Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    Notice the deflections, denials, cover-up and blame-shifting in .0

    Is there any further need to identify the absolute failure of the
    liberal actions and tactics of the last 30 years.
    
    This is not he first such incident in the recent past, and I believe it
    is going to escalate.  Is there some correlation that can be drawn
    between the liberal attacks on those who insist on personal
    responsibility, re-establishment of morals and standards and
    elimination of race based biases.
    
    I can hardly wait for all of the liberals to start making excuses and
    deflecting this issue.
    

The following is from the editorial page of the Boston Globe 12/14/95 pg. 27

The flames of hatred in the Age of Farrakhan

Jeff Jacoby

 The details don't matter. Ostensibly it was a dispute over a lease. The owner 
of Freddy's Fashion Mart notified the owner of Record Shack, which sublet the 
shop next door, that his lease wouldn't be renewed. Freddy's was acting at the 
behest of the building owner. Record Shack didn't want to move.

 The details *don't* matter. What matters is that Freddy's was Jewish-owned, 
and Record Shack was black-owned. On Harlem's famed 125th Street in the Age of 
Farrakhan, nothing else is relevant.

 By late September, the protests begin. By Nov. 25, they are occurring daily. 
Every morning, 20 or more demonstrators crowd the entrance to Fred Harari's 
clothing store across from the Apollo Theater. Every morning, he has to endure 
the obscenities and the threats:

  "Get out, Jew bastards!"

  "Burn down the Jew store!"

  "Get all Jews out of the neighborhood!"

  "Bloodsucking Jews!"

  "Kill the Jew bastards!"

 Harari's customers - the few who dare to brave the gauntlet - are spat on, 
taunted as "Uncle Toms" and "traitors." They are advised to "go in the store 
now because next week [it] won't be there."

 By Nov. 28, members of the mob repeatedly simulate striking a match and 
throwing it at the store. One demonstrator, loud and menacing, storms into 
Freddy's and screams: "I will be back to burn the Jew store down! Burn, burn, 
burn!"

 On Nov. 29, a protester yells: "We're going to come back with 20 niggers and 
loot and burn the Jews." Kareem Brunner, a black Freddy's security guard, goes 
to the 228th Precinct to plead for police protection. "I repeated what I had 
heard that morning," he later swears in an affidavit. "The problem was not 
going to subside, but instead would escalate... I took these threats as 
directed against me personally also. I was told by them many times that I was 
a 'cracker lover' and 'would get mine as a traitor' to the black race."

 On Dec.2, Rev. All Sharpton, race-baiter of long standing, joins the 
protesters. His name is on a leaflet denouncing "what appears to be a 
conspiracy to drive another black merchant from 125th Street."

 On Dec. 7, Fred Harari turns for help to a New York court. Offering 
videotapes as evidence of a clear and present danger, he asks for a 
restraining order to keep the mob at least 50 feet from his shop. The 
demonstration has become " a racial thing which seems to be feeding on 
itself," he says. He describes the protesters' mime of lighting and throwing 
matches. "I can only believe that if they are allowed to continue with their 
protest up close to my store, at some point real matches will be thrown at me 
and my store. This is not an idle fear on my part."

 On Dec.8, Roland Smith - a vendor of African jewelry and one of the wilder 
demonstrators - bursts into Freddy's with a gun, several dozen rounds of 
ammunition, a can of paint thinner, a fuse and matches. It is a few minutes 
past 10 a.m. "It's on now! All blacks out!" Smith shouts. After the black 
customers leave, he shoots four nonblacks pointblank. He splashes paint 
thinner over piles of clothing, sets Freddy's ablaze and shoots himself. Seven 
employees die in the inferno, including five young Hispanic women and Kareem 
Brunner, the guard who had begged the police for help. At 12:50 p.m., Judge 
Harold Tompkins signs the restraining order.

 On Dec.9, leaflets are passed out in front of another store on 125th Street. 
"Now we will drive Bargain World out of business," they gloat. "Bargain World 
must go!" Bargain World is owned by Arthur Rosen, whose family has been 
serving Harlem patrons since 1938. Meanwhile, at a press conference nearby, Al 
Sharpton says he "saw no anti-Semitic, anti-white or any other expressions of 
racism" preceding the slaughter at Freddy's.

 On Dec 12, four days after the massacre, The New York Times runs a page 1 
story - its first - on the "menacing caldron of anti-Semitic, antiwhite 
racism" that had been boiling outside Freddy's Fashion Mart for weeks. Harlem 
politicians led by US Rep. Charles Rangel claim they never heard any racist 
threats. The vows to "burn the Jew store down," the daily public cursing of 
"bloodsucking Jews"? News to them.

                                  * * *

 Suppose ugly demonstrations and threats of violence took place outside an 
abortion clinic. Suppose vile epithets were spewed, day after day. Suppose 
protesters crowded the entrance, yelling "Burn it down!"

 How long would it take for the police to react? For the restraining order to 
issue? For the mayor and governor to mobilize? For the story to splash onto 
Page 1? Two weeks - or two hours?

