Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Racism Flares Up After the Election

This probably won't surprise you that much. It seems that having a black guy running for President and then winning may have ticked off a couple of racists. Well, it's just as good that they stand up and identify themselves, I guess, we knew they were out there. Here's the LA Times:
Reporting from Bogalusa, La. -- Barely three weeks since America elected its first black president, noose hangings, racist graffiti and death threats have struck dozens of towns across the country.

More than 200 such incidents -- including cross burnings, assassination betting pools and effigies of President-elect Barack Obama -- have been reported, according to law enforcement authorities and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups.

Racist websites have been boasting that their servers have been crashing because of an exponential increase in traffic.

And America's most potent symbol of racial hatred, the Ku Klux Klan, is reasserting itself in a spate of recent violence, after decades of disorganization and obscurity. White extremists lash out over election of first black president

You saw at the end of the campaign how the social conservatives would say anything, Obama is a communist or socialist, he's a Muslim, he's going to take all our guns, he's in favor of abortion -- it was tricky though to figure out how to badmouth his race out loud. Oh, you had them saying he's not really black, he's Arabic, you saw the Obama waffles that cast him as an Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben type, you had stuff just shy of the threshold, there were some overtly racists incidents -- dummies lynched, blackface costumes -- but really, what's to say? He's black, you got a problem with it? Apparently some people do.

Since the election, racism has busted out into the open. Skipping down ...
"We've seen everything from cross burnings on lawns of interracial couples to effigies of Obama hanging from nooses to unpleasant exchanges in schoolyards," said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala. "I think we're in a worrying situation right now, a perfect storm of conditions coming together that could easily favor the continued growth of these groups."

Experts attribute the racist activity to factors including the rapidly worsening economic crisis; trends indicating that within a generation whites will not comprise a U.S. majority; and the impending arrival of a black family in the White House.

The FBI is investigating whether the recent Klan-related incidents involve conspiracies. And the Secret Service is monitoring the racist activity "to try to stay ahead of any emerging threats," according to spokesman Darrin Blackford.

One white supremacist leader, describing himself as moderate, professes alarm.

"There is a tremendous backlash" to Obama's election, said Richard Barrett, the leader of the Nationalist Movement in Learned, Miss. "My focus is to try to keep it peaceful. But many people look at the flag of the Republic of New Africa that will be hoisted over the White House as an act of war."

I just looked this up, and there really is a Republic of New Afrika. They spell it that way. Here's what Wikipedia says:
The Republic of New Afrika, (RNA) is a proposed independent Black-majority country situated in the southeastern region of the United States. The vision for this country was first promulgated on March 31, 1968, at a Black Government Conference held in Detroit, Michigan, United States. Proponents of this vision lay claim to five Southern states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina) and the Black-majority counties adjacent to this area in Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida. A similar claim is made for all the Black-majority counties and cities throughout the United States.

Wikipedia shows a little map of the US, with several Southern states colored in red to mark the RNA's proposed territory. Okay, well, good luck with that. Suffice it to say, though it is a wonderfully vivid image for paranoids to meditate on, I am not expecting the flag of the Republic of New Afrika to be flying at the White House during Barack Obama's term as President.

There's more to this story, mostly focusing on the situation in Bogalusa, Louisiana, where the Klan is apparently just part of everyday life. You might want to follow the link and read the rest of it.

According to the Anti-Defamation League:
The World Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Sharpsburg, Maryland, was originally a tiny Klan group, but has exhibited growth in the 2000s, expanding to a number of nearby states, including West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Some 30 members of the group showed up at a rally in September 2006, held in pouring rain on the Gettysburg Civil War battlefield in Pennsylvania. Considering the poor weather conditions, it was a surprisingly high turnout for the Klan group. World Knights leader Gordon Young used the event to denounce multiracial marriage and immigration.

In case you're wondering, Sharpsburg is up north of us a few miles, sort of between Frederick and Hagerstown in Washington County.

This is interesting -- still from the ADL site:
Klan expansion in the Mid-Atlantic states received a setback, however, with the unexpected disbanding of the World Knights in late November 2006. Members of competing factions left the World Knights to join other groups. The World Knights’ leader Gordon Young took his followers into the National Socialist Movement (NSM) and became that group’s Maryland state leader, while some dissident World Knights joined an NSM splinter group, the American National Socialist Workers Party. In January 2007, Young was arrested on seven criminal counts, including two counts each of second-degree assault and sex abuse of a minor, and the NSM disassociated itself from him.

