Say ON, Sage! Well done.
I am new here so I will be gentle. You are correct most blacks were Republican until Roosevelt came along with the 'New Deal' in the 40's. At that point a wholesale shift towards the Democratic party occurred amongst blacks. The Republicans did nothing to win this constituency back. Similar to today, the Republicans demonstrate at best passive desire to acquire the black vote, and at worst no desire at all. So let me ask you this, should anyone vote for any party Democrat or Republican that doesn't actively solicit their vote?
You make some good points about history, however they are just that, history. Until the Republican party is serious about acquiring the black vote and begins doing the grass roots things necessary to acquire it, you will always have democratic elitist like Harry Belafonte, and others whose voice is louder than yours. Whose fault is that? I was told once if you want something bad enough you will work to get it, and the Republicans obviously don't want the black vote bad enough because they do virtually nothing to acquire it.
(Side note: You are wrong on why blacks considered Clinton the first black president)
Secondly, Condi isn't a demonstration of why 'welfare, socialist, liberal policies don't work'. Also, Affirmative action had very little composite positive effect on the national black demographic, so how was it a 'good thing' then but not a 'good thing' now, when it did nothing materially (at least in the corporate world) blacks positions?
You make the common logical fallacy in regard to so-called 'handouts'. (by the way, what are these handouts you speak of).
Here is your argument -
Condi is black
Condi is became a successful black without handouts
Therefore all blacks can be successful without handouts
Lets change it a little bit
Michael Jordan is black
Michael Jordan became a successful basketball player without 'handouts'
Therefore all blacks can be successful basketball players without handouts
The second argument is the same in principle and it has the same flaw as yours why? Because it uses handouts or lack thereof as the primary principle by which someone may or may not success. That is your argumentation fulcrum if you will, that which it turns on.
But your argument doesn't do a few things. I doesn't look at 'group' disparity which is the key stat. Even during the period of slavery you had so-called 'successful' blacks. By you argument, slavery & Jim Crow shouldn't have been abolished because there were some successful blacks during that time. Secondly, you argument doesn't take into account macro and micro environmental factors that influence the black/white disparity that we see in this nation. If there is a gap in all meaningful social and economic statistics between blacks and whites, logic dictates there must be a reason why.
So in other words, the 'because Condi did it, it is proof' is not a rational or logical argument.
I'd also like to add the affirmitive action has benefited WHITE women more than any minority group since its inception. So when it is abolished like you Conservababes would like (my assumption is that you are all white), I don't want to hear any whining OK???
Okay...GREAT!!!
Tiffany, please explain to us how affirmative action has benefited WHITE women? I would be very interested in hearing your viewpoint.
Mr. Gines, respectfully, in our perspective I believe the Republican party is going out of their way to do more to gain the African American vote than Democrats. In my opinion (being from Detroit), Democrats are more about condescention and misinformation. George W. has appointed more African Americans than Clinton did (and Colin Powell was called racist names and mocked), and at least in Detroit, the rate of homeownership has skyrocketed compared to before he was in office. Same with small business ownership.
I'm certainly not saying that people only succeed with "handouts". I don't think that was the Sage's point at all. I think she was trying to illustrate how in our opinion it's degrading and disrespectful of ANY race to assume they need government programs to succeed at anything. And that the lack of these programs dooms an individual for a life of crime.
"By you argument, slavery & Jim Crow shouldn't have been abolished because there were some successful blacks during that time." Are you being facetious here? I hope you're not serious...that's not even a valid, logical conclusion at which to arrive based on what we said.
Bill Cosby addressed this a few times - and although I don't agree with everything he said, I think he made some good points about taking responsibility for one's own choices and direction in life. And that's not a black, white, asian, or hispanic thing, that's a human being thing.
I'll be back. I have to find it. Dell might even find it before I do.
http://www.communitynewsdc.com/m...on-
440847.shtml
Sorry the URL is so long...
Also see this:
http://www.understandingprejudic...cles/
affirm.htm
I'm at the Bureau of Labor Stats right now so I will be a awhile. But simply using common sense will suffice for right now. There are more white women in the US than black women. The law (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) clearly states that discrimination by race or gender is prohibited. Thus it stands to reason that white women would benefit from this law was well and in greater numbers due to sheer population numbers.
I would also invite you to view this link which has all the laws and the executive orders related to the topic:
http://www.conncoll.edu/is/libra...endent/
law.html
It also shows the gains made by white women as a result of Affirmative Action.
