Excellent article that agrees with Holder, "in a sense."
A Nation of Cowards
by Walter E. Williams
Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. In one sense, he is absolutely right. Many whites, from university administrators and professors, schoolteachers to employers and public officials accept behavior from black people that they wouldn't begin to accept from whites. For example, some of the nation's most elite universities, such as Vanderbilt, Stanford University and the University of California, have yielded to black student demands for separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events." Universities such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT, and Cal Berkeley have, or have had, segregated dorms. If white students demanded whites-only graduation ceremonies or whites-only dorms, administrators would have labeled their demands as intolerable racism. When black students demand the same thing, these administrators cowardly capitulate. Calling these university administrators cowards is the most flattering characterization of their behavior. They might actually be stupid enough to believe nonsense taught by their some of sociology and psychology professors that blacks can't be racists because they don't have power.
What about Holder's statement that America is "voluntarily segregated"? I say, so what. According to the census, in 2007, 4.6 percent of married blacks were married to a white; less than 1 percent of married whites were married to a black. While blacks are 13 percent of the population, they are 80 percent of professional basketball players and 65 percent of professional football players. Mere casual observance of audiences at ice hockey games or opera performances would reveal gross voluntary segregation. What would Holder propose the U.S. Justice Department do about these and other instances of voluntary segregation?
Attorney General Holder's flawed thinking is widespread whereby people think that an activity that is not racially integrated is therefore segregated. Blacks are about 60 percent of the Washington, D.C. population. At the Reagan National Airport, which serves D.C., nowhere near 60 percent of the airport's water fountain users are black; I'd guess blacks are never more than 5 percent of users. The population statistics of states such as South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their populations are black. Does that mean Reagan National Airport water fountains and South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont are racially segregated? If Holder does anything about "voluntary segregation" at the state level I hope it's not court-ordered busing; I'm not wild about their winters. Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.
The bottom line is that the civil rights struggle is over and it is won. At one time black Americans didn't share the constitutional guarantees shared by whites; today we do. That does not mean that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems nor can they be solved through a "conversation on race." Black illegitimacy stands at 70 percent; nearly 50 percent of black students drop out of high school; and only 30 percent of black youngsters reside in two-parent families. In 2005, while 13 percent of the population, blacks committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer. Such pathology, I think much of it precipitated by family breakdown, is entirely new among blacks. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; in 1950, only 18 percent of black households were female-headed compared with today's 70 percent. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.
If black people continue to accept the corrupt blame game agenda of liberal whites, black politicians and assorted hustlers, as opposed to accepting personal responsibility, the future for many black Americans will remain bleak.
A Nation of Cowards
by Walter E. Williams
Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. In one sense, he is absolutely right. Many whites, from university administrators and professors, schoolteachers to employers and public officials accept behavior from black people that they wouldn't begin to accept from whites. For example, some of the nation's most elite universities, such as Vanderbilt, Stanford University and the University of California, have yielded to black student demands for separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events." Universities such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT, and Cal Berkeley have, or have had, segregated dorms. If white students demanded whites-only graduation ceremonies or whites-only dorms, administrators would have labeled their demands as intolerable racism. When black students demand the same thing, these administrators cowardly capitulate. Calling these university administrators cowards is the most flattering characterization of their behavior. They might actually be stupid enough to believe nonsense taught by their some of sociology and psychology professors that blacks can't be racists because they don't have power.
What about Holder's statement that America is "voluntarily segregated"? I say, so what. According to the census, in 2007, 4.6 percent of married blacks were married to a white; less than 1 percent of married whites were married to a black. While blacks are 13 percent of the population, they are 80 percent of professional basketball players and 65 percent of professional football players. Mere casual observance of audiences at ice hockey games or opera performances would reveal gross voluntary segregation. What would Holder propose the U.S. Justice Department do about these and other instances of voluntary segregation?
