Teabagger: Too many blacks make C-Span BLACK-Span

[NickCole]

That is an oft repeated lie, blacks nowhere near formed the largest group that voted for Prop 8, look up what percentage of California voters are black.

Well of course nobody knows for sure because the numbers aren't from the actual vote itself, they're from exit polls and studies done afterward, and who knows who's telling the truth. Those estimates varied widely, from 58% to 70%, but even taking the lowest number, "That support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-...-marriage-ban-black-voters-lesbian-task-force


And this was not a surprise. Reported in October, before the election:

A special target of the campaign is the African American vote, which is expected to be substantial this year because Barack Obama on the ballot. That may be a problem for gay marriage supporters.

Outside Oakland City Hall Tuesday, many leaders from the African American community rallied against Prop. 8. Five minutes away, at the Foothill Missionary Baptist Church, a 'Yes on 8' bus tour arrived from Chico.

The 'Yes on 8' campaign is banking on African American voters siding with them, against gay marriage.

"8-years-ago with proposition 22, the strongest community that came out in favor of proposition 22 was the African American community, and we expect the same to happen with prop. 8," said Yes on 8 Chairman Ron Prentice.

Complicating this is the fact that some African American voters don't like their struggle compared to the one by gays and lesbians.

http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.black.2.845954.html

 

[SoulSearcher]

Well of course nobody knows for sure because the numbers aren't from the actual vote itself, they're from exit polls and studies done afterward, and who knows who's telling the truth. Those estimates varied widely, from 58% to 70%, but even taking the lowest number, "That support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election."

I was not referring to the exit polls or the supposed voting trend, I was disputing your assertion that

The largest group that voted to deny marriage to gays in California were blacks, not elderly

How can blacks be the largest group to vote for anything, when they are very much a numerical minority in California? I suspect what you meant was that it is charged that a greater percentage within blacks voted a certain way, in which case, it would still be inaccurate to say that their numbers were larger than the older Californians of all ethnicities.

 

[NickCole]

wow....just wow....someone agrees with you and you still go on the defensive and try to alienate people....

its funny because....

what do you want me to say...i know for a fact some parents taught their kids racism (or any other isms you can think of ) while others didnt...that would be a blatant mistep as i wasnt even born....yet we do know its true

do we know that some children (or adults) form their own opinions by interacting with a different ( as in nothing similar to themselves) group...yes we do...hell i know myself

What you don't know is numbers, and neither do I. The whole argument here is whether or not bigotry will die out with folks who are old today. I say it will not. There were bigots thirty years ago and three hundred years ago and three thousand years ago, there are lots of bigots in America today who aren't old, and there will be bigots thirty years from now. How many there will be, and how powerful, and what laws will be changed, depends on a number of factors, one of which is economic, but the least of which is old bigots dying -- because old bigots have, along the way, taught bigotry to younger people; to say nothing of the fact that along with the old bigots go those of us who fought for social justice, and in terms of votes that might be meaningful.

seriously......your starting to sound bitter

Disagreement is not bitterness.

and yes it was a loaded question...as you knew that any answer he gave would be wrong....

I disagree (and not out of bitterness!). He said something I agree with and it was totally at odds with his position I disagree with. I was curious how he squares his notion that bigotry will die out with old folk with his understanding that bigoted people don't teach tolerance to their children.

 

[NickCole]

I was not referring to the exit polls or the supposed voting trend, I was disputing your assertion that


How can blacks be the largest group to vote for anything, when they are very much a numerical minority in California? I suspect what you meant was that it is charged that a greater percentage within blacks voted a certain way, in which case, it would still be inaccurate to say that their numbers were larger than the older Californians of all ethnicities.

Whatever. It's a pointless argument because the numbers are all estimates and, as I said, it's impossible to know if how they said they voted is actually how they voted. Numbers counted as people left the polls differed from surveys taken later. But regardless, my point stands: a lot of the people voting against marriage rights for gays are younger. Bigotry is not dying out, and if our economic health continues to decline, chances are bigotry will rise. Human beings look for scapegoats and it's amazing what lurks just below the surface.

And you ignored my other point. How does your argument square with Obama's and Dem Congress' failure to repeal DOMA, or to even try? Is that because of older people too?

 

[archive]

What you don't know is numbers, and neither do I. The whole argument here is whether or not bigotry will die out with folks who are old today. I say it will not. There were bigots thirty years ago and three hundred years ago and three thousand years ago, there are lots of bigots in America today who aren't old, and there will be bigots thirty years from now. How many there will be, and how powerful, and what laws will be changed, depends on a number of factors, one of which is economic, but the least of which is old bigots dying -- because old bigots have, along the way, taught bigotry to younger people; to say nothing of the fact that along with the old bigots go those of us who fought for social justice, and in terms of votes that might be meaningful.





Disagreement is not bitterness.





