Bush Acknowledges Racism Still Exists

The "President" doesn't deserve respect.

Sorry, that's just wrong.

There are black moderates and conservatives out there, and many can be counted among members of the NAACP as well. If the NAACP is viewed as an extension of the Democratic Party, it is because the Republican Party has refused to acknowledge or support their views on many issues.

The "President" doesn't deserve respect.

Here we go again.

You people confuse the two types of respect. One is the respect for someone in a position higher than you, at least enough to not call him or her an 'idiot' or 'monkey'.

The other is the respect that someone earns by being a trustworthy and upstanding person. This is the one that may be debatable as to whether or not someone deserves.

Also, I think it probably follows that not every black person is a member or supporter of the NAACP.

Doesn't it suggest to you, Ryan, that the NAACP's views fall closer in line with the Democratic Party's than with those of the Republican Party? "Extension" probably isn't the right word. America is a country of single-issue voters. If the NAACP has been associated with Democrats, it is because it holds left-leaning policies.

I agree stolte, I was just addressing the use of the term 'extension' in an earlier comment.

Every black person isn't a member or supporter of the NAACP, but most of us have heard of them at the very least, and are aware of what they represent. Also, the NAACP represents much more than just black Americans - they represent Latinos as well, a group that has shown somewhat of a larger tendency to vote Republican than other minority groups.

Makes sense that the Republicans would be addressing the NAACP with attention to black voters, then, eh?

It does make sense, but it still stinks of election year pandering. The phrase 'too little, too late' comes to mind.

Agreed.

Ilyanep: And exactly what kind of respect is it that addresses anyone beginning with "you people?"

One is the respect for someone in a position higher than you

When it comes down to it, the President is an employee of the American people. We hired him and put him in charge in the hopes that he would perform competently in his position. We have the power to fire him if he does not. There's a reason why politicians are called public servants.

Let's not forget that this nation was founded on a healthy disrespect for authority, that the founding father's greatest concern was that we could be made subservient by our own government. If you were alive back then, you'd probably be on that boat asking people to stop tossing all that tea overboard, out of respect for the King.

And exactly what kind of respect is it that addresses anyone beginning with "you people?"

Fine, so I didn't word it the best way. The point still stands.

When it comes down to it, the President is an employee of the American people. We hired him and put him in charge in the hopes that he would perform competently in his position. We have the power to fire him if he does not. There's a reason why politicians are called public servants.

Can you really fire him at the moment?

Let's not forget that this nation was founded on a healthy disrespect for authority, that the founding father's greatest concern was that we could be made subservient by our own government. If you were alive back then, you'd probably be on that boat asking people to stop tossing all that tea overboard, out of respect for the King.

There's a difference. There was no calling the king an 'idiot'. The Declaration of Independence was based entirely on points of why the King had been acting in a terrible manner.

Throwing tea over the ships was the start of a revolution. It was an action, as opposed to sitting on your chair in your room typing insults at the president. Are you planning to start a revolution?

Are you planning to start a revolution?

IANAL, but may I politely remind everyone to plead the fifth on that one.

Brave but stupid move by the president? BUSHHATER!!!!

IANAL, but may I politely remind everyone to plead the fifth on that one.

I hope nobody's starting one anyways.

She is the only one that is female. Perhaps it is polite in the journalism scene or just in general to introduce the women first.

Then why do they always say "Mr. and Mrs. suchandsuch"

Leading a headline with a potential presidential candidate just makes sense.

When the address if formal, such as with "Mr" or "Mrs/Miss/Mz" the male usually comes first. When it is informal, like "Bobby Jo" and "Suzie Q", the female names come first.

I just know this from researching wedding invitation styles. For the record, overall, I think it's stupid.

I'm not sure how it goes with a title like "senator".

Hetep and Respect Chello, It is interesting that King Bush "acknowledges" Racism in the election year. Now, we know that he could not be part of that "racism" problem, because he has not spoken to those people in over five years.

Andrew, the difference is Obama, Clinton and Kennedy (and their contemporaries) are there every single year.

Republicans have no right to whine about lack of minority support when they consistently ignore opportunities to speak and meet with historically influential social and political groups like the NAACP. The Democrats make sure they keep their minority constituency by - gasp - coming to talk to us about issues that concern us. Political Campaigning 101.

