Election 2008 in High-Definition: Beyond Black and White (by Gabriel Salguero)
Without question the 2008 election is a historic time. Much has been said about the momentous nature of this presidential election. A woman, an African American, and a Latino were all trying to make history, albeit on one side of the political aisle. This moment in U.S. history should not be understated. As a Latino evangelical leader, I've been watching this election closely. It's an excellent time to talk about national voting in terms of a kaleidoscope. As a man who grew up in poor urban neighborhood in New Jersey and today pastors a multiethnic congregation in New York, I recognize the fragile nature of these conversations. Despite the complexity of this conversation, this election is an opportune moment to engage this much needed dialogue. The mixed legacy of race relations in the U.S. demands a broader conversation. In the 21st century, where many watch television in high-definition, national politics must be done in technicolor.
Everyone knows there is a Latino boom in the U.S. We are no longer, to paraphrase Black novelist, Ralph Ellison, The Invisible People. By most accounts, Latinos are the nation's fastest growing minority group. About 15 percent of the U.S. population—more than 45 million people—are of Hispanic descent. Although Hispanics are under 10 percent of the U.S. electorate, the Hispanic electorate looms large in several "swing states." According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, Hispanics make up 14 percent of the electorate in Florida, 12 percent in Nevada and Colorado, and 37 percent in New Mexico. There is no mystery to why both parties held Spanish-language debates on Univision. Latinos and Latinas matter.
This Latino(a) demographic boom is not bad news, nor as some might erroneously argue, an ominous sign of an invasion. Still, we cannot ignore the racism that still exists in many communities, Latinos included. Growing up in the "projects" I saw this happen too often. The urban plight often caused Blacks, poor Whites, and Latinos to struggle for resources. Regrettably, there is still a tendency by some in the media, politics, and culture to make the Latino population explosion a menacing sign. My response: scapegoating is not an option. It's time to change the channel to high-definition technicolor and create new solutions. Let's move into a sophisticated conversation that listens to all voices respectfully.
Any candidate that ignores the Latino evangelical electorates is making a serious mistake. Any leader, religious or political, that assumes how Latinos or evangelicals should vote by arguing that one party is the Christian or evangelical party is not speaking the language of the technicolor revival. There is a shift going on among evangelicals, and the more than 8 million Latino evangelicals cannot be easily politically pigeon-holed. Latino evangelicals are seeking an inclusive and broad coalition for social justice that values them at the table. Immigration, HIV/AIDS, issues concerning life, housing, healthcare, genocide, urban ecology, and education are all on their list of priorities. No candidate in 2008 can assume they know how Latino evangelicals will vote.
"Evangelical" and "Latino" need not equal Democrat, Republican, or Independent. This is about a movement that transcends the 2008 election - but will certainly influence it. We seek the beloved community, biblical justice, and the political genius that elevates the national conversation and transcends racial-ethnic divides and partisanship.
Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a Sojourners board member.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Gabriel,
I have found this election season to be one of the most exciting in many, many years. I don't know if it's because of my age (mid-40's) and the political winds have much more effect on my life or because I finally feel good about a candidate rather than wanting to hold my nose when I vote. The only downside during this election cycle is the perceived tension between Latino voters and black candidates, especially as portrayed in the media.
I am a Black woman married to a Latino and we live in the Southwest. I have never experienced any bigotry from Latinos and never heard anything from or overheard any sentiments that would lead me to believe that Latinos (locally) would not vote for Barack Obama. And yet, I am hearing on talk radio and television and reading in many places that there is this big divide. Either I am hopelessly naive or completely out-of-touch if this big divide is true. If this is the case, I would be really disappointed and disheartened. From a cultural standpoint, especially in the Southwest, Latino and Black culture have much more in common than what separates us. It is one of the reasons I have lived here so long. I hope that this election doesn't become beginning of tribal warfare between our respective cultures.
Posted by: Nuttshell | February 14, 2008 5:20 PM
Gabriel Salguero,
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. While it is true that "Evangelical" and "Latino" need not equal a particular political affiliation, it's time for mainstream evangelicals to take a good look around at the changing landscape. More specifically, it's time for U.S. Evangelicals to take into consideration the long traditions of Christianity and activism among Latino and Latin American populations. We didn't merely arrive on the heels of the latest census count--we've been here for quite some time.
Posted by: Damian | February 14, 2008 5:32 PM
Nuttshell,
I'm also wondering about this perceive racial tension between Blacks and Hispanics. On CNN during Super Tuesday coverage the anchor referred to "brown/black" tensions in some states to explain Obama's poor showing with Hispanics. A similar comment was made referring to Asians in California.
The only other time I heard of this tension was in reporting about New Orleans, maybe neuro nurse can shed some light on this. Is this a new racial divide or an invention of CNN and others?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 14, 2008 5:44 PM
Jeff & Nuttshell,
I don't know anything about it.
"Obama got more than 80 percent of the black vote in Louisiana, according exit polls conducted by The Associated Press. African-Americans make up about 45 percent of the state's registered Democrats." Ed Anderson, Times-Picayune Feb 9, 2008
The article doesn't mention how Hispanic voted.
I really don't pay too much attention to the media anyway. If there isn’t a controversy, the media will create one – it sells advertising.
Ultimately, are Hispanics going to vote for McCain or Obama in November?
A guy at work told me the other day that he didn't think race had anything to do with the presidential race. His argument was that since Obama's mother is white, he really isn't black.
One thing is for sure, he isn't white - and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I never expected to see someone other than a white man as president in my lifetime.
I'm with George on this one: "Paint the Whitehouse Black" (George Clinton that is)
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 14, 2008 7:12 PM
Jeff, nutshell, neuro-nurse,
As an Asian woman engaged to a Latino, I'm glad to read your comments. I'm so sick of the "Asians hate blacks" and "Asians are racists" proclamations. I only hear this tripe when I'm watching the news channels or tv shows written by whites. When Californian Lats and Asians voted for Hill over Obama, the conclusion that they just couldn't vote for a black man was appalling. It ignored the fact that the Clintons had built relationships with key Latino and Asian local leadership for years. Hill also has Latino and Asian staff, while Obama has none.
Obama is gaining greater momentum in our communities as he makes himself more familiar to us, and with our issues.
