You see now you're asking different questions. Question #1: Can you name a benefit to racial diversity? My Answer: People get to experience different cultures which helps improve race relations. You tried to claim that this was a circular argument but I showed you that it is not. It's simply an example of what you asked me to present. You additionally claimed that diversity doesn't lead to racial harmony but rather to distrust citing research from a Wikipedia entry. I countered with the acknowledgement that while there can be distrust in racially diverse societies integration can alleviate racial tension. My evidence is the changing opinions of White Americans on interracial marriage which I attribute to desegregation, including school integration (the more Whites are raised around Blacks the less of a racist attitude they have about Blacks). Now as far as my argument about the solution to racism vs. your argument is concerned what I am saying is that it is more logical to combat racism than it is to separate races if you want to improve race-relations. Racial separatism doesn't improve race-relations it ends race-relations. If you want to save a marriage you go to marriage counseling or work it out with your spouse you don't get a divorce. Your scenario is destructive to racial harmony. My scenario is a progressive strategy on improving race-relations which has been working. I think racism will always exist because some minority of people will choose to be hateful and intolerant and raise their kids that way ensuring racism exists over successive generations but racism can and has been significantly reduced. On to your next questions.... Question #2: Even in your best case scenario where people are no longer racist as a result of increased diversity in response to some diversity, how is that a benefit over a homogenous society? My Answer: My argument isn't that we should increase diversity but rather that promoting tolerance helps reduce racism. I'm personally indifferent to racially heterogeneous vs. racially homogenous societies. I don't think either one works better than the other. Question #3: How is a tolerant homogenous society better compared to a racist homogenous society? My Answer: If one values Egalitarianism then they are against racist societies because racism promotes destructive social policies. I don't imagine a White Nationalist state that was racially homogenous but promoted racial hatred towards different people would be a peaceful one. First of all to create the state from a racially heterogeneous country like America there would have to be some rather aggressive racist policies (ex. genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass deportations) on the level of Nazi Germany. Then once you have the state I believe that a racist country would be hostile to its neighbors even if it was an isolationist state. On the other hand a tolerant, racially homogenous country probably wouldn't bother anyone. Modern Japan is a good example. They don't have racist social policies. They are very ethnically homogenous and they are not hostile toward their neighbors. I believe that to be racist you must harbor racist and intolerant feelings. For a whole country to be like this would inevitably lead to destructive consequences.
I would hardly call Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK or LBJ conservatives. That the parties switched is a myth perpetrated by liberals to wash their hands of their tainted past. If you can show that the parties switched then please do. Show me the conservative Southern democrats. I don't know how many liberals have made this argument to me and failed to follow it up with proof. If the parties switched, when? If the parties switched, who? I can show you plenty of liberal democrats that were racist, before 1964 and after. So if you want to go, bring it.
Anecdotal incidents, jokes, or secret code words and other made up offenses from a salon article doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This is why overplaying the race card isn't working anymore.
So we need to pander to blacks? That is racist. But our policies help blacks more than democrat policies. The constant drumbeat of racist, racist, racist is wearing thin. [video=youtube;TBuAxg1zy6E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBuAxg1zy6E[/video]
Some great accomplishments; my question is: what happened over the past 45 years to cause the party to change into what it is today?
The Democratic/Republican switch from Left to Right and Right to Left started at the turn of the 20th century and solidified itself during the Presidency of FDR. http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html The Republicans and Democrats clearly switched platforms not just on their approval of the size of government but also on race-relations. And look, we know that there are racist Democrats but are you seriously arguing that there are MORE Democratic voters and politicians who are racist vs. racist Republicans?! For every Democrat that has made a racist remark I bet you there are many more Republicans that can be named. But let's not play a game of name the racist because that's silly. Let's look at statistics. Have you seen the opinion polls by Republican voters who believe ridiculous things about President Obama? Party of Nuts: Poll Shows GOP Thinks Obama is Muslim, Socialist Scary New GOP Poll - The Daily Beast Republicans have been saying racist things for years but I believe that they truly showed their racism when Obama got elected. Some of this racism is covert. I believe that when people imply Obama is a "domestic enemy" the real motivation for that belief is racism. The smears against Obama have been of the most ridiculous nature from claims that he was not born in the United States to sullying the reputation of his parents (even questioning his parentage) to assassinating his character with all kinds of rumors and innuendo (remember that nutcase who claimed Obama was a bisexual crackhead? ). The Republican Party is saturated with racists both the voters and the politicians. Some people don't know racism when they see it. You can talk about welfare all you want but if you want a glimpse of how insidious and despicable racism is in the country look no further than the smear attacks by far-right Republicans against our President.
I didn't say anything about pandering to Blacks. I'm talking about improving race-relations. And no, Republican policies do NOT help Blacks more than Democratic policies.
Republicans have continued to do the right thing for the American people regardless of race. The party has not changed, It is the democrats that have moved to the extreme left.