Republicans have no right to whine about lack of minority support when they consistently ignore opportunities to speak and meet with historically influential social and political groups like the NAACP

RyanXP, agreed. However, I don't think Andrew was whining, nor does he care.

I think the first one kind of is too.

Most black people in America are poor. There are historical and cultural reasons for this. The NAACP advocates on behalf of African-Americans because race is an acceptable constituency; class is not. Meritocracy is a myth.

To discount "social racism" as irrelevant is a grave mistake. There is a huge difference between overt and latent racism--institutional racism belongs to the latter, and is a very real and very serious problem in America. The insular nature of race-based communities in America is both a cause and an effect of institutional racism, and it perpetuates the "invisible" class issues that produce party divisions along racial lines.

Also, you said:

The only prejudice that is bad prejudice is when the State forces one party to deal with or not deal with another party ignoring both individual's rights to congregate with whomever they want to.

Are you serious?

Hetep and Respect dada21

Ugh. I'm not white

Unless I missed something the picture in your profile looks White.

What ethnicity are you and What country do you live in?

Most black people in America are poor.

Err... come again?

While the statement, "most poor people in America are black" may be accurate, the statement "most black people in America are poor" is not. Only about 20% of black people in America are on the poverty line, which is certainly not a majority, and it's been that way for nearly 10 years (when before it was closer to 30%).

I agree with most of your points about classism, that race is still a pervasive issue in our society, and so on. Just... don't imply false statistics. ;-)

My mistake! That is exactly what I meant. Sorry...*sheepish*

Us? Who is this "us" and how can I keep as far away from this group as possible?

dada, in this case the us i'm referring to is the African American constituency.

Luckily for you, you already seem to be well on your path towards your goal.

Stop wasting your time campaigning for equality when there are billions of opportunities in this world to barter and trade with those who want to utilize your abilities.

Stop wasting my time pursuing equality? I'm sure that would suit people just fine. Do you have any clue how unabashedly evil you sound right now?

If the NAACP promoted the degeneration of whites, it would be racist. White Power groups advocate the subordination (nay--elimination) of nonwhites. This is racist. Promoting equality and protecting the interests of a group that has suffered a history of discrimination is not.

Please don't go down that road. The NAACP was created at a time when "colored people" and not just Negroes were oppressed. It has a historical basis for existence. Unless you question its ever being founded in the first place.

***whistle blows***

Flagrant foul. Number #11 on the offense. 15 yard penalty. Automatic 1st down.

I never said, or suggested, that the NAACP had no historical foundations. What I said--and I guess I'll say it again--is that it is not a racist institution. Feminists work for the advancement of women. Does this make them sexist?

Wow. Where to begin?

The group promoted the advancement of blacks because when it was founded, we had no damn civil rights. Why does everybody forget this? It was because of groups like the NAACP, SNCC and SCLC that black people have equivalent rights in today's society. The NAACP turned around Jim Crow Laws that promoted institutionalized racism, fought the frequent lynchings of blacks in the south, lead the charge against segregated schools and has produced some of the finest Americans in history (W.E.B. DuBois, Thurgood Marshall, James Weldon Johnson and more).

Oh, and just FYI:

Lesson 1: Required Reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naacp

Excerpt: ...the leadership was predominantly white and heavily Jewish. In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, DuBois himself, and did not elect a black president until 1975.

Well said, Ryan. (That's my name, too!)

Hell the NAACP is racist. Start a group that promotes only the advancement of whites and watch the liberals cry racism, but if your black it is acceptable...stupid.

I think the whites should start a group, based on all the persecution they are apparently going through at the expense of those racist organizations such as the NAACP.

We must fight against this oppression of the white man! And if we are sucessful, then one day, maybe one day... we will see a white president.

One can only hope.

I agree there was a problem and it needed fixing bad, but the fix created new problems. In fact the NAACP did turn around Jim Crow laws they reversed the race and continued the institutionalized racism. The degree is not the same or there would be a serious problem instead of a minor problem fortunately. However it's still a problem that they do not support equality, they promote an ethnic group.

The fact that the group started out with a mixed ethnicity leadership and is now from my cruising of their website 100% black leadership says they likely strayed from their roots as an equality movement and have evolved into a special interest group that is racially based.

The NAACP is all inclusive. It promotes breaking down barriers that create an under-class not the formation of barriers to keep an elite class.

