Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Frederick Douglass and Barack Obama
At National Review, historian Jonathan Bean has a very provocative article celebrating the ideas and achievements of the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, tied to the 157th anniversary of Douglass' justly celebrated "Fourth of July Oration." As Bean argues:
Douglass unfailingly opposed any man's exercising control over another, and he would be appalled, his writings suggest, by the new spirit of dependency and control ushered in with the Age of Obama. Douglass championed limited constitutional government, colorblind law, capitalism, hard work, and self-help. His principles are not the stuff of "New New Deals" but rather a brief for a "New Independence Day" based on small-government principles.
Read the rest here. I celebrate Douglass' libertarian legacy here.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 10:34AM|#
Douglass championed limited constitutional government, colorblind law, capitalism, hard work, and self-help.
Sounds almost quaint these days.
Xeones|7.6.09 @ 10:43AM|#
It's so cute how Bean ends with the notion that the Republican Party should return to Douglass' principles, as if a modern political party were even capable of principle.
|7.6.09 @ 10:46AM|#
Douglass championed limited constitutional government,
colorblind law, capitalism, hard work, and self-help.
Raaaaciiiiist!!
MNG|7.6.09 @ 10:47AM|#
I think there's a great degree of bullshit in this. I imagine Douglass would be delighted that this nation has an African-American President, Supreme Court Justice, etc., and that only about 22% of African-Americans live in poverty, and that they live and work side by side with whites. And I think he'd realize that government iniatives had a lot to do with all of that...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 10:53AM|#
And I think he'd realize that government iniatives had a lot to do with all of that...
MNG, far be it for me to minimize the role of the federal
government in the Civil Rights Era of the '50s and '60s (even as I
type I'm also reminded of the negativity of COINTELPRO, with the
Feds wiretapping MLK, Jr.), but I'm wondering about the ratio of
credit/scorn the gov't deserves from the 1970s onward...
If I had my "research papers", I'd be prepared to debate you.
;)
MNG|7.6.09 @ 10:57AM|#
How did Douglass feel about the Freedman's Bureau and related government programs, because that was "big government" in its day?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:01AM|#
I think there's a great degree of bullshit in this. I
imagine Douglass...
Beautiful. Hey, please stop imagining and write your own
counter-article that's stuffed with quotes and interpretations of
the man's work.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:02AM|#
OK TAO, look right above your post. Douglass supported the Freedman's Bureau, which, as W.E.B. described in a chapter in Souls of Black Folks, was a massive government undertaking for its time. It's also noted by con law scholars as evidence that the Fourteenth Amenment's ratifiers certainly had no problem with race specific government programs. So, article fail.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:04AM|#
As for the article in question's quotes, well, I could give you many quotes from Jesse Jackson, or MLK, or hell Barak Obama that emphasize black self-reliance, entrepeneurship and all that shit. So are they small government conservatives too? The article is a joke...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Douglass supported the Freedman's Bureau, which, as W.E.B. described in a chapter in Souls of Black Folks, was a massive government undertaking for its time.
That's your evidence? Support for a government program that was
charged with mopping up messes caused by a war? Shit, even I
support that. That's an MNG Fail.
Tell you what: if you want to convince anybody, debunk Bean and
write a counter article. The Freedman's Bureau thing is
underwhelming at best.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:08AM|#
well, I could give you many quotes from Jesse Jackson, or MLK, or hell Barak Obama that emphasize black self-reliance, entrepeneurship and all that shit. So are they small government conservatives too?
OK, go read the fucking article. this is getting old.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:08AM|#
Also, given even common knowledge of Douglass, can anyone here maintain with a straight face that he would not be pleased as punch to see that African-Americans had come so far as to be Presidents and Supreme Court Justices? You really think, given his life, that he would nobly shake his head and a la Stephen Colbert say "Bah, I don't see race, that matters not to me!" Jesus Christ, TAO, try planet Earth for a little while...
kinnath|7.6.09 @ 11:08AM|#
And I think he'd realize that government iniatives had a lot
to do with all of that...
Government is a lag filter.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Are you crazy? The Freedman's Bureau was a massive, massive government program that sought to feed, clothe, teach, provide legal advice, etc., etc., for hundreds of thousands of impoverished black folks. Conservatives of the day decried it as big government, federal intermeddling, violation of states rights, etc.. And Douglass was all for it. So I'm afraid he wasn't the Clarence Thomas or black male Ayn Rand of his day fella....
|7.6.09 @ 11:11AM|#
"That's your evidence? Support for a government program that was
charged with mopping up messes caused by a war? Shit, even I
support that."
TAO, I never noticed that you are such a big supporter of Obama's
economic policies.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 11:13AM|#
MNG,
Considering the disgusting actions by local gov't in the South
before and during reconstruction, I'm sure intervention was
necessary at that time.
to see that African-Americans had come so far as to be Presidents and Supreme Court Justices? You really think, given his life, that he would nobly shake his head and a la Stephen Colbert say "Bah, I don't see race, that matters not to me!"
I don't think the ideals attributed to Douglass above would preclude him from acknowledging that people come in different races (and genders!).
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:14AM|#
brotherben
Don't tease TAO, he's upset because it looks like Douglass won't be
his "black friend" after all...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:14AM|#
You really think, given his life, that he would nobly shake his head and a la Stephen Colbert say "Bah, I don't see race, that matters not to me!"
"I conceive that there is no division of races. God Almighty made
but one race...You may say that Frederick Douglass considers
himself a member of the one race that exists." Frederick
Douglass.
I told you to go read the article, and now you just made yourself
look really stupid.
More from the article:
""What shall we do with the Negro?"...Do nothing with us...your
doing with us has already played the mischief with us..If the
apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength...let them
fall...And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall
also."
So much for all that.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:16AM|#
the only thing I am upset about is that you engaged in reflexive liberalism about the subject without reading. the. fucking. article. Like I knew you would. you fancy yourself "intellectual" and you declare the article "bullshit" sight-unseen.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:17AM|#
TAO, I never noticed that you are such a big supporter of
Obama's economic policies.
Get your lazy ass off to get a job.
But, seriously, on what planet would call raising the debt to 80%
of yearly GDP mere "clean-up"?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 11:17AM|#
So I'm afraid he wasn't the Clarence Thomas or black male Ayn Rand of his day fella....
I'm still don't think that means he'd be a fan of the modern welfare state.
Brandon|7.6.09 @ 11:21AM|#
It's so cute how Bean ends with the notion that the
Republican Party should return to Douglass' principles, as if a
modern political party were even capable of principle.
National Review: "If only the right people were in charge!"
I can't believe I used to read it. Today their webpage is dominated
by speculation about what Palin's resignation means for her future
and that of the GOP. As if this bit of news and the magazine's
professed ideology are somehow related.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Get your lazy ass off to get a job.
Seriously, I wish unemployment weren't so high, but it sure looks as if federal gov't intervention can't do much about that.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:22AM|#
I should apologize for that crack against brotherben. Accept my apologies.
|7.6.09 @ 11:29AM|#
"Get your lazy ass off to get a job."
TAO, okay, but tell me what job I should do. I have a high school
education with a job history of truck driving and sawmill work and
a few odd jobs in between. I have severe chronic debilitating pain.
I have loss of bowel control. I take vicodin and lyrica as well as
flexeril at nite. I can't stand, sit or walk more than a few
minutes at a time and I have to lay down many times a day due to
pain. I have no financial resources for more schooling and a
delinquent student loan.
The surgery I need has been refused by the insurance company
covering work comp at the job where I was injured. The prognosis is
for my condition to worsen without the surgery and even with it I
have just a 50/50 shot of any improvement.
So tell me, and I will gladly take the job that works with my
situation.
|7.6.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Don't apologize for a damn thing. There needs to be some sort of pushback for all the Obamatrons congratulating each other for making stupid and irrelevant comments.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:30AM|#
TAO
What's your "job?" Keeping seats at an Ohio Law School warm?
But as to the article, I did read it. It's laughable. It takes some
quotes from Douglass on how he was for self-reliance and "beyond"
race. Of course, in his actions and words he also supported a
massive government welfare program aimed specifically to help
blacks (I note you've backed down off of this, wise choice).
Hell, EVERY black leader in the past 200 years has this kind of
rhetoric.
"There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino
America and Asian America; there's the United States of America
."
"Our goal is to have a country that's not divided by race."
Barack Obama
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:34AM|#
In 1860 America of course black leaders used color blind
rhetoric, moving from a society which uses your race against you to
one that uses race less would be a good thing. Of course pretty
much every black leader also is willing to support programs and
attempts to go a full 180 and specifically promote the interests of
their race. Douglass, MLK, Obama, all have used color blind
rhetoric AND supported specific efforts to help people of their
color.
