ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

"The fact that the term intra-racial exists does not make it any less ridiculous of a notion."- yes it is ridiculous, but yes (as you seem to admit) it is also real and it does happen. "If the number of Blacks who identify themselves as Rep.(I purposely did not use the word conservative) is under 15% how could they possibly be identified as Black(in a cultural context)." -has nothing to do with the argument. They are, in actuality, still black. Not conforming to the majority does not change thier race. And when people make the comments that he mentioned, they do not mean it (as you imply) merely in an academic sense. They are mainly personal insults. Sometimes they are political. The people that say them are sometimes trying to create a seperation between these non-conformers and the masses, because they fear any opposition towards their own contradicting idealogy. Yes, the Republicans do this too,but that is a seperate argument. Up until then, this argument had been about the effects the Democratic agenda has had on A-A.

Skipper04 | 04/11/08

Skipper, forgive me, but you appear to be making the same problematic argument as Pitbull. The resolve set out to prove that the Dems were fostering a culture of victimization. There is no valid connection to any action on the part of Dems made to justify the argument. Further, certainly no connection has been made to suggest that Dems are more egregious than Republicans as the underlying theme seems to indicate. The attempt to connect intra-racism to this argument is simply invalid. As I mentioned intra-racism seeks to define prejudice on a cultural level, not based on a political ideology. So, what would a Dem agenda have to do with anything? Black people do not hold Thomas and Rice in contempt for their color, it's because of their politics. Terms like Uncle Tom or House Negro identify them as traitors to their own 'Black' interests. For example, Thomas used affirmative action to get ahead then sought to dismantle it. This is not a personal indictment, it's a political one. It's quite arrogant to suggest that A-A are being manipulated like mindless drones and are not active in pursuing their political interests. It would foolish to think that all Black people agree on policy, however, it is equally foolish to think that they are beholden to a party. Blacks are largely Dem because the politics currently align with the majority's interests just as they aligned with Republicans during Reconstruction up until the New Deal. It seems to me that Reps are doing more damage to their cause if their intent is to increase their A-A constituency and the lack thereof is not a result of Dem fostering, the heretofore, unnamed victimization.

DonKeyHotay | 04/11/08

A few final points/clarifications: While I doubt many black Americans today still hold a grudge over Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Democratic Party still promotes a "separate but equal" mentality in galvanizing the black vote. Don's own arguments about Hurricane Katrina (HK) relief demonstrates this; FEMA relief was possible only after National Guard security forces could make areas safe, and it still took approximately 20 fewer hours response than it took Hurricane Andrew relief in 1992. (Yet "racism" was not used as an excuse for the circumstances.) Ray Nagin, mayor (D) of New Orleans, did not even follow his state's own Disaster Evacuation Policy adopted earlier this decade. Over 200 buses were drowned in water instead of used to evacuate those who needed transport, as provided for in the policy. Yet because, during press conferences, he suggested racism and a suspiciously slow response from FEMA, that became the story from which the Left manipulated facts into racist politics. Let's examine Brown v. Board of Education. Yes, that did stir more racial tension among blacks and whites, but it was necessary. The Little Rock Nine also attended school in Arkansas, despite the efforts of six-term Democratic governor Orval Faubus. It took the executive order of President Dwight David Eisenhower (R) to implement National Guard units to protect and secure the integration process. And 1957 was twelve years after FDR's (the same Democratic President who implemented Japanese-American concentration camps on U.S. soil) death. One reason intra-racism exists in the black community is because the discrimination Don acknowledged is based on negative sentiment toward anti-establishment, conservative beliefs of such black Americans. The perception of "betrayal" to one's cultural community is the underlying problem, but that is exactly what too many programs and rhetoric from Democratic Party/leftist politics promote. This is exactly why so many hold Rice and Thomas, to name a few, as "not really black." This debate does not exist in the black community about white conservatives; thus, race has everything to do with it. The culture on which Don focuses is too steeped in a particular leftist, government-dependent ideology and politic, as propagated by the Democratic Party. While Don attempted to paint me a bigot by alleging I "suggest"ed that black Americans are "mindless drones" --- I never suggested anything of the sort. Also, I never said I think "all black people agree on policy." In fact, political disagreement within the community was a major basis for my argument. That said, "within the community" is key to the statement I just made.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/12/08

Don keeps making my argument for me. While he asserts that African-Americans shifted away from conservative politics during the New Deal, such policies were not meant to last forever. The New Deal was not intended to carry over into 2008, yet the Democratic Party fosters governmental bureaucracies that keep too many (which means not all) blacks dependent on state-sponsored, New-Deal-esque assistance rather than independent self-reliance. Don says the modern GOP lost touch with black America because its platform is disinterested with black interests. The modern Democratic Party has manipulated, fostered, and promoted the culture of what current black interests should be, based on a cycle of governmental dependence rather than a promotion of independent progress.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/12/08

