IMO it is more a disconnect with the large percent of poor in NO than racism. The two just so happen to be related. Nonetheless, this just shows the cr@p that gets dished out, and if it backfires on the likes of Bush (and his brain Rove) it is deserved. The folks in the south can see that the far right does not and never has represented them.TRCSF said:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/09.html#a4871
Reminds me of Falwell blaming lesbians for 9-11.
And people say the lack of response isn't about race.
Yeah, I think it's a lot of both. Both classism and racism. But I see a lot of people freely admit it's classism (as if that's any better) and pretend that the racism doesn't exist.Informal Logic said:IMO it is more a disconnect with the large percent of poor in NO than racism. The two just so happen to be related. Nonetheless, this just shows the cr@p that gets dished out, and if it backfires on the likes of Bush (and his brain Rove) it is deserved. The folks in the south can see that the far right does not and never has represented them.
How so? The Southern US is very conservative and a primary constituency of the far right.Informal Logic said:IMO it is more a disconnect with the large percent of poor in NO than racism. The two just so happen to be related. Nonetheless, this just shows the cr@p that gets dished out, and if it backfires on the likes of Bush (and his brain Rove) it is deserved. The folks in the south can see that the far right does not and never has represented them.
In the century after the American Civil War and Reconstruction, Southerners often identified with the then-conservative Democratic Party. This lock on power was so strong the region was politically called the Solid South.
In the last thirty-five years, though, this has changed because of Democratic Party support for the civil rights movement and the conservative realignment of the Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan presidencies in the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, the Republican Party has benefited from Southern support, in large measure due to the evangelical Christian vote.
Although the South as a whole defies stereotyping, it is nonetheless known for entrenched conservatism. Support for such conservative causes is often found in the South, including resistance to same-sex marriage and abortion while in the past there was major resistance to feminism, desegregation, the abolition of slavery and interracial marriage.
I guess that's where race does come into it. The african-americans of the south are unlikely to support the GOP.BobG said:How so? The Southern US is very conservative and a primary constituency of the far right.
That's right, the pagans and the feminists are the reason. Or as Lewis Black says, God looked down and saw no stew on the stove, the spice rack in disarray, and said, I shall smite thee. :rofl: Better yet, as Jon Stewart says, in the aftermath of Katrina, Bush is suggesting a day of prayer. But, er um, isn't a hurricane an act of God?TRCSF said:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/09.html#a4871
Reminds me of Falwell blaming lesbians for 9-11.
No. 89% of africans voted for Kerry. 90% voted for Gore. That's within the margin of error.SOS2008 said:Edit: Minorites have been traditionally Dem, but the south is a bit of the Bible belt. More blacks voted for Bush than in the past for religious reasons, no?
Oh, I disagree.pattylou said:Separately to TRCSF: Yeah, I think it's classism and not racism. I grew up in an area with poor white folks who hated blacks. I saw their attitude towards blacks and it was horrific - along the lines of dragging them behind pickups because they were black.
If this hurricane had hit where I grew up, the white poor people would have been forgotten as easily as the poor black people (who have not been tied up to pickups and dragged around) were forgotten.
The reason I think it is important to make the distinction between classism of this nature and racism, is that nothing we saw in NO that the impoverished blacks suffered was anything like the horrific treatment blacks would have received where I grew up decades ago. But it is exactly like the treatment poor whites would have received.
So: (1) it is much less pointed and hateful than the sort of racism that we have seen historically, thus the term doesn't really "fit" and (2) poverty seems sufficient to explain it.
It seems like a distionction worth pointing out. We *HAVE* made strides in combatting racism. There is a hell of a long way to go.
That's true with *any* inequality in our society.
Ha. Yeah. And ESPN was just joking when they fired Limbaugh for making racist comments. And police were just joking when they found Limbaugh trying to find a doctor to prescrbe him narcotics, no questions asked.fourier jr said:hey limbaugh was "just joking" when he said that! just like ann coulter is "just joking" when she says extremely offensive stuff.
So, I went to the link to find Limbaugh calling Nagin a n1gger.The man who's often been called "the spokesman of the right" called the black mayor of New Orleans a n*gger. It doesn't get worse than that.
Thats not what it sounded like to me at all.pattylou said:I gotta say, that sounds like a slip of the tongue and not a "spokesman of the right" calling Nagin a cool person.
Naive... If you ever decide to join us on here Earth I will send you a gift basket.kat said:Funny...I hadn't heard or read anything about this and then when I saw your headline "nagger" I thought..who's he nagging about what...and here you all were thinking Nig..not nag...
I think that you're all racist to think nig not nag...
That second clause is a sentence fragment, grammar nazi.pattylou said:I've been liberated as the grammar nazi. Or the elitest democrat.
This is incorrect. 50 years ago it was more true than today but shifting lexicons allow for 21st centry writers to begin sentences with conjunctions. It's a method of emphasizing a point. The idea of not using a conjunction to begin a sentence was pounded into our little heads more as a way of preventing incomplete sentences than as some baseless rule. So, it is completely possible, and allowable, to begin a sentence with a conjunction if and only if the sentence can stand alone---that is the sentence is complete---when the leading conjuntion is removed. The previous sentence is an example.loseyourname said:That second clause is a sentence fragment, grammar nazi.
Yeah, as soon as I posted it I realized that it's perfectly acceptable to write a sentence beginning with a conjunction, but only if you include both clauses being conjoined in the sentence. She didn't do so, so her statement (which technically does not qualify as a sentence) isn't grammatically correct. Not that I really care, but since she called herself the grammar nazi, I felt it was worth pointing out.faust9 said:You changed your original post I believe LYN or I'm going crazy. I 'thought' you said something to the effect that "one cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction."