To most whites the phenomenon of affluent and privileged blacks like Henry Louis Gates, Jr. harboring racial grievances toward the United States is a baffling curiosity. The phenomenon is best explained by the twin concepts of White Ignorance, which demands a post-racial or trans-racial world, and Black Guilt, which, in glaring contrast, demands an enlivened racial awareness.
Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and FOX News personality Glenn Beck has recently positioned himself at the center of some controversy for having accused President Obama of being a "racist." The President is a "racist," Beck concluded, because of his readiness to side with his black friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., over and against the white police sergeant who arrested him for disorderly conduct. This, we now all know, Obama did in spite of having conceded his ignorance of the facts of the situation.
All with eyes to see and ears to hear must admit that the phenomenon that Beck aspires to explain is indeed both puzzling and unprecedented. "Racism," as readers of my work well know, is a term that I believe is beset with intractable and potentially fatal problems. It is a term that I would like to see go the way of the dinosaur. However, my reservations regarding the term "racism" aside, I believe that Beck's explanation of the President's conduct — he is a "racist" — is grossly simplistic and, hence, nearly worthless. Unfortunately, though, this is precisely the sort of explanation that can be expected to spring from the incorrigibly naive mindset concerning race that Beck and countless whites share.
From this perspective, racial awareness is something that the world would be vastly better off without, for racial awareness is the source of all racial animosities or, in a word, "racism." Because "racism" is a great evil, its cause, racial consciousness, is a great evil as well. In fact, this view of the matter has led its proponents to lose sight of the distinction between cause and effect altogether and identify the former — racial awareness — with the latter — "racism."
Thus, whether they are affirmative of the race of the person who utters them or critical of other races, all expressions of racial awareness are alike "racist."
This perspective, I contend, is a function of White Ignorance. Even if it were desirable that racial consciousness should vanish from the Earth — and I am not convinced that it is — it is impossible that it ever should. As long as our world remains comprised of a multiplicity of racial groups, racial consciousness promises to remain with us. Each person knows himself as much by what he is not as by what he is. What this means is that everyone's personal identity derives in part from his or her racial awareness.
White Ignorance is a strikingly peculiar thing, especially when it appears in whites who consider themselves, or who are so considered by others, as "conservative." I confess that for a good part of my life, ever since I was a young teenager, I have been at once fascinated and exasperated by it. My fascination stems from the consideration that of all of the peoples of the Earth, whites alone are concerned, and intensely so, with eradicating everything and anything that smacks of race consciousness. It exasperates me in that White Ignorance, though not usually recognized as such, is an ideology as rigid and utopian as any that has ever been conceived and, like any ideology, fiercely hostile to both facts and the flesh-and-blood persons who embody them.
White Ignorance may be the product of noble intentions, but that moral worth should reside in intention alone is a highly contentious proposition. In fact, just a moment's reflection, whether on our individual lives or any number of historical events, will readily convince most of us that beyond being disputatious, it is outright false: good intentions alone do not immunize agents from blame. And when an agent continues to repeat his mistakes in spite of having had ample opportunity to identify them, then he is that much more culpable for his actions, regardless of whether the intentions underlying them are noble or not.
The purveyors of White Ignorance conceive themselves as champions of a colorless Humanity. Yet in promoting a world without race, they can't but exercise an unmitigated insensitivity to the identity-defining concerns and experiences of all racially embodied humans, black, white, and other. Whites, working class and lower-to-middle class whites residing in racially mixed population centers in particular, have been made to feel like socially unacceptable retrogrades — "racists" — for expressing, whether explicitly in word or tacitly in conduct, less than flattering thoughts concerning the blacks with whom they have had to co-exist and interact daily. Yet these are the thoughts born of the nit and grit of everyday experience, thoughts that the racial utopianism of White Ignorance can never succeed (try and try as it will) in expunging.
To the convictions of whites for whom "multiculturalism" isn't a self-congratulatory engagement in indulging an abstract taste for cosmetic diversity but, rather, a concrete and often tension-filled reality, I will not speak further at the moment. Rather, it is to the indignities that White Ignorance inflicts on blacks specifically and black-white relations generally that I shift my focus.