I never said you were a bigot, but the assertion your making is bigoted. Where to begin...you would do well to know that while Plessy v. Ferguson might not be on the tip of tongue of many Blacks, many of them do still hold a grudge on America's history of racial segregation that Plessy reinforced. I never said Blacks shifted from conservative politics, in fact I only refer to Republicans. Republicans do not corner the market on being conservative. Many Blacks are still conservative. It would be helpful if you did not, as far too many do, subscribe to labels i.e. leftist and attempt to paint the entire Dem party as such. That's so CNN, MSNBC and Fox. A little know fact is that Blacks are actually conservative and not a vast community of alcholic, drug induced, welfare recipients. The Blacks that I know, and I do have a few friends who are Black, were in favor of welfare reform and work hard to raise their familes despite having to navigate our culture of white privelege in America. They are not in favor of living off of the **** of the taxpayer. They are generally not in favor of public or corporate welfare. In fact, much of their experience post slavery has been due to self-reliance. Remember, Reconstruction? Civil rights movement? The fight for equal rights? To say the Dems have manipulated, fostered, and promoted the culture of what current black interests should be, based on a cycle of governmental dependence subscribes to a stereotypical portrayal of Black people and points to the true fallicy of your argument. There are more Whites on welfare - public and corporate, however, we somehow don't subscribe governmental dependence to whites nor Republicans. Why? And, those state-sponsored New-Deal-esque (very cute, by the way) are mechanisms put in place to reverse the racist and discriminatory laws that have created the imbalance that still subverts racial equality. So, again, the Dems did not create this situation if we really being honest in this exercise...Americans did.

DonKeyHotay | 04/12/08

I'll keep this brief. You still imply that I'm a bigot by presuming my train of thought, which, as you suggested, must be that blacks are a 'vast community of alcoholic, drug-induced, welfare recipients.' (Nice job of taking your own advice of leaving out labels.) Hilarious. Again, you make my point for me. The fact that more whites receive welfare than blacks is irrelevant because the percentage of welfare AAs is much greater, as they are a minority demographic. Of course there are more whites on welfare. There are many more whites, period. And while I'm sure your 'few friends who are black' are great people, your few relevant friends don't change the statistics. And finally, yes, it does subscribe to a derogatory portrayal of blacks to think of them as needing, for the majority of the voting community, government assistance --- that is exactly why it's despicable that the Democratic Party, which is comprised mostly of (or at least run mostly by) left-of-center liberals (by the way), depends on this in order to manipulate black voting communities. Lastly, I never said the Dem Party created racism; but they sure know how to profit from keeping it a popular issue.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/13/08

Despite you apparently falling further away from a coherent argument and closer to utter foolishness, I'll entertain your last concoction of nonsense. Nice try to deflect the fact that more Whites are draining the system through welfare. It is very relevant, because your point is that Dems are doing more damage to Blacks by fostering victimization. You still have not produced any evidence to support your claim. You attempted to make intra-racism a part of your argument despite it not having anything to do with political ideology and everything to do with prejudice within the African-American culture based on things like, skin color and grade of hair, not political ideas. With each new entry you appear to acknowledge the impact of racism even less. As if the Dems are manipulating (using your word) Blacks with an imaginary concept of "racism" that doesn't really exist and certainly doesn't need to be addressed through federal intervention. This country has enslaved Blacks for 200 years, then through racist and discriminatory laws persecuted Blacks, and now in only 50 years have Blacks been given federal protection for their civil rights. Are you actually under the impression that Dems are propagating racist politics? That Blacks are being manipulated? And, not actively supporting politics that supports their interest? It was Republicans that appointed the justices that disenfranchised their votes in Florida 2000. Your point would suggest that Blacks who refused to pay a poll tax did not care to vote and were apathetic voters. Your logic does not pan out. Blacks have always been vigilant in pursuing their political interests and have not been so easily manipulated by either party. An argument, however, can be made that Whites have been manipulated by racist politiicans (Reps and Dems) whom have done much to create the racial imbalance in America.

DonKeyHotay | 04/14/08

8-1, dude. Nuff said. p.s. I can't help but make this observation: I don't think Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas were ever discredited by the black community for their ''grade of hair.'' But impeccable, valid point, nonetheless.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/15/08

i'm a little late in responding, so sorry, and i doubt you'll ever see this. I was with you in your argument up until the comments you made about intra-racism. you two went off on a tangent and that is what I replied to. I can see how it could be said to be irrelevant to the topic at hand, but it was that comment which I was addressing. It was, I believe, false. I actually don't agree with the main premise of your opponents argument, which is why i didn't vote for him. but i couldn't vote for you after that. and the republicans were irrelevant to the topic at hand. I don't see how you couldn't see that.

Skipper04 | 04/16/08

I don't know to whom you were speaking, but thank you for that extremely vague analysis. Have a nice day.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/16/08

i was addressing your opponent. all you would have to do to know that is to read the previous comments. our conversation wasn't actually very vague either. perhaps you just couldn't understand it. have a nice day.

Skipper04 | 04/18/08

My comment was right before yours; and even though I did read all of the posts, I still found it difficult to understand. Thank you sincerely for the well-wishes. Likewise.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/18/08