So TAO and other right leaning folks, keep on looking for that
heoric black leader who thinks your way and makes you feel better
about your ideology. He's coming, soon, soon...
|7.6.09 @ 11:35AM|#
the new spirit of dependency and control ushered in with the
Age of Obama.
That spirit was around long before Obama first ran for public
office. The disease of dependency has the "Age of Obama" is a
symptom, not the cause.
Also, I don't see any articles criticizing George Bush for not
following the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, when they
were both white. Not playing the race card or anything, but you
should think twice about your motivations for comparison.
|7.6.09 @ 11:36AM|#
apology accepted.
Trust me, I love driving truck and I was taking home a grand a week
doing it. Not every unemployed person is just lazy. My situation is
extreme for sure, but I am fairly certain that I am not the only
one basically incapable of work.
I agree with you guys about a lot of things and do see a lot of
folks not willing to make their own way. I have to ask this: if my
politics and religion were in line with yours, would you be so
critical of my unemployment?
Mike|7.6.09 @ 11:36AM|#
Funny how the real civil rights fighters like Douglass and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tended to lean to the right. Of course the left celebrates "heroes" like Jesse Jackson or Gloria Steinem who got involved only after the battles were largely over. And guess which figures schoolkids know more about?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:39AM|#
In 1860 America of course black leaders used color blind rhetoric, moving from a society which uses your race against you to one that uses race less would be a good thing.
Oh, of course, Frederick Douglass must have been suffering from
false consciousness when he said that "Colbert-esque" thing you
immediately conjectured he would not say.
All I am seeing as a rejoinder from you is "He didn't really mean
it! Of COURSE he wanted big government programs!"
So TAO and other right leaning folks, keep on looking for that
heoric black leader who thinks your way
I'm not in any way emotionally invested in Frederick Douglass, so
drop your psychologizing bullshit. And I see that you're still
absolutely dedicated to fitting me into a "right leaning" box,
despite all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whatever
helps you sleep at night, nancy.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:41AM|#
if my politics and religion were in line with yours, would you be so critical of my unemployment?
To a certain extent, probably, because I am just a dick like that.
On the other hand, the problem with the Welfare State is (and I've
been harping on this for years) is that it fosters
resentment and (as Fluffy stated a while ago) a Hobbesian war of
"all against all". So it tends to get personal when we talk about
entitlements because of the personal nature of those
entitlements.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Of course he did.
Do you dispute that he supported the Freedman's Bureau programs
TAO?
How about the Obama quotes. Is he your new color-blind,
anti-dependancy black leader? He doesn't see race just like you! He
extols self-reliance in speeches just like Douglass! He's your man
TAO! Your ideology's "black friend!"
|7.6.09 @ 11:44AM|#
f my politics and religion were in line with yours, would
you be so critical of my unemployment?
Maybe if you weren't such an irritating and full of himself
commenter, he wouldn't be.
Tip: if you're going to get sarcastic as you did in this
comment:
TAO, I never noticed that you are such a big supporter of
Obama's economic policies.
you'd better make sure the comparison actually makes sense. What
situation even remotely comparable to the aftermath of the Civil
War is Obama dealing with?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:45AM|#
alright, MNG, keep being dumb. It's no skin off of my nose. If you really want to feel like Frederick Douglass just has to have been lying to all of us when he said 'there is but one race', then fine. Knock yourself out.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 11:49AM|#
The Freedman's Bureau is not equivalent to Reconstruction guys. Read a book not published by the Cato Institute once and a while...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 11:50AM|#
MNG,
Your cynicism is unbecoming. To me, time does make a difference
because unlike the time of Douglass or Booker T. Washington or MLK,
Jim Crow and all the other mechanisms of oppressing blacks
(particularly in the South)are no longer the order of the day.
|7.6.09 @ 11:50AM|#
Tulpa, the comparison has to do with economic instability from the trillion or so dollars spent on the war in Iraq by the Bush administration. Obama's economic policies are in part due to that war. That would be the situation in comparison.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
The Freedman's Bureau is not equivalent to Reconstruction guys. Read a book not published by the Cato Institute once and a while...
MNG, I repeat that I do think you're being overly cynical. And I guess I do have time to debate you after all.
|7.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Tulpa, as far as me being irritating and full of myself goes, you'll get no argument from me on that front.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
brotherben - I haven't seen anything demonstrating that economic "instability" can be attributed to Iraq War spending. If anything, the Iraq War is a Keynesian wet dream of "stimulus".
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 11:54AM|#
brotherben,
Not a civil (domestic) war, so I think the comparison largely
pales. The South was all torn up...(yeah, yeah Sherman definitely
deserves some "credit", too).
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Jim Crow and all the other mechanisms of oppressing blacks (particularly in the South)are no longer the order of the day.
Oh, Art, poor you. MNG is just going to launch into his "Everyday
is Selma, 1965!" line of argumentation wherein shadow racism and
misogyny are keeping all of the Democratic Party's select
constituencies "down".
|7.6.09 @ 11:58AM|#
The sales pitch from Obama was and is that the Bush team screwed
it all up and he (obama) has to do these things to fix it
back.
We can argue about the accuracy and necessity of it all just as, I
assume, people argued about the government's involvement after the
civil war.
The snarky comment I made to TAO was questioning his willingness to
support one and not the other.
Apples and oranges I suppose.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:01PM|#
For TAO no day is, or was, Selma 1965...That shit was in a
galaxy far, far away...
I can put this slowly again for TAO
Douglass used color-blind and black self-reliance rhetoric, but
supported big government race consciouss programs. You seem very
impressed with that color-blind and black self-reliance rhetoric,
as if it proves the article's point about him, but as I've said,
Obama uses such rhetoric too, as did MLK, etc.,. And you surely
don't see them as Conservative's Black Friend...
|7.6.09 @ 12:01PM|#
In Douglass vs. Obama = Douglass would totally kick his
ass.
Douglass vs. Spiderman = Spiderman would win by decision
|7.6.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Tulpa, the comparison has to do with economic instability
from the trillion or so dollars spent on the war in Iraq by the
Bush administration.
More like $800 billion through the middle of 2009 (keep it
reality-based, folks) and I'm not sure how much of that represents
additional spending because of the war, and how much would have
been spent on the units posted to Iraq anyway.
If government spending is the cause of the recession, then why are
we being told government spending is the cure for the
recession?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:05PM|#
not all "government programs" are big-government programs, MNG, and they are not all of the same type, character or purpose. The Freedmen's Bureau wasn't race-conscious, it was oh shit we just released a bunch of people-conscious. your comparisons are false and therefore, so is your analogy.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:06PM|#
Dude, MNG, please: cynicism isn't just something you do, it's something you ARE. you tear down just about everything in sight.
Xeones|7.6.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Dude, MNG, please: cynicism isn't just something you do,
it's something you ARE.
Hey, don't lump the rest of us cynics in with that guy.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:12PM|#
How am I being cynical? In what way?
It seems like you're saying 'if anyone supported a big government program at any time, all their talk of self-reliance and self-help is hollow rhetoric'. That doesn't seem cynical to you?
|7.6.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Tulpa, the comparison has to do with economic instability
from the trillion or so dollars spent on the war in Iraq by the
Bush administration.
lol, I thought that's what you meant. No, it's not even remotely
comparable to the post-Civil War mess, and you should be ashamed
for even trying to compare them. This is the Obamatron equivalent
of the dragons eating each other at the end of Reign of
Fire.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:18PM|#
The Freedman's Bureau wasn't race consciouss? Huh? It explicitly
set out to help impoverished blacks, not whites. It stated
explicitly it was about black uplift (free blacks could get the
services too). It was a huge federal undertaking at the time. It
was amazingly comprehensive in its programs: it provided legal
advice, appeared as "next friend" in suits, schooling, hygeine
promotion/instruction, land redistribution and just plain "giving
out checks."
You don't know wtf you're talking about here, just admit it...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:18PM|#
This is the Obamatron equivalent of the dragons eating each other at the end of Reign of Fire.
Huh, never heard that analogy before :D.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:21PM|#
The Freedman's Bureau wasn't race consciouss? Huh? It explicitly set out to help impoverished blacks, not whites.
Uh, MNG, I think TAO was saying the program was only incidentally race-conscious. I think everyone here is acknowledging that slavery was an overtly racist convention in the American South.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:22PM|#
In other words, I *get* what TAO's saying, and it's far from bullshit.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:26PM|#
"you tear down just about everything in sight."