 Suppose a pack of Jewish goons massed at the door to a black-owned business, 
screamed racist obscenities and motioned as if to set the place afire. Suppose 
a gang of right-wing militiamen appeared outside a federal office building, 
bug-eyed with hatred, shouting, "Kill the government bastards!"

 Suppose - but why suppose? We live now in the Age of Farrakhan, and the rules 
are clear. Some kinds of racial terror will be fought with unsleeping 
vigilance; others will be discreetly overlooked. Some hatemongers will be 
reviled and shunned; others will lead Million Man Marches. Some vitriolic 
threats will be met with every weapon at society's command. Others - "Burn the 
Jew store down," for instance - won't even be heard. Not until seven victims 
have been incinerated. 
________________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist.

    jacoby has a nerve calling SHARPTON a race baiter.    
    jacoby isnt exactly a poster boy for better race relations.
    Peter

    
    re: .4
    
    So... what in the editorial did you find as "race-baiting" by Jacoby?
    
    
    I read the Globe regularly (including the editorial pages) and don't
    recall him baiting anyone...
    
    Care to expound and/or provide sources/quotes??
    
    

    >jacoby has a nerve calling SHARPTON a race baiter.    
    
     Are you denying that Sharpton is a race baiter, or merely attempting
    to create a diversion? Perhaps you feel that by impugning Jacoby the
    truth of what he says will be diminished?

    no diversion, i pointed out that jacoby has no right caling sharpton a
    race baiter (race baiter that sharpton is) if he is equally as guilty,
    at times.
    and if you are a regular reader of jacoby, you know that he often takes
    the low road when it comes to issues involving gays, blacks, etc..
    i admit he is a fine writer and when writing about issues he knows and
    feels (ie: the holocaust) he is exceptional.
    but i've been reading his views for years and if you'd like some
    examples of his race baiting, i will try to dig a few up...but i think
    you know what i'm talking about.
    i guess i'm pointing out, to quote a man like jacoby is doing a
    disservice to this heinous incident.
    Peter

    
    re: .7
    
    Then you'll have to provide some more details.
    
    Jacoby is the token conservative on the Boston Globe staff and usually
    writes from that slant.
    
    I ask you once again.... what in the editorial did you see that we
    should deflect from the message and concentrate on the messenger???
    

    well, i don't know how to do that cut & paste thingy so bear with me.
    but i was referring to the line were he specifically calls sharpton a
    race baiter.
    "on dec 2 rev sharpton, race baiter of long standing"....blah blah blah
    yes, i realize that he writes from the conservative slant...but to me
    often his arguments are emotion laden reactionary diatribes.
    so, (to me, anyways) somebody like JJ's credibility should be
    questioned.
    Peter 
    
    

    >so, (to me, anyways) somebody like JJ's credibility should be
    >questioned.
    
     Except, in this instance, anyway, everything he said rang true.
    

    Andy,
    
    And this is not directed at Peter per sae, however, keep in mind that
    our society uses a very broad brush to define what racism is.  If you
    consider Brudnoy here in Boston, the man was a long time member of the
    NAACP, was a professor at an all black university and despises racism.
    However, because he frequently lashes out at the quota queens, the
    Affirmative Action lunatics, and ghastly cultures in Africa such as
    Somalia and of course the Sudan where the slave trade exists, then in
    the eyes of the lib elitist, Brudnoy is a racist.  Jacoby may be
    painted with the same brush here.
    
    -Jack

    re: .9
    
    re: race-baiter...
    
    Ummmm... you do recall Mr. Sharpton and his vitriol against some
    "white" cops a few years ago?
    
    Seems he pushed the accusation that they raped/molested/smeared feces
    all over thos poor, poor black girl...
    
    He vowed to get to the bottom of this "white conspiracy" (his words)!!
    
    Guess what??
    
    She lied...
    
    Guess what again??? He's still a race-baiter...
    

    regarding "ringing true". how do you know for sure that JJ is telling
    the truth?
    Peter

 ZZ  how do you know for sure that JJ is telling
 ZZ     the truth?
    
    
    She IS telling the truth!  It's her birthday, she'll be 28...she's
    going to a concert, and her SO is visiting famil...
    
    OH...JESSE JACKSON.  Never mind!

    Ooppps.  Jacoby, not Jackson!

    I don't know for sure that Jacoby is telling the truth. This could be a
    completely fictitious incident. I doubt it, though. He puts in plenty
    of verifiable facts (see the time line, see the NYT). And Sharpton's
    antics are hardly unknown. There is an air of authenticity in that
    piece, that's why it rings true to me.

    
    
    Plus the affidavit of the (black) security guard..
    
    Plus the video-tape by the owner...

    i've heard Brudnoy mimicking the Haitian patais during the hatian
    exodus, what is that called. i call it ignorant, of course...but it IS
    telling.
    Peter

    I can't speak for Andy, but I think the point he's trying to make
    is that there has been a constant and consistent effort to build
    feelings of anti-Semitism building within the black community for
    years and the Sharpton's, Farrakahn's and Jesse Jackson's, i.e.
    "leaders" within the black community are doing nothing to stop it;
    in fact they appear to be encouraging it IMHO.
    
