Ray Nagin just lost me, and likely everybody else as well.
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) — Mayor Ray Nagin on Monday called for the rebuilding of a “chocolate New Orleans” that maintains the city’s black majority, saying, “You can’t have New Orleans no other way.”
“I don’t care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day,” Nagin said in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech. “This city will be a majority African-American city. It’s the way God wants it to be.”
It’s sad to say that for the next five or six minutes somebody has stolen away Pat Robertson’s self-serving religious asshat crown. Good work, Ray. Unless he wants to make a serious bid at keeping the crown (Robertson, after all, isn’t an elected official) and keeping the story alive long after an apology would have killed it Nagin should avoid the well-worn Robertson pattern of denial, bogus appeals to context and mealy-mouthed half-apology. Just say that you’re sorry and let the voters decide whether you’re a good enough manager to balance your bizarre sense of propriety. The first try isn’t very persuasive (same story as above):
Pressed later to explain his comments, Nagin, who is black, told CNN affiliate WDSU-TV that he was referring to creation of a racially diverse city in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, insisting that his remarks were not divisive.
“How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about,” he said.
“New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special.”
Maybe Nagin had a speech about diversity on the teleprompter, but what he gave was a weird theological justification for keeping a black majority. As issues go there’s nothing wrong with trying to maintain the city’s racial status quo, in fact good arguments can be made for doing so. But what does that have to do with Rev. Dr. King? That sort of explicitly race-based policymaking doesn’t just ignore legacy of Rev. Dr. King, it kicks said legacy squarely in the groin. If he wants to send that message, fine, just acknowledge that you’re commemorating the wrong birthday. Malcolm X was born on May 19.
Mr Furious
Putting aside all motives by Nagin and any interpretation you want to throw at the comments, they are just plain dumb, no matter what he meant. I mean, chocolate?
And then the “that’s the chocolate I’m talking about Nestle Quik excuse?
Racist, wrong-headed, misinterpreted…whatever. those are comments too stupid in actual language and imagery to be used by any public official, black or white, MLK Day or any other. They practically border on laughable.
ppGaz
Two white guys raising their eyebrows over what some black guy said to some other black guys.
Fascinating.
What, no “uppity” in the post?
Mr.Ortiz
Even if I were black, I think I’d be offended by the metaphor. As it is, I just keep thinking of that old Simpsons episode where Homer prances through the Land of Chocolate, taking huge bites out of street lamps and puppies.
yet another jeff
Don’t forget the bite he took out of the chocolate cow… But my first thought was George Clinton and Parliament’s “Chocolate City”.
Looks to me like Nola would be best served by keeping God away.
Nikki
I can’t speak for all black people, but, as a black person, I can say that Ray Nagin is a nitwit, not just for the stupid “chocolate” reference, but for the idiotic “God hates America” statements he made as well. Let’s hope the NO voters kick him out.
Marcus Wellby
But will Chinatown still be Butterscotch?????
kl
Kind of like you criticizing anything said by young people.
tzs
Open mouth, insert foot?
Can someone quote the entire speech? Just to make sure we’re not taking something out of context?
Or is this one of those things for “domestic” consumption that wasn’t supposed to get spread around? (Sorta like the Japanese geezer politicians saying something for the domestic crowd and then wondering why Korea and China go into fits?) Still doesn’t explain why such remarks were supposed to be acceptable to a black audience, though. How were his remarks received?
chopper
the ‘god hates america’ thing is what really set me off. christ, like we don’t hear enough of that from the robertson wing of the right.
the ‘chocolate is black plus white’ thing is dumb too. weak sauce. i think all the pressure caused nagin’s noggin to burst and leak out the sweet, sweet goo inside.
yet another jeff
Mmmmm, free goo…
ppGaz
The “chocolate” reference is “bad” because — it’s the wrong metaphor? Or because we don’t want NO to come back with the same racial balance it had before Katrina?
I am always fascinated by faux outrage. So where is the beef here? The choice of food (of metaphor) or the larger thing he was saying? Please, uh, enlighten me.
Next from John:
“White Republican West Virginians Discuss Black Culture” featuring the topic: “Fo’shizzle” — A Slap In the Face of the Memory of George Washington Carver?
On sale now at the campus bookstore.
yet another jeff
Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that “God is mad at America” and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.
That logic always kills me…”God tore this city apart because He was angry that people were tearing the city apart.”
Another Jeff
Clever line, but John didn’t write the post. FYI, there’s this little thingy right under the title of the post that says either “John” or “Tim”. If it says Tim, that means Tim wrote it.
And why the fuck does it matter what race most of his audience happened to be? That’s the same moronic defense some people tried to use when Mayor Street made his idiotic “the brothers and sisters are in charge…the brothers and sisters are running this city” line in front of a group of black “journalists”.
So, using that defense, Trent Lott said what he did in front of a bunch of white guys, so it’s okay.
ppGaz
Not really. I was a young people once.
Not clear yet? Black people stay black all their lives. Youth, on the other hand, is wasted on …. you.
ppGaz
My bad! It sounded John.
Tim, really, a card carrying “librul” writing such a thing? I’m not sure that that isn’t worse!
Wow. I’ve seen stretches, but that’s a whopper. Here we are in a blog owned by a communications professor, and we’re saying that the audience doesn’t matter?
Who could invent this stuff? It’s Seinfeld material. That is sooooo Larry David.
Davebo
I wish Nagin would go back to the GOP.
What a wacko.
Jim Allen
Oy.
What. An. Idiot.
kl
But enough about the Harding administration!
Al Maviva
John, I’m with PPGaz, you’re a racist for noting this. Racist! Hate Crime! It’s kind of like war, John. If you aren’t actively serving and engaged in a firefight, right now, as you are reading this, you have no moral standing to be pro war. Similarly, if you aren’t black and oppressed, or at least Hispanic and somewhat downtrodden feeling, then you have no right to criticize Ray Nagin’s use of racial metaphors. The rule is simple: if a black person calls black people “chocolate” it’s cool; if a white person calls black people “black jelly beans” then it’s the worst crime since slavery, and worthy of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Your expectation that everybody else hew to the standards you think you need to stick to as a white male patriarchal oppressor, is sadly misplaced.
I hope that the crushing burden of white male racial guilt makes your back feel slightly sore this morning, you awful, mean person.
/racial grievance-mongering ‘tude.
I don’t see what the big deal was in Nagin’s statements about race. Nagin is a bit of a dingbat, but I know what he meant and I’m not offended because I think he meant well. NoLa creole culture is kind of special and it would be a shame to lose it, just as it’s a shame to see the old northeastern white ethnic neighborhoods wiped out first by the Great Society programs and blight, and now by gentrification. I like old, unique things, and sometimes the march of progress wipes out cultures and places that have merit to them, even if they aren’t physically perfect places and perfect little engineered societies. NoLa was home to a lot of decent folks, a lot of good little neighborhoods, families and friendships, and they gave the town its feel; it’s dreadful that a storm can wipe out those human bonds, that social fabric – and I think that’s what Nagin was trying to get at. On the other hand, I’m not sure that Detroit’s Poletown was knocked down due to God’s wrath though, any more than I think the hurricanes this summer were God’s vengeance for Mardis Gras. That part of Nagin’s statement was just plain nuts.
Steve
This post doesn’t make sense to me. Tim says it’s ok to argue for a return the racial status quo in New Orleans, but that it’s not ok to say it should be a black-majority city. Except that before the hurricane, it WAS a black-majority city, by a rather significant margin.
I don’t see Mayor Nagin saying anything here other than “We’re going to return New Orleans to the way it has always been, even if the white people Uptown think it would be a better city without all us black folks.”
TheNewGuy
Of course these things are subjective… but I use a rule of thumb for these situations. I substitute my own racial group for “black” (or “chocolate,” or whatever), and see if it sounds OK.
It doesn’t.
Feel free to disagree.
Bob In Pacifica
Is this the same “God” that wanted Bush to bring democracy to the Arab world and whispered into his ear,you know, is this the “higher Father” than Bush 41? Is this the “God,” going by the name “Allah,” that causes that holy green aura around the President of Iran? Or is this the “God” whose will it was to collapse that mine in West Virginia? Is Nagin a kind of alternative divining weatherman versus Pat Robertson?
I don’t want to seem blasphemous, but I don’t think “God” whispered into Bush’s ear or created any green aura or caused the collapse of the mine. Or flooded New Orleans or wasted Trent Lott’s beachfront home.
Nagin is no less deluded than Dubya or any of the others who want to hand off their actions or their tribulations to “God.”
demimondian
What Al said.
I would like to see NOLA return to the status quo racially and culturally, unlikely as I think it is that it will do so. A gentrified New Orleans will be just another American suburb: safe, predictable and boring. (I’d even offer as a hypothesis that part of the price of the wonderful things that came out of New Orleans is the persistent violence the city experienced. Creative communities have historically been turbulent.)
But “God is out to get America”? Naah, Osama, that dog won’t hunt.