Oh Lord, you're not going to cry again are you? Boo hoo, you're so
negative, all you do is tear down, boo hoo, why can't you ever
build up :(. And I'm supposed to be the pansy liberal,
sheesh...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:26PM|#
thank you, Art!
MNG, your typification of the Freedmen's Bureau being a
"race-conscious program" is akin to stating that the Marshall Plan
was a "Eurocentric, German-conscious program".
|7.6.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Tulpa, call me stupid or whatever, but I fail completely trying to draw the connection between my suggestion and cannabilistic dragons. Cut a dullard some slack and briefly explain please.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:28PM|#
no, MNG, you (again) misread rage that I had when I said that.
you don't believe in anything, and that's a far worse
thing than my boisterous emotionality about certain subjects.
whatever. at this point, I am realizing that you're dishonest
beyond belief.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Art
The Freedman's Bureau was a program to help only black people, and
yes, everyone was aware that black people needed such help because
they had been impoverished by slavery. Heck, that's the motivation
to help black people now, that they are more impoverished as a
group because of slavery, Jim Crow, etc.
stuartl|7.6.09 @ 12:29PM|#
If government spending is the cause of the recession, then
why are we being told government spending is the cure for the
recession?
Because now it is the Obama right kind of spending, unlike all of
that Bush wrong kind of spending.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:30PM|#
see, Art, it's all so simple! "Immediate management of refugees
unjustly enslaved by their government" is TOTALLY EQUAL to "2009
Affirmative Action programs".
Awww, yeah...that's not a dishonest or shallow analysis at all.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:30PM|#
MNG,
I like you, man, but I think you're off-base with your comments
toward TAO (they're really not constructive IMO).
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:31PM|#
An analogous post-WWII example would be a program to explicitly help Jews in Europe after the war.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:31PM|#
tell me, MNG, would a black person from say, England be entitled to help from the Freedmen's Bureau if he traveled to the South in 1866?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:32PM|#
MNG - no, an analogous program would be one to help concentration camp victims after WWII.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:32PM|#
It's not dishonest in that ALL race-consciouss programs intend to redress what are seen as the effects of negative treatment of the race in question. Duh, you think its done for shits n' giggles?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:34PM|#
You;ve found your black friend after all ;)
Oh, did Larry Elder, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell not
count?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Heck, that's the motivation to help black people now, that they are more impoverished as a group because of slavery, Jim Crow, etc.
When will it stop? When do the programs become counterproductive? I think they already should've stopped and I think they've already counterproductive FWIW. Trying to help overcome the horrible disadvantage slaves were at after emancipation was, IMO, noble. Trying to legislatively guarantee equal outcomes now is certainly not.
|7.6.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"MNG | July 6, 2009, 12:31pm | #
TAO
You;ve found your black friend after all;)"
This bugs me as much as this:
"Get your lazy ass off to get a job."
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Except free blacks could recieve the benefits too, you know that right?
I'll need a cite that states that was the specific purpose of the
program, and not just incidental error...
And just how many free blacks, by happenstance, were wandering
around the South at the time anyway?
Again, you're being astonishingly dishonest.
|7.6.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Art P.O.G.,
I have no quarrel with programs that actually help the poor to
better themselves. The current programs, at least here in
Alabama,are open-ended, keep folks in poverty, and punish any
attempt at self improvement with a decrease in benefits. The help
given needs to be completely restructured. The whole "teach a man
to fish" thing comes to mind.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Except free blacks could recieve the benefits too, you know that right?
Meh. I didn't read the bill.
It's not dishonest in that ALL race-consciouss programs intend to redress what are seen as the effects of negative treatment of the race in question
Oh, I thought they were done to get votes.
|7.6.09 @ 12:41PM|#
TAO, wiki has a pretty thorough explanation of the workings and goals of the freedmen's bureau fwiw.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:41PM|#
I just want everyone to see what's happening here: there was a much-needed program for the management of millions of refugees who went literally overnight from "slave" to "free", and that is somehow equivalent to ANY AND ALL race-based programs that help minorities get ahead, because, you know, that was the "purpose" of the former, so all those programs are OK. That's MNG's position here: that all programs that serve blacks, regardless of their scope, extent, purpose or reason, are the same, and therefore, Frederick Douglass was a lying hypocrite.
robc|7.6.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Except free blacks could recieve the benefits too, you know that
right?
Post-civil war, all blacks were free blacks.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:47PM|#
IIRC the rhetoric surrounding the Freedman's Bureau was about
general uplifting of blacks, but of course they were also aware and
explicit that the uplifting was needed because of slavery.
But this is true of every race consciouss program I can think ot.
The proponents of them (like William Douglass) find them necessary
to remedy or offset some racial injustice or its effects.
BTW Art, I'm not a proponent of race consciouss programs (in fact
I'm a pretty active opponent, I belong to Ward Connerly's
organization, used to belong to Roger Clegg's [it went off the
rails imo] and have worked hard at getting MD and VA, at different
times in my life, to effectuate something like California's Civil
Rights Initiative). I don't support race specific programs. But
William Douglass did. So did MLK, and other champions of
color-blind rhetoric...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:49PM|#
so yes, a refugee/slave management bureau is all the same as the
EEOC and therefore, Frederick Douglass was lying to all of
us.
Right, MNG? Holy fuck.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:50PM|#
I don't have to equate the Freedman's Bureau with New Haven
2009. It's just a simple fact that the Freedman's Bureau programs
were government programs that helped only black Americans. It was a
race-consciouss program.
And I'm not sure Douglass was being a hypocrite at all, any more
than MLK or Obama are hypocrites for using colorblind language
while supporting race-specific programs.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Both the EEOC and the Freedman's Bureau involve
1. Large government expenditures
2. to set up large bureacracies
3. to be active in providing multiple services and
protections
4. to combat what are seen as racial injustices
One difference is that the EEOC is not race-specific (even TAO
could get help from it if discriminated against), but the
Freedman's Bureau limited its benefits to black Americans, whether
they were slaves or not btw.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Better analogies would be specific race consciouss programs such as minority businessperson services, affirmative action programs, etc. They may be different in the degree of the need that motivated them, but they are certainly properly classified as race consciouss.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 12:59PM|#
sure, OK, the fact that you keep saying that the Freedmen's Bureau was "race-conscious" doesn't make it any more true.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 1:03PM|#
MNG,
There were a lot of people, including Douglass himself, who were
free men, but definitely former slaves. I'm sure that had something
to do with freemen being able to benefit from the bureau.
You state that you don't support modern race-conscious
programs. This is well and good. At the same time, you seem to
downplay the message of self-reliance and self-sufficiency in black
political rhetoric. Maybe that message doesn't get out enough, but
I don't see why you seemed so dismissive of this article
highlighting that message in Douglass' words.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:04PM|#
There were programs that provided aid during Reconstruction to
white and black alike.
The Freedman's Bureau twon't one of them...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 1:10PM|#
MNG,
The political status quo has not been particularly beneficent to
the poor more recently, has it? There are a lot of people not
particularly suited to upward economic mobility, but the gov't
can't practically *make* them economic movers-n-shakers.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Terrible analogy as I noted.
The Freedman's Bureau was a domestic program that, while carried
out in the midst of white Americans in need explicitly served only
black Americans.
The Marshall Plan was a foriegn aid program carried out in another
nation far from Americans. It provided benefits for all the
relevant foriegn groups of the nations it served.
Keep trying though!
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 1:12PM|#
MNG,
It seems like you're being pedantic now re: race-consciousness of
Freedman's Bureau. Can we move on?
|7.6.09 @ 1:16PM|#
This is from the Alabama dept. of archives and history website.
note the rations to blacks AND whites.
"On March 3, 1865, the United States Congress established the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. This federal
agency helped ex-slaves with food, medical aid, education, and
legal advice. General Wager Swayne was appointed assistant
commissioner in Alabama and, after 1866, district military
commander over the federal troops who occupied the state. Under his
direction, the Freedmen's Bureau distributed rations to thousands
of blacks and whites in the "starving time" of 1865-66."
|7.6.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Also, in the congressional act that set up the freedmen's bureau, it mentions aid for "refugees and freedmen, but never once does it specify race.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Art
Huh? My argument is simple. Whatever Douglass said, he supported
programs that were created to help blacks explicitly. Such programs
are as "race concsciouss" or "race specific" as you are going to
get. Which part of that argument do you find to be pedantic?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 1:26PM|#
See brotherben's posts above, MNG.