    Jackson made that hideous comment about NYC a few years back and he
    above many younger black leaders ought to remember that when civil
    rights marches were taking place during the 60s and when voting
    registration campaigns took lives of young college students in the
    deep south it was Jewish students who stood at the forefront of the
    marches with MLK trying to get blacks registered and it was 2 young
    Jewish men who died in Mississippi along with that young black 
    student.
    
    If a radical group of Hassidic Jews had been picketing a black-owned
    business, and this later led to violence and death you can bet your
    last dollar that the 3 above named black "leaders" would be raising Cain
    in front of every camera they could find.
    
    Martin Luther King, Jr wasn't perfect, nor was he a saint, but I do
    believe he would be horrified to see how black leaders who were ex-
    pected to pick up the mantle of leadership have conducted themselves
    since his death.
    
    If the blacks in Harlem do not want Anglos or Jews owning businesses
    in Harlem any longer, they might be better served to pick up some of
    MLK's papers and books on "non-violent" change and put that into
    practice.
    

    
    I was watching a segment of National Geographic last Saturday night/
    Sunday morning. They featured a study/observation of the conflict 
    between the Lions and the Hyenas on the plains of Africa. As I sat 
    and watched, I thought about the conflicts of racism. This story 
    of Freddie's clothes mart reminded me of what I saw in the segment 
    between the Lions and the Hyenas. The only difference which strikes 
    me is they (lions and hyenas) don't know any better but we as 
    supposedly human beings do. Just my take of the matter.

    Once again I am appalled by the absolute silence by the liberal,
    socialist side both here and in the media about this.
    
    If there palyers in this tragedy were different, you can count on it
    that they would be all over this claiming rightist extrmemists,
    religious fanatics, etc are out of control and something has to be to
    get them in line.  The condemnations would continue and escalate until
    someone starts demanding federal intervention and laws and demanding
    that these "radicals" be required to undergo sensitivity training and
    new programs established to deal with the poor folks who were the
    victims of this outrage.
    
    Why is it that whenever anything happens to a religious group or white
    group, nobody gets offended beyond the normal nod and yawn.
    
    This is just another example of the prostitution and bastardization of
    the American society by the left.
     

    re .21
    
    Obviously you didn't listen to NPR Morning Edition Yesterday.  They
    were not only not silent about it, they brought up the other store
    which is being targeted by Sharpton's crew at this time.  
    
    
    
    

    re .19
    
    	"people of harlem should read books describing peaceful change..."
    Or something to that effect.
    
    	Change is rarely peaceful. Think about what you are saying from a
    historical perspective; you might suprise yourself.

    There are some who would still try, look at Ghandi, M Theresa,
    Thoureau, and others through history.
    
    

    Doesn't count, Meg.
    
    They were all heretics.
    
    (private joke)
    
    |-{:-)
    

    You are right Dan, how could I forget, probably secular humanists as
    well.
    
    Oh well, Inanna loves them
    
    ;-)
    
    meg

    I'm really curious as to why all the folks who were up in arms about
    the Oklahoma City bombing and Rodney King aren't as vocal about this.
    
    I seem to recall that there were all sorts of entries vilifying the
    "radical right" and conservatives for these acts, yet they seem to be
    rather silent on this.  What's really unfortunate is that this is not
    an isolated incident, just more blatant.
    
    I wonder what it will take to get those folks to speak out.  Maybe when
    these same bigots and racists start painting "Juden" on buildings and
    breaking stores open and burning their belongings our liberal friends
    might begin to see that something has gone wrong.  Or will they
    continue to offer platitudes about how wrong the rest of society has
    been and what else could you expect.
    
    The silence is deafening, despite the fact that NPR may have run a
    feature on it.  Has any national new organization really investigated
    and reported this?  Absolutely not.  It has not received anywhere near
    the publicity that it deserves, or what a similar action by any other
    group would have received.  Remember how the Korean business owners
    were castigated for defending their businesses with rifles and shotguns
    during the LA riots.  Remember how the liberal commentators tried to
    make the Koreans out as the bad guys for having weapons and possibly
    shooting someone.
    
    It's really sick and pathetic.
    

Yes.

Where is the outcry.

We also haven't heard (or I've been too busy to look) for word about the
Phildelphia police scandal where hundreds of black people have been falsely
incarcerated, abused, and intimidated.

We haven't seen a word about the scandal in Pittsburg where the black
businessman - a relative of a Pittsburg Steeler football player -- was killed
by police.

Or the killing of a couple down south by some Army soldiers, and the ensuing
investigation of hate groups within the armed forces.

The incident in Harlem is yet another case where some target an innocent for
the crimes committed by the few. Information is still forthcoming and there
are many "shades" appearing in this story...but the temperament in Harlem is
not monolithic, and business leaders/local politicians, as well as some
residents, have come to the support of other Jewish businesses in the area,
namely Bargain World.

Nothing occurs in a vaccuum however -- animousity has festered at various times
for various reasons. There is no black and white aspect to the resentment.
It may be misplaced and fomented for the wrong reasons in this case, but when
"official" channels of redress are denied for long periods of time, this kind
of madness blossoms.

