MERGED--> all discussion of Sen. Allen incident

[BVS]

Great post Yolland...

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't know that he missed the "direction" of your argument about Allen's intentions, because so far as I can tell, you have yet to indicate one. All you've done is attempt to deconstruct the racial slur interpretation. And the "mutual admiration society" bit was cheap and unwarranted--just because someone, rightly or wrongly, assumes Allen's intents to be racist doesn't prove that they consider themselves morally superior for thinking that, nor that they're expressing that opinion solely for "emotional release's" sake. But to be fair, there have been plenty of snide remarks from both sides in this thread, so whatever.

Absent speaking with Allen about the intentions behind the remark, I (and no one else) can really speak to his intentions. My point (and Indy has echoed) is that accusations of racism are not treated lightly and should not be made without a degree of care. Allen (and his handlers) have offered the immediate political response, which sound clunky and uneven when taking the time to line them up side by side.

The thread started with “disbelief” that anyone would question the accusation of racism, and was followed up with echoes along the same line (treating the discussion as humorous and feeble attempts at rationality). My comment was directed at the collective “I can’t believe people don’t think the way we do” which can come across with a high degree of smugness.

I do appreciate the further analysis offered and the thoughtful detail supporting your statements.

Whether it be Allen or Young, I would want to get some sound-bite or political-spokesperson free comment on what they were thinking when they made their statements before laying the racist label on either gentlemen. In a world where speed-to-accusation is the fashion, I’m looking for a little bit more depth before the accusation is made. Not giving someone a free pass to make racist comments.

 

[deep]

Andrew Young did not dig himself deeper into a hole.

He could have tried to deconstruct his remarks and say his intent was not bigoted

instead he said the remarks are wrong and he apologized
and because of the harm he gave up a position

Mel Gibson did pretty much the same thing, but took a bit of time to do it.

George Allen, and his supporters/ defenders are not credible with the explanations of his use of the word "macaca"

the (different, and varied) explanations are not credible
"macaca" has a racial overtone
and Allen has a background and history that supports that he is aware of it, too.


I can agree, with not jumping to a conclusion with every incident.

Two white republicans (Tony Snow and Mitt Romney) have used the expression
"tar baby". It is possible they may have only meant "a sticky situation".

Such as, "Getting involved in that situation would be like putting our hand in a bucket of glue."

"That situation is a tar-baby". Can get people upset, but I can't say with reasonable certainty that it is racist.
I would not use it.

 

[ntalwar]

Whether it be Allen or Young, I would want to get some sound-bite or political-spokesperson free comment on what they were thinking when they made their statements before laying the racist label on either gentlemen. In a world where speed-to-accusation is the fashion, I’m looking for a little bit more depth before the accusation is made. Not giving someone a free pass to make racist comments.

Perhaps you didn't see my post on the comment made by the US Indian PAC that the community was indeed offended by Allen's remark. If it sounds like a racist remark, it usually is. And you were the one who started the thread on Young - now it seems like you are having second thoughts on that.

 

[maycocksean]

I don't know that he missed the "direction" of your argument about Allen's intentions, because so far as I can tell, you have yet to indicate one. All you've done is attempt to deconstruct the racial slur interpretation. And the "mutual admiration society" bit was cheap and unwarranted--just because someone, rightly or wrongly, assumes Allen's intents to be racist doesn't prove that they consider themselves morally superior for thinking that, nor that they're expressing that opinion solely for "emotional release's" sake. But to be fair, there have been plenty of snide remarks from both sides in this thread, so whatever.

What Allen said--if anything especially because it involved an obscure word--requires interpretation, one way or the other. Again, which of the interpretations Allen has offered do you buy? That he mangled "mohawk" (or perhaps slyly combined it with caca, "shit"?), or that it was just some random string of phonemes which tumbled out? The former explanation(s) is the only one that strikes me as being an attempt at a real "answer", but for me personally, it just doesn't add up--Sidarth does not have a mohawk, mohawk is a common and not particularly hard word to remember (especially if you've been privately calling someone that for a while), and anyhow why would it come out as the very different-sounding word "macaca"? Allen does not have a history of speech problems. If it was really a sly combination of "mo-" with the Spanish for "shit," then at the very least that's a shockingly vulgar thing for a politician to publically call someone, isn't it? When you were insulted at a political rally, did the politician himself single you out for insult before the audience?