Also, what is your argument, exactly? We've already established how
inapt the comparisons between Douglass and most post-King/Malcom X
Civil Rights leaders are.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:27PM|#
BB
Since all of the freedmen were black and none of them were white,
I'm not sure where you're going with that...
|7.6.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"MNG | July 6, 2009, 1:11pm | #
Terrible analogy as I noted.
The Freedman's Bureau was a domestic program that, while carried
out in the midst of white Americans in need explicitly served only
black Americans"
I was simply going right here.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Did we establish that Art? My argument is that whatever Douglass
said he had no problem supporting a massive governmental effort to
help black people.
Massive-check, it was a huge undertaking (again I refer folks to
Ch. 2 of DuBois Souls of Black Folks for a good description, but
Eric Foner has better academic explorations)
Government program-check, though it was intertwined with private
charities the use of tax dollars, government employees and that
godawful government coercion was present
Help black people-all of the freedmen were of course black
people
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:31PM|#
BB
In the midst of starving people I imagine that FB employees might
have handed out food to white folks too. But obviously this was
outside of the purposes, goals and usual practice of the
organization.
|7.6.09 @ 1:32PM|#
mng, you argued that the freedmen's bureau served only blacks
and I presented historical data that proved that statement to be
incorrect.
As I stated above, it was set up to aid freedmen AND refugees from
the war. It does not state a color preferance.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:32PM|#
It certainly wasn't the "Ex-Confederate Citizens Aid Bureau," though those people were hurting like crazy after the war (and many of them were refugees in the truest sense)
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:35PM|#
BB
Many of the freedmen (literally freed slaves) were also refugees.
The goal, purpose and practice of the FB was not concerned with
aiding ex-confederate citizen refugees. The idea for the bill came
about when Union forces had to kind of just "take control" over
massive numbers of "freedmen refugees" who just came to them for
help. Again, see Dubois and Foner on this.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 1:35PM|#
I just want to interject again: MNG is using sparse historical data to call "bullshit" on an article that he didn't read until I called him on it. You guys are officially wasting your time arguing with him.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Ok... I've read through all these comments... Sorry to come late
to the party, (blame my West Coast time-zone and all...) but MNG,
you are being startlingly dishonest.
First off, there is no comparison to be made
what-so-ever in the Freedman's Bureau and modern programs like
Affirmative Action, etc.
They are fundamentally different at a root level not only in their
treatment of race but in their overall aims. The primary mistake
you seem to be making is the same one as not recognizing the
difference between force used defensively and offensively.
The
"Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands" is "race
conscious", sure... because the whole slavery thing was
race-conscious... Duh.
TAO made the right point, if you were to compare that program to
any other refugee assistance program, say helping the recently
released victims of concentration camps post WWII, then you'd be
making an accurate analogy - but you're not. You're comparing a
Reconstruction era program designed to help a large group of people
who had just attained freedom, and as such, refugee-status with
getting on their feet. Refugees who, it's also important to note,
were made so by the government.
There's plenty of apt historical parallels and I doubt many
libertarians would oppose governments making restitution for their
own crimes - in fact... we tend to support that kind of thing
pretty strongly. What we don't support is the idea of a
race-oriented welfare state that gives special benefits to
people based on the color of their skin.
Helping refugees (regardless of race)/making restitution for
injustice ≠ Preferential treatment for non-victims based solely on
race
ANYWAY... The question you need to be asking yourself is not
whether Douglass supported the Freedmen's Bureau, but whether or
not he'd have supported a similar program for any human being in a
similar circumstance. I think it's clear that he would...
Extrapolating; it's not at all about race, but about what actions
were taken against a group of people by government, and what they
needed to do to clean up the mess. There is simply no comparison
between helping refugees and recently freed slaves and the current
welfare state.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Is it your contention that the Freedman's Bureau was set up to address, and in practice ordinarily attended to, both the needs of white ex-Confederate citizens (or for that matter white Northern citizens) and the needs of black freedmen and refugees?
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:39PM|#
"designed to help a large group of people who had just attained
freedom"
All of whom were black and none of whom were white.
Of course Sean while the refugee problem precipitated the forming
of the FB it was not just for helping refugees, now was it? SO
maybe that's why I don't think the only analogy is a refugee
assistance program...
|7.6.09 @ 1:39PM|#
MNG, did you state that the freedmen's bureau did not aid
whites?
Did I provide proof that it did, in fact, aid whites?
You can argue till you are blue in the face about its intent, but
the fact is that it did aid whites.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:40PM|#
"whether or not he'd have supported a similar program for any
human being in a similar circumstance"
But there were. Most white ex-Confederate citizens and some
Northern whites were devastated by the war, and many were refugees.
But they were not the focus of the FB. It was not "for" them.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 1:42PM|#
MNG,
Earlier you asked how you were being cynical and now you ask how
you are being pedantic. I'd think both of these statements would be
self-evident, but maybe this is just your rhetorical style. I will
make a note to check out, or re-check DuBois' and Foner's
literature on The Freedmen's Bureau.
I'll give you credit for knowing some background on the subject,
but I still say that you're refusing to acknowledge some
differences in historical context. You almost seem to be evaluating
Frederick Douglass anachronistically rather than just putting his
words in a more modern context.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 1:43PM|#
let's say that in Alternate Universe Land, Frederick Douglass is
black, and all slaves are green-skinned with diamonds on their
foreheads.
Would Douglass support the Freedman's Bureau if it aided recently
released Diamondheads? uhh, yes, which demonstrates that it's not
about race and that the FB was not about race, it was about
assisting slaves.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 1:47PM|#
SO maybe that's why I don't think the only analogy is a refugee assistance program...
The slaves were deliberately kept illiterate and their family structures were in many instances completely broken. You're damn right slaves deserved attention many of the (yes, still-devastated) white southerners didn't. Sheesh, MNG.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Art
Here is why I don't understand.
I readily acknowedge the differences between what the Freedman's
Bureau was trying to address and what, say, the New Haven City
Council was trying to address. I more than acknowledge it, I AGREE
about it. You see, as I noted, I'm opposed to pretty much every
current "race consciouss" program" I've heard of. But I would have
supported the Freedman's Bureau (heck, even TAO said he would,
which is kind of like Lenin saying he would support this or that
aspect of capitalist banking). Why? Because I think the need so
much greater at that time.
So I, and you, would find that current conditions don't warrant any
race conscsiouss programs but conditions in 1863 sure did. My point
is that Douglass, for all of his "color blind" and "self-reliance"
rhetoric, surely did not fail to support, just as we would have
supported, a government program designed to assist black people in
their plight.
You and I don't advocate current race based programs because we
don't see "their plight" today as being as bad as "their plight"
was then.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 1:51PM|#
heck, even TAO said he would, which is kind of like Lenin saying he would support this or that aspect of capitalist banking
Read Sean Malone's posts for the actual reasons why, and then die
in a fire.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 1:53PM|#
But TAO, as I said numerous times already, noone advocates
helping blacks for shits or giggles.
If Obama were purple, and there were a group of green people who
had higher rates of poverty, unemployment, etc., he would support
programs to assist JUST those green people. Now let's make them
purple too. He still would I'm sure. Why? Not because they were
green or purple, but because of the percieved need.
Now, I know, you don't see the need today as being as great as the
need in 1860. Duh, I agree! But that's not the point. The point is
that Douglass and Obama, despite both of their oft-color-blind
rhetoric could get behind programs that, in their opinion, help a
particular race with their problems.
And SOOOOO, the article, which presumes to guess how Douglass would
feel about current programs based on quoting some of his color
blind rhetoric is weakly argued.
Or in another word, bullshit!
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 1:56PM|#
OKK.... MNG.
There were plenty of Reconstruction programs to help
"whites", and I'm sure Douglass supported quite a number of them as
well. You're setting up the most ridiculous straw-man I've ever
seen you invent, in order to turn Fredrick Douglass into some kind
of Farrakhan style race-baiter.
This makes no sense, and you are still fundamentally confused
because you're conflating what is essentially a necessary
correction to injustice with programs that are new
injustices!
Freedom is not slavery, hate is
not love and words and ideas mean things
you dipshit.
If someone attacks you, beats you up, imprisons you, forces you to
work for 10 years because of your race - then after 10 years those
same people are made to pay you restitution and help you get your
life back together... Well, yes the restitution is going
to have something to do with your race, but only in-so-far as your
imprisonment had to do with that. The restitution actually
rests on the actions that were done to you.
And my point was that Douglass clearly would have
supported similar Reconstruction-era help to any group of people
similarly treated - NOT because of their race, but because of their
treatment.
That you can't see the difference is shockingly stupid.