    
    Brandon,
    
    >Where is the outcry.
    
    >We also haven't heard 
    
    You're free to enter the info here under whatever topic you choose...
    
    I chose to do this here, but it happens to be my boogey-man.. sorta
    like DougO's pedi-priest note is to him...
    
     By all means!! Enter the specifics, and I'll condemn that
    racism/bigotry right along with the stuff going on in Harlem...
    
     Bigots is bigots... whatever their stripe!!!
    

    |I'm really curious as to why all the folks who were up in arms
    |about the Oklahoma City bombing and Rodney King aren't as vocal about
    |this.
    
    gee whiz, rocush.  i really think that it was more than just
    them pinko liberals who were upset about the rodney king "arrest".
    as i recall, most everyone was upset, no matter what their
    political leanings were.  same thing for oklahoma.

    Haven't seen it on any front pages, but Geraldo's cable show has
    devoted several shows to the inquiry into the death of Johnny
    Gammage in Pittsburgh.
    
    I agree with Geraldo, if Gammage wasn't the cousin of Pittsburgh
    Steeler Ray? Seals and if Seals hadn't gone to the press with the
    issue, the cops involved wouldn't be under indictment now.
    
    Something IS very wrong when a healthy 30 year old man is pulled
    over by cops (cops claim he was driving erratically); cops claim
    it took 5 of them to subdue a man whose autopsy proved no drugs or
    alcohol in system.....and said 30 year old winds up dead.  Gammage
    was driving Seal's Jaguar through a suburb of Pittsburgh named
    Brentwood!!
    
    That said Brandon, the silence of black leaders regarding the
    shooting and burning in Harlem is ominous.  In this incident I
    believe the death toll is 7 or 8; seeing the pictures of that fire
    on TV I'm amazed the death toll wasn't higher and it could have
    been innocent black people who might have died if the fire spread!!
    
    What I find appalling as I mentioned in my other note is that it
    appears that SOME black leaders are making a concerted effort to pit
    black folks against white folks who happen to be Jewish.  Why?
    

    -1  Mark,
    
    Who were you quoting with the last sentence?  It didn't appear
    in either of my notes on the subject?
    
    

    .30
    
    Gee, I wasn't talking about the arrest.  What I was referencing was
    when a jury found the accused not guilty.  Now it may be that the
    prosecution brought the wrong charges, but I think you know that.
    
    What I was referencing was the absolute pandering to thugs and
    criminals after the trial.  Everyone makes all sorts of stupid
    justifications for these animals, and then just goes on their way as if
    this was an isolated incident.
    
    As long as you and others want to make excuses for animals you will get
    the kind of incidents like occurred in LA and NYC.
    
    Once you have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against all such
    events and condemn minorities as often as you condemn others, then
    progress might actually be made.  As long as you bury your head in the
    sand and ignore abuses by minorities, you will continue to see an
    escalation of violence across the board.
      

    >That said Brandon, the silence of black leaders regarding the
    >shooting and burning in Harlem is ominous.  
    
     I'm especially impressed by the "I din't see no racism/anti-semitism"
    claims by Sharpton et al. Maggots who make their living off fueling the
    fires of racism is what they are.

    

    >Who were you quoting with the last sentence?  It didn't appear
    >in either of my notes on the subject?
    
     Sorry. Forgot to close the quote.

    .34
    
    |Gee, I wasn't talking about the arrest.  What I was referencing
    |was  when a jury found the accused not guilty.
    
    Well, then, perhaps you should use different bait when you're fishing...
    at least try to brush up on your clarity of thought when you're 
    baiting, oh, i mean writing.
    
    |What I was referencing was the absolute pandering to thugs and
    |criminals after the trial.
    
    Now what are you talking about?
    
    | Once you have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against all
    | such events and condemn minorities as often as you condemn others,
    
    Exactly who are you addressing here?  Some mythical big bad
    wiberal?  
    
    

    .36
    
    Well let me see.  Were you one of those who said that those who were
    looting, rioting, mugging and killing should be shot on sight, or were
    you saying that we need to understand the "black rage" at the root of
    this violence?  I'm not sure, please clarify your stand on this.
    
    This should be clear enough even for you.  Also, I never bait.  I say
    exactly what I mean.
    

    .33
    
    it's a small improvement.  at least you seem to have overcome
    your overuse of rhetoric.
    
    as to your question, i don't really think it's lawful at this
    point in time to shoot anyone on sight for rioting and looting,
    is it?  maybe you're working toward changing the laws?  are you?
    
    the rioters should have been arrested and prosecuted.

    replying to .37, not .33

    
    
    Until it became Politically incorrect, it was SOP to shoot looters on
    sight, for the good of the general populace (society)
    

    oh please, andy, enough with the phrase "politically (in)correct".
    it's been so overused it has no meaning any longer.
    
    and since when was it legal to shoot looters on sight in this
    country i'd like to know.

    re: PC
    
    Maybe to you it doesn't Bonnie.... 
    
    >and since when was it legal to shoot looters on sight in this
    >country i'd like to know.
    
    Before recent "feel good" times, it was SOP.... some little thing
    called "Marshall Law"...