That American blacks should possess a racial consciousness, and an exceptionally heightened racial consciousness at that, should come as no surprise to anyone remotely familiar with the historical experience of blacks. But even had slavery and Jim Crow discrimination never occurred, and even if they always fared just as well if not better than the majority population, the very fact that blacks are a racial minority would alone suffice to explain this awareness. The advocates of White Ignorance, in proclaiming from the rooftops the need to "get beyond race," convict themselves of neglecting entirely the situation in which blacks find themselves. Yet as is the case with the white person whose experiences are dismissed away with the simple but explosive charge of "racism," so a refusal, whether advertent or inadvertent, to recognize, to affirm, the experiences that make the black person the person that he or she is, is a refusal to recognize that person.
The individuality of both blacks and whites dissolves before the abstraction of a colorless Humanity that White Ignorance is determined to impose upon them.
White Ignorance is also destructive of inter-racial harmony in that it is oblivious to its invisible partner in crime, Black Guilt, another intriguing phenomenon that is rarely if ever remarked upon and which is parasitic upon it. How far and wide this sense of guilt is among blacks generally is not an easy matter to determine, but that it is keenly felt among black professionals of all kinds — artists, academics, politicians, activists, etc. — is a position that can easily be defended.
Black Guilt works something like this. As a result of having spent a lifetime imbibing a narrative of white oppression and black suffering, those blacks — and they are an ever increasing number — who have managed to become successful in an overwhelmingly white world — i.e. by servicing whites — while avoiding any real racial indignities have gnawing at them a lurking sensation of racial self-doubt. This concern that they are not "authentically black" in turn engenders guilt that is further fed by the twofold belief that they have betrayed their people and, as a result, have erased themselves from the heroic story of which their people are at the center.
Notice, unless these black achievers remain a part of the story, unless they regard themselves and are so regarded by their brethren as "authentically black," they will never see the fruits of their labor as being essentially any different from those of the "house slave," that most detested figure in black American culture. That is, they will perceive their possessions, prestige, and very persons as the product of their having ingratiated themselves to whites. But to perceive oneself as a "sell out" is, psychologically, an act of self-mutilation. Thus, Black Guilt leads these same blacks to exploit White Ignorance with its utopian fantasies of a raceless Humanity so as to preserve their own self-image.
White Ignorance demands a post-racial or trans-racial world, the end of all racial awareness. Black Guilt, in glaring contrast, demands an enlivened racial awareness. Black Guilt, however, can be eased only if it denies its true self and affirms the objective of White Ignorance, for as long as all that is Just and Good is thought to require "color blindness," those at all turns haunted by Black Guilt can perpetually assure themselves of a role in the epic drama of white oppression and black suffering. Color blindness, as we have already noted, is a hopelessly unattainable goal as it is, yet inasmuch as the bearers of Black Guilt can continually accentuate both their distinctiveness as a people as well as the sufferings that they allegedly continue to endure because of that distinction, it can be made to appear that much further beyond the horizon. But as long as color blindness and, hence, Justice, remain elusive, the bearers of Black Guilt restore their racial authenticity by locating themselves back into the story of their people and, thus, back into the role of a perpetual victim of injustice.
Now, everything and anything that the successful black possesses, in both his property and person, can be viewed as the fruits of Justice reaped after generations of persevering and ultimately overcoming seemingly insurmountable hardships. If the only two alternatives in accounting for black success are exploiting White Ignorance and thinking of oneself as a traitor to one's people (they aren't, but that is grist for another mill), it is obvious which of the two is more appealing.
To most whites the phenomenon of affluent and privileged blacks like Henry Louis Gates, Jr. harboring racial grievances toward the United States is a baffling curiosity. However, if what I have said about Black Guilt and its need to exploit White Ignorance is correct, there is nothing at all curious about it, for the Gateses of the world have to convince whites, blacks, and, perhaps most importantly, their very selves, that in spite of their social standing and wealth accumulation, they are as "authentically black" and, thus, "oppressed," as any other black. And as long as they continue to adopt, as the great black writer Thomas Sowell once said, a "blacker-than-thou" attitude, they deepen race consciousness and motivate all the much more the bearers of White Ignorance to move us one step closer to color blindness.
White Ignorance is an accomplice in this game for it refuses to acknowledge the psychological and moral dynamics that characterize the lives of so many blacks.
Too much has already been said of "White Guilt" and "Black Innocence." I urge people to begin thinking along the lines of White Ignorance and Black Guilt for which I here argue.
