Two quick quotes on the color of the 2008 elections...I'd just like to join the rest of the blogosphere on quoting this...
First Quote (Hat Tip: Educational Justice) about Sen. Barack Obama:
"[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of color blindness," says Angela Davis, professor of history of consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "It's the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this period...a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change."
-Angela Davis, as quoted by Gary Younge, 12/31, The Nation
Man. That's some killer commentary about how a candidate of color is viewed in the eyes of America. Altho saying the words "Candidate of Color" sound so empowering!
Second Quote (Hat Tip: Reappropriate) from U.S. Congressperson Ron Paul (straight from the horse's mouth, ya'll):
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
DAMN. I mean, this is not to be attackin' all that student group running around UCI chalkin' up shit to promote Ron Paul '08. But, I mean. Ok, so this is me kind of attackin' supporters of Ron Paul '08. I'm sorry, I don't mean to. Just I'm really starting to go against his stance. Because he's against the War in Iraq does not mean he's forgiven for saying that kinda SHIT back in 1992. Cuz, really, I gotta be lookin' out for my communities of color. So none of that shit. I'm sorry.
To be fair, Ron Paul was reported saying in 1996 that it wasn't him, it was a ghostwriter who wrote those comments, and that he's very sorry for them and takes on "moral responsibility". Wikipedia's got the report on that apology here. And yeah, Ron Paul definitely has sounded like that since his 4 congressional elections and this one presidential run. But I'm sorry, I really can't shake the feeling (and the anger, yeah) that the quote above was a really, really bad omen.
I mean, really, gotta be reppin' my communities of color.
First Quote (Hat Tip: Educational Justice) about Sen. Barack Obama:
"[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of color blindness," says Angela Davis, professor of history of consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "It's the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this period...a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change."
-Angela Davis, as quoted by Gary Younge, 12/31, The Nation
Man. That's some killer commentary about how a candidate of color is viewed in the eyes of America. Altho saying the words "Candidate of Color" sound so empowering!
Second Quote (Hat Tip: Reappropriate) from U.S. Congressperson Ron Paul (straight from the horse's mouth, ya'll):
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
-Ron Paul, as quoted by..uh..Ron Paul, in a 1992 article in the Ron Paul Political Report
DAMN. I mean, this is not to be attackin' all that student group running around UCI chalkin' up shit to promote Ron Paul '08. But, I mean. Ok, so this is me kind of attackin' supporters of Ron Paul '08. I'm sorry, I don't mean to. Just I'm really starting to go against his stance. Because he's against the War in Iraq does not mean he's forgiven for saying that kinda SHIT back in 1992. Cuz, really, I gotta be lookin' out for my communities of color. So none of that shit. I'm sorry.
To be fair, Ron Paul was reported saying in 1996 that it wasn't him, it was a ghostwriter who wrote those comments, and that he's very sorry for them and takes on "moral responsibility". Wikipedia's got the report on that apology here. And yeah, Ron Paul definitely has sounded like that since his 4 congressional elections and this one presidential run. But I'm sorry, I really can't shake the feeling (and the anger, yeah) that the quote above was a really, really bad omen.
I mean, really, gotta be reppin' my communities of color.
Powered by ScribeFire.
5 comments:
"To be fair..." Sure, thanks for being fair.
Here's what Ron Paul wrote earlier this year about racism: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
"More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
See the whole column here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
Does smearing this great statesman make you feel like a big man?
If ending the U.S. military empire, restoring our economy and guaranteeing our liberty by imposing constitutional restraints on government are important to you, Ron Paul is the only candidate to support.
I have read much, much, much by Paul. I have a couple of his books, and I have heard him give many speeches, and have seen him speak live, and this is the only thing I have ever seen that even comes close to being racist. Since I have never seen or heard any verifiable racist things from Paul, I wouldn't assume he is racist from this. Also, your two sources are highly biased, a Nazi site and a hard-core, filthy-mouthed leftist blog.
But, at least you could print it accurately:
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
----------------------
With it not interupted by elipses, this is not nearly as damning as the disingenuious smear made it seem.
Dear Mark Smith,
Your welcome, thanks for acknowledging the fairness.
Also, to note your argument for Ron Paul. I feel it's problematic in two ways.
