A Nation of Cowards

MeeMie

No Spam Here
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Posts
7,328
A Nation of Cowards


We're a nation of cowards -- or at least the attorney general of the United States thinks we are. In a speech at the Justice Department celebrating Black History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder said: "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." It seems a rather peculiar statement coming from the first black attorney general, moreover, one appointed by the first black man elected president.

Holder's complaint is that, "We, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." But is that really what the country needs: an extended conversation on race? Bill Clinton proposed a similar idea back when he was in office. He called it a National Conversation on Race and hosted several town hall events around the country with lots of media hype. There was much finger-pointing -- at whites, of course -- and little serious analysis of the real challenges the black community faces.

*The problem is not that we talk too little about race but that our discussion is often irrelevant to the problems at hand. When Holder and Clinton talk about confronting racial issues, what they really want is a national therapy session in which whites admit that their prejudice and discrimination -- past and present -- is responsible for all the ills that beset blacks today.



Well, sorry, it just isn't so. And if we're going to have an honest discussion about race, let's begin by defining the problem.

There are still large differences between whites and blacks in this society on everything from education to earnings to crime rates. But does racial discrimination explain why black high school graduates, on average, read four grade levels lower than whites? Is employment discrimination wholly to blame for the differences in average earnings between whites and blacks?

Is racism responsible for the fact that blacks are more likely than whites to be the victims of violent crimes? Then how do you explain that in 2005, according to Holder's own Department of Justice, black males between the ages of 14-24 represented only 1 percent of the population but committed almost 28 percent of homicides, and their victims were overwhelmingly other blacks?

How about out-of-wedlock birth rates? Does racial discrimination explain why 70 percent of black children are born to single women, compared with 25 percent of white children?

In fact, many of these problems are interrelated -- and they have virtually nothing to do with discrimination or racism.

Sure, many inner-city black children attend lousy schools that do a poor job of teaching them to read and write. But those school districts are often run by black superintendents in cities governed by black elected officials, not some modern-day incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor is money the explanation. Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, for example, spend more to educate their largely black and Latino students than the surrounding suburbs do on their largely white student populations.

And poor educational performance turns into lower wages for black workers. Only 17 percent of blacks hold a college degree compared with a third of whites. Is it any wonder then that blacks earn, on average, only about 80 percent of what whites earn?

If Attorney General Holder is really interested in improving the status of blacks, he could begin by addressing the issue of personal responsibility. The decision to have a child out of wedlock has enormous consequences for single moms and the children they bring into the world. If there is one factor above others that explains the huge differences between the well-being of whites and blacks in this society, it is that so many black children grow up in homes with no fathers. Those children do more poorly in school, are more likely to get in trouble with the law, and become single parents themselves, thus perpetuating a destructive cycle of despair.

So, by all means, let's have some honesty in our discussions of race during Black History Month. Let's begin by having our most prominent black elected and appointed officials show a little courage by speaking out on the real problems in the black community, not the chimera of white oppression and unacknowledged guilt.
 
So This is What Post-Racial America Looks Like

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder called us "cowards" with regards to all things race. Yesterday, South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn says that any Republican governor's refusal to take federal "stimulus" money, strings and all, is a slap to the face of black people. So this is what post-racial America looks like.

First on the list: Holder.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejog...dyNVHgtBQ/s1600-h/Eric+Holder+--+Vertical.jpg

Last I checked, it wasn't the place for an Attorney General to talk policy, but rather to enforce the law. What exactly does characterizing America as "essentially a nation of cowards" have to do with his role as the top law enforcement officer in the country?

Furthermore, call me a coward, but I'm already growing a bit weary of hearing how Eric Holder is the nation's "first African-American Attorney General." Of course he is, but I don't remember Alberto Gonzales, as vilified as he was by the mainstream press for firing nine at-will U.S. Attorneys (remember, please, that Clinton fired 92 U.S. Attorneys at the start of his first term), ever labeled as the nation's "first Latino Attorney General." Actually forget the whole "African-American Attorney General" thing -- I'm growing a little sick and tired of the general idea of the hyphenated American at all.

"This nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate in a truly meaningful way the diverse future it is fated to have," Holder said. "To our detriment this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race."

Get over yourself, Mr. Holder. I seem to recall that slavery existed long before the establishment of the United States of America, but that despite the history of such oppression running back thousands of years, the United States of America actually was the one to do away with the practice. And, gosh, less than 50 years after the final roadblocks for black suffrage were torn down with the Voter Rights Act, it looks to me as though we have a black man in the White House. Sitting at the Resolute desk. Call me a coward, but I'd say we Americans have been pretty revolutionary when it comes to race relations. I'd even venture to say this nation of cowards has done more with regard to race equality than any other nation in history.

Second on the list: Clyburn.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejogZw/SZ8DJz7inZI/AAAAAAAACRM/PcJPaFkbIoQ/s1600-h/Jim+Clyburn.jpg

Former President Ronald Reagan once quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Well, thanks to the thankfully thankless work done by Sen. Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the suddenly pro-unilateralism congressional Democrats, the massive spending bill masqueradeing as an economic recovery package has the federal government knocking on the doors of the several states, standing not on the doormat but on a now-tattered copy of the Tenth Amendment.

