MSM and Dems (especially Dem Black Caucus) were pushing the 'Bush disaster' of New Orleans...

(via Al Reuters)
Republican push for black votes hit by storm
Sep 08 2:17 PM US/Eastern
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

Posted by Uncle Jefe at September 8, 2005 07:41 PM

Trying to bring them back to the reservation...

Craiggers:

Why? I never made such a claim, so why should I defend it?

Didn't you just say that there were numerous examples of black solidarity being used in the service of good causes? I'm just saying that it doesn't really count if it promotes a self-interest. So if there is no such example, then it is unfair to demand a similar example of whites.

I think that the Civil War example still holds, because the white race banded together to reject the idea that whites were entitled to hold black slaves. They were in effect rising up as a race to cleanse themselves of this immoral stain on their racial character. Likewise the Civil Rights marches were a rejection by whites of the idea that they were inherently superior to blacks.

Of course these events were based on principles, but they were principles concerning racial relations, and the changes neccessary to accommodate those principles could only be enacted by a conscious decision by united members of the white race.

I think overall that you're greatly exaggerating the influence of the Klan in this matter. Racial sensitivities and whiteness studies have emerged over the past few decades, largely as an outgrowth of the PC movement. That movement, in turn, was fueled by the endemic historical institutional injustices practiced against minorities, rather than the actions of the KKK.

Jefe,

Sorry, I don't buy it. I believe the black shift towards Republicanism less than I believe the Hispanic one, or the Jewish one.

Energizing the base? Sure. Trying to keep blacks from defecting? Nah. They're not going to defect.

Leave race"issues" to racists like Jesse Jackson and the Democrats. Worry about people as individuals not as groups. I told you, ace, that I thought you were whiny and I stand by it. Black racists are no excuse to sink to their level. They want to be racists and race baiters, let them be. If you want a reasonable non-racist discussion about these matters please read the blog eject!eject!eject!

90% of this blog is whiny. Dance with the girl that brung ya.

'Sides, I wasn't "seeing people as groups." I was pointing out that some people can "see people according to their group identity" -- unapologetically so -- and some can't.

I'd prefer it if all of this race-loyalty crap went by the wayside. I understand that it's going to take some time, and blacks do, in fact, have some reason to cling to such thinking, but still, better if it went away, sooner rather than later.

Uncle Jefe,

There are scholarships for every ethnic/national group, including many indisputably white by any standard (English, etc.). Yes, I of course understand that is different than offering up scholarships for whites in general. Hence the whole discussion about why such a thing is considered beyond the, uh, pale.

I think there is a little more to it than that. I think most scholarship groups want to be specific, so you'll tend to get more people naturally wanting to offer up scholarships for Italian Americans than for white Americans.

For black people, though, usually there is nothing more specific than "black". These aren't people that know they're of Kenyan descent that are instead choosing to go with the broader "black" category. These are people for whole "black" is the narrowest ethnic category they can use to describe themselves (aside from some guesswork based on physical similarities to ethnic groups in Africa). This is why virtually nobody white thinks of themselves as a European American -- they will usually say they're half English, a quarter German, and quarter Spanish, for example, rather than identifying with the continent as a whole.

So it's kind of apples and oranges.

By the way, I completely agree that much of the racial spin on Katrina is part of the "get Bush" movement. That completely sickens me. I think it is unhealthy for black people to vote Democratic as a reliable block, for a whole assortment of reasons, and it's beyond vile to exploit Katrina to try to keep that status quo.

However, I think the impact of this in a year or so is going to be less than many people imagine. We've already seen signs that the "blame Bush" push has failed and perhaps even somewhat backfired. I think it's likely that awareness that the Democratic city and state officials had more responsibility and really dropped the ball is going to spread. I think it's likely to be a wash at best for the Democrats, if not a net negative.

Ace: Nice non-whiny come back. I take back the offer of cheese.

I gotta wonder: Do white folk shake differently than black folk? That' the implication from someone earlier. Strange.

That NO is below sea level was a well-kept secret designed by Rove & company, and not a person of color was to know about it until after GW had designed and executed the plan to drown them all. Taken to its logical extension, that's what all the cries of racism boil down to. It is incredibly stupid, incredibly insensitive and an incredible affront to anyone who gives a moment of serious thought to the whole arguement.