As for the "made it up"/"used it with no idea of its meaning" explanation, that simply doesn't constitute an explanation at all. Sure, people use a word other than the one they meant all the time, but that fact by itself doesn't establish what they meant. To give a silly example: a few days ago a neighbor of mine enthused to me about the fabulous new diet/exercise/lifestyle-philosophy regimen she was following, and kept glowingly exclaiming how the man who invented and now propounds it "was just emaciated!!" by it. When I puzzledly asked her why an end result of emaciation would recommend a diet plan to anybody, she replied in a way that made it clear to me that what she in fact meant was emancipated. So even though she used a word she clearly did not know the meaning of, nonetheless she was able to convincingly articulate what she did mean: that he was liberated, set free by this diet-and-lifestyle regimen.

INDY explained Hillary's and Biden's comments as dumb ad-libs which bombed. I think that's a fairly convincing explanation in Biden's case, especially since he was speaking to Indian-Americans when he said it, and in context clearly meant to highlight their business successes (though it was a pathetically clumsy and ill-considered way of doing so). Hillary's comment, I am less certain--although it didn't involve a racial slur, and she said it in the context of praising a famous Indian (Gandhi), nonetheless she was clearly trying to make humor out of the fact that Indian-Americans stereotypically often run gas stations, which is highly insensitive at best as "humor." On the other hand, she did later publically apologize, in the process credibly explaining her remark as a poorly considered and insensitive joke. Whether that acceptably enough excuses such behavior from an elected official is up to her prospective constituents to judge. If you want to call some of them hypocrites for forgiving her and not Allen, fine, but that doesn't establish one way or the other what Allen "really meant" either.

As far as potential past evidence on Allen goes, I personally don't see it as necessary one way or the other for evaluating his conceivable range of intentions here, but there are things you could cite in addition to the oddness of already having been fascinated with Confederate flags as a (native) Californian high school student and UCLA freshman. For example, a March 2005 Atlanta Journal-Constitution report described how while governor (1994-98) he dubbed the NAACP "an extremist group" and issued a decidely unbalanced-sounding proclamation of "Confederate History Month." From the Washington Post:

(Allen's Republican successor, Jim Gilmore, changed the proclamation significantly, including adding a denunciation of slavery.) Also, as a candidate for US Representative in 1991, Allen opposed the 1991 Civil Rights Act, and as a Virginia state delegate he opposed recognizing MLK Jr. Day, arguing (per the Richmond Times-Dispatch) that that day was already set aside to honor Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, and "we shouldn't honor a non-Virginian with his own holiday."

Of course, you could rationalize away all of these things as innocent, if politically ill-advised in the longterm, expressions of Southern conservatism. And you could also cite instances of Allen's support for anti-racist gestures, such as the 2005 Senate resolution apologizing for never having passed legislation to prevent lynching, or his commemorative campaign trip to Selma with civil rights veteran John Lewis (D-GA). But really, what other sort of "supporting evidence" for interpreting "macaca" as a racial slur would you expect to find? Allen is too young to have been a segregationist, and too smart to go around publically spewing the n-word or broadly slamming minority groups, even if he were thus inclined. I just don't see any of this as necessary for interpreting the "macaca" statement as at best coarse and mean-spirited stupidity, and at worst as a poorly disguised racial slur.

Yolland, you rock.

 

[maycocksean]

Perhaps you’ve missed the direction of the discussion. The questioning in this thread has not been “This can’t be racism” but “How do you reach the conclusion of racism”. It would be far easier to join the mutual admiration society of those who come to the conclusion without question. But what would be the point of these threads (other than simple emotional release)?