NDC
Dear Mayor Nagin:
Next time you’re on the phone with God, could you ask him why he’s chosen Ron Artest as his divine instrument to destroy the second consecutive Pacers season? You seem to be His point man on destructive phenomena the rest of us can’t explain…
The Other Steve
ppGaz – I think the point, and I do agree with this. If this had been Mayor David Duke and he was in front of a crowd of white people and said “This city will be lilly white, as God intended it to be.” That would be wrong.
Racism is dead. It’s time we start acting like it.
yet another jeff
ppGaz, judging from the use of bold type that Tim used, my impression is that the post is about Nagin claiming that God wants a black majority in Nola. Seems to be a good rule of thumb that anyone that believes God wants an area to be a majority of any race is kinda crazy.
ppGaz
Yeah, nice try Al, but I never called anybody a racist. I just called them silly.
ppGaz
Uh huh. Yeah, that’s it.
Tim F.
Steve,
Nagin’s speech has two problems. First, the God stuff. Self-explanatory. The ‘chocolate’ stuff is also a little much. Second, his idea of maintaining a black-majority NOLA is fine as far as policy goes but it directly contravenes the legacy of Rev. Dr. King, who spent his life fighting against the formation of government policies on an explicitly racial basis. Like I said, if Nagin wants to propose a policy which seems like a fine thing to propose, and if he wants to use an appropriate birthday to give it extra resonance, then he should announce it on May 19.
Mr Furious
Link to video. It’s short, about 30 seconds. Go watch it.
ppGaz
What does preferring a mostly-black New Orleans have to do with racism? Isn’t that just a cultural preference?
Besides, even though I figure Nagin (who, by the way, I was probably the first to bash back in Katrina days for being incompetant, just in case all my fans forgot) might have been drunk yesterday (or most of the time, for all I can tell) …… the fact is, was probably just running off at the mouth, I don’t see anything wrong with either a mostly black New Orleans, or someone saying that they prefer the town that way. Cultural preference is not racism, any more than a taste for soul food (or a distaste for soul food) is racism.
Some of you appear to be unable to tell what real racism looks like if it bit you in the ass. This whole thread is a paean to silliness and political correctness … which of course is baaaaad if somebody else pulls it, but okay if we do it. Of course, that’s what PC is all about, right? I’m okay, you’re not okay.
yet another jeff
Not a screed about God? Poor use of bolding on Tim’s part? Please explain what’s wrong.
Dave Ruddell
I’m reminded of the episode of The Simpsons, where the Germans buy the nuclear plant. They tell Homer that Germany is ‘the land of chocolate’, and he goes into a dream sequence where he’s in a town where everything is made of chocolate. Ahhhhhhh, Chocolate….
Or is that not what Nagin had in mind?
ppGaz
At last, something worth discussing on this thread!
I mean, something worth discussing.
yet another jeff
Ok, outside of the more extreme examples, that’s probably true. Still, I don’t think God has anything to do with racial balance or barges.
ppGaz
I think of Him as the big impresario in the sky.
ppGaz
Uh, no thanks. I don’t intentionally watch Nagin, or Bill O’Reilly, or BET, or mexican soap operas.
I’m really a racist at heart.
SoCalJustice
ppgaz
Is it a just cultural preference to prefer a mostly-white Greenwich, Connecticut?
Mr Furious
Trust me pp, watch it. You of all people need it.
ppGaz
Good question. Fact is, you’ve exposed a cognitive dissonance in this whole subject.
Racism and cultural preference are two different things. There’s no value judgement in my assertion.
Now, how you parse and tweeze the two things apart, that’s up to you. For me, a preference to live around people like me is not racism. My neighborhood is about 50% hispanic, and adjacent neighborhoods are about 75% hispanic, and I am not hispanic. I don’t think about this much, but I know people who won’t buy houses down here in the inner city because of the hispanic majority in most of these neighborhoods. Racism? No, I wouldn’t say so, any more than the apparent preference for many hispanics for living in these mostly-hispanic neighborhoods is racist in my view.
However, don’t jump to any conclusions. My thoughts on the subject of racism are quite complex, and quite unconventional. I won’t bore you with them here, except to say two things: One, racism is alive and well in this country and a dangerous force still to be reckoned with, and two, racism is largely misunderstood and universally demagogued by politicians of all persuasions. Nagin included.
ppGaz
Self inflicted torture is really not my thing.
Is it Nagin, the Nabob of Nuttiness? Or something along those lines? I don’t care. I said all I had to say about him last fall. He should be in jail.
yet another jeff
You should watch more Mexican soap operas…no, wait…they suck. But the game shows are great.
Steve
I think Tim doesn’t understand either MLK or Malcolm X very well.
The idea that we honor MLK every time we pretend race doesn’t exist is an absurd conservative reinvention of his views. Sure, he wanted to bring about a future where race made no difference. But it was an aspiration, a dream. He didn’t say you should fix the problems of racism by pretending that racism, or race, doesn’t exist.
You have a bunch of white people in New Orleans basically expressing their hopes that the city will be a better place if all the black people don’t move back. And you have Mayor Nagin responding by saying it’s going to be rebuilt just like before, including the black majority. Somehow in all this, it’s the guy who wants the black majority to move back who is racist, just because he says so out loud?
Mr Furious
Fine, pGaz. It’s not Nagin, it’s the “Land of Chocolate” and you could use the step away from the brink.
Watch it and lighten up, or remain pissed off for the rest of the day.
ppGaz
Your handle is appropriate, dude. I’m hardly pissed off, I’m laughing my ass off at this silly thread and the lapdog responses to it.
Let me make you a deal. If you want to know whether I am “pissed off” about something, ask me. Use the question, it’s a really handy device.
chopper
how is saying that you don’t want (for an example) black people anywhere near you not a value judgement? i mean, you’re saying that black people don’t deserve to be in your presence. there’s more than a whiff of inferiority there. why else would you prefer to be only in the presence of your own race if not for a belief that your race is better?
ppGaz
Wow, you are really bad at this. I said no such thing. I was talking about people making choices about what neighborhood to live in, not about wanting some people “anywhere near me” which is quite a different thing.
Why do hispanics buy houses in hispanic neighborhoods? Because they like living around spanish-speaking neighbors, and having hispanic merchants and services nearby, and being catered to by hispanic businesspeople, and being sold to by hispanic realtors.
And the whites who don’t want to buy here? Well, they prefer not to have the spanish speaking neighbors and the mexican music blaring on the weekends and so forth, who knows? Who cares?
Why in the world would somebody deign to try to analyze the preferences of other people and then judge them?
The real crime in all of this is people taking these benign preferences and trying to turn them into racism.
That’s one of the most evil distortions of human nature and of true racism that there is. Your post reeks of this faux egalitarian snobbery, which is pure unadulterated bullshit.
What matters about racism is how people treat each other, not the cultural preferences they may have or enjoy, or not enjoy. It’s about treatment. Nothing else.
Cyrus
The “chocolate” metaphor is clumsy and stupid. Not an outrage, just the kind of thing you’d expect to see on a show like “Friends” or “Everybody Loves Raymond” where the lovable doofus tries to say something witty or explain something complicated and just winds up digging himself into a hole. In this case it’s stupidity coming from a guy who never exceeded mediocre in the first place, as far as I know.
If anything here is outrageous to me, it’s the implication that the racial mix of New Orleans is divinely ordained. Most people only notice how stupid, misanthropic and completely useless that attitude is when people like Robertson use it to say “the victims of that disaster must have deserved it”, but it’s no smarter or fairer about neutral or happy news.
ET
I can see why he would say what he did to the crowd he was addressing but ACK! He may have only had only one elected political job – but he should have known this was going to go over like a lead balloon. He could have made his point with different wording.
Darrell
Excuse me, where did ppgaz say or infer that he didn’t want black people “anywhere near” him? Oh that’s right, he never said it. He never implied it. You simply pulled that out of your ass
It’s natural for people of similar backgrounds and culture to be attracted to communities which share their background and culture. That is all he meant (if I may speak for him). Yet being the jackass that you are, you took his comments and inserted words and thoughts he never said or implied to smear him as racist.
ppGaz
Wow, it just gets deeper in here.
“Chocolate” is clumsy? I’ll just point out that that’s a totally subjective statement and let it go at that. Remember, we’re in a blog where the proprietor insisted that Bill Bennett’s remarks about black babies were NOT RACIST. In case you forgot where we were, eh?
Second, comparing Nagin’s remarks to Robertson’s grotesque calls for the wrath of God is just rhetorical bullshit. Nagin is a dunce, but he isn’t Robertson. Nobody is Robertson.
kl
Too late!
Steve
There is a big difference between wanting to live in a “white” neighborhood, or a “black” neighborhood, or an “Italian” neighborhood, versus trying to EXCLUDE people from your neighborhood in order to keep it all-white or all-whatever. The former is a natural impulse; the latter is presumably something we all disagree with. People have the right to live where they choose to live.
Maybe if you look at it this way Mayor Nagin’s comments seem less objectionable. He isn’t suggesting we should achieve a black majority in New Orleans by keeping white people out, after all. He’s just responding to the views of certain white people who either privately hope the blacks won’t move back to New Orleans or are actively working to discourage them from doing so.
