Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Pre-Election Race Baiting

With the election just a few days away, it’s time to wake up the Democratic base, so the MSM (aka the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party) is busy putting out articles intended to do just that. Hence, in the past few days we’ve seen an amazing number of articles warning blacks that a return to slavery is basically just around the corner. This is vile race baiting at its MSM worst.
You Are All Racists
The AP is touting a poll they created which claims to find that 51% of Americans “now express explicit anti-black attitudes.” Explicit means openly expressed. In other words, 51% of Americans are openly racist. This compares to the good times back in 2008 when only 48% of us went around calling blacks names.

Does this make any sense to anyone? No. I challenge anyone to take a camera, hidden or otherwise, and go find even a hundred people who will make “explicit anti-black” statements. You won’t find those people.

This is liberal garbage designed to create an agenda. The agenda is to keep blacks from realizing that they are being mistreated by the Democratic Party by scaring them into believing that whites secretly hate them. It is designed to make the world see the US as a racist country, when it is not, because that builds pressure for more identity-group solutions like affirmation action. It is designed to let liberals believe in things they “know” are true, even though they can find no proof to support their beliefs, by letting liberals believe that the rest of us just hide our true natures from them... our true natures which suddenly appear in these academic studies.

It is also meant to explain Obama’s pending loss. Indeed, notice that the 2008 number and the 2012 number both reflect the percentage that will vote against Obama. Hence, Obama lost because people got more racist, not because they disagree with his policies or because they think he’s a retard who failed miserably at his job.

Unfortunately, stupid people will believe this even though this is obvious nonsense.
Silencing Black People!
Another “study” just came out claims that blacks feel less free despite Obama’s election. According to the “study,” only 45% of blacks now believe that the government will let them make a public speech – this is down from when Obama was first elected. This compares to the 67% of whites who feel they can make a public speech.

Uh... what?

Folks, lay off the crack. Honestly, this is so intensely stupid that I can’t believe these results are serious. Yes, I get that the fringe are worried that the moment they start speaking the “truth” about whatever conspiracy they believe, the CIA will hear it through the transmitters in their teeth and the federal agents stationed under their beds will come out and get them. But those morons are only 1-2% of the population. So who the hell are the rest of these people? I can’t find the underlying data of the poll, but frankly, this sounds like a wild distortion of poorly worded and vague questions, which resulted in confused data that has been spun to reach the result the “researchers” wanted.

In any event, the “study” authors claim that blacks felt more free when Obama was first elected because of the “empowerment effect,” i.e. “the boost that happens when a member of your group gets elected to an important political position.” And they now feel less free because of partisan politics. This is bunk, but it’s clear what the purpose is here. The purpose is to tell blacks and liberals that they need to get out to vote because they will be powerless to even speak their minds if they don’t keep “their group” in the White House. It is essentially an appeal to racial solidarity.
Enslaving The Black Man
Finally, there was a stunning article in the UK Guardian which adds to this mix. This article was stunning mainly because it was pure slander, but as with the others above, it serves a purpose. According to this article, segregation in the workplace is higher than it’s been at any point since Jim Crow. Black voter turnout is lower than it was when Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan and the idea that blacks turned out in historic numbers in the last election was a myth, and black turnout was overestimated by 13%. The black middle class has seen their income crash by 11% compared to whites only losing 5.2%. Black unemployment is double white unemployment at 14%. And blacks are now incarcerated at double the rate they were in the 1930s. The article doesn’t say precisely why any of this is, but it reeks with implications of racism.

This is garbage.

The reality is this. Black turnout was historic in 2008 and there is no proof at all that it was overstated. Black voter turnout was 10% in 1980 and it was 13% in 2008.

Secondly, employment segregation is the result of choices made by individuals. Blacks, like women, overwhelming work in government. That is why they were immune from the recession when it first hit but were hurt later on. White males lost their jobs first because they were in the private sector (remember feminists crowing about the “mancession” in 2008?), but they got new jobs as the recovery began. Meanwhile, women and blacks were immune from job cuts in 2008, but got hit when government budgets fell in 2009 (remember feminists whining about women being unfairly hurt by the recession in 2009?). Government always lags the private sector on job loss. This is also a prime reason why the black unemployment rate is higher and why black incomes fell more than white incomes. What this “study” has done is cherry pick time periods and then pretended this is some long term trend. It’s not.