Finally, as more blacks gain more wealth, the Republican ranks will swell. The GOP doesn't have to direct special efforts toward them because they will naturally swing, as a group, more to the conservative side as wealth accrues. And that's a frightening thought to the slavemasters (a.k.a. Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, etc.)

Why? I never made such a claim, so why should I defend it?

Didn't you just say that there were numerous examples of black solidarity being used in the service of good causes? I'm just saying that it doesn't really count if it promotes a self-interest.

The distinction is that I never said black solidarity was used to promote causes that were good while also not being in the self-interest of black people. Nor did I say the opposite. I just said they promoted causes seen as good, period. By tacking on additional qualifications you are no longer dealing with the actual claim I made.

So if there is no such example, then it is unfair to demand a similar example of whites.

It certainly would be unfair if that's what I was doing, but it's not.

I said people standing in solidarity as blacks for the most part accomplished things considered by today's society to be good (equal treatment, etc.). Period. I said nothing about self-interest.

I then asked for an example of people standing in solidarity as whites pushing for accomplishing things considered by today's society to be good. Period. I likewise don't care if it was in their self-interest or not.

I think that the Civil War example still holds, because the white race banded together to reject the idea that whites were entitled to hold black slaves. They were in effect rising up as a race to cleanse themselves of this immoral stain on their racial character.

I see it as people, many of whom happened to be white, banding together against slavery. I don't see how ending slavery could be seen as a "white rights" issue. It's more like white people supporting black rights or, better, equal rights.

Likewise the Civil Rights marches were a rejection by whites of the idea that they were inherently superior to blacks.

Of course these events were based on principles, but they were principles concerning racial relations, and the changes neccessary to accommodate those principles could only be enacted by a conscious decision by united members of the white race.

We agree that these were good things. We agree white people did these good things (along with others). The distinction, to me, is that I don't see how you can frame it, "as a member of the white race I want slavery ended". It just doesn't work. As a member of the black, enslaved race you could say, "as a member of the black race I want slavery ended" (self interest). In a non-racial way a member of the white or black race could say, "as a human who believes in fairness I want slavery ended" (principled interest). But as a white? How? A white person could feel bad for what his race did, but ultimately that's still feeling bad for the violation of the principle, not as any sort of pro-white ideal.

And I guess that's the bottom line: Whites oppressed blacks, so it was almost inevitable that "pro-white" would be associated with said oppression, while "pro-black" would be associated with opposition to said oppression, thereby giving a different character to two ideas that in theory should be considered of the same nature.

I think overall that you're greatly exaggerating the influence of the Klan in this matter. Racial sensitivities and whiteness studies have emerged over the past few decades, largely as an outgrowth of the PC movement. That movement, in turn, was fueled by the endemic historical institutional injustices practiced against minorities, rather than the actions of the KKK.

The Klan was just an example. If I gave truth serum to all the people yelling at me in this thread and played word association with them, when I said phrases like "white rights" they'd come back with "KKK", "David Duke", etc. Hell, even without the truth serum I'm not hearing anyone cough up anything without a negative association.

In other words, to me the Klan was merely an example of "endemic historical institutional injustices practiced against minorities", not itself the prime cause.

Craiggers-
Scholarships offered by (insert ethnicity here)-American groups are not government funded.
Separation by color/sex/sexual orientation for government-funded scholarships, affirmative action, etc is what I'm referring to.

Ace- Love ya, man, but check it out...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/22/more_young_blacks_ready_to_embrace_gop/

Craiggers, I think you missed the point about the NYT headline joke.

Blacks were NOT more affected. A particular group of black were affected by virtue of living in the disaster zone. I can say that Southern Californians were the worst hit by the '94 Northridge Earthquake. No big surprise, because the quake happened in friggin' Southern California.

Are we supposed to believe that whites have plotted for centuries to concentrate blacks into the path of Katrina in hopes of a massive death toll? That FEMA purposefully dragged its heels on delivering aid when in fact they arrived in the normal 72-96 hour time frame? Outside of the demographic trivia for the region, why should this hold any special resonance in the minds of rational blacks? By that assumption the slaughter in Rwanda and other disasters in Africa should resonate deeply but it seems many black Americans have a dismissive attitude toward anything happening in Africa despite the commonality of race. The cultural gap makes the day to day trainwreck of Africa as bewildering to them as any other Americans, just as many Americans of European descent can be baffled by events in their ancestral home lands.