I would also point out that, to a lot of people, the phrase “the way God intended it” means virtually the same thing as “the way things have always been.”
NDC
This is just a case of Nagin pandering to a group that is afraid that one of the consequences of the hurricane will be significant demographic change that results in them being a smaller percentage of the city’s population, and therefore of less consequence politically. Probably any racial group in the same position would have similar concerns, but it’s just unrealistic for Nagin or anyone else to promise that New Orleans will be the same as before. He’s just trying to score some cheap points with his perceived base, but really he’s just talking down to them.
Brian
Jayzus, ppGaz. You are an idiot of the first order. You advocate segregation (of thought in this case), and you don’t even realize it.
ppGaz
Doh!
tb
OK, NO’s mayor is a colorful goofball who uses double negatives. What now? Who gives a shit?
chopper
calm the hell down. the ‘black people’ example was just that, an example. you give me a generic statement, i take it to its logical conculsion. saying ‘i want to live with people like me’ leads to the logical conclusion that you think people of your own kind are superior to the rest. why else would you prefer to live around them?
it aint a hate crime, but it does whiff of superiority. whether its by race or religion or whatever. hispanics as well as whites.
Otto Man
Actually, Tim, that’s a misreading of King. True, many conservatives have seized upon the “content of their character” lines from the March on Washington speech to imply that King was somehow opposed to affirmative action, but in truth, King was an ardent supporter of race-based government action.
In fact, he was ahead of the government policies implemented by Johnson and Nixon. As far back as 1964, he wrote in Why We Can’t Wait that “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.” King supported affirmative action programs because he understood that the “dream” was still a ways off. As he put it, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.”
King found ample precedent for the favorable treatment of African Americans, likening it to the government’s approach to other people it owed, like veterans: “Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs,” he noted in 1965. ” And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war.”
Your main point, of course, is correct — King definitely wouldn’t have supported Nagin’s call for a majority-black city. He would’ve been much more concerned with the poor, regardless of race.
But the idea that King was opposed to race-conscious policies on the part of government agencies or college admissions or anything else is simply a conservative pipe dream. King spoke out on these specific issues early and often, and his stance is crystal clear.
chopper
while it’s true that acting on racist feelings is a bigger deal than sitting on them, treatment isn’t the only thing that matters when it comes to racism. not at all.
look, if some white supremacist wants to move up to some mountain to get away from all the races he hates on, he isn’t directly treating others one way or another, right? he’s just ‘exercising his cultural preferences.’ which of course, in this example, is racist. and while it isn’t the same as burning a cross on a lawn, it’s still racism and it still matters.
Paddy O'Shea
While I’m certain Mayor Nagin regrets the loss of John Cole’s support, I’m not certain that his support was really all that strong in the first place. Like I just can’t imagine a miffed Mr. Cole toddling out of his front door in his pajamas to remove the Nagin Now! lawn sign from his front yard.
My guess is he hadn’t given two seconds of thought to the embattled Mayor of New Orleans lately until this little gem popped up on his computer screen, affording him the opportunity to wax indignant. Which is really his favorite pose.
But those here who enjoy exciting places such as Branson and Dollywood will probably get an equally dynamic charge out of the new Dixieland Jazz/Louie Armstrong themed development plan in the works for the more boutique quarters of New Orleans.
Think of it this way, all that Black culture and history without having to suffer the presence of having those annoying and poor black people around! Just an army of polyester clad Winnebago driving overweight white folks plodding about, gobbling rancid gumbo and buying nicknacks to send home to Aunt Bitsy and Uncle Fred.
No wonder George Bush was so excited by his last visit there!
jack
It’s a bit revealing how some positing that John had written this. Leftists might infest the site, but they don’t feel any qualms about kicking the host. Like the Scorpion and the Frog.
And the notion that the statement was fine given the audience. What this does is endorse the position that it’s okay to be racist in the company of members of one’s own race.
And then there’s this idea that it’s okay because some white people feel that New Orleans would be better off if it had a lower percentage of black people in it in the future. First, I have heard a total of ZERO white elected officials endorsing this position. Had they, I’m sure we’d all know because a statement EXACTLY like Mayor Nagin’s, with the word ‘vanilla’ instead of ‘chocolate’ would have resulted in a firestorm of condemnation. And everyone here knows it. Second, I am unclear how, if some white official could be found to publically endorse such a position, one act of racism justifies another.
Mayor Nagin made a stupid, racist statement. He did so to try to show solidarity with people of his race, to try to get them to move back before elections are held–elections that he knows will remove him from office. He thinks his ham-handed racialism will win him points with people who are homeless due, at least in part, to his ineptitude.
I don’t think Nagin stands a chance with the good people of New Orleans, the people of all races who are working to restore their city to it’s former greatness. I think he knows it. And I think that’s why he’s started talking to an entirely different set of people.
The saddest thing is that there are leftists, on this site and elsewhere, who will twist their heads through their asses to come up with a justification for this man.
Another Jeff
Another pompous jackass who doesn’t know the difference between “by Tim F” and “by John Cole”.
Otto Man
For some reason, this post has been “awaiting moderation” for a half hour now, so I thought I’d repost my brilliant insights before the moment’s gone:
Actually, Tim, that’s a misreading of King. True, many conservatives have seized upon the “content of their character” lines from the March on Washington speech to imply that King was somehow opposed to affirmative action, but in truth, King was an ardent supporter of race-based government action.
In fact, he was ahead of the government policies implemented by Johnson and Nixon. As far back as 1964, he wrote in Why We Can’t Wait that “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.” King supported affirmative action programs because he understood that the “dream” was still a ways off. As he put it, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.”
King found ample precedent for the favorable treatment of African Americans, likening it to the government’s approach to other people it owed, like veterans: “Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs,” he noted in 1965. ” And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war.”
Your main point, of course, is correct—King definitely wouldn’t have supported Nagin’s call for a majority-black city. He would’ve been much more concerned with the poor, regardless of race.
But the idea that King was opposed to race-conscious policies on the part of government agencies or college admissions or anything else is simply a conservative pipe dream. King spoke out on these specific issues early and often, and his stance is crystal clear.
Craig
“Racism and cultural preference are two different things.”
I think in today’s world we tend to jump right to racism in these arguments and ignore the concept of “prejudice”. I would agree that racism and prejudice are two different things. Prejudice is an opinion favoring one thing over another due to a personal choice, which may itself be based upon inaccurate or incomplete information. Racism is a more thorough worldview that values one race of people over another.
When the MAYOR of a city says that he intends for his city to come back as a “chocolate”, black majority city, and that it is not just because of his personal desire but is also a mandate from God, this hints at a more overarching racist argument than a prejudiced preference. And its every bit as disconcerting as a Portland, Maine Mayor saying that his city will return from a natural disaster as a “vanilla” city with a white majority, as God intends it.
Bob In Pacifica
Wanting a black majority in New Orleans? How about Nagin saying, “I want all the citizens of New Orleans, whose homes were destroyed and who over the past months have been scattered to winds, to be welcomed back home. I want my government, the city, the state and the nation, to work ceaselessly and to volunteer funds generously to bring this about.”
There. We’ve eliminated any concerns of racism, we’ve eliminated God and His motives, and we’ve put the cure of this dreadful situation into the hands of those who can effect it.
Paddy O'Shea
Bob In Pacifica: New Orleans is about to be gentrified beyond recognition by developers whose plans have precious little to do with the people who lost their homes there.
The entire premise of this conversation is nonsense. And that it was started by the supposedly “Liberal” Tim F only serves to make it even more absurd.
Mr Furious
Your handle is appropriate, dude. I’m hardly pissed off, I’m laughing my ass off at this silly thread and the lapdog responses to it.
Let me make you a deal. If you want to know whether I am “pissed off” about something, ask me. Use the question, it’s a really handy device.
Yeah, my bad. you’re not “pissed off” today, you’re just playing the part of the pompous douche who can’t get over himself.
Assuming I’m pissed because of my name is rich after accusing me of doing the same. How does that “question” thing you mentioned work? Perhaps you could show me.
I was never “furious”, just beginning to get exasperated at your resistance to my offering a bit of levity to the debate. It’s a fucking video of Homer running through the “Land of Chocolate” and you assumed it was Nagin or Hannity.
Using “dude ” won’t fool kl, we all know you’re old… ;-)
Mr Furious
Yikes, that blockquote just completely screwed up…Should look like this:
Yeah, my bad. you’re not “pissed off” today, you’re just playing the part of the pompous douche who can’t get over himself.
Assuming I’m pissed because of my name is rich after accusing me of doing the same. How does that “question” thing you mentioned work? Perhaps you could show me.
I was never “furious”, just beginning to get exasperated at your resistance to my offering a bit of levity to the debate. It’s a fucking video of Homer running through the “Land of Chocolate” and you assumed it was Nagin or Hannity.
Using “dude ” won’t fool kl, we all know you’re old… :-)
ppGaz
Sure.
ppGaz
Yes, I announce it regularly. It’s like John and his Steeler Fan thing. It’s all about getting to know each other, and bonding.
ppGaz
I am at a place where I cannot watch streaming video.