McCain only has winning support from very recent first generation immigrants. The majority of younger Asians and Latinos who are at least second generation Americans are Democrats. And the under 30 demographic backs Obama.
Regarding "since Obama's mother is white, he really isn't black." - by racist's standards, that isn't true.
Posted by: nightchi | February 15, 2008 10:35 AM
Reverend Salguero,
I have attended many Churches in California. I served for years in music ministry. The numbers of Latinos in my Churches were many times more than any other ethnic group.
Not one of my latino brothers and sisters believe in this "progressive" liberal Christianity that groups like Sojouners and Obama and Clinton represents. I'm talking hundreds and hundreds of hispanics that I, my wife and children warmly call friends and fellow Christians.
They believe in family and marriage as Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught it, they do not want high taxation, they want personal and property freedoms, goverment to leave them alone, they want to raise their own children and do not want schools indoctrianting their children into this "anything goes" socialism of promiscuity and perversion. They reject abortion as birth control as a matter of fact and faith. They reject Humanism that denies God and elevates man to his own judge and ruler.
In what way do Latinos represent anything that would justify you writing on a "progressive" platform like that of the God's Politics blog?
In Christ
Posted by: Donny | February 15, 2008 11:17 AM
"Regarding "since Obama's mother is white, he really isn't black." - by racist's standards, that isn't true.
Posted by: nightchi
///
Then why isn't he referred to as a white candidate? He is just as white as he is Black. he was actually raised by white people wasn't he?
80% of the Black community voting for Obama 80% ???? is a sure indicator of purely racial motivations. The Senator simply does not have the experience to be President of the United States of America. And the inner-city he supposedly worked to make better, is a place of such violence and corruption, that it isn't safe to walk in even in the daytime. Unless you're a gang memeber with backup.
I reject Obama for President for the exact same reasons I did Governor Romney (whose white, I think). Look at what the conditions of the places they both left, where they did their work. Massachusetts is the den of pederasty and Chicago is the thug capital of the world.
McCain is looking better to me every single day.
Posted by: Donny | February 15, 2008 11:29 AM
Well, Donny, you just gave me a good reason not to vote for McCain (just in case his unwavering support for Bush's unjust and immoral war wasn't enough of a reason).
Peace!
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 11:36 AM
Donny,
What will push Latino evangelicals, as well as Latino voters in general, away from the Republican Party, whatever their family values and faith, is the vitriolic anti-immigrant and racist pandering that has become associated with the party, because the party is tolerating it to court the racist demographic in search of votes, even though many Republicans are not that way.
No one can deny that the racists within our midst are not found in the Democratic Party, but are harbored within the Republican Party, no matter how few their number.
Why are they tolerated at all, and by a largely white, male democraphic? Who are Tom Tancredo's supporters, or those of the mis-named "patriotic" "Minutemen"? These people don't seek just to eliminate illegal border-crossing, but make alliance with or do not condemn
the white supremacists within their midst.
As a Republican, I've personally witnessed this stubborn blindness within the ranks of my own party.
Nothing will turn people off faster than the fear that they and their families are at risk from people whose mindset is not all that different from the overt and intolerant racists of the recent past.
There is a cost to tolerating those spreading a message of division. The anti-immigrant screed isn't just limited to concerns about illegal immigration; they are vociferously intolerant of the cultural threat they perceive from any and all immigrants - legal and recent citizens included. They have passed laws that marginalize even legal immigrants.
And I have personally seen people turned away from a Republican Party whose putative family values they once identified with in favor of a party that they believe won't marginalize them and their families.
Can you blame them when their own family's interests are at stake?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 15, 2008 11:44 AM
N. M. Rod, you just about put the words in my mouth.
Nevertheless, Donny--despite framing them in his usual progressive-liberal-Christians-are-heretics-and-his-brand-of-Christians-are-the-only-ones-following-the-true-Apostolic-teaching mindset, does ask some fair questions. I would be interested in reading Rev Salguero's own response to them.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 12:58 PM
I guess I meant that N. M. Rod took the words out of MY mouth.
;-)
D
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 1:08 PM
Interestingly, the surge of John McCain in Florida came precisely because the strongly Republican Cuban voters there rejected the others who had decided to pander to the immigrant-demonizing competitors - even those who had flip-flopped on the issue, like Giuliani and Romney, away from their accomodating former political careers and towards intolerance.
The Cubans of South Florida are famously Republican and anti-communist, their presence in South Florida a product of exile from Castro's dictatorship.
So this has to tell you something. McCain was acceptable to them because his acceptance of their families trumped their preference for their usual sympathy to far-right politics.
When you start losing even right-wing Republicans over Tancredoism, then something is definitely wrong with that part of the message.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 15, 2008 1:15 PM
Once again, Donny's comments can be reduced to:
sex, sex, sex, taxes, sex, sex, sex...
Posted by: I and I | February 15, 2008 1:23 PM
I worked w/ the Latin left that Donny knows nothing about. They too are pro-family, some of them do favor humanism (doesn't make them evil, despite Donny's posturing) and care a great deal about the environment, protecting the rights of the immigrant (illegal or not) and a whole host of other issues.
I think Donny's point is well taken it's just that the lead up to it focuses on part of the population while leaving out another part. After organizing and supporting the left leaning latins I have learned a lot and I wish we could talk about what both sides and others that don't fit either description bring to the table.
As for why black people are voting for Obama that's a little bit more complicated than because he's the black candidate. Jesse Jackson did not get as much support from black people as Obama does. Obama has not run as the black candidate. Obama's support seems to be multi-ethnic, as folks in Iowa and Nebraska are voting for him in record numbers.
My guess is that many black people see him as an expression of justice for centuries of oppression. The first black candidate was Frederick Douglas. He ran w/ a white woman as her vice presidential nominee along time ago. Then we had Jesse, like that was going to go anywhere. Now we have Obama, and for the first time we (or many of us) see a chance to stick it every racist person that exists in this country and place a competent, intelligent and amazing candidate in the white house. After all these years of Bush we need something different. That's just a guess.
I can't say why most blacks are supporting Obama but I can say why I now am. It's because I believe in the movement he wants to create. I believe he is attempting to empower people to change their lives. It's really bigger than him to be honest. He is starting to create a real movement of people committed to changing the country in ways that go past the simple left right divisions that exist in our culture (think this blog.) Of all the candidates he has the biggest chance of doing that. That's part of my hope.