So what if some programs during the reconstruction were just for
blacks - it was just the blacks who were slaves... So... uhh....
AGAIN: Duh. That's hardly a compelling argument that therefore
Fredrick Douglass would support racist special benefits today, or
that he was a civil-war era Jesse Jackson.
Add to that that brotherben quickly and easily demolished
your claim that the Freedmen's Bureau was exclusively for blacks,
then you just look like a retard.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:01PM|#
"in order to turn Fredrick Douglass into some kind of Farrakhan
style race-baiter."
WTF? Er, no...But my favorite thing about your post is this
schizophrenic debate you're having with yourself:
"There were plenty of Reconstruction programs to help
"whites",
"Add to that that brotherben quickly and easily demolished your
claim that the Freedmen's Bureau was exclusively for blacks"
"So what if some programs during the reconstruction were just for
blacks - it was just the blacks who were slaves... So... uhh....
AGAIN: Duh."
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:01PM|#
And lest we forget, Sean, MNG's 180 degree turn in this debate, where he has gone from "Douglass would never make a Colbert like remark about race!" to Uhh, he didn't really mean that, because "Of course pretty much every black leader also is willing to support programs and attempts to go a full 180 and specifically promote the interests of their race" i.e. Douglass didn't really mean to say he was race-neutral.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:02PM|#
So they were all about helping just blacks because, DUH!, the
slaves were blacks. But they were for helping out white people
too.
Or something.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 2:02PM|#
And SOOOOO, the article, which presumes to guess how Douglass would feel about current programs based on quoting some of his color blind rhetoric is weakly argued.
Or in another word, bullshit!
Actually, MNG, your argument is way weaker than the article.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:04PM|#
And thus... NO, you moron, there were not "whites" in a
similar circumstance at the time!
Are you seriously just that dumb or are you being dishonest. I
can't tell anymore... The "similar circumstance" was enslaved, and
now freed people - not simply people who's homes
had been destroyed. Those people had other programs during
reconstruction to help them... But when you name something the
"Freedmen's Bureau", one might reasonably expect it to help... you
know... freed slaves, specifically.
That they were all black, while being culturally significant, is
pretty damn irrelevant to the desirability of a program like
that.
If we allowed say, 50,000 Sudanese refugees to come to the US
en masse, one might favor a special government program to
handle that assimilation. Gosh, they'd mostly be black, would that
also be a racist program? What if Russia had actually taken over
Georgia last year and we got a bunch of Georgian refugees... they'd
be "white", would that be a racial problem?
You're conflating things at the most absurd level I've ever seen
and for what purpose, I have yet to determine.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:07PM|#
The purpose, Sean, is the following: If it turns out that, god
forbid, libertarians or conservatives get a black spokesperson,
well, that would just threaten the liberal strangehold on that
community, and it would (and this is a SORT OF legitimate point)
give libertarians the "black friend" (which is why MNG said that
phrase three times in this thread), which might legitimize what he
perceives to be our "racism".
There are a lot of assumptions and strawmen that you have to follow
to get there, but if "Frederick Douglass = libertarian, then
anti-AA libertarians now are somehow legitimate"
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:08PM|#
I don't have a time machine (yet), so we can never go back and
get old Fred and bring him into out time to see what he thinks of
various programs.
My point is that you have this article which claims he would be
against all these programs because he used colorblind and black
self-reliance rhetoric. As I pointed out, that is an incredibly
weak argument because:
1. Pretty much ever mainstream major black figure in our history
used or uses colorblind and black self-reliance rhetoric and most
of them ALSO supported most modern civil rights programs.
2. Frederick Douglass himself supported a big government program
that had as its goal and purpose to alleviate the problems of black
people
I'm not sure what's controversial about all of this. Was the FB not
a big govenment program? Did it not aim to help alleviate the
suffering of black people in particular? Did not MLK, DuBois,
Obama, etc use color blind and black self-reliance rhetoric while
supporting all of these programs?
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:10PM|#
If you go back and read what I wrote (I know reading
comprehension is tough for you MNG, but try hard on this one), then
you'll notice that there was no contradiction.
Hypothetically: "So what if some programs during the
reconstruction were just for blacks - it was just the blacks who
were slaves... So... uhh.... AGAIN: Duh."
Factually: ""Add to that that brotherben quickly and easily
demolished your claim that the Freedmen's Bureau was exclusively
for blacks"
(Nice way to re-organize the order of those quotes, btw, but no...
still fail)
The point, in case you missed it is that hypothetically
speaking there's nothing wrong with programs "only for blacks"
when it was just blacks who were victims. However,
factually speaking your specific example was bullshit
anyway.
Thus you're wrong in two distinct ways -
1. That a refugee/freedmen's aid program is the same thing as
modern affirmative action or welfare programs (again, one is based
on making reparations for a crime committed against one group
who happened to be the same race and the other is
specifically a racist program designed to give preferential
treatment based on race.)
and
2. That the refugee-aid program you specifically cite was by
itself, racist.
FAIL, FAIL, FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:11PM|#
2. Frederick Douglass himself supported a big government program that had as its goal and purpose to alleviate the problems of
black peoplefreed slaves
FTFY.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"2. Frederick Douglass himself supported a big government
program that had as its goal and purpose to alleviate the problems
of black people recently freed slaves"
FTFY
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:14PM|#
I surely see it differntly TAO. Right leaning libertarians such
as yourself hold positions which most blacks currently, and most
black spokespersons throughout history historically, hold to be
detrimental to black well being (at best, and racist at
worst).
Nobody wants to think they hold such positions, everyone wants to
think they are "really the friends" of this and that minority. And
it helps if you can find blacks who will tell you that, despite the
fact that most blacks think your views are crazy and hurtful, that
you really do have views that would be helpful to the black
community. Since you're kind ain't going to get many blacks to say
that you start looking for some Famous Black Champion who REALLY
actually agreed with you. This is why conservatives rarely fail to
cite MLK on colorblindness.
Of course it's all nonsense. Blacks as a group massively reject
conservative and libertarian views for a good reason; they know
that such arguments would be harmful to their interests. And so
finding a Famous Black Champion that agrees with that view is, yes,
going to take some dishonesty and some bullshit arguing like we
found in that article.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Let Sean Malone answer Sean Malone:
""2. Frederick Douglass himself supported a big government program
that had as its goal and purpose to alleviate the problems of black
people recently freed slaves"
FTFY"
"some programs during the reconstruction were just for blacks - it
was just the blacks who were slaves... So... uhh.... AGAIN:
Duh"
|7.6.09 @ 2:18PM|#
God, I hate to bring this up. IIRC the black liberation theology the rev Wright's church was based upon was all about hard work, self relience and personal responsibility in the black community. Very libertarian in many respects.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:19PM|#
Sean - nice cross post. We're going to have to archive this one
for posterity.
And Sean, you can now see that yes, MNG is worried that if there is
a black libertarian out there, that will legitimize our criticisms
of things like Affirmative Action and ergo destroy the interests of
blacks.
So, MNG has to tear down Frederick Douglass because he's ascared of
black libertarians like Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell
and Janice Rogers Brown. It's the reason why white liberals and
black racebaiters call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom: because they
all perceive the welfare state as the only way blacks can get
ahead, and those five I just listed have the audacity to break with
the racist and ridiculous CBC and its obsequious hangers-on.
Like I said, MNG, die in a fire.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Douglass supported a program that would help the victims of slavery, who were also all black people, just like MLK supported affirmative action programs to help the victims of Jim Crow, who were also all black people.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:21PM|#
I don't know who else I'm speaking for, but I've never considered it a virtue to be a "friend to a minority". I'm a friend to liberty, rational thought and prosperity. Those things have a solid historical track-record of being great for everyone. Race really doesn't enter into the equation... I doubt very much that Williams or Sowell see themselves any differently. Ideas are ideas, people are people, and it's the individual character of each which determines value. That most "blacks" believe that dumbass economic policy is helpful to them, is no different than that most people on the planet believe in really ridiculously irrational policy that bites them in the ass over & over. I.e. not as surprise
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Where in the world are you people getting the idea that I am tearing down Douglass? As I said upthread I don't think he is being a hypocrite in using color blind and self reliance rhetoric and then supporting government assistance to his people. YOU GUYS would think he were a hypocrite if this dawned upon you, but then you guys have some quirky ideas about race...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:23PM|#
the only thing I want from MNG now is for him to officially state that he was wrong when he said that Frederick Douglass would never assert "human race is the only race" as a proposition. He said it, MNG, and you were wrong, so own up.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:23PM|#
we have "quirky" ideas about race like "race doesn't mean anything" and "content of character" kinda stuff. We're so damn quirky!