Maybe later.
Mr Furious
[accepts handshake, goes back to work…]
ppGaz
MF, drinks are on me.
(to kl — that’s a figure of speech)
tb
Not quite so outrrrageous when you include this part. Given NO’s rich multicultural heritage it’s not as bullshit an explanation as it would be coming from Trent Lott. Yes, he’s full of shit, but how can you be the mayor of NO and not be a little bit of an artist with the BS? Nice to see so many new conservative champions against racism, though. I’m sure you’ll all be fighting right along side us when the shoe’s on the other foot, hey?
ppGaz
See, this is a fine rant, if you think the world is all about who gets to say what, and who gets to get away with saying what.
But it isn’t. The world is really about how people treat each other. All of this … stuff … that you posted is just more of the same useless bullshit.
Personally, I don’t think NO should be rebuilt at all, unless somebody is going to both take responsibility for, and pay for, building a levee system that works. And if they are, then the same effort and money should be put into rebuilding the poorest, blackest parts of town that are put into rebuilding the richest, whitest parts, so that the rebuilt city has the same cultural character it had pre-Katrina.
And then when it’s rebuilt, somebody needs to take responsbility for creating and implementing a disaster plan that prevents a recurrence of 2005 even if the new levee system fails. I use “levee” here as a placeholder, I am not making hydrological recommendations. Replace it with whatever the right terminology is.
As for Nagin, I think he should spend more time apologizing for putting his city into harm’s way and less time making speeches about Martin Luther King day.
But the chocolate thing? Not worth ten seconds of your time.
Clever
Heh.
[Might take a bit to load on dialup…also might need to refresh to sync audio.]
The Other Steve
Steve wrote:
Possibly. But, considering ppgaz’s statement…
Perhaps the whites just want to live in a city with a cultural preference towards whites? That’s not so objectionable, right? I mean after all blacks commit most of the crimes in this country, are loud, obnoxious and smell funny, who would possibly want to live next to them?
Don’t believe me? Go back and read the crap from the KKK. It’s not that they hate blacks… it’s that they hate the stereotype of the way black people act culturally. So it’s really nothing more than a cultural preference.
Fucking bullshit, if you ask me.
I think Bob of Pacifica had it right…
That’s what he should have said. He did not because he’s continuing the existence of racism in our society.
ppGaz
Yes, it is. The only thing that matters, the only thing over which you have any control, the only thing that can be affected by the law.
I don’t care if my neighbor thinks I’m a gringo racist asshole or not. It’s how he treats me that matters to me, and how I treat him that matters to him.
As soon as something else is said to matter, the American experiment in melting pots is over. Then you are into the world of the Thought Police, and Political Correctness, and all the rest of the manipulations.
ppGaz
Well, that’s exactly how a good idea gets turned into a lie, with you being the liar.
Why is the preference based on people being smelly? Who said anything about people being smelly?
Do you think that because the majority of whites don’t want to buy a house down here in my very hispanic neighborhood, they think that hispanics are smelly and disgusting people? Who led you to have such a fucked up idea? The hispanics who would rather live here than out in the lily-white suburb …. looking down there noses at smelly white trash like me?
WTF are you thinking, and where did you get these idiotic ideas?
You seem to be starting with the KKK and then generalizing all human activity based on that narrow model.
And you call somebody else’s idea bullshit?
Fuck me, that’s …. bizarre.
ppGaz
Well, that’s a different subject. For that, you need a different mayor. And could have used one last summer.
ppGaz
“their noses”
Darrell
I am in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with much of what ppgaz has written today. While on the subject of Nagin not caring what whitey living in Uptown may think, let’s not forget that such race baiting is a commonplace tactic for Dems
ppGaz
No offense, but the only blatant example of racism I’ve seen in this thread? Your post.
Step back and take a look at what you are saying.
Honestly. No wonder they hate liberals around here. That’s just fucked up.
ppGaz
Well Darrell, all due respect and appreciation for the fact that we actually agree on something … this is not a Dem-GOP issue. It’s an issue of being able to make critical distinctions. I applaud you for making this one correctly. However it’s not a party thing. It’s a people thing.
chopper
would you care if your neighbor is a neo-nazi and has his neo-nazi pals over all the time, whether or not he treats you with respect when you see him? come on.
besides, very rarely do beliefs not turn into treatment in some way. do you really think that that hypothetical neighbor, thinking you’re a gringo racist a$$hole, is going to otherwise treat you completely normally and respectfully? of course not.
i haven’t met a single racist person who hasn’t acted in some way or another based on that agenda.
ppGaz
So, your approach to everything is to take it to its most ridiculous extreme, and judge everything by that?
Good for you. I don’t.
My hypothetical associate looks at two houses, same price, same square feet, one in my hispanic part of town, one in lilywhiteville, and chooses (prefers) the suburb …. are you saying that this IN ITSELF makes him a racist?
The Other Steve
Sheesh, you’re arguing like a Republican. Next you’re going to accuse me of not believing the people of Guam don’t count because they aren’t a state.
ppGaz, you seriously need to step back and look in a mirror.
You’re defending the racist attitudes of the KKK. I can understand why, as your from Arizona and it was the same fucking trap that Barry Goldwater got into when he came out against Civil Rights in the ’64 race. But jesus, get a grip on yourself.
ppGaz
You’re an idiot. I’m talking about preferences of neighborhood and choices of culture, and you are trying to compare that to the KKK.
You are the kind of person who DESERVES the KKK, because as long as you fall for that horseshit, they can bamboozle you.
If I prefer French food over soul food …I’m a racist? If I prefer an upscale gated neighborhood that is mostly white over a poor neighborhood that is mostly black … I’m a racist?
No wonder you have George Bush for a president. If you can’t think any straighter than that, you deserve him. He can make a fucking fool out of you.
If my friend prefers cowboy suburb over hispanic innerburb, he’s a racist?
You’re completely full of shit, sir.
And you have no idea what real racism is about, at all.
The Other Steve
Oh, one more thing…
ppGaz, you’re the one making the classic “liberal” argument, that racism of blacks towards whites is ok.
If Nagin had been talking culture he would have talked culture. He didn’t. He talked race.
ppGaz
Don’t lecture me on racism. You wouldn’t know real racism if it bit you in the ass … which it will, with your attitude.
A preference in food, or music, or neighborhood, or social groups, is not racism, you damned fool. Racism is sociopathic. A preference is not sociopathic, it’s a fucking choice.
What next … I’m a racist because I won’t wear a backward baseball cap and greet people with “yo momma?” Or eat collard greens? Pick whatever stereotype wakes you up from your intellectual coma.
Good God almighty, it’s no wonder people think liberals are a bunch of fucking idiots.
ppGaz
I give up, Darrell. These guys are really lost in a fog of bullshit. Take over and give them hell for the rest of the day. I fully support your efforts. I never realized what made you so mad about liberals. Now I do.
DougJ
Al, leave the satire to the professionals. Stick to what you do best: tortured misinterpretations of federal law.
RonB
Exactly why I couldn’t bring myself to snark about this.
Luminous Estuary
Whoever would have thought we’d see Tim F. and Joe Scarborough working the same side of the street?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665505/#060117a
ppGaz
I had forgotten, in my delerium over the hated Bush, how fuzzy-headed liberals can be.
Now I have to take back every rotten thing I’ve ever said to Darrell, and even to John …. liberals must absolutely drive them up the fucking wall!
jack
Ppgaz you BEGAN your posting talking about what people ‘said’.
And you’ve been trying to weasel around it ever since.
If the white mayor of any city made the exact same comment regarding whites in his city as Ray Nagin made regarding blacks in his city–under the exact same circumstances(before a small, mostly white audience) you would not be here defending their ‘cultural preference’. You would not excuse the comment because of the size/nature of the audience. And you know it.
The man made a vile comment, expressed an extraordinarily racist comment and you are beating yourself black and blue in your effort to negate the importance of what he said. You’re doing everything you can to ridicule those who’ve taken umbrage to it.
Bob from Pacifica said it best, but a comment like that will never come out of someone like Ray Nagin’s mouth without prompting. Do you know why? Because people like you, Ppgaz, will always excuse his racism.
ppGaz
Oh, he might have made a typical goofy Naginesque comment, but it’s not “vile”.
And your proof-by-assertion argument that it’s vile is hardly convincing. I find it to be in the range somewhere between silly and spoof-level material. Something DougJ would write to throw us off track.
I don’t know the backstory, but I’m gonna guess that the complaints of some blacks down there that the poorer, blacker neighborhoods aren’t getting the support that the better-off neighborhoods are getting are somehow behind his remarks. Of course, if he were a competant mayor, they wouldn’t have the problem in the first place.
You, on the other hand, are just another full of shit loudmouth. I don’t excuse racism, and I know what racism is, unlike most of the lefty idiots writing about in here. Before you can tell who’s excusing it, you have to know what it is. It is not a set of choices over how or where to live. It’s a sociopathic, pathological denial of rights, dignity, protection, or other things of value, on the basis of race and/or despite indications that would otherwise be to the contrary.