Also, while we’re at it, black net worth has fallen more than whites in the past five years because blacks invest their savings in their homes rather than the market, which whites prefer. Home prices have recovered much more slowly than stock prices.

The other reason black unemployment is higher is the influx of Hispanics, who have taken jobs traditionally held by blacks and poor whites.

In terms of incarceration rates, the incarceration rate for whites also is double the rate of the 1930s. In other words, there is no racial difference in the change as the study implies.

So why imply racism? Simple. The purpose behind this article is to deceive a British/European population that I’ve found to be intensely ignorant of America, despite their belief that they know a lot about us. They are quite ready to believe the worst and then some. It is also intended to float its way back over here as a warning to blacks to suggest some sort of “war on blacks” and to make them think that the bad things they have endured under Obama’s mismanagement of the economy is the result of widespread racism rather than Obama’s policies.

Each of these articles/studies is despicable. And until people begin behaving responsibly and stop putting out this kind of propaganda, race relations in this country will never heal. You simply can’t get people to live together happily when supposedly responsible journalists, politicians, and academics keep telling one group that another is trying to enslave them because they hate them. This needs to stop.


DUQ said...

51% of Americans supposedly are openly racist? Huh?! Where are these people? I can point to maybe a couple of liberals who are racists, but that's like 1-2% of the people I know. What a load! Sadly, people will read that crap and believe it.

Thanks for pointing this stuff out Andrew, I'd missed it.

K said...

Clever these Yankees, voting for a black President to hide their overt racism.

The optimist in me said that electing Obama would lead to a reduction in racial pandering. I believe the Jessie Jackson wing of the Democrats thought so as well as they were not big Obama fans initially.

Unfortunately, my pessimistic estimate that there were too many people in this country whose income and well being depend on the existence of "racism" turned out to be correct. The only advantage now to electing Obama is that they have to resort to phoney baloney studies and notions of subconscious-crypto- hypno racism.

Anthony said...

I'm going to respond to the studies individually.

The 'slightly more Americans are racist' study indicated an increase in racism within the margin of error of the poll. My problem isn't with the purported increase (not a claim I agree with but I've read the notion that racial relations have worsened in many places including Commentarama) it was with the fact that the study maintained that 48% of Americans are racist. Below is the methodology of the AP poll and my problem with it.


The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly," ''hardworking," ''violent" and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.


As a group, blacks lead negative social indicators and lag in the positive ones. Expecting this to not color how people see a generic picture or a random stranger isn't realistic.

Everyone makes snap judgements about ohers based on their appearance (a component of which is race).

Provided those judgements don't impact how others are treated too much (if security assumes I am a criminal and wants to tail me or question me, fine, if they seek to bar my entrance or tackle me, that's a problem) I don't think they are problematic.

Most don't cling to such judgements as they get to know individuals so responses to random pictures isn't a great way to measure racism.

Anthony said...

The blacks feeling less free poll is interesting because it highlighted the divisions in the black community (though I suspect they mirror to one degree or another divisions within the nation).

According to the poll, the three main variables which dictated how blacks felt were level of education (the more educated felt more optimistic about their ability to impact the political system post Obama, after a brief uptick, the less educated resumed feeling politically unimportant), whether or not someone was born again (the born again feel more oppressed under Obama then they did before him) and conservatism (ditto).

Anyway, here is a website which links directly to the study so you can see it for yourself.


Comparing the findings
in Figures 1 and 2 seems to indicate that
the constraints on black political freedom
in 2008 were more cultural in nature (and
hence more stable) and were not speci½-
cally attributable to governmental institutions.


Two other significant predictors of perceived
freedom bear mentioning. Liberal
African Americans feel freer, as do those
who are not “born again.” Put differently,
levels of perceived political freedom are
lowest among blacks who identify as conservatives and who consider themselves
“born again.”