It would surprise me (or leave me aghast, which is a little more dramatic) that the issue is “obvious” when one doesn’t even understand the meaning of the word used. You are correct that there would be no discussion if “******” was used, as there is common understanding and consensus as to its meaning. This turns into an “Allen should have known what the word meant” discussion.

Many have recognized the context of the political rally, but fail to see how an operative for a political opponent would draw the ire of a politician. Has anyone attended a political rally as the “opposition”? And tried to stand in front? And done it multiple times? I recall attending a speech by a Democratic candidate for President on my college campus. I wasn’t political (still am not really), but I thought it would be interesting to hear him speak. Since I wasn’t registered with the campaign as a supporter, you wouldn’t believe the grief I got for simply wanting to stand up front. So here is Sidarth, the lone Webb supporter at the front of an Allen rally. Again. And the prime motive for singling Sidarth out is the color of his skin? If that is the conclusion you want to reach, that is fine. All that has been asked is for a little more evidence of Allen’s prior conduct that would support the conclusion.

No, I was quite aware of the direction of the discussion. And my question is how can you not reach a conclusion of racism? It's not just the word itself, it's the context, it's repeated use, that make the racist intent clear.

Furthermore, I think we all realize that what raised Allen's ire was that the guy was from the opposition's campaign. The problem was that he took the cheap shot of using race to express his ire. It's quite common. I was having dinner with some friends earlier in the summer before we went to the States on vacation and we were talking about how a newly constructed waterpark here in Saipan is dangerous because of the slippery paving stones. My friends were disgusted by the accidents their kids had there and they sighed, "It's those Koreans." (the park is Korean-owned). There's a lot of prejudice among the local people towards Koreans as well as Chinese here. This friend equated poorly constructed park as something innately having to do with the fact that the owners were Korean. My point here is that attaching race as a factor in something seen as wrong or annoying is a common expression of racism.

As for further evidence, I think Yolland's done a bang up job of providing that.

So, again, I can't see how Allen's comments are defensible as "not racist", unless you just hate to see Republicans attacked and feel compelled to defend them no matter how far-fetched that defense might be.

 

[INDY500]

Yolland
Sorry it took so long to respond to your thoughtful post. I was just interested to see if the issue got any attention on the weekend shows. Except for a DOWN arrow on The Beltway Boys I didn't hear any. But I didn't watch them all.
So why defend George Allen's comments? Well, actually, if you read my posts I don't. All my comments were addressing the obvious double standard that some hold Republicans to. If the title of the thread had been "George Allen sticks foot in mouth" or "George Allen embarrasses himself" you wouldn't have heard much if anything from me. But it was "G.A. exposes himself as a racist."

So I put up the Biden and Hillary Clinton quotes as they were somewhat related except from Democrats. Little response, MS said she didn't condone them. But no one applied the same standard and labeled them racist. Ok, fine. I didn't consider those quotes racists either, so why the rush to judgement on Senator Allen? So I researched for past incidents I might not be familiar with. Something other than a youthful fascination with the Confederate flag.
Apparently I wasn't the only one researching because the DailyKos had a "Compilation of George Allen's Violent and Racist Past." Some of which you listed, for the first time on the thread, in your post, but well after Allen had already been called a "racist", "bigot","bastard" and an "oddball" (In a thread decrying name calling no less)

he dubbed the NAACP "an extremist group"

Sadly under Julian Bond, I would agree. If not extremist, highly partisan. Read what Bond has said about conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes.
"They've had a collection of black hustlers and hucksters on their payrolls for more than twenty years, promoting them as the new generation of black leaders. They can't deal with the leaders we choose for ourselves, so they manufacture, promote, and hire new ones. Like ventriloquists’ dummies, [these blacks] speak in their puppet-master’s voice" -- Julian Bond at the 2002 NAACP Convention
Or about GWB and his administration in 2001.
President Bush had reached into "the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."
"their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a crowd in 2004.
You be the judge.

issued a decidedly unbalanced-sounding proclamation of "Confederate History Month."