I don’t know Nagin that well, other than to think that he might be the worst mayor in America. But if he said that he would prefer a mostly black rather than mostly white New Orleans, I’d say, good for him. It’s an honest statement, and I hope he can guide the next, competant mayor of the city to achieve that end, if it’s possible. Just make sure that the programs and incentives are there to bring back, as someone said up thread, the same population that was there before. Simple! Give preference to the people who were living there pre-Katrina and recreate the demographics of before. I think that’s a fine idea. If my way is acceptable, and his Naginesque way makes fuzzy headed liberals nervous, so be it. Fuzzy headed liberals need to be nervous, because they are wrong about this.
chopper
it’s not a ridiculous extreme when you yourself made a very similar comparison. if your neighbor thinks you’re a ‘gringo racist a$$hole’ as you put it, or your neighbors really are racist a$$holes (like KKK or hammerskins), makes no real difference. you yourself said, it doesn’t matter what a neighbor thinks of another one, as long as they don’t act on it. which i think is bunk.
you’re also using your over-the-top righteous indignation as an excuse to ignore the rest of my post, namely
ppGaz
Well, but you are wrong. It’s behavior and acts which count in the world, not thoughts. Behavior, acts, only. Not thoughts.
ppGaz
By the way, KKK membership is an act, not a thought.
Acts count, thoughts do not.
chopper
so then you wouldn’t mind if your neighbors were, in fact, neo-nazis, as long as they didn’t act on it? cause it’s only thoughts, right?
either way, it’s bunk. no one with a racist agenda doesn’t act on it in some way or another. there’s no such thing as ‘thought-only racism.’
ppGaz
Group. That’s a membership, an act of joining. One might think about being a NeoNazi, but the thought doesn’t make it so. The act makes it so.
You are quite correct. Racism is about acts, not thoughts. Now if you can learn to tell thoughts from acts, you’ll be on your way to understanding.
My neighbor can think any thought, but he is a racist only if and when he acts as a racist.
But you might apply for a job with the thought police, I think they are looking for a few good recruits like you.
ppGaz
chopper = DougJ?
Because really, you can’t be that dumb, can you?
If I think about killing somebody, I am a murderer?
If I think about running, I am a runner?
If I think a racist thought, I’m a racist?
Are you familiar with the term “Magical Thinking?”
The Other Steve
Oh save me your faux outrage. I very very much doubt John would defend what Nagin said.
In fact browsing the blogs… the righties are making a stink, and the lefties are ignoring the whole thing.(again, because black on whitey racism is to be ignored)
Hell, not even Nagin is defending what he said
http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/011706kvueNagin-cb.123135b6.html
The Other Steve
Give it up PPG. You’re done here.
ppGaz
I’m right, and you’re wrong, Steve.
Sorry.
ppGaz
So what? He’s politician, an incompetant mayor, and talks like a drunk half the time. Are you suggesting that I adjust my thinking according to his public relations problems?
No, you seem to be suggesting that I sample the blogosphere and adjust my thinking according to that.
Or something.
No, I was right this morning, right at noon, and I’m right now.
The thread was a joke. And you aren’t a racist because you don’t want to live in a particular neighborhood, which has to rank as the dumbest fucking assertion I’ve seen around here in a long time.
Last but not least, if this the kind of crap that most liberals fall for, they deserve the wrath of Darrell and his friends. Seriously. And you deserve George W. Bush, too. With that kind of idiocy and PC confusion out there, his people can manipulate with impunity.
Sock Puppet
(((#@’*~ Give it up PPG. You’re done here.” ~*’@#)))
You mean there are actual standards in places like this?
Oh dear. That puts everything into an entirely new and very disturbing perspective.
And all this time I thought I was just having fun with crazy people.
Who dares to account
for what mad things do?
Can those who accuse
be less crazy than you?
ppGaz
Heh.
And they, with you!
Sock Puppet
I feel, happy.
chopper
i hate to break this to you, but ‘neo-nazi’ isn’t a group with a membership. it’s like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. you don’t ‘join neo-naziism,’ any more than you ‘join liberalism.’ there are, however, specific neo-nazi groups you can join, just like there are political groups you can join, like the federalist society. but that isn’t ‘joining conservatism.’
don’t put words in my mouth. i never said that, and i wholeheartedly disagree with it. racism is as much a state of mind as it is the actions one commits based on that state of mind.
bull. if you hate black people and think they’re inferior, you’re a racist, whether or not you act on it (this despite the fact that as i said already, nobody ever ‘never acts’ on their racist beliefs anyways)
ooh, good one. but you see, i’m not advocating locking people up for their thoughts. everybody is totally free to be as much of a racist as they feel like, as long as they aren’t stepping on anyone else’s rights. but they’re still racists.
see, now you’re purposely conflating issues to muddy the water. a better example would be, if i believe in god, does that make me a theist? well, yeah. of course. it doesn’t matter if i go to church or do anything regarding the belief, i’m still a theist.
i hate to bust out the tired ‘dictionary definition,’ but racism has 2. i’ll use dictionary.com…
see, belief, prejudice, those are thoughts. if i believe that the ‘white race’ is better than the inferior minorities, that’s racism. if i prejudge minorities thusly, that’s racism. if i actively discriminate in my actions thusly, that’s also racism.
now, as an aside, note how civil i’m being here. it’s one of the things that comes with maturity and adulthood. if you’re going to reply, please quit with the personal attacks etc, it’s really, really childish and doesn’t aid your argument one bit.
chopper
but we’re not saying that “not wanting to live in a particular neighborhood” is racism. you’re broadening the assertion to create a strawman here.
there are plenty of reasons why someone wouldn’t want to move to or live in some neighborhood. i don’t want to live in say, a bad neighborhood in SE DC. it isn’t racism, it’s because it isn’t a very safe neigborhood. maybe the neighborhood is too far from the subway, or the traffic sucks, or there’s no good deli nearby, or the school system blows.
not wanting to live in some neighborhood for any of a variety of reasons like that isn’t racism, noone is arguing that.
but not wanting to live in a neighborhood because of the racial makeup of the people there (all else being equal) is.
Tim F.
Folks:
As long as we’re debating the relative merits of deontological versus consequentialist ethical frameworks, these links might help.
Deontology
Utilitarianism (see also, Consequentialism)
cheers.
ppGaz
Good lord. I am going to need a big shovel to deal with that load of bullshit!
Okay, here we go!
1. You cannot be a Neo Nazi by only thinking about it. You have to do something. You have to act on it. And if you don’t act on it, ever, in any way, then you only imagined that you were a Neo Nazi. You weren’t really one. You treated all other persons with respect? You never egged on a Neo Nazi, or declared yourself? Like I said, thoughts are not deeds.
2. Yes, you did say that. You said that there was no such thing as a “thought-only” racist. And I agreed with you, there isn’t. A racist is a person who does racist acts, expresses racist views, promotes racist activities, like I said. If all your hypothetical person ever did was harbor “x people are no good” but lived his life as if he thought x people were just fine, like himself, then that person is not a racist. No deed, no speech, no act could be pointed to which would identify that person as a racist. Besides, it’s a nutty hypothetical in the first place. For the reason you inadvertantly stated: If the guy is a real racist, he is going to act on it. Which is what I am saying. You’re right, there is no such thing as a thought-only racist … because it’s about actions, not thoughts.
3. No, belief in God is not an apt comparison IMO. I didn’t use “belief in running” as an example. I said “thinking about running.” Thinking running thoughts does not make me a runner. What makes me a runner is running. And the deed is what counts … even if I hate running, think it’s evil, think it will kill me …. if I run, I am a runner. If I don’t run, I am not a runner.
You may not have paid attention to how we got here.
Somebody up there (upthread) said that making a cultural choice can be racism. I say it cannot. I am not a racist because I choose to live in a hispanic neighborhood, or a white neighborhood, or a neighborhood of circus people. I am making a rational choice. That cannot be extrapolated into racism.
That is my assertion, I’m right, and I’m stickin to it.
Last but not least, I don’t care if you like my writing style or not. Makes no difference to me whatever. If you say idiotic things, I am going to call you an idiot.
ppGaz
Sure they are. Look upthread, it’s the whole argument here AFAIC.
The question was, if people made neighborhood choices which were at least party based on cultural characteristics of the neighborhoods, then they’re racists.
That’s it, the whole argument.
I’m saying, no, that is not racism. Racism is identifiaable by racist acts.
“I don’t want to live here with a bunch of white trash”. That’s sounding pretty racist.
“I don’t want to buy a house around here in this 90% hispanic neighborhood. I prefer to live in the cowboy neighborhood over there, since I am a cowboy.” Not racist.
“I don’t want to live here in this 90% hispanic neighborhood because hispanics are bad people and I don’t trust them.” Starting to sound racist.
“I don’t want to live here in this hispanic neighborhood because it has a crime rate five times the rate in my current neighborhood.” Not racist, a rational choice.
“I don’t want to live here in this all white neighborhood because these people are all snooty and unfriendly and I prefer to live over here in this Cuban neighborhood where people are more friendly.” Not racist. Rational choice.