Though I do not doubt the “blacker than thou” perception plays it’s own part in “black guilt”, I’ve always considered that “Black Guilt” also stems from the perception of success gained by having cheated with the assistance of artificial advantages in the form of EEOC policies, minority preferences, minority quotas, etc. Consider the artificial advantages in school admission policies and the recent ruckus over the firefighter promotion test results that were tossed.
My thought is that some successful black Americans will forever have the nagging doubt that they would not have been successful without government and the courts continuously altering the rules of the game to give minorities an artificial advantage.
Re: “The President is a ‘racist,’ Beck concluded …”
For a long time now, we’ve been told that blacks cannot be racist because they do not have the power to enforce their attitudes. Now we have a powerful black who CAN. So what is the liberal answer? That he is not “authentically black” after touting him as “our first black president”?
Re: “White Ignorance demands a post-racial or trans-racial world, the end of all racial awareness.”
Does anyone believe for one minute that the likes of Jesse Jackson wants to see an end of all racial awareness?
Racism is only ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
To go on and on about it continues a silly conversation.
We must generalize to navigate day to day life, but all humans are individuals and to say or act differently is pandering to a “group” or just plain dumb.
Anyone who plays the game is making a living from it or is being played.
jprairie:
Re: “…pandering to a ‘group’ or just plain dumb.”
Sorta like the citizens of the old Soviet Union pretended to work and the commissars pretended to pay them?
The upshot is that some biologists claim that biologically speaking, there is no such thing as race.
I was pleasantly surprised at this thoughtful, interesting analysis. I’m a little taken aback that a conservative can recognize some of the effects of white racism on blacks. Most conservatives, as this writer recognizes, operate with some version of White Ignorance on this point.
As an academic, I work in an environment in which many–not all–of my colleagues buy into some version of identity politics. Identity politics is based on the idea that there is some factor or set of factors that comprise the politically relevant identities of all of us. Race, sexual orientation, and other such characteristics are usually regarded as the key to identity politics, but ultimately anything that person identifies most fundamentally with can play this role. (Example: Quebecois origin and the use of French in Quebec.)
The idea that racial awareness should just disappear is laughable from the viewpoint of most of my minority colleagues. More to the point, this view is usually understood as a product of the worst form of white racism. This helps to explain the hostility that some blacks show to whites who plea for an end to racial awareness. What this really means, many blacks will tell you, is that whites want black racial awareness to vanish, leaving white racial awareness operating as a default setting, invisible but harmful to blacks.
I think that conservatives–real, honest-to-God American conservatives–should be racially aware. Their identity should be that of whites. Read “Chronicles” or visit “American Renaissance” sometime. Read Sam Francis and others. This is real conservatism, and it is definitely a position in favor of whites. Conservatism, properly understood, is simply the most sensible ideological position for whites who want to regard themselves as primarily white.
And why exactly is it important for me to identify with other white people because they are white, instead of other people (regardless of their race) who share my value system?
Racial identity is the fall back of simple minded people who care more about how someone looks, than what they believe. I’d rather be surrounded by people who share my values than people who share my skin color.
There use to be racism against Asians, but it seems to have largely vanished. Why?
Gestwell,
Your post is what makes people of color,Libs and thinking white people sick.
How can you as an educated man say something so stupid or read that silly shit.
Get of this Blog, we have more class.
it Might be a good time to read the Missing 52 years of the Democratic party, ….and those can be found at
hats392.blogspot.com
52 years of missing History, purposefully erased from the DNC website…….ask yourself why woul;d they need to do that?,,,,,then look at the Blog….and you’ll see……
Good Article Mr. Kerwick
Answer to #7
Asians are NOT a minority and according to “The Bell Curve” they are smarter than both Blacks and Whites.
Re: #9:
Asians ARE a minority in the U. S. They constitute 3.6% of the population. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/atlas/pdf/censr01-108.pdf
As a former government manager, I can assure you that as a minority group, they were part of my agency’s official affirmative action goals. Why? Because 1) they are a minority, and 2) they suffered past discrimination [e.g., there were laws that kept them from immigrating].
As far as their being smarter than other groups, what does that have to do with my question?
Jack, your premise is sound but your conclusion is flawed. The problem (or perspective), as you see it is with whites only, and any member of another race who understands the sensitiivty of the racial issue gets a pass, and are therefore not capable of being racists. I contend, as does Mr. Beck, that Mr. Obama is a racist, and I’d go beyond that to include his wife Michelle. Why do you suppose they spent all those years attending the sermons of Jeremiah Wright? Racism can manifest in many ways, yet it is only called that when it applies to whites. I am not a racist, but I know one when I see one, I am also not white.