Regarding issues btwn blacks and Latins.
Honestly I find it shameful on both ends. It's the whole fighting for crumbs thing. Please know there are real issues btwn the two communities. A few years back there was nearly a race riot in Los Angeles btwn black and Latin gangs. I received several emails from Latin and black friends wondering why they wanted to kill them. It was bad. Those issues have not been fully dealt w/ and will simmer until something bad happens. That's the sad thing too it really doesn't have to be.
I worked in predominately latin areas and I recieved nothing but love. I taught and I still teach latin students, empowering them to enjoy their culture and heritage and to use that joy to change themselves and their neighborhoods. So again it really bowls down to trust between the communities and only when that is completely restored will things change. I honestly do believe that Barak Obama can get us there.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Nm said:
"No one can deny that the racists within our midst are not found in the Democratic Party, but are harbored within the Republican Party, no matter how few their number....Why are they tolerated at all....."
That was very, very interesting. As a 20 something woman of color in America, I don't know a single Republican personally who is a minority. As mentioned, studies reveal that the higher one's education level, and the more generations removed from immigrant status, the more likely a minority is to be a Democrat. I have never seen, even on blogs, a Republican admit to the racist element in their party (except to praise it.) It would be very gratifying to me to see more Republicans denounce this.
I live in the south, and don't find the racist Republican numbers 'small.'
Posted by: nightchi | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM
Obama isn't a perfect candidate--Jesus isn't running and nobody else could be that--but he's certainly a welcome voice that our nation desperately needs after the last seven years of tragic missteps and sometimes worse.
I'm not so naive as to think that real "change" can come from the top down, but compared to Hillary (DC business as usual), McCain (stubborn support for misguided and immoral military action) Paul (the only one left who is still catering to the Tancredo crowd N. M. Rod talks about above) and Huckabee (OK in some areas, but cause for concern in others), I think he's got the best chance to make a real difference. I hope the best for Obama's candidacy.
He's behind Hillary in the polls here in Ohio with 2 1/2 weeks to go. I don't think he needs a miracle to win here; he does need to become better recognized.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 4:11 PM
or those of the mis-named "patriotic" "Minutemen"?
Really, they're all racists? Must be, can't have anything to do with security and waking up to find squatters in your backyard.
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 4:36 PM
Really, they're all racists? Must be, can't have anything to do with security and waking up to find squatters in your backyard.
Aaron, you answered your own question.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 4:37 PM
Let's move into a sophisticated conversation that listens to all voices respectfully.
Considering the whole paragraph preceding this line you demonized anyone who disagrees as racist, or their concerns as some how not real, makes me think you're being disingenuous here...
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 4:39 PM
Once again, Donny's comments can be reduced to:
sex, sex, sex, taxes, sex, sex, sex...
Perhaps if people had more responsible sex, Donny wouldn't be taxed as much to pay for the social services that unregulated sex induces.
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 4:41 PM
Aaron, you answered your own question.
Peace,
So if one wants to protect their family, they shouldn't worry about a multitude of different strangers wlaking through their property on a daily basis...you're right must be racists, brilliant!
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 4:43 PM
Ahhhh, let's see--"squatter" = "undocumented immigrant." isn't that what the "minutemen" are going after? Last I heard, they were involved in a self-appointed mission to help out the Border Patrol. It's not your or my personal back yard that they're worried about, is it?
And what's the underlying motivation for getting rid of immigrants? Let's see... I seem to recall something about race?
Don
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 4:47 PM
Perhaps if people had more responsible sex, Donny wouldn't be taxed as much to pay for the social services that unregulated sex induces.
Take a look at the discussion of sexual sins and the church that's on the Oscars thread a couple postings down. You might find it informative.
D
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 4:48 PM
Apparently you're having trouble Don, let's use trespassers, repeat trespassers at that who bring their trespassing friends, some of which may not just be here for the American Dream, they maybe Drug Smugglers or fleeing crimes in their own country. An dthey show up repeatedly, camping in your backyard, and you have little children. I don't know about you, but I'd be reaching for my gun, I don't care what skin color they are, or what language they speak. BUt you can only see it as racial, like the OP you're not interested in hearing anyone's real concerns, it's much easier to label them a racist and no longer have to worry about what they say. It's the easy way out.
As far as minute-men appointing themselves to help the Border Patrol, last I checked, this country was run by its citizens and when their appointed government fails to fulfill its constitutional duties, then the citizenry is guaranteed the 2nd amendment to fix that, you might not like that, sorry.
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 5:02 PM
Take a look at the discussion of sexual sins and the church that's on the Oscars thread a couple postings down. You might find it informative.
What was I supposed to find informative, that people in church *gasp* have sex like the rest of society, or that sexual misconduct goes on in churches? Not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing in relation to the cost of social services from bad sexual practices and the accompanying tax bill it produces. Perhaps you're confused and think I'm christian and being hypocritical and thinking church is some magical gumdrop happy place where bad stuff doesn't happen?
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 5:10 PM
Aaron, you make me laugh. I'm not one tiny, itsy, bitsy, teeny whit worried about trespassers camping out in my backyard, and I'm guessing that you really aren't either. I'm absolutely positive that the Minutemen aren't as well.
Your argument is a red herring, Aaron. The anti-defamation league tells us that the Minutemen, while not necessarily racist extremists themselves, are a bridge and link to race-motivated anti-immigrant groups. Just like N. M. Rod says above.
That's enough for me to denounce them, their motivations, and the 'work' they do.
As for me, I go by the words of Jesus: Let not your hearts be troubled...be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. You know, those kinds of statements. I'm not going to let fear dictate how I behave in this world.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 5:21 PM
What was I supposed to find informative, that people in church *gasp* have sex...
The issue under discussion there is the overbalanced focus on sexual sins in so many churches, which was I and I was commenting on re. Donny.
D
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 5:23 PM
So we fall into the old pattern. If you're against illegal immigration you are called a racist.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 5:23 PM
Jeff, most of them are, and you know that. Because they aren't just opposed to "illegal" immigration. If "illegal" immigration were there real concern, they wouldn't object to giving legal status to undocumented immigrants or reforming the immigration laws so they could enter the country legally.