For Rep. Jim Clyburn to say that gubernatorial scrutiny placed on the federal government's extended hand and creepy smile is a "slap in the face of African-Americans" who presumably need the federal stimulus money at the state level is to ignore the basic foundations of our representative republic. Republican governors such as South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Texas' Rick Perry and Alaska's Sarah Palin are taking it upon themselves to do what self-serving Washington politicians like Clyburn refused to do -- actually look at the contents of the so-called "stimulus" package, line by line, and figure out exactly how each provision will affect the people they have been charged to represent before signing off on any aspect of it.

Barbour, for one, cited a provision in the bill which would extend unemployment benefits to people making no effort whatsoever to find a full-time job. That's all well and good, he said, but when the stimulus money dries up, the taxpayers in his state would be left to pick up the difference in the form of needlessly increased taxes. These states need less unemployment, not more, Barbour said today, and sticking taxpayers and businesses with a higher tax burden after the federal funds are exhausted would only increase unemployment down the line.

These funds have strings attached, and these governors are doing the right thing in scrutinizing the bill when lawmakers on Capitol Hill did not. They're being responsible with taxpayer money, plain and simple. For Jim Clyburn, praised today by New Orleans Mayor [and Evacuation Expert] Ray Nagin, to state that such fiscal responsibility--a concept utterly lost on Democrats like himself--is directed somehow by animosity towards or ignorance of the needs of black citizens is nothing short of disgusting.

How does this kind of polarizing, divisive rhetoric get us anywhere? If this is the sort of thing Clyburn feels comfortable telling a national news audience, what sorts of filth is spewing from his mouth behind closed doors or in a meeting with a small number of supporters? How does this kind of overt racism help anything?

My goodness, yesterday we had the Rev. Al Sharpton screaming about the racist overtones in a New York Post political cartoon. You've all seen it by now, I'm sure. Call me a coward, but I don't see how black people could be offended by it. If anything, chimpanzees everywhere should be offended for being compared with congressional Democrats. People like Sharpton, like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, like Clyburn and indeed like Holder seem to find offense in everything, and seem to enjoy calling the rest of us out as cowards and bigots. For Sharpton and Jackson, after all, that's what pays the bills.

It's this culture of political correctness, this divisiveness in the name of diversity that fosters any reticence among Americans to talk about race, not the other way around. By labeling the rest of us "cowards" with regard to racial discourse in American, I'd venture to say that, in this case, Holder is very much the pot calling the kettle--well, nevermind.

Listen, it's time we move on. It's time we drop the hyphen, silence the divisive rhetoric, and just be Americans who want the best thing for America. That means that Eric Holder should do his job as, yes, the first African-American Attorney General and uphold the United States Constitution. That means that Jim Clyburn should do his job and adequately represent his district in the Palmetto State (perhaps he could start by actually reading the legislation he votes on).

We all need to remember our common thread here. We all need to stop thinking in terms of black and white, and start thinking in terms of Red, White and Blue.
 
"Red, White and Blue.....

I agree..... these are the only colors we should fight for and all the others colors automatically win. :)
 
"We're a nation of cowards -- or at least the attorney general of the United States thinks we are."

www.google.com - 183 hits
www.yahoo.com - 42 hits


One of these days MeeMie will have an original thought. The fear of the unknown will scare him half to death. :D:p:catgrin:
 
learn to paraphrase fuckwit.

He has to learn to do his own thinking first. Instead he cruises the internet until he finds something that mirrors his prejudices. I wonder if anyone reads his silly copy and paste jobs.
 
What a bunch of useless idiots you are.

It is quite apparent to everyone but you, that I have posted articles that I thought were interesting reads to start a discussion about.

Once a-fucking-gain ... I purposely leave off the credits because then the discussion is limited to discrediting the source.

Read the articles, or don't. I really don't care.

But to simply post in the thread to make comments that what I've posted is a 'copy and paste', or can be found on google, only makes YOU look like complete repetitious fools.
 
What a bunch of useless idiots you are.

It is quite apparent to everyone but you, that I have posted articles that I thought were interesting reads to start a discussion about.

Once a-fucking-gain ... I purposely leave off the credits because then the discussion is limited to discrediting the source.

Read the articles, or don't. I really don't care.

But to simply post in the thread to make comments that what I've posted is a 'copy and paste', or can be found on google, only makes YOU look like complete repetitious fools.

i think their point is that you never discuss.

you just parrot.

even AJ noted that.
 
Original thoughts are rare.

Has it ocurred to anyone, that someone can express ones thoughts, better than they themselves can express..... Thus, copy and paste.

So shut the fuck up about "original thoughts"... It's childish bullshit.

NEVER expressing ANYTHING but copy and pastes is just robotic, though.

As if no one on Lit has the internet...we require bots to constantly copy articles for us.