So if I’m understanding correctly, it is NOT “racist” for the president of the United States to identify with people who share his skin color and to automatically, without any thought, take their side in a grievance before all of the facts are known, and anyone who believes so is naive, simple, and/or stupid? In fact, the president is exhibiting Black Guilt, which is wholly different from racism because in the case of Black Guilt the preference for one’s own race is motivated by a desire to conform to a racial stereotype which one uses to form his very identity. And it is also okay for other racial groups to behave likewise, because to deny anyone his or her racial identity is unfair, unrealistic, and will not solve anything anyway? How many steps is it from accepting racial identity politics as a foregone conclusion and therefore encouraging the same from all racial groups, to a balkanized society in which “Wise Latinas” are allowed to issue separate rulings based on the race of the parties involved in a legal dispute, or in which separate courts exist for defendants based on their race (http://www.azduiatty.com/arizona-county-attorney-files-federal-lawsuit-to-end-race-based-dui-courts.htm ; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece)?
How about this? Instead of going through mental and semantic gymnastics to describe the motivation for a behavior in order to change the definition of the result of the behavior, why don’t we use the definition of a word and see if a behavior is described by it?
According to http://www.dictionary.com, Racism can mean any of the following:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
4. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
5. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Now, did the president’s behavior conform to any of these definitions when he stated that blacks and Hispanics are profiled by law enforcement because of their race and that the police who arrested his friend Mr. Gates acted “stupidly”, despite admitting beforehand that he was ignorant of the facts of the case? Make your own judgment. If his behavior did indeed conform to any one of these definitions, then he is a racist – the word is an adjective whose meaning describes his behavior. If his behavior did not conform to any of these definitions, he is not a racist. Whether or not the motivation for his behavior was sinister or benign, the result of ignorance, intentional and deliberate mistrust and dislike of people who do not share his skin color, or a psychological developmental need to form his identity in accordance with social norms within his racial group, is utterly and completely irrelevant. Slavery (and not just of blacks) and eugenics were motivated in many cases by the honest and un-malicious belief by one racial or ethnic group that another was defective, inferior, or not fully human. This behavior conforms no less to the definition of “racism” because it was motivated by perceived fact (even “scientific” fact) rather than malice.
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: “Now, did the president’s behavior conform to any of these definitions when he stated that blacks and Hispanics are profiled by law enforcement because of their race and that the police who arrested his friend Mr. Gates acted ‘stupidly’…”
Yes, because the persistent belief that a particular racial group should enjoy eternal victim status demonstrates “…that race accounts for differences in human character or ability” and therefore “that particular race is superior to others” because it enjoys the moral high ground, and [I might add] that its members’ transgressions of the law should be excused.
One need look not far to find other examples, like the Tawana Brawley case of a young black woman in New York City who invented the story that she had been raped by white men, and the similar case of the Duke la cross team. The racial stereotype of “privileged young white boys” in the latter was so powerful that even 88 professors signed a statement condemning the team before the truth had been determined. “Making the legal process the wholly subjective expression of group-determined minds ends the possibility of people from different groups agreeing about anything, and converts the objectivity of the law into an expression of group beliefs. AND THAT MEANS THE END OF THE RULE OF LAW.” (Emphasis added) – Prof. James Q. Wilson, Moral Judgement, p. 109-110
I happen to agree with you. See how much simpler it can be when you just use the accepted meaning of a word and then ask yourself if the accepted meaning is descriptive of a particular behavior or situation? It doesn’t matter WHY the behavior matches the accepted meaning. If the adjective is accurate, use it!
Mr. Mulligan,
Not to quarrel with any of your other assertions, but doesn’t it seem logical that slavery was motivated primarily by greed and then rationalized by a belief that certain races were inferior, as a form of denial of what was being done? (Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, so I am theorizing.)
How about Africans enslaving other Africans, or Japanese enslaving South East Asians? Isn’t it really about greed?
