Loki Loc: Georgia

******
Good post. I might add that W VA was also a Union/s***e state, as was, to a lesser extent, NJ. In addition, several northern states had laws forbidding b****s to move there, and severely restricting the rights of those who were born there.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

You continue to prove my point, your incapable of discussion only insults and profanity! !!!! Why in the world do you insist I police others on this post? I have a better idea, go k**l yourself and make the world a better place! A man would address each thread on its own merit, a coward is only capable of redirecting.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Thanks, unfortunately the leader of this post is buried in false history. Ferguson, Baltimore current history distorted, no mention of the millions of dollars orchestrated by Soros, c*******ts, muslims, Obama administration causing deeper racial division, yet t***h warped by the liberal media.

I wasn't aware of laws preventing b****s from moving to northern states.

KHH1

Not at all...police them like you are trying to police me or leave me the phuck alone also.....fair anough and easy to understand...because i'm not half as vile as your colleague..AO.....but you know that......call it coward...i call it reciprocation...which means how YOU think does not mean a gotdamn thing to me.....coward is that bulls**t excuse you just made for being scared to call out your fellow r****ts...save that 25cent reverse psychology bullschit...and telling somebody to k**l themselves makes you sound like an out of control b***h.....

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Course Description

To call someone a r****t is a serious charge. A r****t is someone who believes that one person is superior (or inferior) to another person simply based on their skin color. It's a belief that is both foolish and stupid. But conservatives are accused by progressives of being r****t on an almost daily basis. Is it a fair accusation? Or, is it just political posturing? And, if it is political posturing, what does it say about the people making the charge? Derryck Green of Project 21 has some provocative answers. 

Taught By

Derryck Green


Login to Receive Credit!



SHARE VIA EMAIL



TRANSCRIPT



COURSE QUIZ



GET A KNOWLEDGE BOOST


TranscriptHardly a day goes by that someone of prominence -- a politician, a talk show host, an entertainer -- doesn't call some conservative -- or Conservatives generally -- r****t. 
Here are typical examples: 
The Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congressman Steve Israel: "To a significant extent, [conservatives] are animated by r****m."
TV newscaster Ed Schultz: "This is what the Republican Party stands for. . . : r****m."

Oprah Winfrey: "There's a level of disrespect for the office that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because [the President is] African American. There's no question about that. "
To call someone a r****t should be a very serious matter. A r****t is a person who believes that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another. It's not intelligence or goodness that determines an individual's worth; it's his or her skin color. 

To say that r****m is foolish and stupid -- not to mention evil -- is to understate the case. 

But, according to many of their critics, conservatives are that stupid and that evil.

But, with few exceptions, conservatives are neither. So why is the charge even made? The answer is primarily political: to maintain black support for liberals and liberal policies. 
To back up this charge, the accusers point to conservative policies. 
So let's examine some conservative policies to see if they are, indeed, r****t. 

The longstanding conservative opposition to Affirmative Action is a good place to start. 

It was Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, who first used the term "affirmative action" in 1961. But Affirmative Action, in the way we think of it now, wasn't implemented until 1970, during the Administration of a Republican President, Richard Nixon. 

The theory was that, because of historical discrimination, b****s were at a competitive disadvantage to other races and ethnicities. To erase that disadvantage, standards that most b****s presumably couldn't meet had to be lowered. 

One could make the case that this policy had some utility when it was first put in place. But that was a long time ago. The conservative position is that b****s have repeatedly proven they can compete with anyone without the benefits -- demeaning benefits, I might add -- of lower standards. There are countless examples of black success in every field at every level. The policy is no longer necessary. 

But the conservative argument goes further. Study after study shows that, in the case of college admissions, Affirmative Action actually hurts many b****s. By lowering admissions standards for b****s (and some other minority students), colleges set many of these students up for failure. They get placed in schools for which they're not prepared. And high black dropout rates confirm this view. 

So does common sense. 

If white students with mediocre SAT scores were admitted to Ivy League schools, they, too, would be set up to fail. 