    
    Marshal Law was what Wyatt Earp had...
    Martial Law is what you're referring to...

    -b

  .44  rrright.

    
    
    <-------
    
    For the obviously "subtle" challenged...
    
    Since Oph took minor offense at my using the oft-repeated "Politically
    Incorrect", I took the liberty to change "martial law" into "Marshall
    Law"...
    
     But since some people constantly fail to give me any credit towards
    subtlety, it becomes incumbent upon them to bring it to my attention...
    
     which I am so ever thankful for....
    

   .46  what next - swampland? ;>

    
    
    I will try.. really try to not stay up too, too late tonight worrying
    and thinking how I may return to the good, good graces of "Those who
    know how to be subtle"...
    
    
     I promise....
    

    re. 41
    
    "and since when was it legal to shoot looters on sight in this country
    I'd like to know."
    
    During periods of Martial Law.
    
    Martial Law = law enforced by military authorities and superseding
    civil law.

    andy, help me out, will ya?  is martial law politically 
    correct or incorrect?  thanks in advance.

    
     Or with "Korean Law" as was shown recently in L.A.
    

    
    re: .50
    
    I would guess "politically incorrect".... Seeing as how all the
    sensytyve types would be aghast at the thought of popping a looter (or
    is it loser?)
    
     But then again... who knows with hackneyed terms such as that.. eh?
    

    
    <<-----   hey quit making fun of our Canadian friends.

    Well I thought this was going to be a simple question that could be
    answered without all osrts of diversions.  I didn't ask if you thought
    it was legal, I asked if you thought they shouldbe shot or coddled. 
    that's a pretty simple question, all you gotta do is answer it.
    
    Also, if you don't remember you can look it up in the records.  When
    the cities were going up in smoke in the 60's and there was talk that
    these same riots, etc were going to come to Chicago, Mayor Daley issued
    a shot to kill order for any rioter.  Guess what??  there was almost no
    trouble in Chicago even though all the bleeding hearts railed against
    Daley and said he was a terrible guy, etc.  Essentailly Daley said that
    Chicago was his city and no one was going to come and cause trouble for
    the citizens and taxpayers.  Surprisingly a lot of people complained
    but nobody tried anything.
    
    I was never much of a Daley supporter, but I always respected him for
    this stand.  I wonder what would have happened if the Mayor of LA had
    issued similar instructions.
    

    
    Shot or coddled...shot or coddled...hmmmmmm...shot or coddled...
    

    .54
    
        oh, i see.  you ask the questions and give the answers too!!
        now that's an original way to have a discussion!  how nice 
        for you.  

    .56
    
    ....and your answer is?????
    

    Rocush, you already answered it.
    
    Shoot 'em, right?
    
    'pril

    .58
    
    I answered for myself, I didn't answer for anyone else.  I suppose it's
    cute to start that kind of discussion but it doesn't answer the
    question I originally raised.
    
    It must really be a toughy.
    

    
    My answer is shoot the bastages.... but y'all prolly know'd that...
    

    <----- Unless of course it is *good* citizens taking to the streets to
    complain about the corrupt gov't, right?  

    No, shoot them too.  Just to keep your eye in.

    RE: .61

>    <----- Unless of course it is *good* citizens taking to the streets to
>    complain about the corrupt gov't, right?  

    Isn't there a difference between an orderly street protest against a
    government versus rioting and looting?

    -- Dave

    
    > Isn't there a difference between an orderly street protest against a
    > government versus rioting and looting?
    
    Well, this has always been a tough one for governments of all types,
    so they tend to practice the philosophy expounded in .62  The classic
    US case is the Kent State and Jackson State protests where the gov't
    stooges went in guns blazing both for a riot and for a peaceful protest.
    The staged exoneration of the guilty usually follows sometime afterwards.
    
    British Governments are the acknowledged masters at this kind of thing,
    usually choosing to shoot long before there's any risk of disaffection
    turning into a protest.  Of course, they don't even have to pretend
    to search for and punish the guilty, so it's much easier for them.
    
    Colin
    
    
    
    

>    British Governments are the acknowledged masters at this kind of thing,
>    usually choosing to shoot long before there's any risk of disaffection
>    turning into a protest.  Of course, they don't even have to pretend
>    to search for and punish the guilty, so it's much easier for them.

    I know this is way off topic, but NPR had a piece last week that said
    that this was the reason that Americans aren't very good a peace
    keeping missions versus hot-wars (and subsequently why the British and
    the French are good at peace keeping missions).

    
    Acknowledging the nested rathole, It's good reasoning. The Brits & the
    French have a long history of colonial urban guerilla warfare and
    understand the concept of not alienating the entire population.   Their
    standing armies have always had frequent duty rotations through
    colonial trouble spots so they are all well trained at this sort of
    thing.  One aspect of the training is that they are generally better
    able to maintain very strict discipline under their terms of
    engagement.  When the Brits used their best fighting troops in NI,
    (Paras and SAS) they got into the worse trouble because those units are
    trained to "get their retaliation in first".   Bloody Sunday was a
    result.