Their primary motivation--spoken or unspoken--is that they don't want "those people" living here.
And you know that.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 5:27 PM
Don,
As soon as you throw out nasty accusations the discussion ends.
First accusation, racism.
Second accusation, dishonesty.
You are wrong, I don't know your accusation to be true. Your mind reading skills and your ability to discern peoples motivation is off. Stick to the merits of the points.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 5:38 PM
Jeff, I'm not reading anyone's mind; nor am I accusing anyone of dishonesty. I've read and heard what the anti-immigrant people are saying, and there's little doubt about their underlying motivation. It comes out loud and clear, whether spoken or unspoken.
But if you aren't convinced, you might want to do some research on how immigrants from Italy, Eastern Europe, China, etc. were received 100 years ago. You might want to find out what anti-immigrant people were saying then. It will all sound very familiar.
That's all I'm going to write for now. Dinner's waiting.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 5:49 PM
Don,
"Jeff, most of them are, and you know that."
Like I said, conversation is over. I won't respond to the topic of immigration.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 5:55 PM
Aaron, you make me laugh.
I can now see why.
I'm not one tiny, itsy, bitsy, teeny whit worried about trespassers camping out in my backyard,
So, it's your backyard.
and I'm guessing that you really aren't either.
Your empathy skills are weak Don. I will guarantee you if I wake up in the morning and there are people on my property without my foreknowledge and permission, they will be asked some very specific questions while I am holding either A. firearm B. some yard instrument wielded old fashioned Okinawan style C. my two very loyal dogs (pitbulls) at my side. That you believe this is an unreasonable response given the history of this country makes me laugh Don.
I'm absolutely positive that the Minutemen aren't as well.
Given the abject failure of your first assumption, I'll take your remaining opinions and thoughts with a grain of salt
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 6:41 PM
The issue under discussion there is the overbalanced focus on sexual sins in so many churches, which was I and I was commenting on re. Donny.
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 6:44 PM
The issue under discussion there is the overbalanced focus on sexual sins in so many churches, which was I and I was commenting on re. Donny.
Do sexual sins relate to social injustice?
A. a lot
B. more often than not.
C. some of the time
D. rarely
E. sexual sins?
Do the social injustices caused by sexual sins relate to taxation to pay for social services (if you replied to E first question skip to end)?
A. duh, covers 105% of the tax burden
B. more often than not
C. too hard to quantify so I'll say 50/50
D. first we have to define sins and then determine historically who that applies too, and sin is such a loaded term...
E. so what if he had a wife and 3 kids to support, he was finally true to herself in realizing she was a lesbian trapped in a man's body and reached self-actualization, government healthcare should covertransgendevalmorphication
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 7:09 PM
I'm not worried about intruders in my backyard because I don't expect it to happen. And so what if it does? I'm simply not going to let fear of something remotely possible to control my life. Plus, our neighbors look out for us, and we look out for them. So I have good reason not to expect trouble.
I don't own a firearm and I don't plan on obtaining one.
I don't have a pitbull. I have a 12-year-old cairn terrier (e.g., a Toto type) who would probably try try to get his belly rubbed if an intruder showed up.
With what appears to be your this-worldly mindset, it's no surprise that you would feel it necessary to resort to violence if you felt threatened. But that's not the mindset of the King whom I serve. He told us 'blessed are the peacemakers.' He also said to give up our possessions and turn the other cheek.
You are absolutely right about one thing, though: the sorry history of our nation is fraught with violence. And what peace has it really given us? No peace at all--only more violence. Violence begets more violence. If there's one thing history teaches us, it certainly is that. I want no part of that cycle of endless violence.
The Minutemen weren't organized to protect people's backyards from phantom intruders. You know that. That's why I laughed at your feeble argument. They exist to implement their own distorted and perverse sense of the rule of law regarding border "security" and immigration.
I do not support vigilante "justice" and never will. And that's what the Minutemen are all about. I will never support such groups or their aims.
My ultimate loyalty is to the Kingdom of Heaven, not to earthly kingdoms. You may call me a fool, but so what? I answer to Christ, not to you.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 7:11 PM
::I'm not worried about intruders in my backyard because I don't expect it to happen.::
Do those on the border, again, your empathy is weak.
::And so what if it does?::
Have you stored up any treasures on earth whatsoever? If so your moralizing is weak. Is your family worth dying for?
::I'm simply not going to let fear of something remotely possible to control my life.::
Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you have airbags, if so, have you voluntarily disabled them?
::I don't own a firearm and I don't plan on obtaining one.::
Just like freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, the right to bear arms is also the right to not bear arms, again, your choice. Do you love our rights?
::I don't have a pitbull. I have a 12-year-old cairn terrier (e.g., a Toto type) who would probably try try to get his belly rubbed if an intruder showed up.::
Mine as well, but they do look mean.
::With what appears to be your this-worldly mindset, it's no surprise that you would feel it necessary to resort to violence if you felt threatened.::
Pacifism is great if it's just you, but your family? Then again, your religion is know for having the idea that it's both A. sin to commit suicide B. to commit suicide to avoid losing your virginity when the barbarians come a rapin'.
If it's worldy to defend myself... well see my asterick above an we'll have to agree that what you call "wordly" I call "real", again, a very American principle (or we'd be saying Cheerio and not referring to cereal).
::And what peace has it really given us?::
It produced something good or else why would you promote all these strangers choosing America over their own country?
::But that's not the mindset of the King whom I serve. He told us 'blessed are the peacemakers.' He also said to give up our possessions and turn the other cheek.::
I guess I anticipated these, I'm reading and responding as I go along.
::You are absolutely right about one thing, though: the sorry history of our nation is fraught with violence. And what peace has it really given us? No peace at all--only more violence. Violence begets more violence. If there's one thing history teaches us, it certainly is that. I want no part of that cycle of endless violence.::
Was violence need to end Nazi Germany? Was violence needed to stop the genocide of Native Americans?
::The Minutemen weren't organized to protect people's backyards from phantom intruders. You know that. That's why I laughed at your feeble argument. They exist to implement their own distorted and perverse sense of the rule of law regarding border "security" and immigration.::
Since you could neither read my mind nor see from mine or anyone else's perspective but your own myopic racial lens, I have to seriously question the very strong statement you make in the 1st sentence.