Let's do the math: Conservatives believe that b****s and other minorities are every bit as capable as w****s of succeeding as policemen, firemen, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and college students. Yet, for this belief conservatives are called r****t.

The irony, of course, is that those who accuse conservatives of being r****t believe that b****s and other minorities are not as capable as w****s of succeeding and therefore still need Affirmative Action, almost a half century after it was first implemented. 

Let's look at another issue where this contrast between conservatives and those who accuse them of being r****t is even more starkly drawn -- V**er ID. 

Conservatives say that America should require that every v**er present an ID when he or she v**es, just as European countries do in order to help keep their e******ns honest. Are all these democracies r****t? Of course not. Yet, the accusers say that conservatives who support V**er ID are r****t. 

Why do they say this? Because, they argue, it's really a ruse to prevent b****s and minorities from v****g, since many of them just aren't capable of acquiring an ID. 

Can you get more condescending than that?

Let's be real. You need an ID to drive, to fly, to buy a beer, even to purchase some cold medicines. W****s can do it, but b****s can't? Tell me who the r****ts are again?

One more example: it's conservatives who push for school vouchers, which would allow all parents, not just wealthy ones, to choose their children's school. It's the other side that doesn't trust minority parents to select an appropriate school for their children. Why aren't the people who compel black children to stay in terrible schools the r****ts?

At some point, maybe you'll start asking yourself, like I did: 

Who's really obsessed with race? And whose policies really hurt b****s and minorities? 

Maybe it's not who you think it is.

I'm Derryck Green of Project 21 for Prager University.

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Who-Are-the-R****ts-Conservatives-or-Liberals.html#.Va7zdIoo5Ds

Nickolai

I didn't think he was a smart as at all The guy intended to be provocative and it worked it provoked him, what's he supposed pretend he wasn't provoked

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I have only made reference to your post, which you cannot reply. Read your own comments genius. ..

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Your a liberal r****t, admit it.

CULTURE

Why Liberals Think Conservatives Are R****t

By Rachel Lu

The sighs of relief from the left are almost audible. R****m lives! The h**e is out there!

It would be unfitting to throw a party for the occasion of h**eful comments from Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy, but some liberal journalists are probably tempted. “I’m trying to wring some grim humor out of the news, but I’m getting my r****ts all mixed up,” quipped Robin Abcarian of the Los Angeles Times. “Believe it or not,” wrote Mary Curtis in the Washington Post, “something good might arise from the r****t swamp of recent news cycles.” It’s all right, Ms. Curtis. You may proceed with your heel clicks. We all know that multiple high-profile r****ts in a 2-week period make for high times for liberals.

Liberals need r****t foes to vanquish. Most of the time they have to resort to finding them where they obviously aren’t there. Ross Douthat could print his mother’s best cookie recipes, and his New York Times readers would still lambast him as a bigot. (Perhaps we would learn that snickerdoodles are a well-known symbol of oppression in certain sub-cultures.) Paul Ryan can hardly order a sandwich without liberal pundits combing through in search of the r****t “coding” that they know to be hidden within all Republican rhetoric.

To conservative eyes, these accusations rarely achieve escape velocity from the farcical world of liberal paranoia. Figures like Bundy or Sterling predictably set off a tiresome string of rants about hidden r****m and conservative denial, but the universality with which r****t sentiments are condemned tells the real story. It’s hard to see how conservatives could sprint away from r****ts at top speed, while simultaneously wooing v**ers who mostly share their sentiments. As usual, liberal “reflections” on what Bundy and Sterling tell us about conservatives were mostly just silly.

It’s too bad to get back to business as usual in the r****m blame game, because quite recently, Jonathan Chait’s feature in New York Magazine offered some surprisingly helpful insights into liberals and their need for conservative “r****m.” Chait’s piece, and the firestorm that followed, make a fascinating tutorial in liberal paradigms concerning r****m. Looking through their eyes for a moment, it almost starts to make sense why they’re so certain that r****m is a significant moving force behind American conservatism.