I disagree (and not out of bitterness!). He said something I agree with and it was totally at odds with his position I disagree with. I was curious how he squares his notion that bigotry will die out with old folk with his understanding that bigoted people don't teach tolerance to their children.

i cannot disagree with any thing you said.....all i was stating in how racism (etc) gets passed down....some is taught...some picked up (learned)....the group id...etc etc....of course there will never be an exact figure...

btw way...i def agree with you....old people dying will not make injustices falter...there are way too many factors....i think we are arguing semantics...we largely agree....

 

[archive]

By itself? No. Of course not. It's a small part but which helps greatly nonetheless.

On the whole we are already seeing the change that life brings.

There will always be prejudice, and not just against gays.

The point is just how much prejudice there will be

grrrrrrrrrrr..... now i will be called an obambabot....no obamatronic...no obamabot....there is it

 

[archive]

lol.........

 

[opinterph]

... if our economic health continues to decline, chances are bigotry will rise. Human beings look for scapegoats and it's amazing what lurks just below the surface.

That is a potent concept.

IMO, investing in the assumption that social liberalism follows a reasonably consistent increase over time represents a form of wishful thinking. Cycles of liberalism and freedoms/rights associated with personal liberty in the US during the last century often correlate with the status of the nation’s economic wellbeing.

Economic stability tends to facilitate a retreat from social tradition and fosters an enrichment of individualism, while economic instability tends to increase attention to questions of moral decline and the need for cooperation along the more traditional principles that people hold in common.

 

[opinterph]

What do you think this quote means as a rebuttal to the statement in bold?

I think the quote was intended to mean that God created sense by combining substance with ideas. In that regard, it seems reasonable to recognize that imagination by itself does not make reality.

 

[opinterph]

[President Obama], and [the 111th Congress], has continued the war in Iraq and amped up the war in Afghanistan, and failed to make the slightest effort to repeal DOMA.

What is your most benevolent interpretation that might explain those actions/inactions?

 

[opinterph]

It means that individual people are really rather dumb.

That's why succeeding generations are more enlightened, leading to the steady increase in social liberalization we have seen for hundreds of years.

We are all born helpless. The concept you are expressing is a restatement of the human capacity for learning and relates quite poignantly to cultural anthropology. The capacity to increase knowledge and [individual and/or collective] comprehension does not necessarily predict a “steady increase in social liberalization” for the future. Taken globally, I suspect that you may also be hard-pressed to prove that such a progression has taken place “for hundreds of years.”

 

[opinterph]

How much of that perceived increase in social liberalism is conquest and how much is a result of generational expansion of knowledge and comprehension? [lol]

 

[NickCole]

i cannot disagree with any thing you said.....all i was stating in how racism (etc) gets passed down....some is taught...some picked up (learned)....the group id...etc etc....of course there will never be an exact figure...

btw way...i def agree with you....old people dying will not make injustices falter...there are way too many factors....i think we are arguing semantics...we largely agree....

I think you're right that we essentially agree.

And I love this wording: "old people dying will not make injustices falter." Wish I'd written that.

 

[NickCole]

I think the quote was intended to mean that God created sense by combining substance with ideas. In that regard, it seems reasonable to recognize that imagination by itself does not make reality.

Nicely written!

I mean, I agree and all ... but the words just made me smile, it reads so nicely.

 

[palemale]

If you measure the increase in social liberalism and respect for and tolerance of the civil rights of others, it has undeniably increased over history. To deny that is silly and intellectually dishonest. The problem is that progress does not increase in a straight line. Rather, if one charted it, it would definitely go up in a zig zag. Unfortunately, at times the line would plunge downward, but the trend is inexorably upward.

Look at the history of Jews in Europe. Disabling laws, ghetto life and constant pogroms. Then, along comes the Enlightenment and French Revolution. As Napoleon's army conquered most of Europe and spread the ideals of the French Revolution, the French liberated Jews across the continent and bestowed rights on them they had never had. After Napoleon's defeat, many of the gains Jews enjoyed were reversed. Jews steadily gained rights again, but there were set backs, i.e. the Dreyfus affair, etc. Preceding WWII, France had a Jewish Prime Minister. Even in Germany, Jews were an integral part of German society, in the arts, business, military. Then the Holocaust and the worst abuse of human rights the Jews experienced.

In this country, Blacks went from slavery to emancipation. Progress was steady, but uneven. Reconstruction opened up opportunities for blacks that were, unfortunately, short lived. The rise of the Klan, Jim Crow laws and lynching followed. Segregation, job discrimination and denial of voting rights eventually became illegal.

The point is, progress is steady, if uneven. Someone once said, "Democracy is like taking a bath, one has to do it every day." So, I guess my ultimate point is that we must work to change minds and attitudes every day of our lives. Demonizing anyone based on their age, race or gender isn't helpful. (Although I think demonizing rich people who act on their class interests is helpful. lol.)

 

[NickCole]

It means that individual people are really rather dumb.

That's why succeeding generations are more enlightened, leading to the steady increase in social liberalization we have seen for hundreds of years.

That's not true.