1) First, it doesn't really explain or address the comments made by Ron Paul in 1992, the issue that really bothers me. For me to consider Ron Paul as a serious candidate for me to vote for, that really, specifically, needs to be explained in full. That's why I was kind of snide (sorry) about the whole ghostwriter issue. I viewed it as a sidestep to the actual article, and not an outright denial, or response to how he actually felt about the 1992 LA Riots (which the original article was about). If he did respond to the 1992 LA Riots, now that would have been truly impressive and set him up above the pack in my opinion. If you do have a quote of that, please forward it, for real.
2) This is actually kind of off topic of the original 1992 discussion, but his view of what racism is, isn't what my view of racism is. And as a candidate, this is important to me. Racism can't simply be an ugly form of collectivism, formed inside of an individual's head. To me, racism is when you, as a person of privilege, group a bunch of people together, and then act out your privilege over them. The point of "privilege" is important, because argues that not all individuals start from the same place in society. Which, from my experience, they don't. Which also means that the true antidote to racism isn't liberty (again, in my opinion). "Liberty...which rewards individual achievement and competence" doesn't take into account the different levels of competence created because of someone's race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or privilege. Liberty just allows those different levels of competence to grow farther and farther apart, as the privileged gain more opportunities because of their competence, and the dis-privileged continue to be passed over because they were never given the chance to be competent in the first place. So you see, Ron Paul isn't my choice of candidate because of his basic, inherent view of what racism is, as well as his previous statements. To be fair, though, I didn't know that until you had showed me the speech.
3)From what Rhys has given me (the full paragraph of what Ron Paul said during the article) Ron Paul, by his definition, still sounds pretty racist. I think the word I really look at is the last sentence, where he says "we can safely assume that 95% of black males in the city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." The word assume implies that he's started grouping people together. Because of this statistic he read, and that statistic he read, he now assumes, and groups, a large majority of one group of people together. He sounds like he thinks very much "in terms of groups", because many individuals, black males in this instance, share "superficial physical characteristics". So, what also bothers me about Ron Paul, is that by his own speech in 2007, his words in 1992 are still pretty racist.
No, smearing this great statesman does not really make me feel like a big man. When you attack the basis of my manhood, does it feel like you have some? Also, I don't like the gendered idea of "big man". I know I'm really gendered to begin with, but I'm really trying to move away from that.
So Ron Paul, to me at least, isn't really the only candidate to support, for the three reasons I've mentioned above. He hasn't directly answered his racist statements in 1992, I don't believe his concepts of racism deal with the actual reality of racism nor do I believe his solution to racism is plausible to ending racism, and finally, but his own definition, he seems pretty racist himself.
Dear Mark Smith,
P.S. I also note that I said I thought Ron Paul's comments were problematic in 2 ways, but I put down 3. My bad, I have problems with numbers.
Dear Rhys,
I have not nearly heard as much about Ron Paul as you have, unfortunately. This article is one of the bigger things that I've heard about him though, perhaps because it's been going through my corner of the blogosphere and I feel that it concerns me as a person of color. Unlike you, I don't agree that this is the "closest he comes to being racist" I think this is him just straightup being racist. It's just my opinion (that I think reflects reality). To defend my two sources, one of them is a Nazi website, I do believe they quoted Ron Paul in support of him, and the quote of Ron Paul was to show why they supported him (which I think is kind of problematic in itself), and to call the Daily Kos a "hard-core, filthy-mouthed leftist blog" is only a half-insult and a half-truth, I believe. Surely some blog who has as many hits as they do is definitely "hard-core". And they claim to be "leftist" to begin with. I don't know, these things are more of compliments to some people (especially soft-core, left-of-center bloggers like me). But to call them "filthy-mouthed" is more of the smaller bloggers like me who throw around fucks and shits and "superman that ho!!" and misogynistic bullshit that we hear on KMEL106.1 and POWER106, yadadamean? I don't think it's quite fair to call a blog with the stature of the Daily Kos "filthy-mouthed", just the same as I don't think it'd be fair to call a blogger such as articulate on the subject as you "ill-informed". ya smelllll me? YEE!
To respond to your full print of the quote (which I appreciate, for real), I don't know if the quote really is less damning fully printed. To know that Ron Paul knows "decent people" who are black males, but still feels free to generalize so much about every other black male in LA or DC, doesn't make me feel much better about him. Or make me think he's less racist. Actually, maybe a little more racist. Because he knows some aspect of the population and then STILL generalizes. That takes a lot of racism, right there.
So I'm going to argue, that no, without the ellipses, it's still a pretty damning smear.
Post a Comment