Yawn. Too boring to research.

opposed the 1991 Civil Rights Act

I remember many were concerned with the potential cost to business because of new rules for punitive and compensatory claims but I can't find any quotes from Allen on the issue.

and as a Virginia state delegate he opposed recognizing MLK Jr. Day, arguing (per the Richmond Times-Dispatch) that that day was already set aside to honor Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, and "we shouldn't honor a non-Virginian with his own holiday."

--In Arkansas, Bill Clinton as governor;
a) shared MLK Jr Day with Robert E Lee.
b) signed in 1987 a law designating the top blue star in the state flag to symbolize the Confederacy.
c) made no effort to overturn a state law setting aside the Saturday before Easter as Confederate Flag Day
d) issued a proclamation designating a birthday memorial for Jefferson Davis
e) called former Senator Wm Fulbright "My mentor, a visionary, a humanitarian."
Senator Fulbright voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Law.
Clinton a racist?

Look.
--If you think "school vouchers", "border security", "welfare reform" or "death penalty" are all racist "code-words" that conservatives use.
--If you were "troubled" by Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 20 years ago but not Ned Lamont's recent membership in a country club "not known for it's diversity."
--If you concluded in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina that "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
--Then you probably think ALL conservatives are racists or racists "waiting to be exposed" and nothing I say will change your mind. A mind that many of you would rather use to name-call then actually debate issues it would seem. (check the thread)

 

[yolland]

So why defend George Allen's comments? Well, actually, if you read my posts I don't. All my comments were addressing the obvious double standard that some hold Republicans to. If the title of the thread had been "George Allen sticks foot in mouth" or "George Allen embarrasses himself" you wouldn't have heard much if anything from me. But it was "G.A. exposes himself as a racist."

So I put up the Biden and Hillary Clinton quotes as they were somewhat related except from Democrats. Little response, MS said she didn't condone them. But no one applied the same standard and labeled them racist. Ok, fine. I didn't consider those quotes racists either, so why the rush to judgement on Senator Allen?

I never accused anyone of "defending" Allen's comments; what I was interested in was hearing an explanation of how else one might interpret them. As I tried to indicate in my paragraph about Biden's and Hillary's comments, I recognized that you were implicitly applying the "dumb ad-lib" label to Allen too, but I don't think that's in itself an adequate explanation as to what either he or Hillary meant.

Incidentally, there was an FYM thread called " Hillary's 'Joke' About Gandhi" (started by MrsS) back when that happened, in which people varyingly expressed the opinion that her joke was A) loathsome, or B) foolish but inconsequential. Either way, I don't see how you can meaningfully make that judgment without first determining what you think she intended by it.

Apparently I wasn't the only one researching because the DailyKos had a "Compilation of George Allen's Violent and Racist Past." Some of which you listed, for the first time on the thread, in your post, but well after Allen had already been called a "racist", "bigot","bastard" and an "oddball" (In a thread decrying name calling no less)

I got the info I found from Lexis-Nexis, EBSCOhost, and Wikipedia, and had to look up just now what DailyKos even was. I agree that "racist" and "bigot" are not words to be thrown around lightly and I didn't apply them to Allen myself, however the latter word especially is freely thrown around by both sides in FYM all the time, and I've closed threads before because they'd degenerated into people saying "You're bigoted towards Christians" "Yeah well you're bigoted towards gays" etc. I don't see hyperbolically calling someone a bigot as being analogous towards using a racial slur against them, however--you can argue whether it's accurate to deem someone a bigot, but not whether it's accurate to call them (e.g.) "******"; the latter is not based on any evaluation (correct or otherwise) of their behavior.

As I said when I posted the info I found on Lexis etc., I realize all of it could be interpreted multiple ways, and I don't see any of it as necessary for evaluating the potential range of things Allen meant by "macaca" one way or the other. But you seemed to be asking for a list of what sorts of things could *potentially* be interpreted as prior evidence for "racist" inclinations, so I looked for that. It wasn't part of my evaluation process personally as to what he likely meant, and still isn't. And no, I don't think celebrating "Confederate History" (why not just "Southern History," though?) is inherently problematic, so long as it's not solely a glossed-over celebration of white history in the region. Why would I think that, I was born and raised in Mississippi and am a very big Southern lit/food/humor/"eccentricity" etc. afficionado, and am not ashamed of being from there in the slightest.