    .57
    
    |....and your answer is?????
    
    hey, mr ones&zeros, i gave you my answer in .38.
    arrest and prosecute.

    
    .67
    
    You answered with a .38?
    
    Remind me never to ask you a question!
    

    
    re: .67
    
    > arrest and prosecute.
    
    snicker.....  You'd need a brigade of troops to arrest all the looters
    what were involved in the Rodney-Land riot...
    

    .65
    
    There was a follow up on this item this morning.  The former US
    commander in Europe adressed the issues and described all the
    additional peace keeping training that US troops had undergone.  He
    does not think that it will be an issue.

    One of the Dallas County Commissioners, John Wiley Price, recently
    declared that it is impossible for blacks and hispanics to be racist
    since they didn't have 'power' to enforce those beliefs.
    
    Bob

    
    <-------
    
    Sigh...
    
    We have our skinheads, and they have their Prices... making it that
    much harder for the twain to meet...
    

    <<< Note 624.72 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>    One of the Dallas County Commissioners, John Wiley Price, recently
>    declared that it is impossible for blacks and hispanics to be racist
>    since they didn't have 'power' to enforce those beliefs.
 
	Although I believe it is possible for minority's to be racists, 
	he does have a point. The effect of minority racism on whites
	is negligible.

Jim

    >	Although I believe it is possible for minority's to be racists, 
    >	he does have a point. The effect of minority racism on whites
    >	is negligible.
    
     The obvious effects may not be as pronounced, but there is certainly
    no lack of impact. Minority racism increases race resentment every bit
    as much as white racism, which further delays the onset of racial
    harmony. Furthermore, it provides fodder for white racists to reinforce
    their racist ways, and makes it more difficult for sympathetic whites
    to remain open minded about racial relations. It contributes to the
    racially divisive atmosphere, which works against minorities in the
    short run and everyone in the long run. Do not underestimate the impact
    of minority racism simply because minorities are less able to deny jobs
    to whites than vice versa. There's plenty going on here that does not
    meet the eye or easy categorization.

             <<< Note 624.76 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>     The obvious effects may not be as pronounced, but there is certainly
>    no lack of impact.

	The majority of your examples deal with white backlash on the
	black or hispanic minorities. This negatively affects the minorities, 
	it does not negatively affect whites.

Jim

    What about minority crime on whites? What about quality of life? All
    social issues cannot be neatly broken down into financial issues.

   .77  How can you separate the two?  If there's no harmony, there's
        no harmony.  It affects everyone.

    Jim,
    
    Please note that racism is not just whites against other races.
    
    1) Recently, someone illegally tapped a Dallas school Board member's phone
    and exposed his comments belittling blacks and hispanics.
    
    2) Recently, someone picketed Parkland Memorial Hospital carrying a
    sign calling a hispanic Board member a 'coconut' and saying he should
    go back to 'Old Mexico'.
    
    Ignorning the illegal wiretap, are both of the above incidents racist?
    If so, why?  If not, why not?                            
    
    Bob
    

             <<< Note 624.78 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>    What about minority crime on whites? What about quality of life? All
>    social issues cannot be neatly broken down into financial issues.

	I said negligible, not non-existant. Minority crime on whites
	is a small percentage of the crimes committed against whites.
	As for quality of life, you'll need to be more specific.

Jim

    <<< Note 624.80 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

Bob,	Re-read what I wrote. I stated that I believed that minority's
	can be racist.

Jim
    

>    <<< Note 624.82 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>Bob,	Re-read what I wrote. I stated that I believed that minority's
>	can be racist.

	minorities.  nnttm.

    Jim,
    
>    	Although I believe it is possible for minority's to be racists, 
>	he does have a point. The effect of minority racism on whites
>	is negligible.
    
    At what point does it cease to be negligible?  When an elected official
    indicates that the official and those of the same race will be in the
    street shooting people if such and such conditions are not met?  Or
    does it actually have to happen?
    
    Bob
    

    <<< Note 624.84 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>    At what point does it cease to be negligible? 

	When it become significant? ;-)

> When an elected official
>    indicates that the official and those of the same race will be in the
>    street shooting people if such and such conditions are not met?  Or
>    does it actually have to happen?
 
	There have been many calls to violence. Few have materialized.

Jim

    
    
    Unbelievable...
    
    Racism is racism is racism!! No matter how it manifests itself!! There
    are no caveats, riders, stipulations, situation, exclusions,
    circumstances, justifications... etc...
    
     If I'm poor white trash and I hate you for the color of your skin,
    then I'm a racist...
    
     If you're poor and black and you hate me for the color of my skin,
    then you're a racist...
    
     Whether either one can do anything about it is irrelevant...
    

    
    	You can be rich and black. or rich and white, and still be a rac-
    	ist.
    

    Perhaps one cannot justify racism, but one can certainly understand why
    it exists. 
    
    Races reap what they sow. Whites in the US have reaped what they've sown
    in the hearts of many blacks. What goes around will eventually come
    around.
    
    That's just the way it is.

    >Races reap what they sow. Whites in the US have reaped what they've sown
    >in the hearts of many blacks. 
    