Tennessee Jed said...

let us not forget that both the president (as a candidate in 2008) and the Vice-President of the United States ( they gonna put y'all back in chains) have campaigned by playing the race card. Every time an opportunity has arisen for the president to positively address this subject, he has chosen to take a course which is divisive. Consider the "beer summit," the Trevon Martin killing, the reaction to voter i.d. laws, and the Vice-President.

There is an entire industry of political punditry devoted to race baiting since it is advantageous to keep anger or race hatred alive.

Anthony-- your comments above regarding the flaw in the methodology is spot on.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, thanks for that peek into the bizarre methodology. I would also be curious to see the photos they used because, as you say, snap judgements based on appearance are only natural. You can skew the data a lot just by oversampling heavy brows and wide jaws in one group over another. To put a finer point on it, I guarantee if you are a white guy walking into Walmart in baggies with cornrows and a grill, you're going to be tailed by security. Period.

StanH said...

Race is a survival technique of every specie on the planet, racism knows no color boundary. I’m a MLK kind of guy in this regard, too paraphrase, “judge a man by the content of his character, as opposed to the color of his skin.” It is also an industry in America enriching select spokesmen, you know the names like Jesse Jackson, but permeates down to the local NAACP chapters and what not (this was covered in the movie “Runaway Slave,” by CL Bryant, a black minister and Tea Party member. I didn’t name the movie.) The MSM loves this crap as well, it keeps the evil American meme going, and they should be ashamed.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, This is liberal propaganda, and yes I mean that word. This is an attempt to make people fear that the enemy is among them. Anyone who has spent time living in America and met real Americans (outside of racist city like Boston) will know that Americans by and large don't care about race, they care about individual behavior, and people will get really upset when they hear others make racists statements.

My guess is that this study was completely fabricated by people who wanted to find racism, and they did something like ask "have you ever heard someone use a racist word" and they phony-extrapolated from that. Or they polled ten volunteers and extrapolated from that.

AndrewPrice said...

K, Not only did these racists hide their racism by electing a black man, they also supported Herman Cain, which again was called proof of racism... go figure.

I had hopes too that Obama was different and that he was going to drive a stake through the Cry Racism industry, but he didn't. I do think white America is sick of those people now and no longer wants to hear it, but Obama ended up encouraging them rather than injecting a bit of reality.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Thanks for providing the methodology on the first poll. I wasn't able to find it when I wrote the article. That is indeed flawed.

First, as you wrote: As a group, blacks lead negative social indicators and lag in the positive ones. Expecting this to not color how people see a generic picture or a random stranger isn't realistic.

This is a key point which unfortunately highlights the problem. It is often called racist even to acknowledge that black do lead in all these negative statistics. If, for example, I were to stand up and say that black commit crimes at a higher rate, the race-baiting community would accuse me of being racist and spreading a false stereotype and would demand an apology. At the same time, white liberals would lament that this is evidence of racism in society because whites must be locking blacks up in greater numbers because of white racism.

It's answers like that which poison the debate. Until we can move beyond stupidity like that and address the "why" this is true, nothing will change. And accusing people of racism for basing their beliefs on things that are in fact true is obnoxious at best.

The real question about racism is whether or not people ACT in prejudicial ways and in my experience, that is rarely true in the white community anymore. To the contrary, whites are constantly going out of their way to be favor blacks, and I almost never see white act in a discriminatory way. Does it happen? Sure. But it's rare.

LL said...

If the polls are correct and 57% favor Romney, that is clearly a code for a "return to racisim" and the next stop, as Vice President Joe (Slow Joe) Biden said, would be Republicans returning black people to the plantation in chains.

Now, it's all silly political rhetoric, but the truly sad thing is that ANYONE pays attention to Biden in the first place, and that anyone would believe what he said.

Truth be told, black people, young people and women have been hit hardest by the ObamaNation.

T-Rav said...

Racism blah blah blah.

This is about on the same level as Andrew Sullivan's suggestion the other day that Romney's electoral map looked a lot like the revival of the old Confederacy. Not many people know that the good ol' CSA included Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming (maybe Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire)....