I personally find it odd, that the party that tried to subdue Blacks the most,, and caused the Founding of the Republican party in 1854, has such unfettered Support from Blacks today, the democratic party was behind the KKK, it tried in vain to stop Segregation, it passed Jim Crow and similar Laws, it used the KKK as a Military arm of the Party, and had Many memembers of Congress as it members….Notably, Robert Byrd who wasnt just a Member, but was a “Kleagle”….whos job was to “Recruit” for $10.00 a head, it’s puzzling to me, the Blacks vote with the Democrats….do they not know the Democrats history ?
If one looked at Black on Black violence, one would need to conclude it’s Genetic, the Blacks here kill each other more than probably any other group, In Africa, their “own” country they do the same, they know theres not enough food, does that stop them from breeding? hardly, they dont value Life, they value free things the US government promisses them, and subsidized by their Drug culture. and now they have a president, who will promiss them some form of reparations, so they will line up to vote for him.
ruminator,
I said in many cases slavery was motivated by the true and honest belief by one group that another was inferior or less human than they, and likewise with eugenics. Slavery has been motivated by many things throughout history, including ethnic, racial and regional hatred, the spoils of war, cost, efficiency, etc. And that is precisely the point – regardless of the motivations, the behavior of enslaving another human being who belongs to a different ethnic or racial group fits the definition of “racist” in the same way that the behavior of showing preference to another human being based on his ethnicity or race fits the definition of “racist”. Motivation or cause is irrelevant, and the attempt that the author makes to differentiate “racism” from “White Ignorance” or “Black Guilt” or whatever other psycho-babble term one wishes to construct to dodge the term “racist” for whatever semantic purpose, is ridiculous. Does the behavior fit the definition of “racism”? If it does, it’s racist behavior. It really doesn’t need to be any more simple or complex than that. I can’t imagine us having this same discussion over any other descriptive term.
There have been other reasons for slavery throughout history. I can’t find a reference, but believe that slavery in ancient Rome came about because of a disdain for manual labor.
OK gang back to the history books (those that have not been revised to tell the politically correct instead of chronicaling facts). Slavery has, unfortunately, been around from the beginning of time. Certainly some of it carried the inference of inferior race BUT more often it simply meant the losers in warfare. In North America this meant whites taken by native americans watching out for their well being, Africans purchased from other Africans and Arabs, BS various flavors of indentured servants (the source of my family’s entrance to the continent, and their subsequent escape from an indenture that would never end).
World wide some of the slavery expanded the gene pool and its diversity.
The Irish were virtual slaves until 1921.
Therefore when discussing slavery remember that all of us have it in our past.
amazing another major typo BS should be and
The Blacks have been selling, killing and raping their own for as long as they have been occupying space on Earth, the Portugese, and Islam also had a large pert in the Slave trade as well, the History of Blacks is as bleak as their future, and as long as Blacks refuse to take responsibility for the place they are in, things will never change.
Yes, there have been slaves everywhere. While traveling in Europe, I noticed the beautiful cathedrals and old palaces. They were very impressive, but I would have been more impressed if I did not have the knowledge that they were built by many generations of grandfathers, sons, and grandsons who worked and died with no choice but to live in squalor and follow the directions of the boss. In Russia, they called them serfs. In Sparta the called them soldiers. But, they were all slaves and slavery was ubiquitous until Thomas Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be self evident…”. True, he owned slaves himself, but he began the process that allowed the world to think about equality under the law.
Re: #16: Isn’t this a matter of geography (the traditional “solid democratic south”?) As for today:
Example 1: Let’s say you’re an unprepossessing black American born around 1980 (there are many of these) who believes that black people in America really don’t have much of a chance at success and have legitimate entitlement to some amount of government enacted “redistribution of wealth.” You’re one of the socialists that depresses conservatives. You vote for Obama.
Example 2: Or you’re an unprepossessing black born around 1980 who believes he has a pretty good chance at success if he works hard, plans well, takes care of his health, relationships, etc. and is shrewd enough to exploit every opportunity/advantage (excluding anything illegal). You’re a democrat who thinks like a conservative. You also vote for Obama.
The second person becomes a republican in twenty years, maybe.
Just theorizing.
ruminator, perhaps the geographical location may play a part, the Biggest single Issue to me, is that Blacks have “Demanded” government services, Housing, food stamp, education, and they choose to remain Uneducated, and choose Drugs, because they can make more money selling them than they can working a Legitimate job,
the “Rejection” of Educated Blacks,…Condolesa Rice, Clarence Thomas. Walter E. Williams, should be proof the Values of Blacks is flawed, they Covet Jessie Jackson, and Al Sharpton,…both are nothing but Thugs, who attach themselves like Leaches to any “Cause” that brings them Lime Light, and Media Attention, and when NOT infront of Cameras blasting White America….are off Busy Fleecing Toyota, and Brewing Co’s with threats of Racial Litigation…..once againg, going after the Easy Dollar….instead of Breaking a Sweat.