We appointed the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff We honored the first Martin Luther King Day signed into law by President Reagan We appointed the first black national security advisor We appointed the second black to the SCOTUS We appointed the first black Secretary of State We appointed the first black woman to national security advisor We appointed the first black woman to Secretary of State We elected the first black Southern Senator from the South since reconstruction The first black chairman of the RNC The first Hispanic attorney general The first Hispanic female governor The first Indian governor The first woman Indian governor The first black congressman from FL since reconstruction The first Italian American to the SCOTUS The second woman to be nominated Vice President The first Hispanic senator Several minorities freshman congressmen during the 2010 election Black republicans congressmen come from predominantly white congressional districts. There are no black democrats that come from predominantly white congressional districts. So that is just off the top of my head, if you would like I could look up some more, and also delve into the statistical data as to how black fare better under republicans economically. You just let me know.
Michael Reagan didn't make a good case for his father helping Blacks more than Obama or every other President since Lincoln as he claims in the article. All he did was note that Black unemployment went down during the Reagan administration and went up during the Obama administration. Obama inherited a recession when he took office. His policies have created many more jobs than the Bush era and overturned the recession. As for the Black unemployment rate: Rand Paul, Obama & Black Unemployment: Factcheck.org Clearly Obama has NOT been a worse President for Blacks than Reagan was. He has been a very good President who inherited multiple problems from a crumbling economy to wars yet we are far better off with him than we were with Bush and I imagine we'd be far worse off with a Republican President like McCain or Romney if they had gotten elected as they offered nothing in the way of better policies. Not Progressive? Here’s a list of 269 Accomplishments by President Obama, Democrats The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises President Obama expands ‘My Brother’s Keeper’ initiative [video=youtube;u_8EHR8Kklg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_8EHR8Kklg[/video]
I would say pre-1900's republicans were conservatives based on the issues of those decades, and the democrat liberals. Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were progressives, But Woodrow Wilson was a leftist and a racist. He was followed by Calvin Coolidge, a conservative pro-Civil Rights president. FDR was a leftist and racist. In 1956, the democrat national party platform had pro-segregationist language in it and condemned the GOP for using the courts to integrate schools and enforce civil rights. Eisenhower/Nixon were conservatives who pushed 2 CRA through a democrat controlled Senate with opposition from JFK and LBJ. JFK (liberal) did not consider civil rights a high priority. LBJ did sign the '64 Rights Act, but kicked the Mississippi black delegation out of the Democrat National Convention that same year. Conservative Nixon was elected in '68 and immediately integrated southern schools as well as segregated northern school districts controlled by racist northern democrat mayors. He instituted the Philadelphia Affirmative Action plan, supported the ERA, and signed the EEO Act into law, all in his first term which proves there was no "Southern Strategy". In '72, racist segregationist democrat Gov George Wallace (and liberal) won 6 democrat presidential primaries before his run was ended by an assassins bullet. He endorsed Jimmy Carter for President in 1976. Jimmy Carter carried all but one southern state in 1976. How much more information is necessary to prove that the democrats were always liberals, the GOP always conservative, and that they did not switch? I also could go through the hundreds of politicians, governors, senators, congressmen if you like.
Factcheck dot org is a biased group so their graphs and statistics you can throw out with the garbage. I'll try and refute them with real stats later when I have time.
I can say the same for your sources. If you have evidence that the graph is fraudulent or the article incorrect go ahead and share.
You so far have failed to understand race relations do not need improvement in a homogenous society. You're confusing between saying something is true and showing something is true through a line of logic. Let me help with an analogy between a gun-rights supporter and gun-rights abolitionist: GRA: "What is the benefit of guns to society vis-a-vis gun crime?" GRS: "Increasing guns in the hands of ordinary citizens will reduce gun crime." So, could increasing guns in the hands of ordinary citizens lower gun crime and could studies be cited supporting this hypothesis? Possibly. However, it misses that point that gun crime wouldn't exist if every gun were removed from society. So, based off the scope of the question, guns provide no benefit to society regarding gun crime. Naturally, gun crime wouldn't exist if not for guns. Similarly, you fail at making this same conclusion that racist experiences wouldn't exist if there weren't any mixture of races in a nation. I did not ask about improving race relations. My question was from the point of view that a racially diverse society is more 'harmful' than homogenous societies. Therefore, my question is not about alleviating conditions heterogeneous societies experience but what benefit does a homogenous society gain from potential race mixing. My scenario is not concerned with racial harmony but the benefit of turning a homogenous society heterogeneous. Think about a society without guns where the issue of gun legalization hinges on gun crime. Would saturating society with guns be a coherent strategy to combating gun crimes when there were previously no gun crimes due to there being no guns? I thought Japan socially discriminated against its trace Korean population? Keep in mind the racism I'm discussing is racism within the borders of a nation, but not outside. It's like Saudi Arabia doing business with non-Muslim governments and companies but denying equal rights to non-Muslims in the country. On a business level, Saudi Arabia is fully capable of operating and thriving in the modern world despite discriminatory policies against groups in the kingdom. South Africa would be another example. A nation with the same ideology as apartheid South Africa could exist and thrive in the world as long as it did not have a heterogeneous society but one that is initially racially pure. Social science is not a math equation. There is no function telling you the outcome when you plug in a number.