Racism is identified by racist acts, not by rational choices. Preferences are rational choices, unless they result in acts motivated by racism and which have racist effect.
chopper
no you don’t. you can be a liberal without ever ‘doing something liberal.’ you can be a christian without ever going to church or praying or lecturing someone on morality.
but harboring the belief that “x people are no good,” he wouldn’t be living his life as if he thought x people were fine like himself.
you’re misunderstanding; there are racist thoughts and deeds that flow from those beliefs. while the first inexorably leads to the second (which is what i meant when i said ‘there’s no such thing as a thought-only racist’) doesn’t mean that the first doesn’t exist. if i harbor racist thoughts, i’m going to act on them. but maybe not immediately. until then, i’m still harboring racist beliefs and am a racist. but it always happens.
yes it is. it’s a belief that one acts on in one way or another. but the belief in and of itself is theism.
well of course ‘circus people’ isn’t a race. but making the ‘cultural choice’ to only live around say, your own race sure is racism.
i don’t think that choosing to live in a certain neighborhood based solely on the racial makeup of the people there is rational at all.
my dad always used to say, the more a person declares that they’re right, the more often they’re making up for the fact that they’re wrong.
so i take it then that you’re ignoring the actual definition of ‘racism’ then as a belief?
chopper
agreed. although thinking ‘i don’t want to live here with a bunch of white trash’ isn’t an action, is it? yet you think its ‘sounding pretty racist’? doesn’t that go against your assertion that it’s only racism when you act on it?
“cowboy neighborhood”? at least use an example that exists in real life. as i said, we’re talking about situations where other stuff is equal.
actually, past ‘starting to sound racist’ and into full-on racist.
of course, and it’s the same as the examples i used above. in these cases, the fact that the neighborhood is hispanic is ancillary to the reason. there’s no ‘cultural preference’ at all (to use your term) to argue about.
ppGaz
Yes, but it’s the acts that make you the racist, not the thoughts.
The question didn’t evolve here on the basis of “If I keep having these racist thoughts, then I’m (going to be) a racist.” It was “If I make a rational choice which can somehow be compared to a similar choice made by racists, like living in a certain neighborhood, then I must be a racist.” The former is probably true, the latter is not true. I am not a racist because I make a rational choice, even if every racist on earth made the same choice along with me.
Your argument is just absurd: Unless everyone is willing to live everywhere, they’re all racists. Any non-black who won’t buy a house in a predominantly black neighborhood is a racist. Don’t come back and tell me that isn’t what you meant. Otherwise, explain to me how a non-black person makes a rational choice not to live in a black neighborhood and doesn’t get called a racist for making that choice. Explain to me how choosing to live in a mostly white neighborhood is racist, but choosing to live in a mostly hispanic neighborhood isn’t racist. How choosing to live in Chinatown, if I’m Chinese, isn’t racist?
All Chinese in Chinatowns are racist, then? Suppose you approached a chinese in Chinatown, and said, I will GIVE you a brand new luxury home in this very nice but mostly hispanic and black neighborhood. And the chinese says, no thanks, I prefer to live here, with people who talk like me and think like me, and shop at my chinese grocery and get my live chickens over there at the market, and spend my days with chinese people. He’s a racist?
So when somebody is right, what do they say, according to your dad? “I’m wrong?” No, I am right, and I am saying I am right. I like to keep things simple.
ppGaz
Good grief. No, it’s an example of why my assertion is true. There’s no racism unless the choicemaker (a) makes the choice and somehow (b) associates it with racism.
Well, I suspect that we agree more than disagree, but that you are stuck on some particular way of saying these things.
ppGaz
You didn’t grow up in Phoenix, obviously ;-)
I did.
Yes, cowboy neighborhoods. Every driveway has two pickup trucks. Every radio tuned to Country and Western stations. Mostly white, some hispanic. Very few blacks. America Love It Or Leave It bumper stickers 30 years ago. Cowboy hats on the men … and the women.
I wore a cowboy hat to school when I was a kid. Many kids did around here.
Phoenix has largely outgrown this style of living, but you can find it in rural areas, or nowadays, in the “exurbs.”
Whole neighborhoods here are known as “horse properties” because you can keep livestock on them.
The Other Steve
I would choose not to buy a house in a neighborhood which has a high crime rate and/or has a high squalor rate. I don’t want to live there and it’s not a good investment.
That decision is cultural. It would not matter to me if the primary residents were white, black, pink or green.
But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about Mayor Nagin saying white people ain’t welcome here.
So he’s making the choice for me. It doesn’t matter if I I’m creole, have money to build a house, and intend on opening a Gumbo restaurant. I’m not wanted because I’m not black enough.
So you’ve built an interesting strawman argument, but it’s not pertinent to the discussion. Which is why you were wrong at noon and are still wrong.
And before you give me more bullshit about mine being some kind of liberal position. Again, I glance at the blogs, and the lefty blogs(the ones willing to recognize what Nagin said) are all arguing the same point you are. That he wasn’t really being racist, he was concerned about the poor people not having affordable housing.
Well you know what, if that’s what he meant, then that’s what he should have said.
ppGaz
It’s what I was talking about. Upthread, the meme was, a choice of where to live based on cultural factors was racism. Absolutely wrong. If that were true, then the chinese in Chinatown is a racist for making a cultural lifestyle choice to live in Chinatown. It’s absurd.
No, I went back up and looked at the Naginisms at the top of the thread. I don’t see him saying that at all.
I see you saying that that’s what you heard.
But you are wrong. That’s not what he said. The God reference was a little goofy even for him, but it’s just theatrical. He’s not putting up a Black Only sign. He’s putting up a Restore New Orleans Like It Was sign.
Does he owe an apology? Hell no, although it might be politically astute to make one. But that’s his call.
The comparisons to Robertson are completely inapt. Nagin was just making a Naginism. Robertson is a crazy fucker who thinks that he can call down the wrath of God and kill people and wipe out cities.
It was a stupid premise at the top of the thread and it’s a stupid presence down here at the bottom.
ppGaz
“presence” = “premise”
ppGaz
Nope. I made no strawman argument. I made an assertion, which is that choosing a place to live is not racist simply because the places chosen between have racial makeups. They can be rational choices that have nothing to do with racism. I was right about that then and I’m right about it now. Maybe you thought the argument was about something else, and maybe to others, it was. But to me it was all about that point. (I refer to the noon-forward part of the fray; prior to that I was just laughing at Tim’s original post which I still think was a gross overreaction …. like yours).
I don’t care what goes in the blogs. The assertion that choosing not to live in neighborhood x is racist (was it you that said, oh, that’s the kind of argument the KKK makes? For crissakes ….) was absurd and remains absurd. Like I said, the Chinatown example proves the flaw in that silly theory.
Heh. Can’t argue with that. But you guys have leveraged poor communication (what I call Naginisms) with a whole racist theory not supported by the facts. I can’t find that Nagin wants anything other than the demographics he used to have, which is not racist, it’s just a preference.
But where’s the churn, and the page views, in “he shoulda said it better?” Better to invent a racist overtone and compare him with Robertson, right?
kl
BYOIV!
ppGaz
Funny. Really, one of your better ones.
But I think I have to take points off for your taking all day with this. Shouldn’t you have come up with this hours ago? I am going to need a note from your caseworker. Otherwise how do I know this is your original work?
You see my dilemma.
kl
Not all of us live here, pp! ;)
ppGaz
Sadly, I must invoke the Eight Hour rule on your haw haw.
You can go to the Olympics, but only as an alternate.
kl
Somehow I think I’ll learn to live with it!
ppGaz
Just joshin ya. You did good work today.
I’m …. well … proud of you.
(sniffling) I gotta go now …..
kl
As long as we’ve letting our guard down, pp, you really should start a blog. You’d be a great success: You can type fast and you have all the time in the– well, you have a lot of free time. You would be a traffic magnet! Just a suggestion, not trying to tell you what to do or anything. (You could call it… ppGabs? Maybe not.)
ppGaz
Very kind of you to say so, but keeping up a blog looks like a lot of work to me. John works really hard at this thing. One reason for its success … he just works hard at it.
I don’t have as much time as it appears. For one thing, I have several screens (not windows but monitors) up and I am doing several things at once. This activity is mostly for relaxation. If it were work, I’d hate it. I am lazy to a fault. Laziness is really my best trait.
Another thing is, I’m too cranky. I piss off everybody sooner or later. Hell, I even piss myself off at times. Like right now. Who the FUCK do I think I am?
See what I mean. So what kind of crowd would I attract? Mass murderers. Embezzlers. All kinds of sociopaths. See what I mean?
Last but not least, the Bush White House would never allow me to prosper. The black helicopters hovering over my house are already getting a little too close for comfort.
But I appreciate the thought.