Education is the Single biggest factor in the Blacks condition, unless, and Until Blacks choose the Hard path of Hard work, like some really Sharp ones…Walter E. Williams being a good example, Blacks plight and direction will be much the same.
The point of post #24 is that while capitalism may be the most moral economic system ever conceived, the “gasoline” in the engine of capitalism is not reverance for morals, but self interest. So the enterprising, self-reliant African American of today (unless one believes there are no such individuals; I don’t)hopes to get ahead through sustained effort, but still sees an advantage in voting democratic, unless he already has a pretty good income.
Chief, you are talking as though my “geography” response in post #24 were a response to your posts #17 and 22 (which make the same point, as does #25) rather than a response to post #16 (which I stated that it was.)
Your question was this: how can contemporary African Americans warm up to the party that practiced segregation and oppression? My answer was that these tensions and adversarial things happened because the South was mostly democratic, and that’s where the concentration of slavery was, that that’s where tensions were greatest, in the aftermath of the war. But that was long ago.
Then I gave a theory about why today, not only the black people whom you describe are democratic, but others whom any of us might even respect could also be inclined to vote democratic. If you comprehend my point, disputing it would be more interesting than just repeating yourself.
ruminator, the Self discipline of a Moral person is what is missing, we no longer have the Morality, it’s been incrementally erroded away by Liberals, and Humanists, leaving us with the unbridled Greed we see today, Ethics are no longer a Concern, and neither is the Backlash of the Consituents they face, The current Administration is proof, nealy half the immidiate Cabinet are Tax evaders one is a Marxist, and at least One has a Communist background
By the Way, I dont see “Educated” Blacks….I mean “Educated”, not those who “believe” they are smart, like Gates, voting for Democrats,…
Pelosi and Reid are facing removal from office, is that deterring them? not on your life, the ends justify the means, and, at the risk of sounding “Fatalistic”, obama is setting the stage for his “Extension” to remain in office, much like Ted Kennedy is manipulating the Massachusetts laws for his replacement, One cannot assume, obama is going to “go quietly”, at the end of his term…in 4, or 8 yeas…I simply dont believe he’ll go.
and to me the question still goes unaswered, the Democrats did all they could to stifle Blacks, so they reward that party by giving it more power over them? the fact much of it took place in the south is only part of the story, the fact remains, Blacks keep making Bad choices, and they side with the (their)enemy, which simply makes NO sense to me…
to assume because the South is now mostly Republican has little bearing, when Blacks vote as a block for Democrats, …geography is moot now, Blacks support the party that tried to all but eliminate them,
so what presumed “Advantage” exists in voting as for Democrats?…what is the democratic party doing for Blacks?
besides enslaving them to Debt ?
Here are some useful statistics, that show who is doing what.
these are demographics of the Bush Gore Election
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…” Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
“Clearly those with Liberal Democratic Voting have a Vested interest in Keeping those Government checks coming.
http://hats392.blogspot.com/
ruminator, and all on this blog, please read an Article by the wall street Journal, “The Missing 52 Years of democratic History”
the concept republics and conservatives were behind racisim should be put to rest after reading this article, infact just the oposite was true, infact the Republican Party was formed to abolish slavery in 1854, is main goal was to end it, the 64 civil right act was ONLY Passed because or the Majority of republicans who voted on that bill, democrats had a poor record on that voting, and if necessary I will post those numbers, Blacks have been lied to by democrats for years, and it should behjove them to know the truth of the party they seem to see as their friend, when infact democrats havent switched ideologies, only their spots….
here is the Voting record, it clearly shows, Republicans PASSED The bill, democrats didnt want the bill to pass, as is shown by the vote count by party, and region.
By partyThe original House version:[12]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[13]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
[edit] By party and regionNote: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
61% of democrats voted for it, 80% of the minority party (repubilcans) voted for it….yet Blacks side with the party that still Hates them…they just changed tactics
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html
the Link to the WSJ article….a Must read, if you seek the truth…