Crap like this is why I want to be strictly a teaching professor, not a research professor. Half the research put out today by any institution isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and most of the other half is a draw.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I did see the second study and it struck me as odd that black conservatives are the ones who feel less free. I'm not sure how that works with their conclusion.

What strikes me about the study though is the idea that your freedoms depend on someone of your race being in office. Also, as always, the headline from the study is basically that Obama losing means that blacks will lose their freedoms. That is the message being sent here to anyone who doesn't take the time to dig into the study.

But even beyond that, I think it's insane that such a high percentage of people (black or white) think that they don't have the fundamental rights that everyone exercises all the time. I could understand it if they asked, "does the government listen to you." But that's a far cry from do you have the free to try to influence the government.

Individualist said...

I think that any talk of Racism is in the end a delusion.

We have HUD housing projects in many cities that are 100% black despite EEOC laws. These projects are fenced in with 20 foot chain link fences to stop drug dealing. The people there don't have jobs and live in a world where getting a job is difficult since they could lose government assistance. A world where getting paid involves activities that are black market in the sense the income is not recorded by the government.

Many of the reasons for this situation are found in the way welfare laws are crafted. In the insistence by the federal government that the "aid to widows and orphans that were the bailiwick of the Salvation Army of the 1900's must now be bureaucratic agencies. The handout went from charity in the eyes of the public to an entitlement, a responsibility of government.

The segregating of minorities into separate HUD housing projects that are allowed to be a singular race causes the people there to think of their problems in relation to the melanin of their skin. The entitlement ideology has taken what would once be seen as someone helping to be the dole of those in charge. If they did not have something then it was someone in charge who did not want them to have it.

Thus you have the Obamaphone lady who thinks that the government assisting poor and minorities is to pay for her phone. So what is the best way to mobilize people that have been allowed to be placed in this institution and to maintain it for political power. The best way is to tout everything as race. In the end it is a delusion but one that provides the people that vote these things in Power in votes.

Obama Phone Lady said...

Keep Obama in President, you know!?

Kit said...

Obama possibly on defensive in PA and Minnesota

rlaWTX said...

That method of discerning implicit racism (the pictures/words thing) has been used A LOT in social psych research. I have read a number of studies that used it, and all of them decide that the test-taker has a lower positive impression of any group not their own. Well, duh. What was 'funny' was the text would discuss how we had developed these processes of categorizing and stereotyping in order to survive and that, even in modern times, w/o them we would have to reprocess each interaction as a new event - which would take too long to get anything done, AND THEN they'd turn around and say how all those who do this are inherently racist, but only those with "white privilege" could express this prejudice with power. Therefore, only whites were actually actively racist. Pshaw and bah humbug.
(my social psych class was an exercise in restraint for me)

SQT said...

What this says to me, in a big-picture kind of way, is that Obama was exactly the wrong guy to be elected in as the first black president. He's done nothing but forment racial discord and class envy throughout his presidency. The fact that blacks are feeling more disenfranchised is a direct reflection of this. Judging by this story posted over at Breitbart a lot of black people are seeing Obama's duplicity for what it is-- and that gives me hope.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree and I think that will be recorded as Obama's biggest failure by history. He had the chance to move people beyond race, but he didn't. Instead, he played right into it to try to win re-election.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Is that observation from personal experience? You... at Walmart? LOL!

Seriously though, you are right that it's very easy to skew something like that testing that looks at faces. All you need to do is change expressions even. Look at those before and after pictures you see in the fitness/diet ads, where the same person looks down and frowns and they look unpleasant, but then they look up and smile and suddenly the look incredibly different.

I doubt very much that they bothered to control for those things.

But in the end, each of these studies reeks to me of people trying to find certain conclusions they already believe and the MSM running with those studies to try to promote identity politics.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, There is an entire industry of people who depend on keeping Americans upset about race. You have groups like Jackson's group who benefit directly from donations and speaking fees and from bringing lawsuits over things like there not being "enough" black owners of radio stations. You have black politicians who hide their corruption behind appeals to racial solidarity. You have Democrats who rely on black voters being 90% loyal to them. You have some Republicans who rely on jerrymandered districts to keep their own seats from being competitive.