Attorney General Holder's flawed thinking is widespread whereby people think that an activity that is not racially integrated is therefore segregated. Blacks are about 60 percent of the Washington, D.C. population. At the Reagan National Airport, which serves D.C., nowhere near 60 percent of the airport's water fountain users are black; I'd guess blacks are never more than 5 percent of users. The population statistics of states such as South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their populations are black. Does that mean Reagan National Airport water fountains and South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont are racially segregated? If Holder does anything about "voluntary segregation" at the state level I hope it's not court-ordered busing; I'm not wild about their winters. Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.
The bottom line is that the civil rights struggle is over and it is won. At one time black Americans didn't share the constitutional guarantees shared by whites; today we do. That does not mean that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems nor can they be solved through a "conversation on race." Black illegitimacy stands at 70 percent; nearly 50 percent of black students drop out of high school; and only 30 percent of black youngsters reside in two-parent families. In 2005, while 13 percent of the population, blacks committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer. Such pathology, I think much of it precipitated by family breakdown, is entirely new among blacks. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; in 1950, only 18 percent of black households were female-headed compared with today's 70 percent. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.
If black people continue to accept the corrupt blame game agenda of liberal whites, black politicians and assorted hustlers, as opposed to accepting personal responsibility, the future for many black Americans will remain bleak.
Good article. Although I don't think that's what Holder had in mind. I wonder what percentage of black people agree with Dr. Williams. I'm guessing it's about the same percentage that bought David Allen Coe's last record.
The problem is, the black establishment has a vested interest in perpetuating the victim myth. If there is no racism, there is no reason for Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson, etc. And Spike Lee is just another film maker. (And not a very good one at that.) Eric Holder is just a mouthpiece for the black establishment. I'd like to know how his idiotic statement affects his ability to do his job as Attorney General. After all, he's serving ALL of us, and Justice is supposed to be blind.
That makes plenty o' sense. Unless the alleged perpetrator(s) have fully covered their hands as well as their heads, it's not that tough to figure out.
And voices can certainly contribute as well, though a newspaper would be wise to not write, "The suspects were two black guys, based on the clerk's testimony that they told him to 'gimme the mo-fucking money, homes!' while pointing a gun at him."
Lost in perhaps a clumsy presentation by Holder is that in his new job role as Attorney General the cited observations are most likely related to law enforcement and the criminal justice system and not to how many black people attend NBA games as compared to how many play in NBA games
And nowhere is this discussion more needed than when putting the long overdue spotlight on to how our nation's law enforcement and CJ system exploits blacks and browns when engaged in the now 38 year old "War on Drugs".
If someone commits a robbery, a rape, an assault or a murder - there's no one among who us who pauses to wonder the race of the perpetrator. We just want the right person to be identified, caught and appropriately convicted in court.
But if we narrow the discussion to any significant population base wherein an equal percentage of whites, blacks and browns are users and sellers of illicit drugs - far too many Americans stand idly by when over 2/3 of arrests for illicit drug crimes are black/brown. Far too many Americans shrug dispassionately when two men - one white and one black, both facing the same drug crime charges and both with similar criminal histories - are sentenced disproportionately. In such comparisons, blacks and browns are sentenced to prison and/or incarceration at a rate almost 5x that of whites.
And although an increasing number of police agencies in the past decade have begun more honestly recording how they handle routine traffic stops of vehicles, there remain many agencies who have clear and irrefutable policies of pulling over more vehicles driven by blacks or browns compared to those driven by whites.
The Obama administration in first six weeks took a huge criminal justice step by having AG Holder order the DEA to cease and desist with harrassment and arrests of state-legal medical marijuana providers and patients.
They could continue this burgeoning policy change by giving increased focus towards how our nation's criminal justice system treats all citizens with an emphasis on the incredible racial disparities demonstrated in enforcing drug-related laws.
And nowhere is this discussion more needed than when putting the long overdue spotlight on to how our nation's law enforcement and CJ system exploits blacks and browns when engaged in the now 38 year old "War on Drugs".
If someone commits a robbery, a rape, an assault or a murder - there's no one among who us who pauses to wonder the race of the perpetrator. We just want the right person to be identified, caught and appropriately convicted in court.