Yep, it's always basically boiled down to the problem being the conservative ideology. Conservative Democrats in the south from years ago, or conservative Republicans today, it makes no difference. Conservatism is ALWAYS the same, and it doesn't matter what party they support.
Conservatives love to pin the atrocities of their hideous ideology onto liberals. I have no doubt that in the future, they will be trying to take the credit for gay rights, just like they try to take the credit for equal rights for blacks (even though they opposed both). It's how they roll.
So true. I notice that PatriotNews has nothing to say about my article summarizing the switch in platform that Democrats and Republicans underwent. Wikipedia does not support his historical revisionism. They have whole sections on their Republican history webpage about the progressive era in the party and how there were progressive and liberal Republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._Party#The_Progressive_Era:_1896.E2.80.931932 They didn't make up anything. These are all racist comments made by conservative Republicans. And what about the opinion polls that show a significant number of Republican voters believe crazy things about Obama suggesting he is a public enemy? Do you really believe that none of that is related to racism? People just find Obama so untrustworthy they imagine him as the antiChrist because of his politics? You can ignore the overt and covert racism of the Republican party but those of us who live in the real world can not and should not overlook such facts.
Because there is no there, there. Foodstamps is racist? If that is one of the worst examples then we have a good record on race.
Yes, the foodstamps comment can be construed as racist. It appeals to stereotypes about Black people being on foodstamps. There are countless other examples of Republican racism. Here are a few popular racist images and videos of and about Obama circling the internet: [video=youtube;PWbmEUIQOCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWbmEUIQOCQ[/video] [video=youtube;BjYpkvcmog0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0[/video] [video=youtube;NfxVkLhlu5s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfxVkLhlu5s[/video] [video=youtube;WQZI1O2TUa4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZI1O2TUa4[/video]
Where any of those images brought to you by the republican party or one of it's candidates? No. The "Barack the Magic Negro" parody was inspired by a story written by a leftwing liberal extremist in the New York Times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_the_Magic_Negro Ann Coulter said Barack Obama is half black and you think that is racist. Obama's mother was white, his father was black, which means he is half black. If you have to look that hard to find racism, I would say we've come a long way from when democrats were lynching black men. The true racists are the democrats who attack every conservative black because they have strayed off the democrat's plantation: [video=youtube;G9OxtcARa2w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9OxtcARa2w[/video]
They are images that have become well-known because they were created and spread by racist Republicans. It was still promoted by rightwing conservative extremists like Rush Limbaugh. Watch the video. She calls him B. Hussein Obama and says he was one of the least threatening men she knew named Hussein. She further stated that his greatest accomplishment in life was being born half Black which is a racist snipe. Conservatives lynched Black men. Most White racists today vote Republican. A Black man calling another Black man a house negro for calling another Black man a token Negro. Nice video. This man is extremely ignorant and so is anyone who supports such race-baiting nonsense. The true racists are mostly conservative and vote Republican. Conservative Blacks are in the extreme minority. The Republican Party is dying because America is becoming more multicultural. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see another Republican President in our lifetime.
Ann Coulter is a columnist, author and humorist. Any jokes directed at B. Hussein Obama by her would naturally be deemed racist by liberals because she is a conservative female. Same for Rush Limbaugh. The parody is highlighting liberal racist hypocrisy. Liberals want to shut down critics by labeling anything they say to be racist. It's just not working anymore. Democrats were liberals as I've pointed out. It wasn't conservatives lynching black men. It was democrats. Merely throwing out multiple unsupported accusations of racism by republicans, whites, conservatives, and blacks that don't agree with you, hurts the fight against actual racism. I think you dropped this:
I think you've run out of arguments. It has been proven to you that the Republicans and Democrats switched platforms. You ignored this and refuse to acknowledge it. You're actually using Coulter's taunts against Obama and have the audacity to accuse me of pulling the race card. I get the impression that you don't care about these smear attacks and insults against the President and may actually think it's funny. Why else would you continue to have an avatar of a naked woman alleged to be Obama's mother by racist conservative Republicans?
Republicans and democrats did not switch platforms and you have not shown one iota of evidence that this is the case. I ask you to name the conservative democrats, name the liberal republicans. I've already listed many famous democrats who were racist, and liberals. Read the thread. There are many, many more less famous I have yet to get to. I've gone through a long list of republican accomplishments from 1854 to present. Most republicans were conservatives. Why do you say I've run out of arguments? Are you employing the tactic of claiming victory and trying to shut down the debate? I've only scratched the surface of the real history of the parties and their record on race. You can check this thread that's quite old as well, about the democrat's abysmal record on race. Read through it and tell me where I'm wrong. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3-democratic-partys-record-race-mod-edit.html
I posted a full-length article proving that the Democrats and Republicans switched platforms. You ignored it. I've posted plenty of evidence of Republican racism which you either ignored or excused. It does indeed seem as though you've run out of arguments.