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:24PM|#
"I'm a friend to liberty, rational thought and
prosperity."
Wow, that is so sanctimonious its almost hilarious.
"It's the reason why white liberals and black racebaiters call
Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom:"
Maybe they call them that because, like most other black people,
they find the policies they advocate to be harmful to blacks? Oh,
that's right, 95% of blacks are just crazy and don't know what's
really good for them...You do.
|7.6.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Are you arguing that Douglass, as evidenced by his support for the freedmen's bureau, couldn't possibly have had any libertarian tendencies? Is that why you called bullshit on the article way up top?
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:27PM|#
"the only thing I want from MNG now is for him to officially
state that he was wrong when he said that Frederick Douglass would
never assert "human race is the only race" as a proposition. He
said it, MNG, and you were wrong, so own up."
Let's go to the tape for this, shall we TAO?
MNG | July 6, 2009, 10:47am | #
"I imagine Douglass would be delighted that this nation has an
African-American President, Supreme Court Justice, etc., and that
only about 22% of African-Americans live in poverty, and that they
live and work side by side with whites. And I think he'd realize
that government iniatives had a lot to do with all of
that..."
Hmm, I don't think I said that Douglass would never say something
like that...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Blacks as a group massively reject conservative and libertarian views for a good reason; they know that such arguments would be harmful to their interests.
MNG, IMHO, groupthink and short-sighted self-interest are two of
the grimmest realities of the American political process and
possibly of democracy itself.
Also, by presenting views along demographic lines you,
intentionally or not, marginalize countervailing or contrary
opinions.
And guess, what? Black people are like everyone else in that, among
black people like among the general public, large swaths of
voters are fucking drones.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:29PM|#
No, this is how this conversation went:
MNG | July 6, 2009, 11:08am
You really think, given his life, that he would nobly shake his
head and a la Stephen Colbert say "Bah, I don't see race, that
matters not to me!"
And then…
"I conceive that there is no division of races. God Almighty made
but one race...You may say that Frederick Douglass considers
himself a member of the one race that exists." Frederick
Douglass.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Wow MNG... You are really desperate to turn what I said into a
contradiction aren't you?
I guess it'd be funny... Nah, strike that, it is
funny.
There's probably no point, but the fact that all the freed people
were black is incidental to the point that the correction was
designed to help "freed people", and not "black people". Given the
history, that they were black is... again, a given. Thus:
"Duh".
You're still missing the point though, somehow. There's no
contradiction to say that, "because all the freed slaves were
black, seeing some programs support only blacks is not surprising"
and that "the programs were about helping freed people
because they'd been enslaved, not because they were
black."...
That is, unless your warped sense of cause & effect has you
thinking that they were now free because they were
black..... as opposed to, you know, because the state finally
recognized them as people and decided differences of race
shouldn't allow some people to own other people.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:30PM|#
BB
I called bullshit on the idea that we can deduce that Douglass
would frown on the modern civil rights apparatus/mindset by showing
some of his quotes using color-blind rhetoric, and that you could
deduce that he would condemn current government programs to blacks
based on pointing to self-reliance rhetoric he used.
My argument is that such rhetoric can't establish how he would fee
about these programs because many black leaders both use such
rhetoric and support such programs/mindsets.
And that he, in his lifetime, supported a big government program
which had as its goal to assist his people also makes the article's
claims even more tenuous.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Maybe they call them that because, like most other black people, they find the policies they advocate to be harmful to blacks? Oh, that's right, 95% of blacks are just crazy and don't know what's really good for them...You do.
you are just as ignorantly collectivist as the Southerners you
routinely slam. you're the other side of the redneck coin: a
redneck with a degree, hellbent on a crusade to stereotype
people.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Maybe they call them that because, like most other black people, they find the policies they advocate to be harmful to blacks? Oh, that's right, 95% of blacks are just crazy and don't know what's really good for them...You do.
Appeals to popularity will get you nowhere. Doesn't Nickelback sell a lot of records and didn't Friends get really good ratings?
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:33PM|#
But Sean, for the MILLIONTH time: no one supports programs to help blacks simply because the people are black! Douglass supported a program to help blacks because it was blacks that were the victims of slavery; MLK supported affirmative action for blacks because it was blacks who were the victims of Jim Crow; Obama supports programs to help blacks because he feels they still suffer from the effects of Jim Crow; etc., etc.,
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Truth hurts, eh TAO?
If only those 95% of black people weren't so crazy and could see
what a friend folks with your views are to them...
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:35PM|#
Also... Being perceived as sanctimonious is, in my view, a far
cry better than being an idiot. And a lot better than an
idiot who is perpetually on the wrong side of history.
So no worries MNG... call me any derivation of that word you
want.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:35PM|#
But, let's get it specifically, point by point.
Yes or no, Obama, MLK, and other black leaders BOTH use color-blind
language AND support(ed) programs to help blacks.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:36PM|#
go ahead, MNG, call any black libertarian an Uncle Tom. you seem to think that's justified. Go on, do it.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 2:36PM|#
YOU GUYS would think he were a hypocrite if this dawned upon you, but then you guys have some quirky ideas about race...
I really don't think most people know much about libertarianism,
to tell you the truth. I told my sister last year that even though
I'm a registered independent, I lean libertarian, and she says (and
she's a pretty smart person...Master's degree, all that jazz),
"libertarians, aren't those those guys who are racist?"
I don't think most people are that politically savvy, MNG. I'm not
even politically savvy.
Also, Malone made the point at 2:21, people will buy shit.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:39PM|#
""libertarians, aren't those those guys who are racist?""
I think people that have that view are not so minsinformed
Art...Racists are attracted to libertarianism. Like I'v long said,
some libertarians are libertarians because they think government
programs hurt blacks, and some are because they think government
programs help blacks.
And those who are certainly not racist hold views that most blacks
rightly find harmful to blacks, which wouldn't be much better I
would guess...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Obama supports programs to help blacks because he feels they still suffer from the effects of Jim Crow; etc., etc.,
Hold on, friendo. How do you know Obama doesn't support those programs because they're politically expedient? Because it sure pushes the bounds of plausibility that he thinks these gov't programs can have an effect on the (psychological?) vestiges of Jim Crow. But, hey, MNG, I'm sure that (5%?) that go against the popular beliefs that a Negroe should have™ are the "insane" ones, and all the other 95%(?) reached their political views through a careful and principled evaluation of all the political options available. While I'm pretty sure many liberals have, I don't think that statistic means much other than that the Dems have done a good job pandering to black Americans.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Look, I'll help you guys.
Douglass said some things about colorblindness and self reliance
over government assistance. But so did MLK, DuBois, Obama, etc.,
and we all agree they supported non-colorblind programs and
government assistance programs. So my point that you cannot
conclude, from that rhetoric, that Douglass would hate on those
programs is pretty unassailable.
And to make it stronger, the man did support a program that was a
big government assistance program. One that helped blacks.
Like I said, feel free to argue that the FB did not invovle
government assistance. Or that MLK, DuBois and Obama did not use
color-blind rhetoric while supporting non-colorblind programs. Try
your best.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:44PM|#
we'll try to help you: the FB was only incidentally about race, not race-focused.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:45PM|#
"programs to help black people" are not ALL THE SAME
FUCKING THING!
Your intellectual failure here is the same everytime MNG! You keep
conflating things into groups that are fundamentally different. You
also use bullshit terms when you do it which many of us here would
object to from the start. The Freedmen's Bureau wasn't designed to
"help black people", but to correct for injustices done
against recently freed people. THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE. Learn it. Understand it.
I also reject the notion that most programs with the expressed
intention of helping this or that race remotely succeed in
those aims. I think I've told you before to read the State Against
the Blacks, and I'm quite sure you still haven't.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:47PM|#
I haven't called anyone, Clarence Thomas or Art an uncle tom.
You said "this is why liberals hate black libertarians and
conservatives so much and why they call them uncle tom." And I said
"maybe they call them uncle tom because they advocate policy which
95% of blacks see as harmful to blacks."
Sure, Walter Williams might be right, or Art, and 95% of blacks
wrong, on the issue of what is best for black people. But myself, I
find those numbers telling of something...And to be honest, I think
folks like TAO do too...And it makes them mad, and insecure, so
they engage in this kind of labored revisionism to find Famous
Black People who really, really agreed with them...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Sean, why would MNG need to read that? you can see that Walter Williams, according to MNG, holds views that would harm blacks, and is therefore an Uncle Tom, or a racist. I'm not sure which just yet. But MNG's religion will tell us shortly, I am sure.