For blacks to see this event as having a special racial component beyond the level of trivia reflects a neurosis that has long served to maintain a negative status quo rather than improve anything. There was a Jewish version of this at one time. My mother can recall in her childhood that her parents, adult relatives, and their friends were always very attuned to whenever someone with a name that suggested they were Jewish got in trouble with the law or some other scandal. "Did they have to be Jewish?" The difference was that rather than looking for oppression everywhere (and it was widely available) their concern was in the public image created for Jews by the bad behavior of a few.

The difference in attitude is pretty important. If you're constantly on the lookout for people arbitrarily against you, you will find them. There are always pathological assholes out there if you go looking. But in the process the persistent paranoia can generate illusions of ill will where none exists.

The issue of the black voting bloc in NO is very pertinent, IMHO. If supposed leaders of the black community are going to point fingers and cast blame they must also examine the failure of communities like NO and Detroit where the choice of local leadership was firmly in the control of the black community. If they cannot bear to examine the image in the mirror their accusations against those outside the community cannot be taken seriously.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I believe the black shift towards Republicanism less than I believe the Hispanic one, or the Jewish one.

Energizing the base? Sure. Trying to keep blacks from defecting? Nah. They're not going to defect.

The Republicans certainly couldn't do much worse than they are doing now.

Bush went up a few percentage points among blacks last time. If Republicans can continue chipping away at the stranglehold the Dems have, it will make a major difference. If they completely give up, they're going to be in trouble.

I personally think the "we aren't going to get the black vote so why bother" attitude has really screwed Republicans. If you don't try, you'll definitely fail, and that's what they've been doing. When it gets to a point that black people never see a live Republican anywhere near them then it's understandable why some of them would question if the GOP gives a damn about them.

And, no, Ace, I'm not accusing you of holding that attitude. Just using your comments as a launching point. While there may be no big shift, holding onto that 11% and maybe turning it into 14% is a hell of a lot better than letting it slide to 3%.

Craiggers- Scholarships offered by (insert ethnicity here)-American groups are not government funded. Separation by color/sex/sexual orientation for government-funded scholarships, affirmative action, etc is what I'm referring to.

Point taken.

Anybody catch the whiner on FOX this morning, standing in front of the Astrodome, likening the busride from N'Orleans to 'be loaded onto a slave ship' and torn from his family, transported into the unknown -- the FOX News correspondent just cut him off. But i wish I had gotten the guy's exact words. I do remember one of his points was demanding the government give him the $20,000 he 'deserved', fast.

I agree that just because you're likely to do poorly with a particular demographic's votes that the effort must still be made. The resources allocated may not be as high as they would if a greater response could be counted on but it is still important to try and thus demonstrate an interest. Treating any group as a lost cause for any reason other than stated ideology is just defeatism.

OTOH, it's also important to not appear to be sucking up to a group just for their distinctions. That is already the DNC's stock in trade. Adopting it would only mean adopting other negatives along the way.

I'm going to skip over all the old silly stuff and go directly to:

And I guess that's the bottom line: Whites oppressed blacks, so it was almost inevitable that "pro-white" would be associated with said oppression, while "pro-black" would be associated with opposition to said oppression, thereby giving a different character to two ideas that in theory should be considered of the same nature.

What you've said here thankfully brings us back to Ace's original point. I don't disagree with this - the point that most conservatives raise, then, is that this asymmetry does not exist without causing harm, i.e., divisiveness and resentment. The disagreement these days is whether race relations are best served by continuing the double standard to redress the wrongs of the past, or by dropping it to remove those divisions.

Ace's point is that if blacks continue to think of themselves as a separate group, everyone will continue to think of them as a separate group, and a comfortable accommodation will continue to elude us. In fact we are nowhere near to even being on the path to reconciling the problem, as long as these asymmetries are considered acceptable.

Craiggers, I think you missed the point about the NYT headline joke.

That is a classic joke whose point, as I've always understood it, is that in a situation that's clearly bad news equally for everyone (the world ending), the press would focus on its impact on the classic victim groups. The difference here is the blacks were disproportionately affected. The N.O. blacks were hit hardest, so the joke doesn't work.