Look.
--If you think "school vouchers", "border security", "welfare reform" or "death penalty" are all racist "code-words" that conservatives use.
--If you were "troubled" by Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 20 years ago but not Ned Lamont's recent membership in a country club "not known for it's diversity."
--If you concluded in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina that "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
--Then you probably think ALL conservatives are racists or racists "waiting to be exposed" and nothing I say will change your mind. A mind that many of you would rather use to name-call then actually debate issues it would seem. (check the thread)

Uh. When have I ever said I thought any of these things? I don't know that anyone else in here would check "Yes" to all those boxes either (the last conclusion, especially, seems overblown to the point of absurdity). But it's not my usual practice to keep tabs of potentially damning past "evidence" and then use that a basis for refusing to grant people the benefit of the doubt that they actually came to their own reasoned conclusion on whatever issue. Doesn't mean I might not question their reasoning however, especially if they're critiquing everyone else's reasoning without offering their own.

 

[INDY500]

Again, thanks for your post.

I never accused anyone of "defending" Allen's comments

Sorry if you thought I was referring only to your past posts. I wasn't. But the whole thread is filled with "I am loving conservatives defending this guy" stuff'. The reason I started off with "Yolland" was only to make sure you knew I responding to your previous post, one you obviously had put much thought into. Not to confront you directly.

and had to look up just now what DailyKos even was.

Nor did I mean to say you got all your info from DailyKos, merely that that's where I look to see what's cookin' on the Left. I should have made it a point to compliment you on taking the time to search...no one else did.

Uh. When have I ever said I thought any of these things?

If you have any writing tips on how better to ask rhetorical questions I'd appreciate you directing me towards them because that's all these were. Again not directed at you, but to others who make rash judgements about conservatives in my eyes.

Thanks for your thoughts and insights but above all else thanks for listening.

PS. Check out Drudge to see what we might be talking about tomorrow.

 

[BVS]

no one else did.

 

[martha]

But the whole thread is filled with "I am loving conservatives defending this guy" stuff'.

That would be me, and I'm still loving it.

 

[Angela Harlem]

martha, don't you have anything constructive to add?

 

[martha]

Not a damn thing!

 

[Irvine511]

Absent speaking with Allen about the intentions behind the remark, I (and no one else) can really speak to his intentions.

this is what i really don't understand.

words have definitions. to use a word and then claim that you didn't intend the commonly (or even not so commonly) understood meaning of the word really isn't a terribly persuasive argument, particularly for a public official where public speaking is part of the job description.

it goes back to my earlier example -- if i started walking around and calling women "cunts" in my office, and then saying, "no, that's not what i intended!" just how much water is that excuse going to hold?

at best, Allen is ignorant, at worst, he's a racist. and probably an unthinking, unaware racist -- like Memphis's aunts who unthinkingly refer to all African-American men as "boy" -- who would probably plead no malicious intent at the usage of derogatory terminology. are we going to argue about what the definition of "is" is?

Whether it be Allen or Young, I would want to get some sound-bite or political-spokesperson free comment on what they were thinking when they made their statements before laying the racist label on either gentlemen. In a world where speed-to-accusation is the fashion, I’m looking for a little bit more depth before the accusation is made. Not giving someone a free pass to make racist comments.

and it amazes me when accusations of racism are far more worrying than actual racism itself. and can we not distinguish between being a straight-up racist as opposed to saying something, or holding a belief, that is itself racist? i have a friend who i wouldn't call a racist, but when he was a waiter he would dread having a table of African-Americans because, in his experienced, they tipped far lower than their white counterparts. is he a racist? no, i don't think so, but was his belief racist? yes, i think so.

i wonder if we'd be so willing to give the other side as much face time to explain themselves and give them every possible out to avoid being exposed as probably not a malicious, but certainly ignorant and blissfully unaware racist, and i wonder why white people have the strongest ractions -- perhaps many feel as if they are walking in a minefield?