::I do not support vigilante "justice" and never will. ::
Again, your personal preference. I love our rights.
::And that's what the Minutemen are all about.::
That is yet to be established.
:: I will never support such groups or their aims.::
Certainly your right.
::My ultimate loyalty is to the Kingdom of Heaven, not to earthly kingdoms.::
Then leave politics to the 'real world' (do you like the pop culture reference?). Just when I thought the country was getting rid of religious right theocratic initiatives here comes the left to fill the vacuum.
::You may call me a fool, but so what? I answer to Christ, not to you.::
...then vote god and stay home
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 7:46 PM
"Was violence needed to stop the genocide of Native Americans?"
You do know American history right? Violence was used to create and foster the genocide of Native Americans. It stopped because they became less than 1% of their former strength. They were no longer a "threat" and thus were ignored. We stole their land, killed their leaders, put them on reservations. We did that and there was no violence to curb what happened to them. If anything violence destroyed much of those civilizations. But you know that right?
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 15, 2008 8:12 PM
I wrote:
The Minutemen weren't organized to protect people's backyards from phantom intruders.
YOu replied:
Since you could neither read my mind nor see from mine or anyone else's perspective but your own myopic racial lens, I have to seriously question the very strong statement you make in the 1st sentence.
From the ADL Web site:
"Claiming they wanted to draw attention to the undocumented immigrant issue, anti-immigration extremists founded the Minuteman Project in April 2005 with the idea of organizing armed border patrols along the Arizona-Mexico border...
"Not all Minutemen chapters are border vigilante groups, partly because many chapters are far from the border. Some of these other chapters have adopted tactics such as videotaping alleged undocumented immigrants at their places of work, based on the color of their skin."
And you expect me to take seriously your claim that these groups exist for personal homeowner and property protection?
And that they're not racially motivated? (see the second paragraph)
I wrote:
I do not support vigilante "justice" and never will.
You responded:
Again, your personal preference. I love our rights.
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to take the law into your own hands. That's criminal behavior. Remember the lynchings?
And I'm being myopic?
Have a good night.
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 10:20 PM
"Your empathy skills are weak Don. I will guarantee you if I wake up in the morning and there are people on my property without my foreknowledge and permission, they will be asked some very specific questions while I am holding either A. firearm B. some yard instrument wielded old fashioned Okinawan style C. my two very loyal dogs (pitbulls) at my side. That you believe this is an unreasonable response given the history of this country makes me laugh Don."
Whatever happened to loving your enemy (whether real or perceived) as Jesus stated?
I don't know if you're racist or not. But your attitude certainly does not reflect that of Jesus Christ. You sound more like Wild Bill Coyote of the Wild West.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 15, 2008 11:17 PM
The following comment by nightchi simply needs to be challenged on validity of the assertion:
"As a 20 something woman of color in America, I don't know a single Republican personally who is a minority. As mentioned, studies reveal that the higher one's education level, and the more generations removed from immigrant status, the more likely a minority is to be a Democrat."
The inner-cities and first generation immigrant familes are overwhelmingly un-degreed and un-educated, and exclusively Democrat in voting patterns and affiliation. The Black and Hispanic communities have an seriously high out-of-wedlock birth rate, and incredibly violent towns and cities were they exist in large (or small) numbers. That shows a strikingly uneducated populace.
Indeed, the GOP is the party of educated minds dominating the ideology of the conservative fiscal success.
"I have never seen, even on blogs, a Republican admit to the racist element in their party (except to praise it.)"
Republicans freed the slaves. That is a historic fact. But more on that later. Blacks and Latinos have gangs that are generational and as is proven, are celebrated in song and actions. White families are ashamed of criminal offspring. Gangsta Life, came out of Black and latino "cultures." White Attorney Generals fought and overthrew white mafia gangsters. That is also born out by history.
In Black and Latino communities "Don't Snitch" is a cultural identifier for both. Violence and extortion is not "tolerated" in White communities.
It is racism to think that "white people" (and educated white people at that), that gravitate to the political party of "individual" freedom, and individual accountability, life and morality, do so to deny a decent life to others. Republican politics takes a concerted effort to understand. Those uneducated and those dependent on social programs voting Democrat "just because" prove what political ideology is dependent on education driving choice.
"It would be very gratifying to me to see more Republicans denounce this."
The Republicans freed the slaves. For indisputable proof, read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Conservative economics are literally free market. The Abolition Movement was exclusively White men that started it.
"I live in the south, and don't find the racist Republican numbers 'small.'"
The KKK and Aryans are opposed and "snitched out" by white people. How many "Blacks" denounce the Black Muslim movement? Farakhan is a spokeman for the Black community. Click on Barack Obama's Church for proof.
I hear nothing coming from the inner-city to make it a better place. White people create better communities by making them better communities. Civilization and good communities don't "just happen." It takes effort and morally sound "individuals" to make it so. Why do so many inner-city people want to better their lives by moving "out" to the suburbs?
Why do those in the south, reject the Democrat Party? It's not racial, it morality. Democrat dominated inner-city communities are crime infested and immoral places. Why? Why don't the people living there make them decent places to live. Even a poor man can paint a wall or pick up trash on his own street. Why not oppose crime and criminals? I paint walls and I "snitch out" crime when I see it. Or, when I even hear about it. ESPECIALLY in my neighborhood.
Could it be that the racists are in the Democrat party? Blacks are even more "sold out" for their race exclusively, then anything the white south has to offer. Whites oppose KKK and Aryans with legal and legislative authority.
How many Black women marry white men?
My white neice married an African-American man, and he and their children, are part of our family. "His" mother rejects her white daughter in law.
Is there a "White Entertainment Television?" Is there a "White" Miss America pageant? Is there a month set aside to celebrate the contributions made by white people? This country would not be the shining example of freedom for the entire world if it were not for White people. Where is the shining free societies that millions of immigrants of flooding into looking for a better life, in African and Latin countries?
Whites have done something about racism. It is all but gone from white monds and hearts. But we do not see the same inclusiveness and openness in Black, Latino, or, Asian cultures.