Blacks were NOT more affected. A particular group of black were affected by virtue of living in the disaster zone. I can say that Southern Californians were the worst hit by the '94 Northridge Earthquake. No big surprise, because the quake happened in friggin' Southern California.

N.O. blacks were more affected by the hurricane, and Southern Californians were more affected by the earthquake. It may not be a "big surprise" that is the case, but...that is the case.

Are we supposed to believe that whites have plotted for centuries to concentrate blacks into the path of Katrina in hopes of a massive death toll?

No. Being more affected by something doesn't imply that it was part of a competing group's dire plot. It just means you were...more affected.

Outside of the demographic trivia for the region, why should this hold any special resonance in the minds of rational blacks?

Humans, black or otherwise, are not 100% rational. Many black people see a bunch of black people in N.O. suffering and it does have more resonance with them, regardless of whether you think it should.

By that assumption the slaughter in Rwanda and other disasters in Africa should resonate deeply but it seems many black Americans have a dismissive attitude toward anything happening in Africa despite the commonality of race.

It depends how you define "that assumption". If it's just race, then yes. If it's the context of that race in America, then no. But, again, I'm not going to argue what they should feel, especially since I'm sure in theory pretty much everyone here believes race should play no part in anything, that we should all be treated as individuals, period.

For blacks to see this event as having a special racial component beyond the level of trivia reflects a neurosis that has long served to maintain a negative status quo rather than improve anything.

I certainly agree that there are serious problems associated with considering everything a race issue. But I never said what the reaction should be, just what it was, and why it was understandable in some ways. I didn't say this was the perfect reaction, or the most helpful reaction, or the correct reaction. I just said this was the reaction.

The rest of your post was interesting to read and made a lot of good points, but it was again talking about what would be a good reaction, and that's not my issue here.

demanding the government give him the $20,000 he 'deserved', fast.

Give him $20K in confederate money.

What you've said here thankfully brings us back to Ace's original point. I don't disagree with this - the point that most conservatives raise, then, is that this asymmetry does not exist without causing harm, i.e., divisiveness and resentment. The disagreement these days is whether race relations are best served by continuing the double standard to redress the wrongs of the past, or by dropping it to remove those divisions.

Ace's point is that if blacks continue to think of themselves as a separate group, everyone will continue to think of them as a separate group, and a comfortable accommodation will continue to elude us. In fact we are nowhere near to even being on the path to reconciling the problem, as long as these asymmetries are considered acceptable.

I'm not sure the asymmetry is the problem at all, because that implies that either making black solidarity a bad thing or making white solidarity a good thing would help, as it would make things symmetrical.

I think any strong racial/ethnic group identity is inherently a problem, so for me the only solution is to move away from that and treat people as individuals with equal rights and responsibilities.

I guess that's why I don't give a damn if white rights or white solidarity has negative connotations, even if they're unfair. Demonizing white solidarity is part of the solution. Now we just need to demonize the black solidarity (etc.) and we'll be getting somewhere.

I'm not sure the asymmetry is the problem at all, because that implies that either making black solidarity a bad thing or making white solidarity a good thing would help, as it would make things symmetrical.

Even when people here complain that "blacks can do this, but if you're white you can't" they are not suggesting that we form a white solidarity movement. They're just pointing out the existence and injustice of the asymmetry. Plus they're just tired of being yelled at by the race baiters.

...for me the only solution is to move away from that and treat people as individuals with equal rights and responsibilities.

This is what we were taught in the '60s and '70s, and is what forms the basis for the conservative position on race relations. Which is what drove Ace to his original rant on the divisive nature of black politics.

Yes, but then the asymmetry is a good thing, because at least you can use it to point out unfairness. ;-)

Yeah, I'm in my mid-30s and I was taught--and believed--that race should be irrelevant.

Anyway, I know nobody here is looking to form a white solidarity movement. I was just saying symmetry's the answer only if it's symmetrically non-racial...

test. post test, testing post. one-two-three, test

If I go down there and cancel say a couple hundred rich honkeys, will that give us the moral high ground again?

Step right up folks, this ain't gonna hurt much, but we need you to take one for the team...

That's sorta why I avoid writing about race. It's a minefield.

Damn. No wonder Ace gets more hits than me. I knew I should have stuck with writing about D&D and Margaret Cho.