 

[deep]

I believe it is possible to make a racist statement and not be a racist.

I believe we all have bias' and prejudice.

questions of degree, pattern, and history of behavior can be taken into consideration

David Dukes is a racist and openly advocates racist beliefs

Senator Allen has a problem and leaves himself open to much reasonable speculation

The Un-American Senator
George Allen disgraces himself with a racist slur.

August 21, 2006



THE BEST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION of Sen. George Allen's twice pointing at an Indian American videographer at a campaign rally and sneeringly calling him "macaca" is that, in the words of Allen's own spinmeisters, the Virginia Republican and putative 2008 presidential contender was just playfully combining the words "Mohawk" (to mischaracterize the cameraman's haircut) and, well, "caca." As an Allen staffer explained to the National Journal's Hotline blog, he was "an annoyance."

That's the best spin, mind you. The worst — and more believable — is that "macaca" is an Americanized version of the similarly pronounced French racial slur "macaque," which literally refers to a species of stub-tailed monkey, but is figuratively used to insult North Africans and other people with dark skin. It's the French equivalent of "darkie," making all decent people who hear it shudder. Allen's mother is French, from the North African country of Tunisia. He speaks the language well.

Here's what a smiling Allen said to his laughing supporters Aug. 11: "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great…. Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." The object of Allen's ridicule was in fact born in the United States, but the senator's Confederate-tinted understanding of this country apparently has no room for people of color.

Allen grew up not in the "real world of Virginia," but on the tony Palos Verdes Peninsula. There, despite his French mother and Midwestern father (who coached the Rams), Allen developed a curious affectation for what he imagined to be the mores of the South. He began a lifelong embrace of Confederate symbology — lapel pins, bumper stickers and, until recently, flags — while exhibiting some worrying behavior toward African Americans.

According to a damning May profile in the New Republic, Allen once spray-painted something like "Burn, Baby, Burn" on his own high school just before the mostly black Morningside High basketball team from Inglewood came to play Palos Verdes High. Since taking public office, Allen has decorated his workspace with a noose hanging from a tree, opposed dedicating a federal holiday to Martin Luther King Jr., and now employed a vile slur to attack a political opponent.

There is no room for that kind of racism in American politics. We're not in the habit of telling Virginians how to vote, but an Allen defeat this November would send the right message to race-baiting politicians: Welcome to America. Now go home.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


Absent speaking with Allen about the intentions behind the remark, I (and no one else) can really speak to his intentions.

I can understand your argument from a legal standpoint

if the penalty was imprisonment or execution

then what would be the standard of proof

a better argument could be made for Andrew Young.
one could give evidence that there are store owners of the racial backgrounds he described that charge high prices to their predominately black customers.

Andrew Young admitted his remarks were not appropriate and stepped down as a spokesperson

What penalties do Young and Allen face for their bigoted remarks?

Should the standard be "beyond a reasonable? doubt"

or

"a preponderance of the evidence"

or

in the case of Young

"an admission"

 

[Irvine511]

I believe it is possible to make a racist statement and not be a racist.

I believe we all have bias' and prejudice.

and this is what i'm getting at.

there seems to be such an overreaction to the "racist" label -- as if it's the worst thing anyone could ever be called, and the intense raction to it, in my mind, belies a strong discomfort with social difference, sort of getting at Reagan notions of a "colorblind society" when, in reality, such a thing is totally naive and the work that needs to be done is to get people comfortable and fluent with different colors and with all sorts of human difference.

heck, i fully admit to having certain homophobic attitudes, and sometimes straight people call me on them. and the result is i think about what i've said, and then i learn from it, it's not that i'm always and forever a homophobe. and i think the same thing applies here. simply calling something out for being racist does not mean that one is always and forever a racist.

 

[deep]

I hear "loaded" words and phrases in conversations all the time now.

on topic:

I am comfortable calling David Dukes a racist.

Andrew Young a person that made a racist remark.