Mi coño apesta|7.6.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"I will make a note to check out, or re-check DuBois' and
Foner's literature on The Freedmen's Bureau."
The Souls of Black Folk:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DubSoul.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:48PM|#
TAO
I've noticed you pedaled away from the "caught you" stuff. You're
going to wear the tread out on your tires from all the pedaling in
this thread...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:48PM|#
You said "this is why liberals hate black libertarians and conservatives so much and why they call them uncle tom." And I said "maybe they call them uncle tom because they advocate policy which 95% of blacks see as harmful to blacks."
And you're certainly not sad about those epithets or
anything.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:50PM|#
"The Freedmen's Bureau wasn't designed to "help black people",
but to correct for injustices done against recently freed
people."
And affirmative action programs as supported by MLK weren't
desigend to "help black people" but to correct for injustices done
against people under segregation.
Those people happened to be black btw.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:50PM|#
no, MNG, I still "caught you". You said that Douglass would never make a Colbert-esque "Race doesn't matter", Colorblind-based statement, and he, in fact, did. You then changed it to "well, a lot of black leaders said stuff like that, and then acted differently." But the statement that Douglass said, which you said he would never say, remains said, and you have yet to admit you were wrong.
Mi coño apesta|7.6.09 @ 2:50PM|#
"
You and I don't advocate current race based programs because we
don't see "their plight" today as being as bad as "their plight"
was then."
Today, they are slaves of their own making.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:51PM|#
"Walter Williams, according to MNG, holds views that would harm
blacks"
Well, and according to about 95% of blacks. That's more pertinent I
should think.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Over and over on these boards MNG, you fail to make crucial
distinctions and subsequently fail to understand what you're
talking about in any meaningful way.
Freedmen's Bureau ≠ AA ≠ EOE ≠ etc. etc.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:52PM|#
OK TAO, it's been a half hour since you made that charge, so reproduce my post saying that.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Let's be clear on this, right.
Have black leaders not used color-blind rhetoric, and urged black
self-reliance, while at the same time supporting government
programs to assist blacks? Yes they have, or no they haven't?
TAO? Mr. Malone?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:53PM|#
you said, at 11:08:
You really think, given his life, that he would nobly shake his head and a la Stephen Colbert say "Bah, I don't see race, that matters not to me!
And I provided this:
"I conceive that there is no division of races. God Almighty made but one race"
- Frederick Douglass -
|7.6.09 @ 2:54PM|#
MNG | July 6, 2009, 11:08am | #
Also, given even common knowledge of Douglass, can anyone here
maintain with a straight face that he would not be pleased as punch
to see that African-Americans had come so far as to be Presidents
and Supreme Court Justices? You really think, given his life, that
he would nobly shake his head and a la Stephen Colbert say "Bah, I
don't see race, that matters not to me!" Jesus Christ, TAO, try
planet Earth for a little while...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 2:54PM|#
...Racists are attracted to libertarianism.
Even if this is true, that doesn't mean there's any veracity to
the opposite. Meaning: libertarians are *not* (for the most part)
attracted to racism.
And those who are certainly not racist hold views that most blacks rightly find harmful to blacks, which wouldn't be much better I would guess...
Yes, but these views are not ipso facto harmful to blacks so how much credence do you lend the popular opinion?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:54PM|#
MNG, no more. all you've done is rampantly conflate things that are not the same. your simplistic "yes or no? huh...HUH???! J'accuse!" schtick is simultaneously vapid and ignoring the point. oh well, so much the worse for you.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:55PM|#
And so the mere fact that black leader Douglass used such rhetoric is probably not very conclusive on how he would feel about government programs to assist blacks, yes or no?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 2:56PM|#
yes, it's conclusive, because the Freedmen's Bureau is not the simplistic program you're making it out to be. Discussion over.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Yes, were Douglass to be transported to our time and see
Clarence Thomas and Barak Obama, I think it's absurd to think he
would say "Bah, I don't see race, that matters not to me!"
But duh to the fact that he would use color-blind rhetoric (which
was TAO's immediate retort), as I've demonstrated MLK, Obama,
DuBois, etc., did too, but I'm guessing I know how they would feel
to see a black justice or prez...
|7.6.09 @ 2:58PM|#
I've been ignorant before, why stop now. That being said, I see a huge difference between Douglass supporting a govt program that gives a man 40 acres with the ability to buy it in 3 years, and education for illiterates, and MLK and Obama supporting a govt program that keeps the poor subject to the govt. One offers true freedom, the other, not so much.
Slave to Ghetto Culture|7.6.09 @ 2:59PM|#
"we have "quirky" ideas about race like "race doesn't mean
anything" and "content of character" kinda stuff. We're so damn
quirky!"
What's REALLY quirky is that we are both repeatedly told that we're
all the same and forced to celebrate "cultural diversity".
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:00PM|#
TAO
You're not very bright today.
I wasn't even mentioning the FB. I was going with my first
argument, that such language could hardly be conclusive considering
the number of black leaders who use similar language while
supporting government assistance to blacks.
But I understand you know when you're licked...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 3:01PM|#
like I said, that hinges on you equating a refugee program with
affirmative action, which we have repeatedly demonstrated is a
dishonest and intentionally superficial analysis.
Poor baby.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:02PM|#
BB
I think you stepped into it now.
In fact, a program which expropriates 40 acres and the equivalent
of a tractor and gives it to every poor black man is of a factor
much greater than the kind of things Obama supports to help
blacks!
Can you imagine if Obama suggested land redistribution for
blacks?
Of course, aside from that Obama clearly doesn't see the programs
he supports as keeping the poor subject to the government.
Slave to Ghetto Culture|7.6.09 @ 3:04PM|#
"Obama supports programs to help blacks because he feels they
still suffer from the effects of Jim Crow; etc., etc.,"
[citation needed]
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:05PM|#
TAO
Can you not read?
Let me see if you can acknowledge the following black marks:
You
Can't
Conclude
From His Color-blind
And Self-Reliance
Rhetoric
Douglass' Opposition
to government assistance
Considering how many
Black leaders
supported such
Programs while
Using such Rhetoric
There, can you get that? Nothing about the Freedman's Bureau, I've
already spanked you on that. I'm just talking about the argument
above.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Well, and according to about 95% of blacks. That's more pertinent I should think.
Nickelback sells more albums than Devin Townsend. Soula Boy Tell 'Em is more famous than Busdriver.
Have black leaders not used color-blind rhetoric, and urged black self-reliance, while at the same time supporting government programs to assist blacks? Yes they have, or no they haven't?
Point?
The funny thing is to be called an Uncle Tom for not falling into
lockstep with what's popular or to Adopt the Views That an
African-American should have™. If the thought of it doesn't bother
you, MNG, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:07PM|#
"Point?"
See my last post.
As I've said before, my initial conclusion that the article is
bullshit can rest comfortably on just the argument from my last
post. Douglass' support of the FB was just the cherry on an already
scrumptious sundae of an argument...
Slave to Ghetto Culture|7.6.09 @ 3:08PM|#
"And affirmative action programs as supported by MLK weren't
desigend to "help black people" but to correct for injustices done
against people under segregation.
Those people happened to be black btw."
And today this includes Hispanics, women and Pacific islanders, but
for some reason not the Asians.
|7.6.09 @ 3:09PM|#
You
Can't
Conclude
From His Color-blind
And Self-Reliance
Rhetoric
Douglass' Opposition
to government assistance
Considering how many
Black leaders
supported such
Programs while
Using such Rhetoric
or: They all look the same to me.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:09PM|#
MNG,
It's telling that you can't take Douglass at his word, and that you
insist on lumping him in with mainstream black leaders from more
recent times.
It's almost...nahhhh
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 3:10PM|#
That 95% of black people support minimum wage laws doesn't make
minimum wage laws any more a contributor to a higher rate of
unemployment among blacks. It's actually pretty easy to understand,
and ironic to some degree, but the fact that originally the
prominent supporters of
The popularity of the idea has dick-all to do with their results,
and an awful lot to do with simplistic rhetoric pimped day in and
day out by the political class. Same deal with how Obama's lovely
stimulus isn't all that stimulating, and how it's virtually
indistinguishable from the various attempts Bush made, but with
Obama, it's all good, wise, benevolent and very very cool, and with
Bush it was dumb, evil and square.
There is a reason classical logic has the argumentum
ad populum fallacy prominently featured as a bad
thing.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:10PM|#
BB
You're right. And so am I, see?