But of course I'm sure you won't believe it.
Tiff,
why so combative? Although you and I have different POV (I came over from LBC too), I have always admired your even keeled approach.
Your "assumption" that they are white (I am still trying to figure out what relevance that question has) and your closing above, are so out of charachter for you.
Tiffany, Thank you for the linkage. I hope I never get to the age where I never have any room to learn something new. 
However, I think the subject strayed from our original point that we were trying to make. That point was that historically the Democrats don't have anything new to say to African Americans. (Dell Gine's homepage says in great detail what we were saying in a more general sense very eloquently.)
I remember during the elections how John Kerry was SO condescending and how he flat-out lied to the African American population here in Detroit - and I wondered how he could get away with saying such things. If a Republican had said anything anywhere NEAR what he and Howard Dean and John Edwards were saying he or she would have been dragged out and flogged.
And you're right - it doesn't matter whether we're white or black. We're all entitled to our opinions. The comments so kindly left here will inspire us to learn even more about this topic, and for that we thank you. It's one of the big reasons why we started this blog in the first place.
Sorry about being somewhat attitudal today. I need a nap...
Just something I feel a bit strongly about and I can agree that Affirmative action does need some revamping (particularly in the areas of college admissions) but I don't think it should be done away with just yet.
Thanks for allowing some space in your comments..I will be back.
Tiffany, I gather from reading your comments that you think people raise objections to AA (affirmative action) on the grounds that it helps black people.
That's not the whole story. Speaking for myself, I object to affirmative action on the basis that it helps one group of people at the expense of the people who aren't members of that group.
One tremendous example is admissions criteria for higher education. The University of Michigan law school's rating system essentially gave "extra credit" for darker skin. (The Supreme Court sturck this down 6-3 in 2003.
AA was essentially established by executive order over 40 years ago with a noble intent, to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. But over time a sliding scale has developed for our tolerance of institutionalized racial bias. To wit: it's justice if the system is biased against white people, but racism if it's against people of color.
The truly sad thing is that AA makes turns its beneficiaries into dependents, making them slaves to the belief that they can not succeed without it, while at the same time perversely believing that they deserve their success.
So White women have been and will be the biggest benefactors, Who better to call for the abolition of same; Us white, old boy network males?
If you are really speaking against what they are saying why validate it so well? Rush is that you?
Why should any party "work for"/pander/buy any one's vote? How about, Espouse certain core values because they are right in our minds and hearts? You agree, great, If not show us where we are wrong. Don't call us the equivalent of White female Uncle Toms to negate our point of view.
Condi Rice on Affirmative Action:
>>>"My own personal view is that there are circumstances in which it is necessary to use race as a factor among many factors in diversifying a college class," she told the network "And so I've been a SUPPORTER of affirmative action that is not quota based and that does not seek to make race the only factor, but that considers race as one of many factors."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain537203.shtml
Colin Powell on Affirmative Action:
>>>Calling himself a "strong proponent" of affirmative action, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that he believes race should play a role in university admissions.
"I wish it was possible for everything to be race-neutral in this country, but I'm afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race-neutral," Powell said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I believe race should be a factor among many other factors in determining the makeup of a student body of a university."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...19/powell.race/
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman on Black Outreach by the GOP
>>>"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp..._print/
asection
So here we have the people you laud in your argument as examples of "black success" in the Bush Administration disagreeing with you on Affirmative Action, and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee disagreeing with you on outreach to blacks by the GOP. That is not an enviable position from which to argue.
Dell Gines, (whom I tend to agree with the majority of the time) is absolutely correct here. My comments tend to be a tad bit STRONGER then his at times, but in this case, Condi, Colin, and Kenny refute your claims far more efficiently than I can.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/
Nat...20Issues21.html
--Cobra
The Sage, I agree, good job.
I must say that I am a black Republican woman and am completly against affirmative action and other social programs catering to minorities. I know plenty of black people that never needed these programs to become the successful people they are today.
How many successful blacks have you heard say "Well, I never would have made it here if it weren't for affimative action and welfare."?
Bottom line, social programs are only keeping black people in poverty. Handouts don't help them acquire the skills needed to compete in our society. It only gives them the attitudes needed to remain in poverty. Democrats support these policies. Democrats support keeping blacks in poverty.