I respectfully disagree. A hate crime is a horrible, horrible thing. As a person who has had family members lost to hate crimes, I recognize that while you may think its not important why a crime happened, without hate crime legislation that person would have been in jail for a substantially less amount of time.

You seem to be so exuberantly libertarian, so i'll address you as such: the law is about more than property. LIFE is about more than property. That the law looks at intent is important in maintaining a civilized society, and yes, Dubya probably does bear some responsibility for not implementing hate crime legislation passed along to him.

When someone else takes your life because of your skin color, then it is a hate crime. There's no profit to be made, there is no betterment to society. Do we judge someone who kills in self defense the same as someone who dragged a man behind a truck for miles, in one of the most agonizing ways a man can die?

Whoa, whoa. Calm down there big fella.

I'm just trying to say that Bush is doing this more for his political gain than for any other reason. I'm not advocating the (current) NAACP at all.

***flashes peace sign to dada***

I respectfully disagree. A hate crime is a horrible, horrible thing. As a person who has had family members lost to hate crimes, I recognize that while you may think its not important why a crime happened, without hate crime legislation that person would have been in jail for a substantially less amount of time.

That's completely untrue. The reason why property violations such as murder seem to give a criminal less time in prison is because your government is more focused on non-property violations than on property violations. The jails are filled with probably 90% of non-violent non-property offenders (drug users, prostitutes, tax violators, etc). Get rid of ridiculous non-violent crimes and the jails AND the police can focus on real property violations such as murder.

My grandfather was murdered in a so-called "hate crime" so don't start with me on what is horrible and what isn't. All property crimes are horrible, but we should make the law easy to understand -- the basic reason for prosecuting a criminal should be in order to protect property (your body, your land and your tools).

You seem to be so exuberantly libertarian, so i'll address you as such: the law is about more than property. LIFE is about more than property. That the law looks at intent is important in maintaining a civilized society, and yes, Dubya probably does bear some responsibility for not implementing hate crime legislation passed along to him.

A civilized society comes from the basic understanding of private property: I have a body, I have land and I have tools. I want to use all of them to better myself. That is what life is about -- providing for yourself and those you love, and if you don't have a complete right to private property, you can not provide.

When someone else takes your life because of your skin color, then it is a hate crime. There's no profit to be made, there is no betterment to society. Do we judge someone who kills in self defense the same as someone who dragged a man behind a truck for miles, in one of the most agonizing ways a man can die?

How man dies is irrelevant to the fact that a crime against his property (his body, in this case) was committed. The penalty for the crime should be in direct proportion for what was taken. If someone steals your car, you should be compensated for a replacement -- why put someone in jail if you're still without a car and society is incredibly poorer because of the State's expenses for prosecuting someone? If someone cuts off your hand, you should be compensated for the use of your hand. If someone takes your life, I can understand putting someone away forever. It doesn't matter if they killed you for your skin color, for jealousy, for your wife, or just because they liked killing.

Hate crimes are still crimes -- stop clouding the issue with new labels for ancient property violations.

If someone takes your life, I can understand putting someone away forever. It doesn't matter if they killed you for your skin color, for jealousy, for your wife, or just because they liked killing.

Hate crime legislation helps to make sure that people who take lives are put away forever. They basically just inflict harsher punishment on those who are convicted of heinous offenses with racist motivations.

The issue may be clouded but in my opinion, hate crimes damage the fabric of our society much more than many of those committed with other motives, and should be prosecuted more harshly because of it.

Sorry, but you can't be serious. Are you really saying that a hate crime (ex: murder based on race/sexual pref) is worse than a non-hate crime (ex: murder because someone wants your wallet)? That's just ignorant.

In general, hate crimes are more deep-rooted than non-hate crimes.

Just to give you a simple example, a guy who hates black people and wants to kill one will probably go and do it even at the risk of losing his life. But, a simple mugger, who might strangulate a stranger on the street for his wallet might run away if the stranger pulled out a gun or started screaming loudly.

Hate crimes makes animals out of human beings. Hate is a powerful, albeit negative, motivator.

Jim_C, a hate crime is worse than a non-hate crime because of what the crime is saying. People who are found guilty of murder or felony assault and the like are those that the people have decided are detrimental to society. That said, which do you think is easier to rehabilitate, and winds up being more safe to let back into society: the guy who mugs someone for their wallet, or the white supremacist who lynched someone because of the color of their skin (and who never seem to show remorse?)