     Unfortunately, "races" does not adequately define the individuals
    involved. The individuals involved are stuck with the history of what
    those before them have done. The reason you can so smugly say "whites
    in the US" is because of our history. Canada has no such history.
    Thinking that contemporary white Canadians are any better than their US 
    counterparts is an illusion, albeit a mighty comfortable one.

    Who made the quote:

        "People often find it easier to be a product of the past than a
         cause of the future."

    Smug?
    
    The different histories should speak for themselves.
    
    White Canadians may or may not be better, but our record is, and that
    has to count for something. It shouldn't be considered smug.

    >White Canadians may or may not be better, but our record is, and that
    >has to count for something.
    
     Whoop de doo. What's the canadian "record" when it comes to
    architecture, literature, agriculture, technology, etc? Yeah, I thought
    so. Canada's claim to fame is that it's not the US. Well, "that has to
    count for something." Not a whole helluva lot.

>             <<< Note 624.92 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>
>>  Canada's claim to fame is that it's not the US.

    How doodleheadesque of you.

    
    
    re: Canada...
    
    Cow doots...  The reports I've seen show Canada's major cities having
    the same racial problems as in the US...
    

    There's racism in Canada; however, we've never had a slavery-based
    economy.  
    
    Canadian cultural & technological "record" is a proud one.
    
    -Stephen

    
    
    Then see flatman's .90
    
    

    
    Yes Mark, The United States of America is the best country in the
    world. How silly of me to cast any doubt on this fact.
    
    By the way, in those things you've listed, Canada has contributed
    plenty, I can't understand where your "yeah I thought so" comment
    comes from. For a country 1/10 the size of the US, Canada contributes a
    lot.

  1/10 the size?  i think i need a new map.

    good lord.  Canada has an extremely rich and interesting history, as
    well as a completely different approach to handling many of today's
    issues from their large and somewhat overbearing southern neighbor.
    Some of these are more successful, some considerably less.  But the
    claim-to-fame comment was terribly ignorant.  Canada has had no need to
    make any claims to fame since their contributions to the Allied war
    efforts in WWII, when their troops made plenty.
    
    DougO

    Most Canadian artists (most notably TV/Movies) find it much easier to
    make money in the US.  To the extent that most people aren't aware they
    are Canadian.   The problem isn't that Canada doesn't produce talent;
    the problem (or non problem) is that the US has a more attractive job
    market.
    
    Aside from that, the US is too insular to pay much attention to
    anything produced in Canada that doesn't fizz.  Personally, I find
    Canadian produced television to be a lot more entertaining than US
    produced television (much less slick, and a bit more imaginative).

  <<< Note 624.86 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>

>     Whether either one can do anything about it is irrelevant...
 
	FRom a point of arguing that racism itself is wrong, I agree.
	However it is far from irrelevant when assessing the harm that
	racism causes.

Jim   

    Racism isn't fair to anybody, and it isn't right. It hurts everyone.
    But you must understand why it happens. It's like a pendulum that just
    keeps swinging, and innocents people continue to be hurt by it. It just
    won't go away because it's wrong.

    
    re: .102
    
    Glenn
    
    >But you must understand why it happens.
    
    Tell that to John Wiley Price, Dallas County Commissioner, when he's
    doing his ostrich act...
    

    It's still racism. That's my point. One side has to completely stop
    before the other side does, otherwise it will just continue.
    
    One might argue that it's an evolutionary thing no?

    
    Nope... they have to learn to stop together... (or as close to together
    as possible)...
    
    There has to be a meeting of the minds... not one mind first and then
    the other...
    
    evolutionary? No... cultural (IMO)...
    

    
    I like the idea of the pendulum.

    If it is allowed to swing freely without any new energy it will
    eventually come to a stop.  However, if energy is continued to be
    applied it can swing indefinitely.

    There are many racists on both sides.  If we we can limit the creation
    of new racists and convert some of the old racists the pendulum will
    eventually stop.  If the message of racism continues to spread the
    energy will keep the pendulum moving. Every racist attitude removed
    (from whichever side) helps ... every new racist (from whichever side)
    hurts.
                                                      
    Greg

    continue

    We don't have to convert old racists.  They'll die off anyway.  It's
    finding a way to keep them from subverting new suckers that we have to
    concentrate on.

    It's an inheritance of sorts. 

.92:

>            What's the canadian "record" when it comes to
>   architecture, literature, agriculture, technology, etc? 

    re: .95
    
    Yeah, they have many brands of (semi) respectable beers made there.
    
    8^)

    
    
    Well.. they are one up on us....
    
    They can purchase Cuban cigars....
    

    And we can go anywhere we want.
    
    ;^)

    
    "Only Glenn can go to Cuba."
    
    

Glenn, can you go to Mecca?

    You tryin' to get rid of me?

    
    
    >You tryin' to get rid of me?
    
    Nope... just sending you off to find some good cigars...
    
    :)
    

    And some suppositories no doubt.

    
    
    As a matter of fact.. while your at it....
    
    

    That yesterday's "discussion" took place on Martin Luther King, oh, I'm
    sorry, "Civil Rights" day....
    