There are tens of thousands of people who benefit from affirmative action to get and keep jobs they don't deserve and don't do well. There are millions more who use the idea of racism to excuse their own failures and lack of drive.

There is a media that uses racism to push various other agendas related to leftist economics and to attack institutions that stand in their way.

This is not just a simple matter of people being jerks. That is why there is such a strong interest in keeping this whole thing going when we should be trying to move past it.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, That's exactly why they are making these appeals about returns to slavery -- which are patently ridiculous on their face. They say these things to scare these groups -- blacks, women, the young, so they overlook all the bad things that have happened in the past four years.

It's the same principle totalitarians have used to convince their population that the reason things are going wrong is traitors and enemy agents. It's the same principle racists used to convince their poor and stupid followers to overlook their own lack of progress by telling them that they need to band together because of the threat of "them ____."

It's despicable, but it's what the Democratic Party has become. They are a party that baits its various tribes with apocalyptic visions of a return to slavery, back alley abortions and women forced out of the workplace, gays shoved back in the closet or jail, etc.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Yes, the Confederacy encompassed most of the country! LOL!

Seriously though, there is a point to their rhetoric. It is to scare people. It is carefully chosen to offend and scare and to distort.

On being a teaching professor, think of it this way... you could put out research debunking all these other studies. You would be infamous and then a national hero. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Dear Obama phone lady, you're going to get a bill for that phone you know?!

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Talk of racism isn't a delusion, it's a diversion. It's meant to keep individuals from realizing that they are the cause of their own problems and that they can fix their problems by themselves.

This is classic victimization. By telling people of your group, whatever they are, that the rest of the world is out there sabotaging you, you build group solidarity which lets you extract loyalty and everything that comes with it, and then keep those people in the fold even as you fail to deliver on promises or make their lives better.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Yep.

Jen said...

OT: I hope Bev is okay. It's very windy here right now--gusts 45+MPH, higher to the west, along the lake.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's the kind of academic garbage that drives me nuts.

1. Yes, we do make snap judgments based on prior experience. Otherwise, we couldn't function. But that says nothing about racism. It just talks about our initial impression.

2. Racism is what happens next... or doesn't.

Think of it this way. When you come across a cake, you use a snap judgment to decide that it probably tastes good based on prior experience and you think that you would probably want to eat it. Does that mean you MUST eat it? No. The "academics" who say this is evidence of racism are making the logical fallacy that we will always act on the first impression, when that is almost never true.

They are also drawing unreasonable conclusions based on testing in a vacuum. As tryanmax pointed out, race is only one factor in the prejudgement. Others include attitude, clothing, facial expression (i.e. are they angry or smiling), location, reason for interaction, etc. You just can't draw such a sweeping conclusion based on asking someone to look at photos in a vacuum. Not to mention, I doubt they controlled for all the other factors related to evaluating faces.

Think of it his way. This is like showing men a picture of a woman and asking if they want to have sex with her, and then concluding that all men would have sex with this woman if they met her. There are a million other factors that would arise which would prevent that from actually happening. For example, finding out she is married would stop most men. But these researchers are ignoring those factor so they can pretend that something with maybe a 1% chance in real life would actually have a 99% chance according to their research.

AndrewPrice said...

SQT, I couldn't agree more. I initially had a lot of hope for Obama in that regard because he struck me as someone who wasn't into excuses and wasn't into screaming racism. But he has really disappointed me as he's repeatedly made racist appeals to cover his own mistakes and failures.

As a nation, we would have been much better off with someone like a Herman Cain or a Thomas Sowell as the first black president. For one thing, I think they would have been much more successful and that would have helped overall. But even more importantly, we could have watched for 4-8 years and seen a real leader in action without him ever making an appeal to race, while at the same time, the race-baiting industry would be silenced for 4-8 years, which would have done a lot to heal the country.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I read that NYC lost power last night, so she's probably out organizing some looting. :)

DUQ said...