This guy was too creepy for the largest neo-Nazi group in the United States, imagine how creepy that is!

Well, the point is, you can read about some town in Louisiana, but this same stuff is happening in our state too. Let's keep it under control, okay?

36 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim--

It is HIGHLY unethical of you to state that those who oppose Obama because of his (appalling) stand on abortion are using that as a cover for racism. Obama's abortion record stands squarely on its own. People who oppose abortion are not guessing at Obama's stand. He has stated it, loud and clear. In fact, it is one issue that he has NEVER waffled on.

Unborn babies who are being literally ripped, limb by limb, from their mothers' wombs during partial birth abortions don't know color. Babies who are born alive despite an abortion and receive no care and comfort because of people like Obama, know no color.

Obama can comfortably state that he does not believe in killing babies simply because he does not define an unborn baby, or one born during a "botched" abortion, as a baby. He calls them fetuses. So, with no compunction, he can roam the country stating that he wouldn't kill a baby.

How dare you even imply that those who oppose Obama because of his well-known VOTING RECORD on abortion (he's for it, in case you didn't know), including partial birth abortion, are being racist.

You, my friend, need to retract that statement.

November 26, 2008 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

That's what you got out of this blog entry?

rrjr

November 26, 2008 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

It is HIGHLY unethical of you to state that those who oppose Obama because of his (appalling) stand on abortion are using that as a cover for racism.

Oh brother Anon. The word "abortion" does not occur anywhere in the post and no one linked being anti-abortion with being racist except you. Your comment makes you seem obsessed with this former wedge issue.

Colorado and South Dakota, two states carried by George W. Bush in 2004, defeated anti-abortion ballot initiatives by double digit margins. Check out Abortion's Death as a Wedge Issue in the West.

November 26, 2008 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You saw at the end of the campaign how the social conservatives would say anything, Obama is a communist or socialist, he's a Muslim, he's going to take all our guns, he's in favor of ABORTION-- it was tricky though to figure out how to badmouth his race out loud."

Aunt Bea -- I'm not sure why you said that Jim didn't mention abortion -- I have the quote for you above and I put the word "abortion" in all caps.

So, Jim is the one who brought up abortion and Jim is the one who (strangely) connected it with being racist. Before Jim came along, I would not have equated the two and I'm mystified and disappointed by the fact that he has done this.

November 26, 2008 4:17 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, this kind of hyperventilation is not good for you, settle down. I cited those who say -- and you are one of them, right here in these comments -- that Obama is, among other things, "in favor of abortion." Of course that's hogwash, he is not in favor of abortion, he just thinks people should make the decisions that affect their own lives, and not the government.

More disturbing is your misinterpretation of my statement. Yes, the social conservatives did say all these things about him, and more; the statement that I actually made is correct. I did not, as you say, "state that those who oppose Obama because of his (appalling) stand on abortion are using that as a cover for racism," and I did not, as you say, "(strangely) connect [abortion] with being racist." I used the word "abortion" in a post about racism, they are connected in that way, but your distortion of my words is laughable.

JimK

November 26, 2008 4:35 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

How's this for an idea -- one has the moral obligation to act intelligently.

Are you a moral person, Anon?

November 26, 2008 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Credit Repair said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 27, 2008 1:39 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Please, this site will not become a billboard for advertisers.

JimK

November 27, 2008 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The anon above is not the usual one but he (or she) is correct. Jim was saying that people who said Obama was in favor of abortion were motivated by racism.

The most encouraging thing about the recent election was that we could have a black man run for President and be criticized and have his positions debated and argued like any other candidate without anyone playing the race card.

This doesn't sit well with Jim and his gang of kooks who fear nothing more than the end of racism in America.

November 27, 2008 2:14 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Jim was saying that people who said Obama was in favor of abortion were motivated by racism.

I said "You saw at the end of the campaign how the social conservatives would say anything, Obama is a communist or socialist, he's a Muslim, he's going to take all our guns, he's in favor of abortion -- it was tricky though to figure out how to badmouth his race out loud."