But if we narrow the discussion to any significant population base wherein an equal percentage of whites, blacks and browns are users and sellers of illicit drugs - far too many Americans stand idly by when over 2/3 of arrests for illicit drug crimes are black/brown. Far too many Americans shrug dispassionately when two men - one white and one black, both facing the same drug crime charges and both with similar criminal histories - are sentenced disproportionately. In such comparisons, blacks and browns are sentenced to prison and/or incarceration at a rate almost 5x that of whites.
And although an increasing number of police agencies in the past decade have begun more honestly recording how they handle routine traffic stops of vehicles, there remain many agencies who have clear and irrefutable policies of pulling over more vehicles driven by blacks or browns compared to those driven by whites.
The Obama administration in first six weeks took a huge criminal justice step by having AG Holder order the DEA to cease and desist with harrassment and arrests of state-legal medical marijuana providers and patients.
They could continue this burgeoning policy change by giving increased focus towards how our nation's criminal justice system treats all citizens with an emphasis on the incredible racial disparities demonstrated in enforcing drug-related laws.
Unfortunately, Barman, I'm afraid their approach to eliminating "racial disparities" in drug enforcement will be to arrest and persecute more white drug "offenders". The black establishment (Jackson, Sharpton, Rangel, et al) have no problems with our current drug laws. They just want an equivalent proportion of whites locked up.
Whatever problems the black community faces, they bring it on themselves.
And change has to come from within first.
For example if the cop tells you to stop, you stop , dont try to run and dont have the urge all of a sudden to reach into your pocket to "comb your hair"
They wanna embrace the gangster culture, they will end up like one. Either in jail or dead.
And the white man is to blame for neither
And change has to come from within first.
For example if the cop tells you to stop, you stop , dont try to run and dont have the urge all of a sudden to reach into your pocket to "comb your hair"
They wanna embrace the gangster culture, they will end up like one. Either in jail or dead.
And the white man is to blame for neither
From what I know among my politically active colleagues across the nation, Misters Sharpton, Jackson and Rangel are becoming far less relevant in the 21st century.
Any suggestion on their part to jail more white offenders means jailing more overall offenders and there's no state in the USA which can financially afford it.
More to your point, I've never seen any of those three men propose such a notion with the actual desire to see more people incarcerated.
Rather, they sensibly promote the message of balanced enforcement knowing full well that such a change - if truly enacted - would break the financial banks of state governments. And thus the entire concept of jailing anyone of any color based solely on their choice of personal intoxicant is absurd and destructive to the community at large.
I've heard Charlie Rangel talk about drugs a number of times. In his spare time, when he's not evading taxes or steering contracts to his kid. I just had to google "Charles Rangel War on Drugs" and I knew I'd find a treasure trove of idiocy.
I won't paste the whole article, but here's a juicy little excerpt from the first link that showed up:
"He is outraged that there has even been debate on the possibility of legalizing drugs which, he says, would be 'moral and political suicide'."
How dare we exercise our first amendment rights if it offends him! Typical Stalinist.
If YOU want to be outraged that a Congressional leader can be so myopic on this issue - as I was - here's the link.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n5_v44/ai_7405467
Nah, I'm good
There's more than a few federal Congressmen of all races who have stated they believe ending the War on Drugs to be an immoral and terrible idea.
Though I have a couple of colleagues from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who inform me that when discussed "off the record", the majority of elected officials at state and federal level agree that Prohibition is bad policy. But they say that stating it publicly would be "political suicide".
So in that sense, Rangel is correct, though if he himself honestly believes Prohibition to be useful, he's just another elected moron
There's more than a few federal Congressmen of all races who have stated they believe ending the War on Drugs to be an immoral and terrible idea.
Though I have a couple of colleagues from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who inform me that when discussed "off the record", the majority of elected officials at state and federal level agree that Prohibition is bad policy. But they say that stating it publicly would be "political suicide".
So in that sense, Rangel is correct, though if he himself honestly believes Prohibition to be useful, he's just another elected moron