    I'd ask where the "white racism" note would be in Soapbox, but then why
    ask such a rhetorical question.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Speaking of Canada and Martin Luther King Day, there was a story in the
    Toronto Globe & Mail a few years ago describing an incident that took
    place in the early '50s or late '60s, when a friend of King's on the BU
    Theology faculty sent a letter to Fundy National Park, inquiring as to
    whether King would be welcome there, mentioning his race. (This may
    have been before the period of his greatest fame.)  Some civil servant
    at the park answered the letter with the standard mealy-mouthed racism
    of the time, indicating that the park wouldn't mind, but some of their
    other visitors might object, so, regretfully, no... I believe this guy was 
    reprimanded, but the result was the same.
    
    -Stephen 

Do they allow anyone other than fundies into Fundy National Park?

    
    
    	happy happy
    
    
    
    
    
    				joy joy.

    
    
    Ummmmm... you're "happy happy", "joyous joyous" about black racism???
    

Boston Globe Sat. April 12, 1996 pg. 3


Race, politics and perception

By Ann Scales - GLOBE STAFF

WASHINGTON - Many black Americans do not believe whites are ready to have a 
black on a major national party's ticket. And if a black candidate did get 
support from white voters, some blacks say they would view that person with 
suspicion.

 This comes as the drama continues to unfold over retired Army Gen. Colin L. 
Powell's future in the GOP, and months after the O.J. Simpson trial 
highlighted sharp differences in perception between the races.

 In the May issue of the Ladies Home Journal, Powell's wife, Alma, said he 
received frightening hate mail while he was considering a bid for the 
presidency. "You think everybody loves Colin Powell. Everybody doesn't like 
Colin Powell," she is quoted as saying.

 "A black man running for president is going to be in a dangerous position," 
Alma Powell said, adding, "I did not want him to run."

 A Gallup poll done for USA Today and CNN in October, before Powell announced 
he would not consider running for elected office, found 54 percent of whites 
saying they would vote for Powell if the elections were held then, compared to 
25 percent of blacks. Fifty-seven percent of whites said Powell understands 
black issues and concerns, while 46 percent of blacks said Powell is more 
attuned to whites than to them.

 Among blacks, Powell runs behind President Clinton and Rev. Jesse Jackson in 
favorability ratings, according to a recent study by the Joint Center for 
Political and Economic Studies in Washington. The survey showed 87.6 percent 
of blacks holding a favorable view of Clinton, 76 percent of Jackson and 68.1 
of Powell.

 Whites have consistently told pollsters they would back up their admiration 
for Powell with their vote. Many blacks say they don't believe them.

 "There has been a strong suspicion in the black community that if Powell were 
actually to declare for either the presidency or vice presidency that we would 
see a significant evaporation of his support among whites," said Michael 
Dawson, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

 "From what we know about American history," added Dawson, "it is much more 
likely that a black conservative candidate is going to open the door" to a 
high office than a liberal black, candidate.

 The two black Republicans in Congress - Reps. J.C. Watts, Jr. of Oklahoma and 
Gary Franks of Connecticut - are conservatives, and they were elected on the 
strength of the white vote. Both come from districts with small black 
populations. Decades before them, Edward Brooke, a Republican from 
Massachusetts and the first black senator in this century, was elected twice 
by large margins in the Democratic state.

 Blacks say one of the attractions of a Powell vice presidency is that it 
would be a status gain for the race. Some whites, on the other hand, see it as 
a way to improve the nation's race relations.

 "it just goes to show you that beyond O.J., we still perceive almost 
everything in the world through opposite lenses," said Linda Faye Williams, a 
political scientist at the University of Maryland.

 Williams and several other black political analysts say there is reason for 
blacks to doubt that a major black political figure like Powell, who does not 
have a socially conservative , can do well among whites.

 More liberal blacks, such as former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and former 
Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, have had a harder time getting elected. IN his 1988 
race for governor, Wilder was well ahead in the polls. IN the end, he sqeaked 
by with a margin of less that 1 percent. Bradley, a darling of the white 
establishment and business community, twice failed as a gubernatorial 
candidate after white voters reneged.

 Black voters interviewed recently in the Washington area expressed serious 
doubts about a Powell candidacy. "White America is not ready for a black vice 
president," said Tony Franklin, a comedian from Alexandria, Va.

 Pausing between haircuts to express the sentiments of many of his black 
clients, salon owner Shelton Williams put it this way: "If white America 
accepts Colin Powell, then black people must look at him in a more cynical 
light."
 

> Pausing between haircuts to express the sentiments of many of his black 
>clients, salon owner Shelton Williams put it this way: "If white America 
>accepts Colin Powell, then black people must look at him in a more cynical 
>light."
    
    It's attitudes such as this that promote racism, every bit as much as
    white supremacists. 
    
    First they say "we (blacks) don't believe you (whites) when you say
    you'll support a black candidate" then they say "and if you do, then we
    won't support him." With a capital R, folks.

And of course, wite folk that run for office NEVER receive hate mail or
death threats ...

The us/them stuff survives in part because us/them can't see the difference
of what us/them apply to us/them ....