Setanta wrote:Ramafuchs, its difficult to understand what it is you are trying to say. Furthermore, what you are injecting into this thread is not germane to the subject under discussion.
Yeah, he's difficult to understand, but I considered his quote about people who would otherwise consider themselves good people following a racist crowd movement a valid rejoinder to the comments about Arab and Latin American racism rising from the Republican demonization efforts. Certainly those efforts have to stir latent anxiety into active racism to be effective.
I would comment that it was not "latent racism" which lead the Germans to follow the NSDAP lead in 1933 and the subsequent years. This is the kind of oversimplification that beggars historical understanding. Jews were as despised in Russia and France as in Germany. The situation which allowed the NSDAP to take control was far more complex than simply having successfully appealed to German racism. The NSDAP never polled even as much of 40% of the vote in an open election (they polled higher after the Reichstag fire, but by that time, left-wing parties were banned). They polled 35% before the fire--and that's exactly what Hitler polled in his failed attempt to run against Hindenberg for President. It was only through the manipulation of parliamentary means which one finds in "Westminster-style" democracies (the NSDAP was a minority government, having polled more than any other party, but less than 50%), the appeal to public hysteria in the wake of the Reichstag fire, dickering with the conservatives and the Catholic Centre Party, and finally, the extraordinary powers of the Chancellor in the constitutional legacy of Bismarck--which enabled the NSDAP and Hitler to assume the position they eventually attained. More than any other single factor, the decision by the Catholic Centre Party to support the Enabling Act put Hitler in the driver's seat. Racism played no part in the means by which the NSDAP attained supreme power. As for German militarism, it was the two post-war myths of the "Versailles Diktat" and the "Stab in the Back" which the NSDAP effectively manipulated to gain popular support, and they neither originated those ploys, nor exclusively used them.
******************************
If there were a correlation it might be this: For the Republicans, any appeal to racist sentiment is of necessity covert. Racism does not necessarily form a core principle of the Republicans (others might disagree, but i would remain unconvinced). Politicians don't long succeed without being pragmatic--the Republicans are more than happy to have a Colin Powell, or a Condaleeze Rice or a Clarence Thomas on display. If the Republicans are conscientiously using racism (which is something i don't doubt), it is the "dirty tricks" boys in the back room who are using racism exactly as the NSDAP used anti-semitism. It is not a cornerstone of the policy to gain and keep power, but is it would be useful tool in appealing to a segment of the population for whom racism is a "fact of life." Just as a certain segment of the German population in the 1930s could be relied upon to respond enthusiastically to a contention that Jews were ruining their lives, there is a certain segment of the American population which can be relied upon today to respond just as enthusiastically to crypto-racist propaganda. Anti-semitism did not propel Hitler and the NSDAP to power--but it was a useful tool of the back room and gutter politics at which Hitler excelled. If one alleges that the Republicans exploit racism today, it would be in the same sub rosa manner.
I said the same thing (though not nearly so eloquently or with such historical relevance) several posts back. I was just saying Ram wasn't tremendously off topic given eB's earlier post.
To be perfectly honest, i rather took offense at an all-too-typical attitude of painting America in the blackest terms which one finds among Europeans and others who neither live here, nor really know anything about life here. Those folks have a bad case of noticing the mote in the American eye despite the debility of the beam in their own. This is not to say that i have any animus toward Ramafuchs--although it is ironically the same sort of stereotyping of a huge population which is operative in functional racism.
Setanta wrote:To be perfectly honest, i rather took offense at an all-too-typical attitude of painting America in the blackest terms which one finds among Europeans and others who neither live here, nor really know anything about life here. Those folks have a bad case of noticing the mote in the American eye despite the debility of the beam in their own. This is not to say that i have any animus toward Ramafuchs--although it is ironically the same sort of stereotyping of a huge population which is operative in functional racism.
Can't argue with that. Did you see the rampant bigotry in
this thread?
No, i hadn't seen that. There have been a sufficient number of Wal-Mart threads that i don't pay attention to a thread with that in the title. I suspect Ramafuchs is young and a perfervid believer in liberalism and democracy. Therefore, Bush and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad provide a perfect target for his hatred. The problem is, of course, that it is easy to transfer hatred of what clowns like the ones on Pennsylvania Avenue do in the world to a hatred of all Am3ericans and all things American.
Setanta wrote:No, i hadn't seen that. There have been a sufficient number of Wal-Mart threads that i don't pay attention to a thread with that in the title. I suspect Ramafuchs is young and a perfervid believer in liberalism and democracy. Therefore, Bush and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad provide a perfect target for his hatred. The problem is, of course, that it is easy to transfer hatred of what clowns like the ones on Pennsylvania Avenue do in the world to a hatred of all Am3ericans and all things American.
Actually, Rama claims to be a "Ghandian Communist" who believes totally in socialism.
I wrote liberalism and democracy with lower case letters. There is no reason for you to assume that the use of the term liberalism equates which everything you despise, MM, and excoriate when referring to American "liberals," who are only liberal in comparison to American conservatives. In most of the world, what passes for a liberal in the United States would be seen as a moderate or even a conservative.
Socialists not only claim to believe in democracy, they claim that their programs are in the interest of democratic principles. That socialism, just like capitalist "democracy," will result in an elitist ruling class, doesn't alter the conviction of the true believer that he or she acts in the interest of the people.
Setanta wrote:I wrote liberalism and democracy with lower case letters. There is no reason for you to assume that the use of the term liberalism equates which everything you despise, MM, and excoriate when referring to American "liberals," who are only liberal in comparison to American conservatives. In most of the world, what passes for a liberal in the United States would be seen as a moderate or even a conservative.