I am used to people calling me a liar and putting words into my mouth, but I don't know how you get "people who said Obama was in favor of abortion were motivated by racism" out of that.

JimK

November 27, 2008 2:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "This doesn't sit well with Jim and his gang of kooks who fear nothing more than the end of racism in America.".

You're the one who's constantly insisting businesses should have the right to freedom of association, that they should be able to refuse to hire people they don't like because of their sexual orientation or race. It is clearly you who fears the end of racism in the U.S.

November 27, 2008 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your tiresome attempt to conflate race and sexuality falls flat, Creepy Canuck.

Race is a passive physical characteristic.

Homosexuality is a behavior, completely resistable. All people have a right to choose what behavior types they hang out with.

No one normal agrees with you.

Get over it.

November 28, 2008 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean "normal" like Tres Kerns, CRC Hatefest Speaker who goes to every gay rights parade he can manage "for research"? Or "normal" like Peter Sprigg, court-appointed PFOX CAC member who gets paid to distort research to make gays look evil? Or "normal" like Ruth Jacobs court appointed CRC CAC member who led the CRG petition drive to try to put minority rights to the majority vote? Or "normal" like Michelle Turner who believes her cousin Steve was born gay but all others chose the lifestyle?

November 29, 2008 9:37 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon argued:

“Your tiresome attempt to conflate race and sexuality falls flat, Creepy Canuck.”

It’s simply not a conflation, and it’s not a choice, and there are people of color who agree with that assessment, like comedienne Wanda Sykes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilYcrig6hyo

If homosexuality is a “choice” for you, then that just means you’re bi. There are plenty of gay people who aren’t bi, so for them it’s not a choice.

Anon said:

“Homosexuality is a behavior, completely resistable.” (sic)

Anonymous trolling is a behavior, completely resistible. However, it may take years of reparative therapy to overcome. I recommend finding a therapist as soon as possible. The sooner you seek help, the sooner you can get to the bottom of your obsessive compulsive need to denigrate the GLBT community and go on to a happy, productive, positive, and fulfilling life. Good luck.

Sexuality is a behavior, completely resistible as well. For some reason though, abstinence seems to be preached far more than it is actually practiced. Why is this?

Anon asserted:

“No one normal agrees with you.”

As I’m sure you consider yourself squarely in the “normal” category, I’ve never been more proud to be a transsexual.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 29, 2008 10:39 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Your tiresome attempt to conflate race and sexuality falls flat, Creepy Canuck. Race is a passive physical characteristic. Gayness is a behavior, completely resistable[sic]. All people have a right to choose what behavior types they hang out with.".

Wrong. There are two problems with your "logic". Number one only religiosity is a behavior, gayness is not a behavior, its an innate attraction to the same sex. All major mental and physical health organizations agree. Virgins can be gay, gay people are gay regardless of any behavior they may or may not engage in. Number two, your screams that businesses are entitled to "freedom of association" mean businesses are entitled to refuse to hire or provide service to blacks, jews, and gays regardless, it doesn't matter that those are passive physical characteristics. Freedom of assocication means businesses get to choose not to associate with people because of their "passive physical characteristics" or any other reason. It is you who has been screaming support for racism under the euphemism of "freedom of association".

November 29, 2008 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"erotic activity with another of the same sex"

the dictionary definition of homosexuality

unlike a passive phyical characteristic, homosexuality need not be participated in

if you don't want to suffer the natural social consequences, don't take part in the socially undesirable behavior

November 29, 2008 11:51 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

From the same dictionary Anon quoted (she used the second definition without mentioning the fact):

homosexual 1. of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another person of the same sex 2. of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

homosexuality 1. the quality or state of being homosexual 2. erotic activity with another of the same sex

In both cases, the primary definition addresses the state or essence of the individual and the second one addresses behavior. Homosexuality is primarily the way someone is, but even in the absence of such an essence we would call it homosexuality if someone had sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

That sounds reasonable to me.

JimK

November 30, 2008 12:08 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“if you don't want to suffer the natural social consequences, don't take part in the socially undesirable behavior”

That’s true. Back in the Bible, people were looked down upon if they didn’t take part in a public stoning. Those were hard times.