HH
George Galloway, guilty as sin in oil-for-food while kissin terrorist/dictator ass all day long – “man, did that guy really give Coleman hell!”George Galloway acts like a crazy person on reality TV (as opposed to, say, Capitol Hill – “George who? I never liked the guy anyway!”Ray Nagin shifts blame to Bushitler while leaving his own citizens to die as legions of school buses are flooded out, all the while telling Louis Farrakhan about a “crater” – “What a guy! You tell him Ray!”Nagin imitates Sharpton and Pat Robertson on their worst days combined – “Well, now he lost me!”
kl
You betcha!
HH
Let’s reformat that:
George Galloway, guilty as sin in oil-for-food while kissin terrorist/dictator ass all day long – “man, did that guy really give Coleman hell!”
George Galloway acts like a crazy person on reality TV (as opposed to, say, Capitol Hill – “George who? I never liked the guy anyway!”
Ray Nagin shifts blame to Bushitler while leaving his own citizens to die as legions of school buses are flooded out, all the while telling Louis Farrakhan about a “crater” – “What a guy! You tell him Ray!”
Nagin imitates Sharpton and Pat Robertson on their worst days combined – “Well, now he lost me!”
Paddy O'Shea
Ah yes, another day of fun and frolics @ Buffoon Juice. A place where you can glean the daily teachings of Comrade Rush as they are processed through the brains of the glue sniffing right like Granny’s daily dozen down at the dialysis lab.
Let’s see, what wasn’t discussed on Buffoon Juice today:
1) The White House is stonewalling the world over reports that Jack Abramoff was granted entrance into the White House over 100 times. That, my friends, is even more times than his fellow gay conservative Geff Guckert-Gannon managed to gain entrance to the Executive Mansion. For an administration that has trouble with the “gay agenda,” there sure seems to be a lot of Jolly Rogers hanging out there.
2) Al Gore made a speech suggesting that George W. Bush could very well be impeached for his penchant for electronic panty checks. Larry “Bud” Mehlman responded in typically bitchy Bush admin fashion, suggesting that Gore only made the speech because he is longing for attention. Laughable, you know? Are they all West Texas Girls at the White House?
3) Rumors that Fitz is about to indict Karl “Spanky” Rove are everywhere today. The Grand Jury has been presented with the relevant information regarding Karl’s lying about his treason spree back there when the War in Iraq was only a gleam on georgie’s video game monitor.
Quite a day.
Except here.
ppGaz
Damn, Pad, that is some funny material.
Larry “Bud” Mehlman. Isn’t that a send-up of the character Dave Letterman used to send out to do shtick on his late show?
Paddy O'Shea
I guess. Bud is dead, though.
Q) Upon overthrowing the U.S. Constitution and seizing dictatorial power, the Bush administration will assume the name of what 80s heavy metal hair band?
A) Queensryche
ppGaz
I think that Bud was a character owned by NBC; his “death” was theatrical. His real name is Calvert DeForest and I think he is still alive.
Paddy O'Shea
Question for you: Tim F and John Cole are the same fellow, right? The writing style and observations are so similar as to be hardly distinguishable. This thread being an example. Nobody but some grumpy white conservative could possibly give a shit about Nagin’s pep talk to his demoralized constituency.
ppGaz
Liberals are neurotic about race. Liberals are also just as doctrinaire as anybody else.
You look at righties who seem doctrinaire to the point of being insane, and you think, where the hell did they learn to be like that?
From liberals.
Why does John Cole, who is very liberal, look down his nose at liberals?
Because liberals are just fucking annoying and unreasonable.
No, Tim and John are not the same person.
Paddy O'Shea
You see things quite differently here than I do. I think Cole is an out and out phony. He throws out occasional observations that might indicate a concern about such trivial issues as the erosion of our freedoms under the Bush admin, but then he’ll turn around and howl like a detoxing Rush Limbaugh over the questioning of Alito during the Senate hearings. It all smacks of a routine.
In some ways an out and out rightwing blog is preferable to what is put out here. At least they play it straight. Here it’s just a steady diet of cute bullshit.
HH
“Rumors that Fitz is about to indict Karl ‘Spanky’ Rove are everywhere today.”
See also “every day for the past several months.”
HH
So when is Teddy’s apology for this?
RonB
FWIW from a newbie here(not much), but I don’t think John is a phony so much as he’s waking up to the fact that the left…might be right about Bush/so called conservatives. A very difficult thing to get over if you have spent alot of energy and identity denying and deriding the critics. This of course could be a desire for company, since I am a recovering rightie myself. But I think it’s one of the reasons I settled here. I felt like the author was going thru that transition too.
chopper
no it isn’t. running and murdering, those are by definition physical actions. racism is, by definition, a belief. a thought. as well as actions performed in accordance with those beliefs.
again, you’re ignoring the rest: all else being equal. i don’t live in chinatown for a number of reasons. not wanting to live around asians isn’t one of them though.
i’m not saying that one is racist and the other isn’t. where did i say that? choosing to live in a hispanic neighborhood solely because you want to be around hispanic people (excluding, of course, the rational reasons we agree on) as opposed to whites or blacks is racist just the same as choosing to live in a white neighborhood in preference to blacks and hispanics for similar reasons.
wanting to be near stores that serve your own special needs as opposed to having to travel far is a perfectly valid reason to choose a neighborhood. if you’ll remember, i used a similar example above re: the deli. however, only wanting to hang out with chinese people to the exclusion of others (all else being equal) is a racist reason.
but thinking “i don’t want to live in this white trash neighborhood” isn’t a choice or any action. it’s just a thought. unless you’re arguing that the above thought is an action, in which case any racist belief is an action.
‘cowboy’ isn’t a race then, is it? no one is saying that all ‘cultural chartacteristics’ as you put it, are racial. hell, some people want to live with others of their same religion as opposed to race. but making the choice when those ‘cultural characteristics’ are racial, is racist.
bull. you made an assertion that choosing a neighborhood based on ‘cultural characteristics’ is not racist. it was pointed out that yes, if those ‘cultural characteristics’ are racial, then it is in fact racist. pointing to the crime rate as a reason for not living somewhere is a red herring, unless you consider a high crime rate to be a ‘cultural characteristic’ of (in your example) hispanics.
chosing a place to live based on rational choices like crime rate and the others i and you have brought up is perfectly fine no matter what the racial makeup of the neighborhood is. we’re not saying it’s not.
but making that choice on race-based ‘cultural characteristics’ (i.e. ‘screw the crime rate, i don’t want to be around latino culture’) is racism. you keep muddying the waters with examples that aren’t in any way racial ‘cultural characteristics’ (crime rate, asian groceries, cowboys) to try to avoid that point.
ppGaz
Mainly because you’re a racist.
Why am I arguing with a racist?
Seriously, if you take a look at your last post, you’ll see that your argument amounts to, mainly, “It’s racism when I choose to think so … or not …. maybe. Besides it’s all about thought.”
My argument is: “It’s racism when it looks unambiguously like racism, acts like racism, and talks like racism.”
Anything beyond my vesion requires a blend of magical thinking, mind reading, and thought police.
In short, it requires a Republican ;-)
ppGaz
No, but the fray started when somebody said that my example of making a living-housebuying choice based on cultural considerations was “racism.”
It isn’t. Rational choices are not racism. Every white person who doesn’t want to live in a mostly black neighborhood is not a racist. Every chinese who doesn’t want to live in a white neighborhood is not a racist. Every hispanic who doesn’t want to live in a white neighborhood is not a racist. Every black person who would rather see New Orleans go back to being mostly black is not a racist.
Or more correctly, these people are not acting on racist motivations, which is what counts. They’re just making rational choices.
When PC interferes with the making of rational choices, then …. well, then you have an all-Democrat or all-Republican government! Or, you have Texas. Whichever.
chopper
you are seriously misreading most everything i’m saying here. first off, i never said that choosing not to live in some neighborhood is automatically racism. never. i said i don’t live in chinatown for a number of reasons, and they have nothing to do with it being full of asians. i said that already, and you completely missed it. to help you out, here are some of those reasons: it’s too expensive. i also need parks for my dog. it’s too loud and busy at night for me to sleep. none of those have to do with the racial makeup of the neighborhood.
now, if i had said that i don’t want to live in chinatown because i don’t like being around asians, that would be totally different. but i didn’t say that. at all.
and i don’t get where you’re interpreting my assertion to be that racism is ‘all about thought’. i’ve established like 4 times in this thread that there are racist beliefs and racist actions that stem from them. so no, it isn’t ‘all about thought’. so why do you keep reading something totally different from what i’m writing?
it is racism if the reason they don’t want to live in said black neighborhood is because it’s full of blacks. i keep telling you that i’m talking about a decision predicated just on the racial makeup of the neighborhood, and you keep completely ignoring that.
yes they are, if their reasons for doing so hinge on teh racial makeup of the neighborhoods in question.
not to be snarky, but i’d really recommend you brush up on your reading comprehension, because you are consistently missing most everything i’m saying and building strawmen left and right.
here’s the summary of your assertion: choosing to live in a particular neighborhood based on ‘cultural considerations’ is not racist. and racism is an act, a deed.
here’s the summary of my point: if those ‘cultural considerations’ hinge on teh racial makeup of the denizens of that neighborhood (that is, outside of normal, rational considerations like proximity to grocery stores, cost, crime rate etc that aren’t ‘cultural considerations’, being near other cowboys) then yes it is racist as it’s based solely on the racial makeup of those people. and racism is not just an act, it is by definition a belief as well as descriptive of acts performed based on those beliefs. see: the dictionary.
ppGaz
Well, this is an example of where we are saying the same thing but managing to argue anyway. The main difference between us here is that I’m arguing that the overt racism you are talking about is manifested in unambiguous action that can be identified … not by secret thoughts that never manifest themselves in word and deed. It’s a minor point, but somehow we are stuck on it.