The Paranoia of “Coding”

Initially it can be a bit startling to remind oneself that liberals really don’t see their accusations as the political equivalent to calling us poopy-heads; they actually believe that ethnic hatred is an important motivator for conservatives. Some even get frustrated that conservatives have gotten so clever about “coding” our r****t messages, hiding them in subtle subtexts that liberal journalists can’t easily expose (even while our barely-literate backwoods v**ers apparently hear them loud and clear). You can almost picture liberals playing Ryan’s speeches backwards, hoping to catch that “Paul McCartney is dead” moment when the mild-mannered and professorial Ryan secretly taps into the seething cauldron of bigoted rage that he knows to be driving his base.

Apparently some of them do actually realize that they’re overreaching, though it isn’t something they like to hear. Chait poked the bear by explaining some of the history behind the “coding” paranoia and agreeing that conservatives have some reason to resent it. More importantly, Chait explains with admirable clarity one important reason why the r****t-conservative dogma is so important for liberals. A second emerges from the responses to Chait’s piece.

Reason 1: Everyone H**es Reruns

The Ballad of the Civil Rights Movement has long been liberals’ favorite bed-time story. Martin Luther King Day may be the only day of the year when they feel completely, unambiguously proud to be Americans. It’s hard to exaggerate how important this is to liberal political thinking. They are perpetually looking for new ways to recapture that high.

Conservatives tend to miss this because we see the Civil Rights story as settled history. We’re all pleased to have sloughed off the bigotry of our ancestors. Of course we want people to be judged “by the content of their character” and not by their skin. What’s left to debate here?

Liberals have yet to turn that page. This is their favorite series, and like every loyal fan base, they always want another sequel. Indeed, as Chait acknowledges, one of the most appealing things about a 2008 Senator Obama was the perception that he could be the star of a particularly thrilling new episode. Of course, if that’s the storyline, it’s no mystery which role was available for conservatives. “Racial coding” became a convenient fix for a glaring plot hole: Republican politicians’ refusal to follow their r****t script.

Of course, for conservatives this is a pretty bad deal. We can’t stop being the r****t party if that’s the only “role” our political enemies have available. At most we can ask liberals to consider who is served by their implicit demand that r****m never die. A film director can afford to keep resurrecting Moriarty or Lex Luther for the amusement of his story-hungry audiences; in politics we should leave our vanquished villains in their historical chapters. Modern liberal oppression narratives are far and away the most expensive dramas ever produced, and we all get d**gged to see them whether we’re interested or not.

As grim as this sounds, it may actually be the more remediable liberal fixation. Another liberal paradigm (which is well articulated by Brian Beutler of The New Republic), leaves even less wiggle-room for a conservatism that actually serves the common good.

Reason 2: What Else Besides R****m Could Persuade Middle-Class Schmucks To Support Plutocracy?

Beutler is gracious enough to agree with Chait that, “the left’s racial analysis of conservative politics might lend itself to careless or opportunistic, overreaching accusations of r****m.” But he doesn’t feel too bad about it, because as he goes on to argue, liberals are fundamentally right about conservative r****m. White racial resentment is one of the primary sources of energy behind American conservatism. It has to be, because that’s the only plausible explanation for why anyone but the rich and privileged would support the GOP.

To his credit, Beutler doesn’t probe the sub-conscious of high-profile conservatives for unconfessed bigotry. He is cheerfully prepared to admit (and he thinks most liberals would agree) that racial hatred plays a small role in the motivations of the major players. For them, it’s all about greed. Their policies are pitched to protect their own wealth and privilege at the expense of the poor.

But the ultra-wealthy (as we have been reminded ad nauseum) are a small minority in America, and poorer v**ers have little reason to support a plutocratic agenda that doesn’t serve them. In order to stay viable, therefore, Republicans need a populist hook. That hook, Beutler believes, is racial resentment.

Conservative readers might be asking: why in the world would he believe that? To liberals it seems obvious. Conservatives are ferocious in their assault on programs that disproportionately enlist ethnic minorities, including Medicaid, food stamps and welfare. How else to explain that except as a manifestation of white Republicans’ r****t schadenfreude?