George Allen, a person who uses racist remarks now and has a pattered of doing so from time to time. Much like Rush Limbaugh.

because they are not open advocates, like Dukes, there will always be people to defend them


So Irvine,

some in here have said if one makes a racist remark they are racist

as you have made homophobic remarks
you must be a homophobe

 

[Justin24]

Why can't we all just get along. Why not get rid of Race (in colors) and just go by the Human Race??? That way we avoid sterotypes??

 

[Irvine511]

as you have made homophobic remarks
you must be a homophobe

you should hear me when i venture into JR's on 17th street on any given Saturday night and we all start singing along to Dolly Parton's "9 to 5" ...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060911&s=george_allen


"Only a decade ago, as governor of Virginia, Allen personally initiated an association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor organization to the segregationist White Citizens Council and among the largest white supremacist groups."

 

[deep]

In its "Statement of Principles," the CCC declares,
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

this pretty much is the Bush Administration's policies

so whats new

 

[martha]

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060911&s=george_allen


"Only a decade ago, as governor of Virginia, Allen personally initiated an association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor organization to the segregationist White Citizens Council and among the largest white supremacist groups."

He didn't know what those words meant.

 

[Irvine511]

He didn't know what those words meant.

yes. only his stated intent for being at the meaning matters, not the meeting itself.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Free cookies?

 

[U2democrat]

A new poll has Webb in the lead


I'll be seeing Webb on Labor Day along with Gov. Warner and Gov. Kaine at Congressman Bobby Scott's house...I'll let y'all know how that little shindig goes

 

[ntalwar]

For the first time, a new poll shows Democratic candidate Jim Webb ahead in the race for U.S. Senate in Virginia.
In the Wall Street Journal Zogby poll, Webb has 47.9 percent of the vote; Republican Senator George Allen has 46.6 percent.
Allen has been sliding in the polls since he was caught on tape calling a Jim Webb volunteer of Indian descent ‘macaca,' which is defined as a type of monkey.
Allen has apologized several times since then, but the damage was apparently done. A Survey USA poll last week showed Allen's once 16-point lead dipping to 3 percentage points.
"I think it's an indication that Virginians are sort of uncomfortable or maybe slightly unhappy with Allen," said Quentin Kidd, a political science associate professer with Christopher Newport University in Newport News.
He added that while Allen has been wounded, Webb still has his work cut out for him.
"What's going to indicate to me whether Webb is going to be able to capitalize in this is whether he's able to raise money. I think his biggest weakness all along has been that he hasn't been able to raise money. And the last numbers I saw, he was below a million dollars and Allen was up seven million or so."
Webb campaign manager Jessica Vanden Berg said today, "This survey shows a ‘sharp swing’ in favor of Jim Webb, but we can't take anything for granted."

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/stories/wvec_local_082806_allen_webb_poll.44ab0ecc.html

 

[U2Bama]

Quote:
In its "Statement of Principles," the CCC declares,
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."


this pretty much is the Bush Administration's policies

so whats new

deep:

I'm not at all trying to defend this Senator Allen or his comments (which I do think were highly inappropriate), but what part of the current administrations policies do you see as being "pretty much" the same as the Council of Conservative Citizens' statement of principles?

Keep in mind that I am VERY familiar with this hate organization, as I campaigned AGAINST a Lieutenant Governor candidate in Alabama (George Wallace, Jr.) in part because he has frequently spoken at their events. Fortunately, he lost in the Republican Primary.

But as it regards President Bush, the Council of Conservative Citizens has spoken out against him much more than they have for him:

"The presence [in Congress] of even one white person with our interests foremost in his mind is simply unacceptable to the issues-obsessed conservative race traitors. Texas Governor George Bush and his brother Jeb in Florida have manifested their self-hatred by embracing Hispanics ahead of whites. Somehow we must find a way to relieve whites of their self-hatred." ("Open Letter to White People,” www.cofcc.org, 12/98)

They were also opposed to his nomination of Alberto Gonzales for being an alleged "Hispanic militant," and just this week they have spoken out against Bush and his FDA for deciding to approve the morning-after pill.