November 30, 2008 5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Homosexuality is primarily the way someone is, but even in the absence of such an essence we would call it homosexuality if someone had sexual relations with someone of the same sex."

Even if you look on it as a personal characteristic, it's the desire to engage in a type of behavior as distinguished by the passivity of racial identity.

Race and sexuality are not equivalent.

Neither is bias based on these characteristics.

November 30, 2008 5:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Back in the Bible, people were looked down upon if they didn’t take part in a public stoning."

"Back in the Bible" would cover more ground than the time since.

"Back in the Bible", for example, Jesus saved a woman who had committed adultery from stoning by writing something in the dirt that may them leave the scene.

November 30, 2008 5:46 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I wonder if there's reparative therapy for people caught in the 'anonymous troll' lifestyle.'

Trolls Anonymous.

Hi, my name is Anonymous, and I'm a troll.

November 30, 2008 6:12 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Step 1:

The Twelve Steps of Trollers Anonymous


"We admitted that we were unable to control ourselves from attacking Jim and his guests; that it had become an obsession - That we would wake up every morning wondering how to decimate each one of his ridiculous posts; that we were powerless to stop ourselves and it was taking over our lives."

To give credit where credit is due, I found this on a blog called Blue as You, which apparently has had an infestation and was discussing the art of dealing with trolls.

November 30, 2008 6:18 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Someone else's take on this:

Trolls Anonymous

November 30, 2008 6:29 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"Back in the Bible", for example, Jesus saved a woman who had committed adultery from stoning by writing something in the dirt that may them leave the scene.

Which doesn’t change the fact that stoning was the “natural social consequence” of "socially undesirable behavior."

And if stoning was the "natural" consequence of socially undesirable behavior, then wouldn't not stoning someone for that socially undesirable behavior, also be considered socially undesirable behavior, and therefore worthy of stoning?

November 30, 2008 6:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wonder if there's reparative therapy for people caught in the 'anonymous troll' lifestyle.'"

a clever thought, Robert

perhaps you should talk it out with someone you, ahem, trust

"Which doesn’t change the fact that stoning was the “natural social consequence” of "socially undesirable behavior.""

when I was referring to natural social consequences, was referring to an inability to gain acceptance in normal society

people not wanting to associate with you can hardly be conflated with the death penalty

you seem to have a tendency to characterize everything in the extreme

perhaps you should talk it out with someone you, ahem, trust

November 30, 2008 6:52 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“people not wanting to associate with you can hardly be conflated with the death penalty

you seem to have a tendency to characterize everything in the extreme”


I do, and I do so for the point of illustration. The death penalty is the severest form of not wanting to associate with someone. In principle, they are the same.

November 30, 2008 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous wants to associate with us here on Jim's vigilance blog.

rrjr

November 30, 2008 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
How pleasant that Maryland harbors the headquarters of such a group. I read about a few of the incidents by high school and college students in the south. the person writing the article(in the Christian Science Monitor) called the incidents "pranks". I wrote to the author and said that racist graffiti and hanging effigies are not considered pranks here and any high school or college students who do such things are old enough to be prosecuted under the hate crimes act. Of course, I guess in some places- no doubt including Sharpsburg- these acts are not hate crimes.

November 30, 2008 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I do, and I do so for the point of illustration. The death penalty is the severest form of not wanting to associate with someone. In principle, they are the same."

Well, doing that doesn't illustrate, it just scribbles.

You are, my friend, insane.

November 30, 2008 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All your friends are insane, Anon. So what else is new?

December 01, 2008 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Does that mean Anon's friends are certifiable? I myself am already certified, but only in Virginia.

December 01, 2008 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh yeah, you guys think not talking to someone is as bad as killing them and we're all insane

got it

maybe you could talk it out with someone you, ahem, trust

December 01, 2008 11:49 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“You are, my friend, insane.”

You love me.

December 02, 2008 1:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not Jody Foster, emslob

December 02, 2008 6:36 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anon loves all of us. We are his only friends. He's just too shy to come out and say it clearly.

December 02, 2008 11:23 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"I'm not Jody Foster, emslob"

Too late, it's already out there.

December 03, 2008 5:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home