Well, that’s a pretty fine-grained distinction we are making here. Living in Chinatown means being immersed in Chinese ways, foods, stores, language, newspapers, you name it. And plenty-o-Asians. Are you saying that everyone has to look at Chinatown and plumb the depths of his soul to ascertain why he doesn’t want to live there?
Most non-Asians wouldn’t even give it a thought: I’d rather live somewhere else. Does that make me a racist wrt Asians? I don’t think so. It just means I am making a rational choice which excludes living in Chinatown.
So again we may be saying the same thing. Rational choices are not racism. New Orleans “like it was” is a rational choice, and is not racism.
The alternative view requires us to label a lot of things racism which are not racism …. which is what blogsters and polticians would like us to do. But I am not buying it.
chopper
indeed. well, as i said, racism is properly defined as including the belief as well as the action. that being said, of course the actions weigh far more importantly than the mere believing in something.
not at all. my decision to not live in chinatown was very quick and didn’t involve any soul-searching. i couldn’t afford it. the next neighborhood over, full of white people? also too expensive, no parks, too loud and busy. same decision.
now, the soul-searching comes into play when you’ve got a good neighborhood that offers you a lot but you still don’t want to move there because “it’s full of X”
the indifference with which someone tosses the decision aside has no real bearing on an analysis of racism. besides, i’m of the belief that deciding where you live based solely on the racial makeup of the residents isn’t rational. racism is irrational, after all.
that’s the main point we disagree on, it would seem; i agree that rational choices are not necessarily racist. however, i don’t believe that choosing a neighorhood based on the racial makeup of the residents is rational at all.
ppGaz
Yes, but what I believe has no effect on you, unless I act on it. It has no effect on society, unless I act on it. You can’t ascertain it, unless I act or speak on it. The law cannot address it, it can only address my actions.
Belief is moot. Only actions count. If you want to have a theoretical discussion, fine, but that’s not the discussion I’m having. I’m having a discussion which fell out of an argument over whether overt action was racist. You are bent on analyzing what’s behind the overt action, and I don’t care what’s behind it.
I think we have to leave it at that. Except for …
Hmm, at the risk of opening yet another can of worms … not sure I agree. Racism is irrational when rationality is offered as an alternative …. and not taken. In other words, if I have never seen a human who doesn’t look like me, it is not irrational to be concerned about that human when I see him for the first time.
At the same time, even if I harbor an irrational fear or dislike for another race, if I am meticulous about seeing to it that my prejudices do not interfere with that other person’s life, dignity, opportunity, etc …. and take pains to see that the law is applied equally …. then what difference does it make how I got to those actions? The point is, I either got to them, or I didn’t. If I did, then what I “believed” doesn’t really matter.
ppGaz
Of course it is, and it is probably by far the most common single deciding factor in most homebuying decisions. Because you are using “racial” when you mean “demographic.”
The demographics are all-important. The whole point of this argument has been to knock the nutty idea that rational demographic and cultural choices are “racist.”
They aren’t. Saying so is wrong on several levels. One, it trivializes what I call “real racism” (overt, unfavorable, illegally discriminatory, sociopathic, etc). Two, it opens the door for assigning a “racism” component to all manner of personal choices. But personal choices are not at issue here. If I don’t want to eat in a Chinese restaurant, that’s my choice. If I don’t want to seat a Chinese family in my restaurant, that’s not my choice. If I don’t want to live in a mostly Chinese neighborhood, that’s my choice. If I try to prevent a Chinese family from moving into my neighborhood, that is not my choice to make.
Where I live is up to me, and it is none of anyone’s business why I make the choice. No matter how long you go on arguing otherwise.
ppGaz
Having slept on this, Stevarino, I decided that it needed another pass. Just in case you drive by this tired old thread.
Nagin isn’t saying “white people ain’t welcome here.” What he is saying is that people — probably white — ain’t welcome to try to come in and take advantage of Katrina by trying to convert New Orleans into a mostly white, gentrified place devoid of its former mix of people.
While, in Naginesque fashion, he said it poorly, I think that’s what he meant, and I further think that a reasonable person would conclude that. Not that he was making some racist statement or that he was somehow stepping on the memory of Dr. King.
So back to the top of the thread we go …. this whole thing is about Political Correctness gone berzerk, and you, old buddy, are the berzerker here. This thread’s premise was nonsense.
chopper
so what? it’s being common has no bearing on whether or not it’s racism.
i don’t care if the pope does it when he’s looking for a villa in tuscany, it aint rational. it’s explainable and understandable, but it aint rational. rational means based on reason, logic. ‘i don’t wanna live near any mexicans’ isn’t either.
i’m sorry that it trivializes overt acts to you, but that doesn’t change the nature of it. i admit fully that racist acts ‘count more’ than racist beliefs, and full-on racist actions (overt ones) are even more of a problem. that doesn’t change the fact that the others are racist. i mean, there’s racism, and then there’s racism, y’know? the second doesn’t extinguish the first.
yep. but that’s life. people don’t want to admit that decisions they make in their day to day lives may have a racist subtext, but they often do.
hey, i’m not saying lock people up for having racist beliefs, or force them into neighborhoods full of mexicans they don’t want to be around. where you live is of course your own decision, whether that decision is motivated by rational reasons or irrational racial ones.
ppGaz
That sounds pretty racist. But not absolutely racist. It might just be a strong aversion to loud mexican music.
Seriously, you are saying that the decision MUST BE and can ONLY BE racist. That’s just wrong. And the hypothetical choice as you described DOES NOT have to be couched in user-friendly politically correct bullshit to pass my test. You know, I like my half-hispanic neighborhood. I happen to be one of those rare gringos who really likes mexican music. Sometimes I listen to it in my car just because I enjoy it. I can bone up on my Spanish at the same time. I put salsa on practically everything I eat. I’m practically an honorary Mexican. My son is half hispanic, because his mother was hispanic. I am not real hispano-unfriendly here.
However, a lot of my white friends wouldn’t buy a house in my neighborhood, and NOT ONE OF THEM IS A FUCKING RACIST. I don’t make friends with racists, and unlike you, I know how to identify them.
chopper
no i’m not. you should stop paraphrasing, you’re really bad at it.
not all mexican neighborhoods are loud and obnoxious. i used to live in one, and it was just fine. however, making it out like you don’t want to live in a mexican neighborhood because ‘mexicans are loud and obnoxious people’ is not the same as going through a neighborhood, noticing it’s full of loud people (mexican, irish, what have you) and saying ‘screw this place’.
and hey, i identify racism all the time. you just have a much more restrictive definition than i which lets a lot of people off the hook. i don’t. simple as that.
ppGaz
I suppose we can let it go at that, since we aren’t getting anywhere.
I’d just characterize the difference this way: You have a more permissive, porous definition than I do. I require evidence, acts, and unambiguous indications. I don’t assume that if someone makes a choice, they are acting out racism just because their choice leads them away from something that has a racial component to it.
And I’m not doing this (defining) to fill space here. I’m doing it because I’ve found that liberals in general are just boneheads about this. I am starting to realize how ridiculous we liberals must look to some people, and why they treat us like pointy-headed weirdos.
I am starting to think that the right’s patented ways of discrediting us are very clever, because not only are they on target, we are stubbornly unable to step back from our favorite assumptions and consider the possibility that maybe they are just full of shit.
Anyway, we should declare this thread dead and buried.
chopper
yeah, i think this thread is pretty much gone. so this will be my last post or comment in it anyways..
i think one of the big probelms is, everyone ends up looking at racism through this lens that liberalism has ground imperfectly. one thing i’ll always hate about liberalism, it really tarnished the discussion we have about race in this country by making every instance of racism into a capital crime. “you want to live in a white neighborhood? you, sir, are worse than hitler.”
look, wanting to live around people of your own kind is a natural instinct. it’s about tribal survival, it’s a remnant from the old days way back when when we were living in trees and using our own poop as currency (you know, the 60’s). nowadays, it’s irrational, as blacks in america, for example, aren’t going anywhere soon. they’re here to stay.
but still, choosing your neighborhood based on the racial makeup is racism, you’re prejudging a bunch of people you’ve never met based solely on their race. it’s irrational. but it’s obviously not the same as dragging some dude to death behind your car or spray-painting swastikas on their house.
unfortunately, any talk about differentiating ‘degrees’ of racism or the nature of the source of it (i.e. is the reason behind it at least understandable from an instinctual mechanism, or is it just plain hate?) has fallen by the wayside due to the homogenous lumping of all racism together as some unitary thing.