I don't know what this means, but even NPR's poll now shows Romney in the lead. It's an 8% swing.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, yeah, you know me. Wigga 4 Life, yo!

The left's desperation is palpable (and it tastes a bit like pepper.) Unfortunately for them, the race card is totally maxed out. What hasn't been deemed racist in the last four years? I wish I had kept a list, but here's what I can recall:

food stamps
tax cuts
states' rights
Founder Fathers
"kitchen cabinet"
"monkeying around"
empty chairs
"holding down the fort"
balanced budget
Reverend Jeremiah Wright
work ethic

That list is looking pretty ridiculous, woudn't you say?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's fascinating! Obama is in real trouble.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Don't forget that quoting Obama without cleaning up his quotes is racist... and cleaning up his quotes is racist. Pointing out that he uses a different cadence for black audiences also is racist.

And so is voting against Obama.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. But it's not racist to call black conservatives "house n*ggers".

BevfromNYC said...

I'm here! I've been out looti...er...helping people acquire needed emergency supplies like tvs and vodka! But seriously, I have power unlike my friends below 40th Street and on Staten Island. NYC is going to be shut down for the rest of the week. Buses are going to start to run later today, but it's pretty devastating. I'm thinking of baking bread and selling it for $10 a slice!

T-Rav said...

No, Andrew, that's not racist, it's "speaking truth to power." Or something.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg said...

Bread for $10 a slice? Unfair! Jail for all scalpers!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, There's nothing wrong with a little disaster profiteering! :)

Glad your loot... er, acquiring went well!

I read that part of the northeast will be without power for 7-10 days. When is the election again?

T-Rav said...

Jen, I heard at the barber's this morning that they were predicting 24-foot waves on Lake Michigan near Chicago today. No, I don't think this will be enough to swamp and destroy the city. :-(

AndrewPrice said...

Mayor Mike, Don't worry, each slice is less than 16 oz and is transfat free.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Speaking truth to power is racist if the power is someone who may not be criticized.

On Chicago, think positively... maybe the city leaders will be out on a boat collecting their weekly bribes when the waves hit?

BevfromNYC said...

It's a Republican plot that this happened right before the election in all the blue states. A vast right-wing conspiracy! Now we will just have to postpone the election.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Hold off on that, it's only a Republican plot if it helps the Republicans win.

rlaWTX said...

ya know, they already have strategies in place to avoid "over-sampling" of Republicans (Black Panthers, resurrection voters, etc) that they could just use to "fix" this election issue; then no one would have to worry about getting the word out about a new election date (which would probably suppress the "disadvantaged" vote anyway).

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, While I'm sure you're being sarcastic, I have actually heard leftists talk about "race norming" elections.

T-Rav said...

Hey, you know liberals: Fight fair if you know you'll win; if the issue's in doubt, fight dirty.

Liberals said...

We only do that because we Rethuglicans do it! And don't forget to sue if you lose and keep suing till you find the right judge to let you win!

rlaWTX said...

I was only partially sarcastic - it's kinda like modern satire: the Left is so weird that satire and truth are indistinguishable...

rlaWTX said...

ok - nearly immediately after I posted that last comment this popped on my fb and proved my point better than anything else I could say:


Joel Farnham said...

It is California. Outside of Davis is the TOAD TUNNEL. Still, the toads have seem to lost the notifying e-mail and can't read the sign. Toads are dying on the freeway as we speak. They don't use the tunnel.

T-Rav said...

rla, I'm sure they think they're making a profound point and would not understand the criticism of it.

Kit said...

The racism accusation, like free birth control, is pretty much the Dems dangling keys before voters and saying "Look at the keys! Look at the keys!"

Anthony said...

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I did see the second study and it struck me as odd that black conservatives are the ones who feel less free. I'm not sure how that works with their conclusion.

What strikes me about the study though is the idea that your freedoms depend on someone of your race being in office.
Andrew, I disagree with you conclusion about the study. Its headline conclusion was that under Obama blacks feel less free than they did before, which isn't something that does Obama in particular or the Democrats in general any favors (which probably explains why many conservative sites touted the study).