Socialists not only claim to believe in democracy, they claim that their programs are in the interest of democratic principles. That socialism, just like capitalist "democracy," will result in an elitist ruling class, doesn't alter the conviction of the true believer that he or she acts in the interest of the people.
I was assuming nothing,and you are wrong to think I was.
I was simply quoting him directly,nothing more.
Here is a sample of what he said...
Quote:Ramafuchs
Polykiloposter
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 20198
Location: Germany
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kajsa
my wife and my poor self is much indebted .
Without regrets.
neither my wife nor i wush to tolerate thie present day nonsense.
My wife is a christian and I am a critical Gandhiian communist.
My humble appeal is this.
Bush's USA wrest your image from the dustbin where you had been now.
When you opened your remark with "Actually . . .", the implication was that Ramafuchs was not a young devotee of liberalism and democracy, but rather that he is a " 'Ghandian Communist' who believes totally in socialism." Being a communist and believing in socialism is not at variance with believing in liberalism and democracy. Let us just assume then, that as is so often the case, you did not express yourself well.
blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.
"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"
The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.
And this you consider evidence of racial equality?
No, you idiot. I clearly stated that the punishment was not "equal". The white kids should have been charged with hate crimes, just as someone who paints a swastika on someons door.
woiyo wrote:blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.
"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"
The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.
And this you consider evidence of racial equality?
No, you idiot. I clearly stated that the punishment was not "equal". The white kids should have been charged with hate crimes, just as someone who paints a swastika on someons door.
Odd. So what is your disagreement with Krugman? That he pointed to one side of a scale (measuring equality) but you prefer to point to the other side of the scale? Could you clarify.
Set said
Quote:Racism does not necessarily form a core principle of the Republicans (others might disagree, but i would remain unconvinced). Politicians don't long succeed without being pragmatic--the Republicans are more than happy to have a Colin Powell, or a Condaleeze Rice or a Clarence Thomas on display. If the Republicans are conscientiously using racism (which is something i don't doubt), it is the "dirty tricks" boys in the back room who are using racism exactly as the NSDAP used anti-semitism. It is not a cornerstone of the policy to gain and keep power, but is it would be useful tool in appealing to a segment of the population for whom racism is a "fact of life."
That looks right on the money.
blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.
"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"
The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.
And this you consider evidence of racial equality?
No, you idiot. I clearly stated that the punishment was not "equal". The white kids should have been charged with hate crimes, just as someone who paints a swastika on someons door.
Odd. So what is your disagreement with Krugman? That he pointed to one side of a scale (measuring equality) but you prefer to point to the other side of the scale? Could you clarify.
If the white boys were charged with hate crimes initially, maybe...just maybe, the problem would not have escalated. Getting suspended from school (which I believe was the punishment) obviously caused the black boys to take matters intot heir own hands.
Krugman implied that the black boy should not have been charged with assault. He is wrong IMO.
Then, there's these two guys...
Quote:Gibson on Jena demonstrators: "Black devils stalking their streets," but "[t]hey wanna fight the white devil"
During the September 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated Fox News Radio show, while discussing recent events surrounding the so-called Jena Six with the show's executive producer, known on air as "Angry Rich," John Gibson asserted that the demonstrators who gathered last week in Jena, Louisiana, only "wanna fight the white devil." Gibson aired news coverage of the Jena 6 protests and challenged protestors' claims that the incidents in Jena are representative of ongoing racism in this country. He said: "[W]hat they're worried about is a mirage of 1950s-style American segregation, racism from the South. They wanna fight the white devil. ... [T]here's no -- can't go fight the black devil. Black devils stalking their streets every night gunning down their own people -- can't go fight that. That would be snitchin'."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709240013?f=h_top
and bill o'reilly...
Quote:"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City," said O'Reilly on the Sept. 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show.
"There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who [was] screaming,'M-Fer was, I want more iced tea," he told National Public Radio's Juan Williams. "[It] was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3649826&page=1
As odious as it was to hang the nooses, it constituted protected speech under the first amendment. Most of us are insulted or have our feelings hurt on an almost daily basis, but there are no actions in the law protecting us from this, or avenging these acts for us.
Maryland should be allowed to absorb all of DC except for the Federal Triangle. Then, the former residents of DC would have voting rights in MD.
I think this could be done without amending the constitution.
woiyo wrote:blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.
"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"
The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.
And this you consider evidence of racial equality?
No, you idiot. I clearly stated that the punishment was not "equal". The white kids should have been charged with hate crimes, just as someone who paints a swastika on someons door.
Odd. So what is your disagreement with Krugman? That he pointed to one side of a scale (measuring equality) but you prefer to point to the other side of the scale? Could you clarify.
If the white boys were charged with hate crimes initially, maybe...just maybe, the problem would not have escalated. Getting suspended from school (which I believe was the punishment) obviously caused the black boys to take matters intot heir own hands.
Krugman implied that the black boy should not have been charged with assault. He is wrong IMO.
Krugman's relevant paragraph
Quote:Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
Perhaps it is the word "harsh" which suggests, to your ear, the implication you charge him with. My reading of Krugman is 1) there was
unequal treatment/charges and 2) aside from that inequality, a charge of attempted second degree murder in this instance is
harsh.
My twin brother was once beaten up as badly as the fellow in Jena and if the local prosecuter had charged the three fellows with attempted second degree murder we would have thought him quite insane.