What is ignorant is ignoring the motive behind crimes people commit - those who don't attempt to understand something can never hope to prevent it.

Apologies.."ignorant" may have been too strong of a word. Can I edit my comments?

However, I respectfully disagree. I would like to see statistics behind your inference that a mugger is easier to rehabilitate than a white supremacist.

In theory, I agree with your "motive" argument. After all, the mugger may have been committed the crime to feed his/her family. However, this introduces entirely too much subjectivity into our legal system. Under this premise, I suppose a serial killer would deserve the harshest punishment of all, given that they kill indiscriminately with no provocation. But, we do not have any anti-serial killer legislation?

My problem is delineation. How do we determine a hate crime? If a gay mugger kills a heterosexual man while robbing his wallet is it an anti-hetero hate crime? Or, is it simply a mugging? Alternatively, did the mugger do it to feed his family? Or, was it for want of a new car? Who gets to decide?

I know, I wish we had edits :( We don't have anti-serial killer legislation persay, but the definition of serial killer is someone who does it more than a couple of times, and the legal standard of concurrent sentencing assures the same end result as specific legislation targeting them.

I am on a spotty wireless connection and away from my usual bookmarks at the moment, but I will say this in regards to the rehabilitation issue: The reason I say its easier for the mugger to be rehabilitated is mainly because of the rise and proliferation of white supremacist and militant extremist groups in American prisons. The neo nazis and other groups in prisons are accounting for a substantial amount of in-house violence, and recruit more to their cause while behind bars rather than changing their ways. This has been the case at the last 3 prisons i've visited in the past year for various projects, and while an anecdotal piece of evidence, hopefully an understandable one.

A testament to my own ignorance... I have never had the opportunity (or should I say misfortune) of actually meeting someone who hated another person strictly on the basis of that person's race. Rather it was based on some perceived slight, such as hating Latinos because that person believed that Mexican laborers had taken a job that he/she was a potential candidate for. Or, hating all persons of Middle Eastern descent because of a belief that they support Al Qaeda. This type of rehabilitation seems easier because it is rooted in education. Simple economics shows the benefit of free movement of labor. A study of Muslim radicalism shows that all persons of Middle Eastern descent are not Al Qaeda; in fact, far from it. I equate any other race based hatred and crimes with serial killings (killing indiscriminately with no real motive)… and also would imagine these types of people are few and far between.

To your prison comment, I would imagine prison gangs and prison hate crimes are based more on survival and a desire to be accepted in that world than true hatred. But again, I have no real world experience in this.

The reason behind the crime is important. That's the difference between pre-meditated 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder and so on....We make those differences so punishment should fit the crime.

Breaking News: Water Wet, Scientists agree.

Yeah, I thought it was good title for an article in the Onion, too.

In other news, Bush acknowledges Summer is hot.

Not to be confused with the acknowledgment that global warming may be causing it to become hotter or that human activities may be contributing to global warming.

Don't tell me that private individuals' racism creates poverty -- government prejudice does.

You said this, not me.

Racism is unprofitable.

Not when they're slaves, and not when the employer, outside the strictures of minimum wage laws, has the right to decide to adjust wages based on race.

If you need to fire a minority, there are dozens of laws that allow them to sue you no matter what the reason is for firing them.

This is preposterous. Nonwhites get fired all the time.

Not when they're slaves, and not when the employer, outside the strictures of minimum wage laws, has the right to decide to adjust wages based on race.

Slavery was ended by the free market of competitive industrialization. No employer wants an inefficient slave when a paid employee will work harder to raise their own talents in order to better their lives by making themselves more marketable.

Minimum wage laws prevent a poor and untalented person from working. Minimum wage laws have kept minorities and the youth from working in many situations -- the higher they raise minimum wage laws, the fewer uneducated and untalented people will be able to work to learn a talent and educate themselves.

This is preposterous. Nonwhites get fired all the time.

Preposterous? Back it up with hard data that the CRA doesn't make it hard to hire minorities.

Gene Callahan:

Companies sometimes become wary of hiring minority or disabled workers because of the many opportunities anti-discrimination law gives them to sue if they are fired. From the point of view of "protected" workers, an agreement makes them less of a potential liability when they are hired, since they have promised to use arbitration in case of a firing dispute.