In the 1920s there was a level of acceptance of gays that disappeared in the 30s and didn't return until the 60s. Gay clubs operated openly and prospered; and gays could live out of the closet, including some famous at the time like actors Bill Haines and his lover Jimmie Shields. The first gay rights organization in the US was formed in the 20s, called the Society for Human Rights. Radclyffe Hall's gay novel The Well of Loneliness, was published and became a best seller; Mae West's gay play The Drag was a success. Gay acceptance didn't reach the level of today because the Great Depression brought on a more conservative atmosphere and intolerance grew. Gays who'd been out, like Bill Haines, had to make major adjustments to the changed climate -- Haines, for instance, left his acting career and became an interior designer.

This is not unusual. Throughout history, intolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, and social liberalization in general, has ebbed and flowed over time as a result of several factors.

 

[NickCole]

What is your most benevolent interpretation that might explain those actions/inactions?

The most benevolent interpretation I can conjure or knowing what I know?

See, I completely agree with Maya Angelou when she said, "If someone shows you who they are, believe them."

But I doubt you want me to answer from that view, so ...

The most benevolent interpretation I can conjure: Obama discovered that Iraq and Afghanistan are grave threats to our national security and decided amping up war is worth the cost to keep us safer. And he hasn't moved to repeal DOMA, nor has he addressed the issue to the gay community that helped elect him, because if he even tried to repeal it or mentioned it publicly, passage of larger more essential legislation would be endangered.

Okay now I feel really dirty.

 

[Lostlover]

PR? ​

The people about whom you generalize apparently hold opinions that are disagreeable to you. Nonetheless, incarceration typically involves suspicion or conviction of committing a crime. On the basis of what crime do you consider these people should be jailed?

War crimes. Genocide for some.

Paraphrasing Gov Ventura: "attacking Iraq for 9/11 was like attacking South Korea for Pearl Harbor. You got the same ethnic group as the killers but that's it."

Let me ask you this. Do you believe some people are above the law. Do you believe in holding enablers in murders responsible?

 

[NickCole]

In the 1920s most people were to busy speculating the stock market

That one-dimensional characterization of what people were doing in the 1920s doesn't have anything to do with my point, and it certainly doesn't discount it.

and as Opinterph correctly pointed out, when the economy goes so does tolerance.

Well actually I raised the point, Opinterph responded that it was a potent concept, and your accepting that it's correct also accepts my point: there's an ebb and flow to tolerance and social liberalism.

Each generation inherits a level of tolerance from the previous generation, yours inherited an amazingly high level of tolerance earned by tremendous leaps of achievement made during the 60s and 70s, so I can see why you might believe the next step will be a similarly large leap forward. While advancements carry a momentum, though, how it plays out is not necessarily determined by what the previous generation achieved, it depends on what this generation does in its own time to build upon what they were given.

I have seen some strides forward, for instance maybe what's at the core of that CSPAN caller's anger is not only the marked increase in blacks calling into CSPAN but in the number of blacks on TV overall. It's really increased a lot in the past few years and that's a major move forward not just because more blacks are participating and earning through TV but also because people who don't have much exposure to blacks become more accustomed to diversity as normal, just surfing channels even if they don't watch the shows (except of course those like the CSPAN caller who are not going to be budged).

But I've noticed the same hasn't been true for out gays. Although there is some increased presence it's minimal and remains novelty-ish. In fact the one out gay anchor, on CNN, "resigned" months after he came out. And gay activism today is frankly pathetic. So maybe more kids on college campuses and 20/30 somethings are more accepting of gays at the office or a party because that's how they were raised, and in theory support same sex marriage, but it's not translating to increased rights and I'm not sure how much headway has been made into reducing the ick-factor that middle America has about two men being sexual partners. And one more thing. I've noticed that a lot of 20/30 something white gay men who claim such pride in not being racist are squeamish at the mere thought of being sexual with black men. To me that indicates there's a dirty little secret bias under the surface.

 

[NickCole]

Wishful thinking, NickCole, and again you try to equate "a lot" with most. Seeing as you are likely unable to bring hard data to the table on that point, it's really just prejudiced assumptions on your part.

That being said, sexual preference is not bias. Your sexual preference is what it is, and can't be changed. I should not have to be telling that to a gay man.

I'm sure my straight friends are squeamish at the "mere thought" of being sexual with men. That doesn't make them homophobic or hateful towards me. I am squeamish at the mere thought of being sexual with women, and it doesn't make me hateful towards straight people either.

A gay man being squeamish about being sexual with a woman is not remotely the same as how white gay men feel about being sexual with a black gay man. It's not even apples and oranges, it's fruit and vegetables; so to speak.

I first realized this 4 or 5 years ago and it took me totally by surprise because in my 20s when I hopped from man to man I was at ease being sexual with black men and just assumed this supposedly post-racial generation is integrated, sexually -- but that's not what I've heard, especially from black gay men. So for the past few years I've initiated many conversations about this with late-20s/30 something gay men, and I've seen it discussed on this forum as well. Start a thread about it if you want to know what others think and what their experience has been in the gay community.