*yawn*
 
Original thoughts are rare.

Has it ocurred to anyone, that someone can express ones thoughts, better than they themselves can express..... Thus, copy and paste.

So shut the fuck up about "original thoughts"... It's childish bullshit.

no.

it reflects an inability to analyze and articulate.

source materials are important. i am not denying that. but they are no substitute for being able to synthesize ideas from a variety of sources and to build upon them.

there are posters here from all political persuasions who do that forcefully.

and there are those who do not.

simply bringing an article to the table is not "discussion."
 
i think their point is that you never discuss.

you just parrot.

even AJ noted that.





Don't you see the foolishness of that statement?

You're accusing me of "never discussing" while you refuse to discuss the thread issue.


I have shared my opinions in many posts, sometimes embedded in excerpts of thoughts of others. None of which is of any importance to the issue.

Yes, I noticed AJ mentioned that yesterday in one of my threads. I was surprised because I always gave him credit for at least reading and understanding the issue raised. But hey! To each his own. I won't fault others for their posts.


What do you think about the issues raised in this thread?

Do you find it a tad insulting that given the current administration's racial qualities, the new Atty Gen makes race an issue to insult? Or, that a Representative infers that the stimulus package is meant to benefit African-Americans?

Did you even read the articles thoughtfully?

I thought some good points were raise. Did you?
 
Original thoughts are rare.

Has it ocurred to anyone, that someone can express ones thoughts, better than they themselves can express..... Thus, copy and paste.

So shut the fuck up about "original thoughts"... It's childish bullshit.

there is a difference between original thought and paraphrasing. Endless C&P is boring, it doesn't aid discussion and it just makes the oP look like a tit especially because they never reference and the assertion that the reference is missing because discussion turns to sources is bogus.
 
no.

it reflects an inability to analyze and articulate.

source materials are important. i am not denying that. but they are no substitute for being able to synthesize ideas from a variety of sources and to build upon them.

there are posters here from all political persuasions who do that forcefully.

and there are those who do not.

simply bringing an article to the table is not "discussion."

Bullshit.. The copy and paste reflects the views of the copier.... Perhaps more articulate than he/she can express.

If you find the article argumenative, then you can open a dialogue of discussion.
 
Bullshit.. The copy and paste reflects the views of the copier.... Perhaps more articulate than he/she can express.

If you find the article argumenative, then you can open a dialogue of discussion.

dude, shut up. you defend this douche too much. it's kinda getting a little suspect.
 
Don't you see the foolishness of that statement?

You're accusing me of "never discussing" while you refuse to discuss the thread issue.


I have shared my opinions in many posts, sometimes embedded in excerpts of thoughts of others. None of which is of any importance to the issue.

Yes, I noticed AJ mentioned that yesterday in one of my threads. I was surprised because I always gave him credit for at least reading and understanding the issue raised. But hey! To each his own. I won't fault others for their posts.


What do you think about the issues raised in this thread?

Do you find it a tad insulting that given the current administration's racial qualities, the new Atty Gen makes race an issue to insult? Or, that a Representative infers that the stimulus package is meant to benefit African-Americans?

Did you even read the articles thoughtfully?

I thought some good points were raise. Did you?

it's not foolish. you post a wall of text and leave it there.

ish sometimes uses an article as a jumping off point. he adds his own observations and posits his own thesis or poses his own question.

and no, i don't think it's insulting to state that race is an issue that still has to be addressed. things have changed remarkably in the past twenty or thirty years. racial inequality is not as glaring as it once was. but racism is not relegated to the history books. its role in the allocation of power and of resources is still with us.

i have a friend, a harvard-educated african american woman, who was a staff member for a mississippi governor. she later moved to austin and worked in state government there. i met her for a drink in austin, and commented on how happy she must be to have left the racial tension in missisippi for the enlightened attitude of austin.

she corrected me. she said that although they didn't always get it right in mississippi, they dealt with it. they tried to address the problems. they had to.

in austin, on the other hand, racial tensions were often ignored because people assumed they were sufficiently progressive to have adequately addressed the problem. they had not--the city was effectively segregated. they simply failed to recognize the need to address the issue.

just because we have a black president and a black AG does not mean there is no need for dialogue. far from it. this sort of bullshit only illustrates the point.
Sure, many inner-city black children attend lousy schools that do a poor job of teaching them to read and write. But those school districts are often run by black superintendents in cities governed by black elected officials, not some modern-day incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor is money the explanation. Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, for example, spend more to educate their largely black and Latino students than the surrounding suburbs do on their largely white student populations.

And poor educational performance turns into lower wages for black workers. Only 17 percent of blacks hold a college degree compared with a third of whites. Is it any wonder then that blacks earn, on average, only about 80 percent of what whites earn?
 
Last edited:
Bullshit.. The copy and paste reflects the views of the copier.... Perhaps more articulate than he/she can express.

If you find the article argumenative, then you can open a dialogue of discussion.

i think your comment reflects your ability to analyze and articulate, too.
 
Back
Top