I realize that there are many, many issues where people do have legitimate complaints against the social policies of this adminstration, but I have not seen anything in its policy to indicate that this administration is opposed to "race mixing" or seeks to "preserve" the European-American heritage, whatever in the hell that is. (Personally, I don't waste any time reflecting on any of my European heritage, but perhaps President Bush is known to put on lederhosen and drive around DC in an Aston-Martin singing Christmas carols in French).

~U2Alabama

 

[deep]

deep:

I'm not at all trying to defend this Senator Allen or his comments (which I do think were highly inappropriate), but what part of the current administrations policies do you see as being "pretty much" the same as the Council of Conservative Citizens' statement of principles?


~U2Alabama

First,

thank you for more information on the CCC

they are not exactly the same

but, I do see similarities



I will cite some examples :

"Statement of Principles," the CCC declares,
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind,

1. Going to Bob Jones University and embracing the man, without a comment at the time about their race policies

to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures,

2. The Administration has weaken and attacked affirmative action many times

to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

3. Bush Administration Opposes Integration Plans

The solicitor general urges the Supreme Court to scrap schools' voluntary programs that exclude some students because of their race.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
August 25, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has urged the Supreme Court to strike down voluntary school integration programs across the nation that exclude some students because of their race.

Administration lawyers filed briefs this week in pending cases from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., on the side of white parents who are challenging "racial balancing" programs as unconstitutional.
article here


race is a huge problem in this country

you have remarked on it

the Clinton Administration had an 'Initiative on Race Relations"

the Bush Administration has pretty much turned a deaf ear

 

[U2Bama]

First,

thank you for more information on the CCC

they are not exactly the same

but, I do see similarities



I will cite some examples :




1. Going to Bob Jones University and embracing the man, without a comment at the time about their race policies

I meant to address this one and as soon as I saw your reply I realized that I had forgotten it. I do recall this incident and do not think that he should have spoken there (nor should McCain speak there, unless he uses the venue to belittle the University). I seem to recall GWB having some regret over it, but I am not sure.

2. The Administration has weaken and attacked affirmative action many times

In certain areas and situations, I think it should be the ultimate goal of society as a whole and government in particular to be able to phase out legitimate remedies such as affirmative action. And I do acknowledge that this will always be open for debate, but I think both sides should agree that the goals of fulfillment of racial equality should correspond with affirmative action some day being unnecessary.

3. Bush Administration Opposes Integration Plans

The solicitor general urges the Supreme Court to scrap schools' voluntary programs that exclude some students because of their race.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
August 25, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has urged the Supreme Court to strike down voluntary school integration programs across the nation that exclude some students because of their race.

Administration lawyers filed briefs this week in pending cases from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., on the side of white parents who are challenging "racial balancing" programs as unconstitutional.

Here you have cases where the parents of white students feel that their children are being denied admission to certain quality schools because of their race when those parents do not feel that voluntary, non-zoned integration is necessary in their communities. Since this is not the practice across the country in every school district, I think they may have a point (not saying that I agree with them) when it comes to federally-funded schools' admissions policies. The solicitor general makes a valid point here:

Clement argued that the government, including public schools, may use "race-based measures" only to "eliminate the vestiges of past discrimination."

Since neither Seattle nor Louisville defend their policies as a remedy for past discrimination, they may not use "race-based assignments" simply to achieve integration, he said.

Are they doing it to remedy past histories of discrimination, or to achieve diversity? Why shouldn't the rejected students get to attend those schools?

And I think the soliciotor general's participation in these two cases is a far cry from "opposing integration plans" in general, just a voluntary plan that some students' parents do not think is just.

race is a huge problem in this country

you have remarked on it

the Clinton Administration had an 'Initiative on Race Relations"

the Bush Administration has pretty much turned a deaf ear

This administration has not focused as much on race relations as the Clinton administration may have with campaigns and mottos; I don't deny that. But the policies of this administration is not "pretty much" as follows:

"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

and that is exactly what you said.

~U2Alabama