Anyway, here is an interview with the author of the study.


In part, says Gibson, this can be attributed to "ideological polarization." That split may have begun when Obama dismissed Pennsylvania voters in 2008 who "cling to guns or religion." But Gibson says many conservative and religions blacks likely believed when Obama was first elected that he would protect their interests as president. "Race produces a level of trust and confidence that one is on your side," he says.

Over time, that confidence eroded. Gibson cites the contraception debate between the White House and some religious leaders that erupted last year. Black Americans, he notes, are traditionally conservative on social issues.

Another schism may have centered on gay marriage. The Democratic-leaning Coalition of African-American Pastors, for example, recently said they felt "marginalized" and "ignored" by Obama's seemingly sudden support for same-sex marriage.

Religious fundamentalists and conservative blacks, Gibson says, "have seen their efforts to participate in public life [under Obama] being thwarted over and over and over again."

BevfromNYC said...

There's a memorial in lower Manhattan for the all victims of the Titanic who never made it to NY, so why don't they request a memorial at the fish death factory where the fish didn't make it either?

Anthony said...

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree and I think that will be recorded as Obama's biggest failure by history. He had the chance to move people beyond race, but he didn't. Instead, he played right into it to try to win re-election.
I wasn't expecting much from the most liberal senator and I certainly wasn't expecting Obama to make the issue of race disappear. The identity of American blacks was hundreds of years in the making. In the forseeable future, I doubt it will go away no matter who is in office.

I know there are a handful of people who make a show of casting off their blackness (a different thing than being conservative or Republican IMHO) but its just not something I think will happen on a meaningful scale in the forseeable future.

Individualist said...

Andrew I misstated. What I meant is that the idea the Whitey is out to get the Black People at every step they take is a Delusion. One meant to enact the victimization argument that you mention.

I think however that in order for the Victimization argument to take hold that there has to be something the Victims can gain from it.

Victimization is the first step, It must be followed up with dependence on the Federal Government. Then the circle of Entitlements for votes is complete and a truly post racial America cannot ever be achieved.

Individualist said...


That's sounds a little fishy to me

T-Rav said...

I, personally, plan on commemorating the fishes' loss with a hearty meal at Long John Silver's. It's the least I can do.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think you underestimate the effect a president can have. A hip, messiah-like, black Democratic President who stood up and said, "It's time for black Americans to stop blaming racism for their problems... it's time to stop looking to the government to come make your life better... it's time to do it yourself and make your own future," would have a HUGE impact.

He could influence a whole generation of young blacks to break the cycle of dependence, he could change the culture and I think he could drive a huge stake into the heart of the race-baiting industry.

It's the same way it took a Republican to end Vietnam and open China. When someone "on your side" tells you that you are wrong, that is very powerful.

From the way Obama portrayed himself, I genuinely thought he might make a statement like that. Boy was I wrong!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That would be a fitting memorial. A yummy, yummy, yummy memorial.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Isn't that the truth. The line between parody and leftist ideology has become dangerously blurred in recent years!

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Maybe the signs are in the wrong language? Are they in toad or human?

BevfromNYC said...

The way I see it is Obama couldn't move us passed "race" because it is the only card he has to play. And he does what all "community organizers" do. They pit one group against another to create a victim/victimizer mentality. And what would Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson DO if we moved passed race issues? They would become irrelevant.

BevfromNYC said...

Maybe they should set up a roadside Fish & Chip stand! "Here on this spot thousands of fish gave their lives, so we killed some potatoes to go with them! May they all rest in peace along side lovely tartar sauce!"

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, On the study, I agree that the study itself does Obama no favors. It clearly suggests that Obama has basically oppressed black conservatives. BUT, I do continue to have the same problems with the study.

First, it does appeal to racial solidarity. It suggests that blacks (conservatives and liberals) felt more free because of the election of Obama (and that is only changing now because black conservatives are unhappy with his actions). To me, that plays into identity politics.