I just love how, whenever Condi is mentioned, the liberals/leftards/moonbats/dhimmicrats can only say she doesn't count, and then use some absurd strawman argument to "prove" it. The sad fact is that the vast majority of blacks in America have allowed the Democrats to relegate them to some level of "house negro" status, and openly despise any black person who is smart, successful, and independant within mainstream (white) society without having to be beholden to anyone (the Democrats) for it.
Condi is third in order of succession to be President of the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and she could be the next President. Imagine that, the great granddaughter of slaves becoming the most powerful person, not just woman, in the world. Everything she has achieved or will achieve she has done and will do by her own intelligence, dedication to success, and pursuit of excellence, not because of any socialist program. She is the fulfillment of the American dream, and that is why liberals hate her, because they don't believe in the American dream, they don't believe in America, and they don't believe a black person can become President of the United States of America on their own merit.
So who are the racists again? I forgot...
Improbulus Maximus writes:
>>>Condi is third in order of succession to be President of the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and she could be the next President. Imagine that, the great granddaughter of slaves becoming the most powerful person, not just woman, in the world. Everything she has achieved or will achieve she has done and will do by her own intelligence, dedication to success, and pursuit of excellence, not because of any socialist program. She is the fulfillment of the American dream, and that is why liberals hate her, because they don't believe in the American dream, they don't believe in America, and they don't believe a black person can become President of the United States of America on their own merit.
So who are the racists again? I forgot..."
Condi Rice ALSO supports AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Does that make her a "racist" as well?
--Cobra
Um...Cobra? A very quick, cursory Google search turned up that she supports the Administration in challenging AA, but feels that race should be considered AMONG OTHER factors.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...tion/
index.html
Or here:
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/9732.html
Where she takes a situation-specific attitude about it. "Race was a factor to weigh in creating campus diversity, she suggested, but not evaluating job performance"
So. "Supports it" or "Believes in it" is a bit of a generalization, don't you think?
Well, that's what Affirmative Action is. It's using race as A FACTOR. Not the ONLY factor, but as A FACTOR.
Condi Rice went even further about her support for Affirmative Action in other interviews:
>>>"White House officials said Rice unsuccessfully urged Mr. Bush to concede that race could be used as a factor in admissions, though she agreed with his view that the Michigan program went too far.
They said Rice was stung by a Washington Post story that said she helped convince the president that favoring minorities was not an effective way of improving diversity on college campuses.
Rice discussed the article with Mr. Bush, who urged her to go public with her differences, officials said on condition of anonymity.
In an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, Rice said she agreed that affirmative action is needed "if it does not lead to quotas."
With a quick defense of her views, Rice is certain to fuel speculation that she harbors political ambitions. Many Republicans consider her a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate.
"My own personal view is that there are circumstances in which it is necessary to use race as a factor among many factors in diversifying a college class," she told the network "And so I've been a supporter of affirmative action that is not quota based and that does not seek to make race the only factor, but that considers race as one of many factors."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain537203.shtml
These quotes leave no doubt that Rice supports Affirmative Action. It also leaves no doubt that she is extremely loyal to President Bush and tries her best not to disagree with him in public.
--Cobra
From everything just posted on this comments section, I take that Condi says she supports AA (only for college admissions, I can't find her saying anything about jobs), as a factor to consider, but not a quota. That's cool. I also don't think that, considering how much she is attacked by the Left, she would ever come out publically at this point in her life strongly oppossing AA. I can only imagine the uproar from the Left!
My thoughts on social programs were well expressed in a previous comment by Kristi:
"Bottom line, social programs are only keeping black people in poverty. Handouts don't help them acquire the skills needed to compete in our society. It only gives them the attitudes needed to remain in poverty. Democrats support these policies. Democrats support keeping blacks in poverty."
America is a great capitalist country --the same factors enable people of all races to succeed in America: education, values, integrity and work ethic.
Better education programs/support, grass roots and religious outreach programs to help instill values and integrity, a foucs on family values, and teaching kids that they can achieve success and can do anything they put their minds to --these things will help more than any other liberal social program designed to keep people dependant --dependenant on the Democrat politicians' fickle promises that keeps people voting for them.
I don't mean to be a "contrarian", as Dell Gines puts it, but I like to deal with facts and statistics. If I were to post studies and documentation of MODERN DAY, WIDESPREAD hiring and wage discrimination against African Americans, what would be your response?
I'm curious.
--Cobra
Commenting by HaloScan