How many disparaging remarks about white southerners come from Black media outlets? Why does having pride for being white get labeled racist but Blacks have a closed fist (Black Pride)for identity, and Latinos have La Raza (The Race) and El Conquistador (The Conquerer) to represent their voices?
If it is a dialogue that is "truly" sought, then the truth will have to be honored.
I am not afraid of the truth.
By the way . . . Christianity is NOT a white religion. Neither Jesus nor one Apostle was a white european.
Truth is the only cure for social ills.
It's time for the first dose.
Posted by: Donny | February 16, 2008 12:57 AM
I couldn't let this go by either (In the spirit of dialogue):
"Once again, Donny's comments can be reduced to:
sex, sex, sex, taxes, sex, sex, sex..."
Posted by: I and I | February 15, 2008 1:23 PM
///
GLBT
Gay: Literally means men desiring or engaging in sexual intercourse with other men.
Lesbian: Literally means women desiring or having sexual intercourse with other women.
Bi-sexual: Literally means a man or woman having sexual intercousre with men or women.
Transgendered: A male or a female person having feelings or thoughts that they are in the wrong gendered body. (At least they know what goes where.)
Now Sir or Madame I and I,
Who is it that reduces their identity and issues to sex, sex, sex, taxes, sex, sex, sex? I have never once heard a "straight" person, male or female, introduce or label themself by their sexual proclivities.
And by the way, same-sex marriage has to do with "taxes" as well as other benefits of a legally united couple.
I'm glad (no pun intended) that the monologue is over. This dialogue thing isn't half bad.
Now I can go to sleep.
Posted by: Donny | February 16, 2008 1:21 AM
You do know American history right? Violence was used to create and foster the genocide of Native Americans. It stopped because they became less than 1% of their former strength. They were no longer a "threat" and thus were ignored. We stole their land, killed their leaders, put them on reservations. We did that and there was no violence to curb what happened to them. If anything violence destroyed much of those civilizations. But you know that right?
I know you missed the point, but do feel good about yourself for lecturing me on history I learned in the 4th grade.
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 7:40 AM
::Whatever happened to loving your enemy (whether real or perceived) as Jesus stated?::
I'm not Christian, just American.
::I don't know if you're racist or not. ::
Come on and say it, you think I am.
::But your attitude certainly does not reflect that of Jesus Christ. ::
Very few do reflect him, most delude themselves into worshipping a god they have created in their image.
::You sound more like Wild Bill Coyote of the Wild West.::
So does your pacifism deny you all self-defense (or defense of your loved ones), or do you have a line somewhere?
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 7:47 AM
::And you expect me to take seriously your claim that these groups exist for personal homeowner and property protection?::
Do you think homeowners from the border are in these groups?
::And that they're not racially motivated? (see the second paragraph)::
Is it just the writer's assumption that they're being videotaped based solely on skin color, or were members of the militia group quoted as saying exactly that. Little murky there. Videotaping them solely on skin color is bad, however, combine that with a bunch of people suddenly all around speaking another language, creating stores with signs in another language, speaking to their toddlers in public in another language and you might get suspicious some of them are probably here illegally, which is a perfectly rational conclusion and has nothing to do with skin color. You can keep making it about skin color all you want, but I do believe that is a limited view of the situation.
::The Constitution doesn't give you the right to take the law into your own hands. That's criminal behavior.::
Except in certain cases, usually involving self-defense issues.
:: Remember the lynchings?::
So Border Security = lynching?
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 8:05 AM
I'm off to take kids to Junior Bible Quiz. Of the seven kids five are the children of immigrants (yes, they even have brown skin). tomorrow I'll get together with a pastor of a predominately Central American Church, but not before I spend time with my West African friends who are on my worship team. Yeah, my friends would be shocked to know that I am a racist. They would even be more shocked to know they are also racist (most hold to the same view on illegal immigration). Welcome to the world of liberal definitions.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2008 8:10 AM
Do you think homeowners from the border are in these groups?
Homeowners from the border? Do they really have a lot to worry about, or is the fear a bit exaggerated? Just wondering.
My guess is that the fear is trumped up to create the "need" for vigilante justice. But I don't live near the border, so I don't know for sure. Do you? Yet, even though I don't, I think I can draw an analogy from so-called high crime neighborhoods in my city. In all cases I'm aware of except one, the risks of crime are exaggerated, largely by those who say, for example, that we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves. (Talking to people who live in those neighborhoods confirm that the fears of crime are exaggerated.) It's a marketing job just like any other--create the need in people's minds and they'll respond the way that the marketer wants them to.
Is it just the writer's assumption that they're being videotaped based solely on skin color, or were members of the militia group quoted as saying exactly that.
I trust the ADL's researchers. They know how to research hate groups. They've been in the business of researching such organizations for decades. If their research tells us that these groups are photographing people because of their skin color, then it's reasonable to believe that is what's happening.
Videotaping them solely on skin color is bad, however, combine that with a bunch of people suddenly all around speaking another language, creating stores with signs in another language, speaking to their toddlers in public in another language and you might get suspicious some of them are probably here illegally, which is a perfectly rational conclusion and has nothing to do with skin color.
I'm laughing again. Can't resist:
¿Porque tiene tanto miedo? ¿Porque esta la hablando otra idioma y no hablando inglés tan temeroso a Ud.?
(Why do you have so much fear? Why is the speaking of another language and not English so fearful to you?)
So let's see. They have brown skin AND they speak Spanish. Ergo, they're probably here illegally. Something is missing here. I guess its that the majority of Spanish speakers in the USA are NOT here illegally. But the problem for you seems to be that they're speaking Spanish.
Except in certain cases, usually involving self-defense issues.
Self defense isn't criminal behavior. Vigilante "justice" isn't self defense.
So Border Security = lynching?
You don't think it could come to something similar? If an armed "Minuteman" spotted someone in the desert near the border, would he shoot first and ask questions later?
Further, isn't there such a thing as due process? Were the lynch mobs observing due process when they strung someone up? You already admitted that the Minutemen with their cameras probably presumed they were undocumented because 1-they had brown skin, and 2-they were not speaking English. Were they observing due process?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 16, 2008 9:27 AM
"I'm not Christian, just American."