Secondly, I think the other problem is the spin/headline. I know it's hard to get an unbiased headline these days, but this strikes me as it will be heard as "blacks lose freedom as Obama is handicapped by Republican Congress." I can't imagine the Washington Post or NYT would present it in any other way, and certainly not as "Obama oppresses conservative blacks."

Those are my problems with the study and the timing of it's making the news. I think this is yet another story that is being put forth to tell blacks, "you better not let that white Mormon into office or you won't have any freedoms left."

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, That's exactly what it is and the Democrats have gotten very good at doing that to their identity groups.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Victimization requires some sort of payout to be effective, and in this case, the payout is promises of government largess.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's the problem. If Obama had been as successful as he hoped, we might actually have seen him move beyond race because he wouldn't need to generate the victim mentality to hold onto power. But he failed and when he failed he reached for the race card.

That said, you put your finger right on why it will be so hard to ever shake the race issue -- there are too many people who depend on it to maintain their lifestyles and they will keep fighting to preserve the issue.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I think they need a memorial, shaped like a jar of tartar sauce. :)

rlaWTX said...

thank you for your sanity in the face of the bizarre world in which we live!!! TTFN

Joel Farnham said...


FTT&T (Frogs, Toads, Turtles and Tortoises) lobby has suggested that it is racist/speciest to require them to learn English. In the mean time, toads are losing their lives to automobiles. FTT&T has called for a total ban on cars. The polls say that 47% are for the ban and 34% are against with the rest undecided. Unskewed polls puts it at 44%, 36% and 20% undecided leaning towards the ban.

T-Rav said...

Mmmmm.....tartar sauce.

BevfromNYC said...

This is why I love NYC. I just saw a guy walking down the street dressed like a giant taco...

Jen said...

T-Rav, I heard about the waves on my side of the lake being 18-22 feet high, but I didn't hear about Chicago. It's too bad their waves wouldn't have take the city out. Damn the bad luck.

I shudder to think that I used to actually like visiting the place. :(

A lot has changed since my friend from high school lived there. I don't think I would have gone to visit if she was still there.

Hi Bev! I'm glad you were helping out...

T-Rav said...

Bev, was he also wearing a horse's head?

Jen, I would like to visit Chicago once. And not get shot.

Jen said...

T-Rav, My friend lived in the city (various neighborhoods), and the main thing she told me to watch out for was that women shouldn't leave their purses on a car seat--what she called "Smash and grab". She moved in the early 90s.

My hometown was an hour and a half away, so plenty of school field trips to Chicago. Boy, times have sure changed.

My hometown is also trying to be a mini-knockoff version of Chicago, you know, voter fraud (forged signatures and all).

Anthony said...

Perhaps a bit OT, but kind of related to the topic is the amusing yet appalling phenomena of fake victims who seek to stoke political outrage.

Recently a black woman claimed the KKK set her on fire (something I called BS on the minute I read it just because her story that she put out a fire which covered most of her body with a nearby faucet just didn't make sense).

Even more recently a gay GOP campaign worker claimed someone choked him out for being a gay Republican. I confess he fooled me just because he didn't describe one of the over-elaborate attacks such victims tend to and his non-description of his attacker (another staple of fake attacks) actually made sense.

Of course, while covering most of your body in burns and/or choking yourself out are both pretty hardcore, the cake still goes to the lesbian who claimed that attackers tied her up and carved a bunch of insults into her (she didn't fool me for a second just because the sorts of people who like cutting people tend to make sure their victims don't survive the experience).

Yes, the police say she avoided sensitive areas of her body and avoided cutting too deeply, but still, taking a knife to yourself for an extended period of time (as opposed to carving a simple reverse B into your cheek) earns the 'victim' the award of best fake victim of 2012 in my book, though there is still time.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, The fake attack has become very common of late. I think it's partly people seeking attention/fame and party it's become an acceptable tactic because too many people continue to believe it even after it's been debunked. Plus, it's low risk because these people never get punished. So you see it a LOT in the last few election cycles. It's despicable, but it's become part of our political lives.

Post a Comment