It’s hard to know where to begin with such convoluted reasoning. The conservative distaste for entitlements is deeply connected to our political philosophy; all of our most cherished values come into play here. And we have plenty of sociological evidence to present, now that the scars of entitlement dependency blight every major city in America, bequeathing to our poorest children a legacy of dysfunction and vice. But sure, let’s write all of that off as a manifestation of conservative greed and hatred. That would make so much more sense.

In order to make sense of such an apparently-crazy view, we need to remind ourselves of some further features of liberal ideology. To conservatives it seems crazy and wildly uncharitable to dismiss their (well-grounded) views as manifestations of an irrational animus against ethnic minorities. But to liberals this seems reasonable, because embedded deep within the liberal worldview is the idea that the end of the day all political activity can be seen as part of a story about warring classes. It’s another trope that we can lay at the feet of our still-fashionable friend, Karl Marx.

Marx declares early in The C*******t Manifesto that, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggles.” This is one of those sweeping interpretive claims that sounds silly to the uninitiated, but that starts to seem all-important to those who have adopted it as their central political paradigm. Marx was a wonderful storyteller, and his fairy tale still holds much power over the minds of modern people, as we’ve recently seen in the furor over Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”

As Marx understands it, societies are made up of multiple classes that perpetually jockey for relative advantage. Open warfare is avoided through a complex balance of agreements that enable each class to “hold its own” in the larger social structure. Some are better off than others, but all have something to lose if the arrangement collapses and turns into open warfare. Before the Industrial Revolution humans had crafted a fairly well-functioning “class ecosystem”, but rapidly expanding markets interrupted that balance by massively empowering one particular class (specifically the medieval burghers) to bring all others to heel. Now called “the bourgeoisie”, these new overlords wielded the immense power of the modern market as a weapon, harnessing all the other classes in an exploitative system that overwhelmingly benefited themselves.

It’s a story we all know, whether or not we’ve read. For liberals especially, The C*******t Manifesto is far more important than Cinderella. It wafts its way through their dreams and colors their entire social outlook. Of course we know that capitalists are castigated as exploiters and tyrants. That’s only the beginning, however. Everything is a zero-sum game in this outlook. That means that every move Republicans make must represent an attempt to win some marbles away from Democratic v**ers, which of course will be tossed into the overflowing treasure chests of Republican elite.

How do we know that Republicans are r****t? Well, we don’t get much support from ethnic minorities, and we dislike entitlement programs. If you see the world through a Marxist class-warfare paradigm, that really does look like adequate evidence to make the case.

Spreading the Good News

Conservatives have favorite stories too. We love our Constitutional Convention and our melting-pot of immigration. We get misty-eyed over the Greatest Generation and their triumphs in World War II. We believe that America is a special country. Conservative narratives have a level of transcendence that liberals simply don’t understand, which means that they can reject the dreary sameness of perpetual class warfare.

In fairness, some of the ideas that spring from those commitments are surprising, and may even seem naive. For example, most conservatives seem fairly confident that the r****m of our ancestors can just be discarded in the dust bin of history. Historically, this might seem unlikely, since racial resentment often burns on for centuries, consuming generation after generation in blood feuds and bitter grudge-matches. To Marxists, the cheerful conservative determination just to shut the book and move on comes across as childishly obtuse. Surely we at least need to roil in resentment and self-recrimination first?

Most incredible to liberals, however, is our claim that good economic policy (especially when combined with a well-ordered social structure) is actually good for everyone. We’re not all jockeying for the same pot of goods. It isn’t a zero-sum game. More opportunity for me can mean more prosperity for you, and vice-versa. We can all win.

This is the conservative Gospel, as it were. Conservatives tell Americans: we don’t have to fight over the pie! Let’s just make it bigger! Success is not a rationed commodity!

Like another piece of Good News two millennia ago, this just seems absurd to most liberals. Free markets are good for everyone? Get out. Can you people please just fess up and admit that you’re closeted r****ts?