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Tenga un feliz dia. Have a nice day.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 16, 2008 9:57 AM
::They have brown skin AND they speak Spanish. Ergo, they're probably here illegally. Something is missing here. ::
Yes the rest of my qualifiers, which you conveniently ignore. I love how you tell me how I think as well. Laughable.
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 10:02 AM
"I'm off to take kids to Junior Bible Quiz. ...Yeah, my friends would be shocked to know that I am a racist."
Who called you a racist other than yourself? To thine own self be true...as the saying goes.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 16, 2008 10:03 AM
Yes the rest of my qualifiers, which you conveniently ignore.
No, I read the rest of your qualifiers. They all were summed up by "not speaking English." Oh, yeah, they weren't speaking English in public. And to their little kids, too. How seditious! Then they're creating businesses that do their business in another language. Hmmmm, economic development. Real suspicious.
I'm around students all the time who speak Spanish, Somali, Chinese and other languages--in public, too--and I just don't get people who are unhinged by that. I repeat what I wrote earlier: Why does that give you so much fear?
I certainly will be afraid of a grizzly bear charging me out of the woods, if that ever happens. I guarantee. But I'm not going to sweat over a family that I overhear speaking Amharic.
Later,
Posted by: Don | February 16, 2008 10:22 AM
::No, I read the rest of your qualifiers. ::
Reading and comprehending are two separate items.
::They all were summed up by "not speaking English."::
No, it showed that it was a reasonable to assume some may be illegal without resorting to the racism boogeyman at any point.
:: Oh, yeah, they weren't speaking English in public.::
The pro-liberal latino crowd keeps telling me they're all here to become Americans, not teaching their children to speak the native language in public or being bothered to learn a few phrases to talk to their kids in public in the native language does little to show me they're here to integrate.
:: And to their little kids, too. How seditious! ::
Where's the integration Don?
::Then they're creating businesses that do their business in another language. Hmmmm, economic development. Real suspicious.::
See my qualifiers again, but try and comprehend.
::I'm around students all the time who speak Spanish, Somali, Chinese and other languages--in public, too--and I just don't get people who are unhinged by that. ::
I'm not unhinged by that.
::I repeat what I wrote earlier: Why does that give you so much fear?::
Why does all your talk keep oscillating between accusations of racism and fear without actually listening to people?
::I certainly will be afraid of a grizzly bear charging me out of the woods, if that ever happens. I guarantee.::
So there are instances where fear is reasonable
::But I'm not going to sweat over a family that I overhear speaking Amharic.::
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/13/border.wire/index.html
Yes people living on the border should have no worries about letting anyone come across their land, it's all chocolate rivers and kumbayah. That you still cannot understand that there's legitimate worries and racism need not have anything to do with it shows a lack of empathy on your part.
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 11:41 AM
"Yes people living on the border should have no worries about letting anyone come across their land, it's all chocolate rivers and kumbayah. That you still cannot understand that there's legitimate worries and racism need not have anything to do with it shows a lack of empathy on your part." Posted by: aaron
Aaron do you live on the border? Have you ever lived on the border? I have. The common linguistic currency among very many whites on the border is to call Mexicans "wetbacks". Christian talk radio down there constantly berates undocumented immigrants in an uncharitable fashion. So please don't try to sell this xenophobia as not having a racist bent. The last time somebody tried to sell our country such a bill of goods, we ended up committing 150,000 troops to Iraq. Speaking of Iraq, I hear that there are jobs for gun toting good Americans like you over there. Would you consider applying?
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 16, 2008 12:33 PM
No, it showed that it was a reasonable to assume some may be illegal without resorting to the racism boogeyman at any point.
And my point was that one can't determine an immigrant's legal status just by noting the language they speak or the color of their skin. Indeed, one can't know one's citizenship by that status, because there's little doubt that at least some of the people being singled out by these wannabe public avengers are US Citizens.
The pro-liberal latino crowd keeps telling me they're all here to become Americans, not teaching their children to speak the native language in public or being bothered to learn a few phrases to talk to their kids in public in the native language does little to show me they're here to integrate...Where's the integration Don?
Aaron, do you like Chinese? Well, my wife doesn't, so I don't get it very often. But the last time I was in a Chinese restaurant, the waiters and cooks were speaking--guess what? Chinese!
On a trip through the Amish country in Pennsylvania, northern Ohio, or northern Indiana, you just might hear German (AKA, Pennsylvania Dutch) spoken. The kids learn it at home. But they learn English too. These families have been here for generations.
Speaking of my wife, she works for the state historical society. If you were ever in my city, I could take you to her place of work and she could take you into the archives where they have copies of old newspapers. About 100 years old. They have German-American newspapers in, you're right, German; Polish-American newspapers in Polish, Italian-American newspapers in Italian, and Hungarian-American newspapers in Hungarian. I'm positive that 100 years ago, these folks weren't speaking English to their little kids. But guess what? Eventually they integrated. Or their kids or grandkids did.
My next-door neighbors are Jordanian Arabs. I've heard them talk. The father will ask the kids a question in English and the kids will answer in Arabic. I know they know English. They go to school. We don't have bilingual education in my state: all kids in school who come from non-English families are taught English and are taught all their other subjects in English. And their parents, who may or may not know English, wouldn't have it any other way.
This has been the common experience of all immigrants. The elders often struggle to learn English, but the kids learn it, and the parents insist that they learn it, even if they don't speak it at home. Why do you think it's any different today?
Remember that I suggested you look up information about anti-immigrant movements from a century ago? They were saying the same things about the Poles, Italians, and Chinese that you're saying today--they live together in their own communities where they speak their own language, they open stores where they conduct business in their own language, they have newspapers (today: TV and radio stations) in their own language. They don't want to integrate, and they never will integrate. Guess what. They integrated. But sometimes it takes two or three generations. And don't forget that we're bringing in new immigrants from the Latino nations (largely legally, despite popular opinion), so there's always a new generation of first-time immigrants in the Latino communities.
So it's not just "pro-Latino liberal" people who believe and know that integration will occur. History tells us that it will happen.
So remember that the next time you bite into your burrito and take a sip from your glass of Dos Equis.