Douglass and MLK and Obama supported programs to help blacks in
need. The need being more pronounced in Douglass' time, he sought a
bigger amoung of help. And so with Obama, the need being obviously
less, he seeks smaller help.
But they all are looking to help blacks in need through government
assistance.
Which makes the supposition that Douglass would be opposed to
government assistance to blacks, based solely on some rhetoric he
used, all the sillier, eh?
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 3:13PM|#
It's telling that you can't take Douglass at his word, and that you insist on lumping him in with mainstream black leaders from more recent times.
It's almost...nahhhh
Oh yes, Art, that's exactly what it is.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:14PM|#
It has nothing to do with lumping Art.
Say you found a historical liberal who talked pacifist talk, and
from that you conclude that he would oppose all wars.
And then say you found out that historically many liberals would
talk pacifistic talk while also supporting some wars.
Then how stupid would you be to still think that the first
liberal's pacificistic talk means you can conclude he opposed war,
even the wars of today?
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Still waiting on ya TAO.
If MLK, Obama, DuBois, etc., could use color blind and self
reliance rhetoric while supporting government assistance programs
for blacks, then how can you conclude from Douglass' similar
rhetoric that he must oppose such programs?
Is he special in your eyes? Surely you can give a reason.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:17PM|#
I mean, given that it's fairly common for a black leader to use that kind of rhetoric while still supporting government assistance programs it seems, well, a bit retarded to think that black leader Douglass must have been against such programs because he used such rhetoric...
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 3:20PM|#
If MLK, Obama, DuBois, etc., could use color blind and self reliance rhetoric while supporting government assistance programs for blacks, then how can you conclude from Douglass' similar rhetoric that he must oppose such programs?
Because, unlike you, I don't think all black people are the
same.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Hey TAO, I've got to go read some comics now (Marvel 1602
Fantastik Four sequel), so you can come out now and try to refute
my argument (let me help, not the FB based argument, the rhetoric
one).
Everyone else: about the popularity argument, perhaps 95% of blacks
have it wrong about what is good for blacks, and Walter Williams et
al., have it right. But, to borrow a very libertarian idea, that
people know their own interests better than other parties do, I
know which way I'm betting ;)
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Oh, he tried. I have to reply:
OK TAO, but like I said, what makes him special?
His sparkling eyes?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:23PM|#
That's too small a sample size, MNG. And even if that pattern you're talking about is the standard, some people would still run counter to it. So obviously, the take in this article is every bit as valid as yours.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 3:23PM|#
the rhetoric speaks for itself. care to refute it without saying that all black leaders are the same?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:25PM|#
their own interests
Kind of crumbles when one involves collectivism, doesn't it?
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:25PM|#
How do YOU, or more importantly the author of the NRO article,
know that Douglass wasn't just doing what MLK or Dubois did? I
mean, all you have is his rhetoric. I mean, we have that for MLK
and DuBois too, and it seems to indicate zippo there.
So, why so special?
Whey the need to BELEIVE he was different and on your side? I think
I know why...
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 3:25PM|#
I like that MNG keeps asserting that he's "winning", all
evidence to the contrary.
Not only does MNG seem to think all black people are the same, he
also strangely believes that one program "to help black people in
need" is identical to all others as well... Thus reconstruction era
restitution for crimes committed against specific people is, I must
conclude, the same as instituting a quota-system pushing marginally
qualified blacks into colleges or various employment schemes, or
mandating wages for descendant of those people 6 generations
later.
The Angry Optimist|7.6.09 @ 3:27PM|#
again, MNG, all you're doing is saying "there were some black
leaders who said this and did this, ergo, Douglass did the same
thing."
that's not proof, that's just being ignorant.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:28PM|#
I don't need to refute it. The article makes a claim based on
the rhetoric. I've shown amply that one can use such rhetoric while
supporting government assistance programs, so that's not a good
basis for any conclusion.
Hell, I even added to it by showing his actual support for a
government assistance program (let's ignore that it was a
race-specific one, it was a government assistance program, wasn't
it? One that makes our modern welfare seem a bit modest
actually)
Now the ball is in your court.
Slave to Ghetto Culture|7.6.09 @ 3:28PM|#
"But, to borrow a very libertarian idea, that people know their
own interests better than other parties do, I know which way I'm
betting ;)"
Not with generational brainwashing they don't.
Many, many blacks are trained to be victims and hate whites from
the moment of their birth.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:29PM|#
"The article makes a claim based on the rhetoric. I've shown amply that one can use such rhetoric while supporting government assistance programs, so that's not a good basis for any conclusion."
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:29PM|#
"The article makes a claim based on the rhetoric. I've shown amply that one can use such rhetoric while supporting government assistance programs, so that's not a good basis for any conclusion."
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:29PM|#
And MNG, you keep invoking DuBois and MLK as if they were the be-all and end-all of black Civil Rights leaders.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Had to post that a few times to increase chances you guys would
read it.
See, hanging the conclusion that he would oppose government
assistance programs on that rhetoric is a pretty thin reed. Sure,
maybe the rhetoric means that he would. But he surely would not
have to oppose such programs because he used that rhetoric. That
one can has already been established.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:31PM|#
MNG, your intellectual dishonesty re: the Freeman's Bureau is actually infuriating to me.
MNG|7.6.09 @ 3:32PM|#
No, no, Art, just as examples of how it is totally possible to use such rhetoric and still support government assistance programs. Since its totally possible, in fact empirically frequent, concluding Douglass would oppose them from the rhetoric alone is quite stupid...
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:33PM|#
MNG,
I already got that. I just didn't find it particularly
compelling.
Sean W. Malone|7.6.09 @ 3:33PM|#
There's no differentiation between Douglass and Jesse Jackson
and Obama and MLK as there is no differentiation between programs
designed to help people who mostly (or even entirely) happen to
be a certain race, and programs designed to help people with
race as a specific criterion.
No differentiation at all... everything is the same.
And now, for the magical link into MNG's other instances of being a
moron... Because everything is basically the same, regardless of
whether or not force is initiated or being used to protect others
or make restitution for other crimes, he would naturally see no
difference between the thief who acquires $1,000 from robbing a
house and the judge who takes that $1,000 back and returns it to
it's original owner. In both cases, the money was taken
"by force", right?
This applies to taxes too... There's no difference between an
individual voluntarily paying for say, schools or roads, and that
same money being taken by force to pay for such things. In both
cases, the money was used to build roads and schools, right?
The Freedmen's Bureau and AA both "help black people", right?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:37PM|#
The odd thing to me is that you state you largely oppose
racially-conscious entitlement programs, but then you defend the
popularity of the mainstream left (and its support of these
programs) with most black voters.
If it's OK for you to oppose these programs on principled grounds,
why is it not OK for people of different political persuasions to
question if not oppose social programs of the left (or the right
for that matter)?
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Actually,
the innominate one | July 6, 2009, 10:37am | #
He lampooned the problem with this line of thinking perfectly,
right off the bat.
Slave to Ghetto Culture|7.6.09 @ 3:41PM|#
U.S. Capitol is too white, say critics
By Reid Wilson
The staff on Capitol Hill is too white.
That's what a group of frustrated members, lobbyists and aides are
claiming as they press congressional leaders to adopt a version of
the so-called Rooney rule.
The rule, named after Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, has
been credited with significantly increasing the number of
African-American coaches in the National Football League.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/u.s.-capitol-is-too-white-say-critics-2009-06-25.html
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:42PM|#
And in fact, if libertarianism is so appealing to racists, why not solve that problem by flooding the party and its forums with minorities? :D
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:44PM|#
innominate one, that would make a good t-shirt or bumper sticker, actually.
Art-P.O.G.|7.6.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Another observation: not all the problems of the poor, or poor black people, are the problems of the middle class, or the black middle class.
Michael Ejercito|7.6.09 @ 9:33PM|#
It's so cute how Bean ends with the notion that the Republican Party should return to Douglass' principles, as if a modern political party were even capable of principle.
They can not return to where they have never been.
That's what a group of frustrated members, lobbyists and aides are claiming as they press congressional leaders to adopt a version of the so-called Rooney rule.
The rule, named after Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, has been credited with significantly increasing the number of African-American coaches in the National Football League.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/u.s.-capitol-is-too-white-say-critics-2009-06-25.html
Chiefs of staffs tend to be appointed from the inner circles of
elected officials.
In fact, a program which expropriates 40 acres and the equivalent of a tractor and gives it to every poor black man is of a factor much greater than the kind of things Obama supports to help blacks!
That particular program was for newly freed slaves.
zoltan|7.7.09 @ 10:37AM|#
This is like that one thread where everyone pwned Mad Max, except this time it's MNG.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245