Setting these two “political narratives” side by side, it’s not hard to choose the mo

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Are you able to communicate with a vocabulary beyond profanity? Thin skinned, and a coward to debate. Makes sense when your only defense is built on lies and r****m

KHH1

Every since I told them I had a doctorate at a young age and my other background(s), they have taken every crack they could at my "so-called" education according to them....so if they can call me uneducated and lying, then they must feel superior because they can talk the schit they do without accomplishing half as much....it is like how they think Obama could be a constitutional law professor and then try to pass off something unconsitututional...they would never think a white with those credentials could be that dumb........that is race-driven behavior plain and simple.....only the confederate f**g klan types are honest...like Holder said...this is a nation of cowards...

That rhetoric is full of holes, on AA, v**er id, the whole nine....and i'm not going to spend my time debunking lies....such as that with admissions and AA...i hope you all believe every AA candidate that is black had to meet lowered standards....I went to school with some of those....that is why I made sure i lowered the academic gauntlet on their r****t azzes...I bet they do not believe that NOW.....and look how the w****s who sued because of AA found out how b****s and w****s with higher scores then theirs also did not get accepted....you whole resoning is based on black inferiority.....but you know better.....

KHH1

Nope you cons cannot read and retain...i've said a million times I dislike black cons also...because of philosophy and not race...why do you people read one thing and turn it into wh**ever you want it to read....some real dishonest phucks...because it justifies your own hatred....i'm kool with non-r****t w****s...drink with em, worship with them, study with them, the whole nine...but you confederate f**g waving revisionists and your yes man black people...are another issue........

KHH1

Look up "Dog Whistle Politics" in Wikipedia and see what they say about cons...and you will be able to relate in modern times...not some civil war BS.........

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Your quote "they would never think a white with those credentials could be that dumb........that is race-driven behavior plain and simple" who is they? Everyone that holds a different view? I'm trying to understand why you have segments you place those with a specific or general view, non liberal.
Once upon a time universities p***ed themselves on directing young minds to deep thinkers, having opposing views and standing on their beliefs with reason and rational, being ready to have an answer. Now that is no longer acceptable with the infiltration of liberal dominance of c*******t style thought police of the universities.often times now a conservative student remains silent for fear b his professor may drop his class. You sir are that mindset, without exercising a scholarly debate on specific issuses, rather take the c*******m methods of admonishing outside thought reason, not dealing with the why's, when, how, only retaliation of the one thought kind.
As I stated before, to not respond is cowardly.

KHH1

come on man...you know how the world works...or maybe you do not....brothers have to be sharp because there is an inherent credibilty issue with us...hell, i have a wall full of degrees and been a stupid dumbazzz in OPP...but never in the real world although some tried to prove that I was....because I guess I was a"prize negro"....like hunting lions versus deer.....e...i've had somone address me as Doctor and heard people mutter s**t like "yeah right"......and that is kool too because when it is showtime, you come out slam dunking and throwing haymakers, academically speaking...highly articulate and thorough is the thing that sets you free....lots of sports metaphors....which one I like is when you say you are "going to knock it out of the park"..............and it is never about smarts..it is about pr********n and depth of research....do those two things and you can hold you own in any crowd.....and that is the rewarding part of it all....watching your efforts materialize..............so these people think I complain because I voice what I do not like or agree with......but my way of thinking has worked for me...you can call Dems plantation if you like but I v**e on behalf of others more then myself...i'm kool and I have never experienced none of the "black man's burdens" you righties so fondly celebrate.........consider me as one of those that "slipped between the cracks"......and you talk about universities, but rush, o'reilly, hannity and co. do way more indoctrination than universities ever could.....see, in academia you get to challenge the class and the professor both...in fox world, communication is one-way...you all do not question it but repeat it instead......

KHH1

Social perception is a widely explored field in many areas-here's an example..light skinned b****s are perceived to be more wealthy than darker skin b****s by surveyed w****s...and there are historical factors that drive the perception...this social construct thing is not child's play for all...there is a way to quantitatively research racial e******y/ine******y...a whole different level of sophistication associated with the analysis and reaching conclusions (research hypothesis)