Michael Levin:

They don't, in large part, because the corporate world itself discourages it. Most firms, fearing adverse government action, put up a brave front, as Texaco did, Smith Barney is now doing, and Merrill Lynch no doubt will when its current negotiations with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission go against it.

Many large employers fear hiring minorities because of the restrictions the law puts on them in terms of firing them or in how they treat them, regardless of race.

Hiding somewhere in the argument that minorities are a risk to a company that fires them is a racist assumption that minorities are not good workers and deserve to be fired. As I said before, nonwhites get fired all the time. The risk is associated with stereotypes about blacks and Latino/as.

Thanks for demonstrating exactly why we still need the NAACP, dada.

Holy.....Ok...take a deep breath.

As someone who has worked in a poor, black community, I have to strongly disagree with your statements, dada.

Slavery was ended by the free market of competitive industrialization.

Slavery in the Confederate states was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation. Most border states freed their slaves, and then it was written into law by the 13th Amendment in 1865. We know it was never an economic decision because the institution of sharecropping arose almost immediately following emancipation in southern states, whereby blacks (and poor whites) farmed the land for a portion of the crop, and because they were so poor, ended up borrowing tools and money for food and rent. So slavery never ended in the South because plantation owners thought that slaves were "inefficient". In fact, they thought they were so efficient that they created the Black Codes to help entrench their new economic form.

Minimum wage laws prevent a poor and untalented person from working. Minimum wage laws have kept minorities and the youth from working in many situations -- the higher they raise minimum wage laws, the fewer uneducated and untalented people will be able to work to learn a talent and educate themselves.

I don't think grocery stores, fast food restaurants or convenience stores would agree with you. In fact, I think they see the minimum wage as an impediment to hiring more minority workers who they could over staff and not pay benefits to.

Furthermore, your use of "untalented" smacks of racism. I work daily with many of these kids who fill minimum wage jobs and they many of them are more talented than many of us will ever be. There is quite a difference between being untalented and unskilled.

Dude, I always want to upvote you more than once. Thank you, thank you, thanks.

I would have responded to your posts Dada... but I can't seem to finish one without my vision turning red and indecipherable screams of frustration spontaneously erupting from my mouth. I fail to see logic behind anything you say and i surmise that if I could find the libertarian version of Rush Limbaugh everything you just typed would just be talking points taken from said pundit.

I don't know what's worse. The way you reinterpret and reinvision the world to make it fit the small frame that you wish it to fit in, or the way you do it with history.

I didn't think I'd find anyone on Newsvine that would give me more of a headache just thinking about than William Dade, but congratulations, you've just done it.

The reason that many people in America, black or otherwise, are poor is because of the State, not because of social racism

Since we live in a democracy, isn't the State a reflection of our social values? For example, it was once legal to own slaves, but we were able to change that. Its a poor excuse to blame the State without taking a collective responsibility for our social racism - which is alive and well.

soul, you raise a great point. However, I am of a mind that America is not a true democracy, since America is a capitalist country, and its government is tied inextricably to capitalist commerce. The government tends to focus on fulfilling the interests of the few, the rich, and the (generally) white, and these interests are overwhelmingly reflected in public policy. These are not my policies, and I will not account for them.

Was he the last to know that racism still exists? Maybe if he said this when he took office, people would think he was sincere. At the heels of November elections, it comes across as fake, pandering and in my opinion disrespectful.

I couldn't too until it occured to me that he expects us to believe that.

@Pete: I'm with you .. that quote is ridiculous.

I bet it's only a partial transcript, where the full transcript looks something like so:

"I come from a family committed to civil rights," Bush said. "My faith tells me that we are all children of God — equally loved, equally cherished, equally entitled to the rights He grants us all ... EXCEPT for the descendants of Noah's son Ham, who are a cursed people ("that he and his descendants would be a "servant of servants"."). These dark-skinned people are not entitled to the same rights He grants to ligher-skinned people".

Exactly.

I Onioned it out in my head when I first read it:

"Bush acknowledges existence of racism, gravity"

You mean:

Bush acknowledges existence of intelligent falling?

Cant wait to see what he has to say when he watches Brokeback Mountain...

Watch out Dick (Cheney)!

Next we'll be hearing the world is not really flat... I don't think I can handle so much new information.

WOW, just look at that graph! I love graphs--they are so final. Thanks for this one, C22, it brightened my day.

But, God, what an awful light...