Legitimate worries? Yeah, I'm worried that xenophobics and hate groups, or Minutemen with firearms, might actually begin to attack or harm immigrants. Or citizens that they think are immigrants because of their racial/linguistic profiling. I won't stay awake worrying about it, but it does concern me.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 16, 2008 1:20 PM
::Aaron do you live on the border? Have you ever lived on the border?::
Nope, just imagining how it feels to wake up and have complete strangers on your property day after day. I know what I'd do if I found strangers on my property REGARDLESS of where I live.
::The common linguistic currency among very many whites on the border is to call Mexicans "wetbacks". Christian talk radio down there constantly berates undocumented immigrants in an uncharitable fashion. So please don't try to sell this xenophobia as not having a racist bent.::
Did I try and do such, I called your type on your quick use of racism to shut down any and all opposition discussion by accusing anyone having genuine concern as racist. Please try and comprehend along with Don instead of using your racism meme.
::Speaking of Iraq...::
no sequitur
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 2:04 PM
::And my point was that one can't determine an immigrant's legal status just by noting the language they speak or the color of their skin. Indeed, one can't know one's citizenship by that status, because there's little doubt that at least some of the people being singled out by these wannabe public avengers are US Citizens.::
I agree, but it is not unreasonable to assume that a sudden influx contains a large amount of illegals.
::Aaron, do you like Chinese? Well, my wife doesn't, so I don't get it very often. But the last time I was in a Chinese restaurant, the waiters and cooks were speaking--guess what? Chinese!::
I hope they're caught if they're here illegally. However, the system is not currently being swamped by a large number of chinese illegals. resources should be focused where the majority of the problem lies.
And btw, I'm a health inspector, I choose not to eat at chinese restaurants for reasons totally unrelated to race.
::{regarding immigration history}::
Time will tell, parents not communicating with their toddlers and young children in public in english doesn't inspire great confidence. Expecting translation services no matter where you go (shouldn't the integrated children be doing this?) doesn't inspire great confidence.
By no means do I entirely blame the illegals, those that hire them should be severely punished. We have also developed a consumer culture of microtrends and focused marketing. Much easier to turn on the TV and have several spanish channels competing for your attention than struggling to learn what they're saying on english TV, I don't think our ancestors had such pandering and catering and learning english was much more critical.
Posted by: aaron | February 16, 2008 2:23 PM
Don: "Speaking of my wife, she works for the state historical society."
Don,
is that the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus? I did a lot of research there when writing my doctoral dissertation back in the Eighties.
Posted by: carl copas | February 16, 2008 3:05 PM
Carl:
Yes.
D
Posted by: Don | February 16, 2008 3:26 PM
JamesMartin
"And what's the underlying motivation for getting rid of immigrants? Let's see... I seem to recall something about race?"
"Their primary motivation--spoken or unspoken--is that they don't want "those people" living here."
Nuff said.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2008 3:29 PM
The lies in Donny's post are really sad to see. I do call them lies because well they are.
"The Republicans freed the slaves. For indisputable proof, read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Conservative economics are literally free market. The Abolition Movement was exclusively White men that started it."
After the civil war slavery still flourished for a few years. Lincoln's goal was never to end slavery. his goal was to save the union and if blacks needs to be enslaved to do it then great, if not great, but his goal was to save the union. I won't argue that Republicans did a lot to help hinder slavery but they actually let it flourish in the border states like Kentucky. You can look that up if you want to.
They also lacked the balls to keep their reforms going and left all those freed black people w/ no protection making the south a very dangerous place. The KKK flourished because Republicans turned the other way and were fine w/ Jim Crow laws.
"Is there a "White Entertainment Television?" Is there a "White" Miss America pageant? Is there a month set aside to celebrate the contributions made by white people? This country would not be the shining example of freedom for the entire world if it were not for White people. Where is the shining free societies that millions of immigrants of flooding into looking for a better life, in African and Latin countries?"
I have seen some white channels. we do have CMT, NBC, ABC... Check the programming when was the last time you saw a few sit comes or dramas staring black/latin/gay... people in more than token roles. All the leads are white. Barring Law and Order, Heroes you rarely see real diversity.
Donny,
The rest of the world doesn't see us as a shining bastion of freedom. I have a secret for you. Come close. They see us as a power hungry, greedy, selfish, land obsessed oil greedy nation that has a need to conquer. Just thought you should know.
"Whites have done something about racism. It is all but gone from white minds and hearts. But we do not see the same inclusiveness and openness in Black, Latino, or, Asian cultures."
Talk about racist. Thank you for making it very clear that white people are the most enlightened race out there. I know you did not use that word. But you are deceiving yourself if you believe white people have gotten rid of racism in their hearts. Not all of you have and what you just wrote proves it. They freed black people (a lie if I ever heard one) we were freeing ourselves long before white folks grew a conscience. That's why the runaway rates were so high. A lot of slaves grew tired and just left.
And Aaron
I got your point a long time ago. Your point and please feel free to correct me (if I did not get it) was that violence is necessary to solve some wars. By using the examples that you used you pretty much invalidated your point. Nazi Germany was a good example but the native American one made little sense in light of our history. Unless the First Nations one was a bit of joke, and if it was, it wasn't really funny.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 16, 2008 4:02 PM
Oh, and Aaron:
How do the officials know that wire in the CNN article you supplied wasn't installed by some of your Minutemen friends to nail some smugglers themselves?
D
Posted by: Don | February 16, 2008 4:20 PM
"How many "Blacks" denounce the Black Muslim movement? Farakhan is a spokeman for the Black community. Click on Barack Obama's Church for proof."
This is getting dangerously close to racist when you suggest that Black leaders generally don't care about racism directed against non-Blacks. Yes, Farakhan has made a career out of racist statements, as has Leonard Jeffries. But why don't you read Cornell West, Henry Louis Gates, Shelby Steele Manning Marable or Bell Hooks, or listen to James Forbes, or, hell, get out your old Staple Singers records? If none of this is about ending racism of all stripes, then I don't know what is.
In answer to your question, Blacks have been denouncing the Nation of Islam since Malcolm X did it more than forty years ago and paid for it with his life.
Also, let's clear up this canard about Rev. Wright and Obama. Barack Obama is well aware that his pastor has made some comments that are interpreted as inflammatory, and has said he does not agree with his pastor on everything and did not want his pastor at his side when he made his candidacy announcement. How much attention is McCain's church getting? Or GW Bush's?
Posted by: I and I | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?