According to Michael Powell, Barack Obama is a cocky, smack-talking Negro. He doesn’t use the word “Negro” of course, but that’s the tone I got. At the end, it appeared that he was just pissed off because he didn’t get as much access to the candidate he thought he deserved.
Obama has received generally favorable press coverage, so I’m not going to pretend the media is out to get him. But, I’m still annoyed at the prima dona campaign press that pretends their personal feelings and relationships toward the candidates ought to be projected in larger terms as somehow being relevant to the campaign coverage. Personally, a lot of them were annoyed by Gore and were buddies with Bush, and so the campaign narratives reflected these things. Gore was an earth-tone wearing sigher and serial exaggerator. Bush was a straight-talking good ol’ boy whose inability to speak was in no way indicative of the depth of his thought.
I’d find it helpful if campaign reporters would tell us up front for a given article whether they’re reporting news or whether they’re engaging in a good old-fashioned high school snark fest or some combination thereof.
Ok, what was up with today’s issue of the NYT? Page 1, above the fold, first paragraph of the article about Hillary mentions she’s not “measuring for drapes” (an old, old dog that that’s the first thing a woman does when she’s moving into a new house). Blech. The Obama article you reference above struck me with the same odd, discordant note. Were they running with the second string this week?
I get it. Powell refused to make his comments about Obama’s race, so you did it for him. Was “Negro” the N word you really had in mind?
I predict the same harsh criticism that is dished out to every other politician will paralyze itself in Obama’s case because he is half-white. Or should I have said half Nee-gro?
Myself, I think Obama is smarmy and vacuous. Bush was just the warm-up act; an Obama presidency will finally show us what a real amateur can do as President.
But let me hasten to say that I think Obama gets his shallowness from his mother, not his father. In my book Obama’s just another peckerwood like me.
Actually “Negro” was the word that came to mind first. Not sure why it wasn’t “nigger,” but there you have it. If Powell had said “smarmy and vacuous,” I would have disagreed, but I would not have immediately thought about race. It was specifically the use of the words “cocky” and “smack talking.” They reminded me of Karl Rove’s decision to talk about Obama in terms of a “trash talking” “lazy” “basketball player”.
Bush appointed people who validated him rather than uplift him. I’m sure Obama will do better with appointments or his rhetoric will not live up to his actions right from the start.
There has never been a race classification historically other than Uncle Tom or Black/Negro .And White has always been White.
I probably can’t help but sound like a teacher ( 35 yrs of it) but once discussion or debate falls into personal characterizations,especially with sexual references, there will never be civil debate between the people involved ever again.Personal will stay personal.I hate to see it on this blog.
You left out how he “throws an elbow”. I guess it’s hard to write a story about him without basketball references. Also, he has a “Barcalounger manner about him these days”? I suppose describing a calm confidence borne of a string of electoral victories would be too boring. Instead make it sound like success has made him calm in a lazy kind of way, except when he’s throwing elbows, of course.
The author did avoid saying he was “As cool as a slice of watermelon after a hot day in the cotton fields,” so give a little credit.
I think Powell would have used the “n-word” if he could have gotten away with it.
The thing that troubles me the most is that these are writers (and editors) who should know better. I’ve always expected the caliber of NYT staff to be a step above the crowd. Why is cramming people into narrow boxes based only one one fact (Obama as BLACK MAN, Hillary as WOMAN) suddenly acceptable?
stereotypes… that’s the word I was looking for. And hoary stereotypes at that.
Speaking of infuriating sterotypes, I have two new Michelle Obama posts over at my blog to REALLY piss you guys off!
Can you say, “affirmative action”?
Guys, in case you didn’t know, the “N word” was buried in Gary last week. Please refrain from using it from now on.
Brenda,
Who you callin’ hoary?
She works hard for the money.
So hard for the money.
She works hard for the money.
So you’d better treat her right.
Buzzcut–
I see from your blog posts that Michelle Obama felt like an outsider as a black woman at Princeton, and she failed the bar exam once.
Duly noted.
Now I totally doubt whether she is qualified to be someone’s spouse.
Now I totally doubt whether she is qualified to be someone’s spouse.
It’s quite a bit more than that. Michelle Obama, and by default Barack, were quite obviously beneficiaries of affirmative action. This goes along with the other Michelle Obama post, the general lack of… gratitude? that the Obama’s show to the country that… allowed? them the success they’ve had.
I don’t know if those are the right words to express what I’m feeling with respect to Michelle Obama. Certainly we all work in the system as we find it, and if Michelle Obama exploited the system of affirmative action for her own gain, I don’t fault her for that. God knows with 50% of African American students not even graduating from high school, to do as well as she has is something to be proud of.
But then to come along and say things like “this is the first time I feel proud to be an American”, it just rubs me the wrong way.
I guess Barack could come out and say that he doesn’t agree with his wife. He hasn’t done that. Kind of implies that he agrees with her.
In my view, pride is something better manifested in action than as an excuse to kick up one’s feet in self-satisfaction.
Taking pride in one’s appearance, intellect, home, or neighborhood means rolling up sleeves and getting to work maintaining those things.
Not slapping up an American flag and thereby immunizing oneself from the criticism that one hasn’t done enough.
We can be proud without being prideful. Folks with an excess of the latter have been dominating the political discourse for at least the past quarter-century. It’s difficult for me to fault Michelle Obama for feeling that the country has only just started to recover an attitude proper to undertaking the reconstruction of social infrastructure, when for so long we’ve culturally bought into the Gordon Gekko premise that all we’re here for is to rake in enough for ourselves to retire to the golf course.
Buzzcut, can you find me the source for your quote from Mrs. Obama; “this is the first time I feel proud to be an American”?
I’ve never heard that she said those words.
Please, try not to extract someone’s view of this country out of a misquoted snipit of a speech.
Dude, take 5 minutes to google it.
<a href=”http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html”Video here.
She said it. Twice in one day.
I don’t know if I’ve said it here, but I have said that I could theoretically get behind Barack Obama if he ran the right kind of campaign.
If he did a mashup of Reagan optimism and Bill Cosby style self-help, I could TOTALLY get behind that.
“We’re going to spend more money on inner city schools, but YOU need to step up and graduate. When you do, we’ll help you with college tuition, but require a year of public service in return.”
Stuff like that. I can go for a sort of means tested, results oriented liberalism. But that’s not what Democrats are all about.
Jesus, I’m like a retard with tags. And I obviously don’t proofread my work.
Video here
Buzzcut–
What you seem to miss is that affirmative action isn’t some kind of gift that exists in a vacuum. It is an attempt to give additional help to a group of people who suffered from unequal schools (with such action sanctioned by our government) until the 1950’s, and economically unequal opportunities on average since that time. Those circumstances originally arose from a situation where we imported slaves for over a hundred years and stole their labor. Then they were at long last freed but for another century certainly in most cases did not enjoy equality. Trying to make ammends for that is not a gift that they should constantly have to thank people for any more than you would be compelled to thank someone for their apology if they had done you wrong. Society trying to give extra help to make up for unequal access to quality eduction is something that is owed to them, not a gift.
Affirmative action ultimately pays dividends by furthering the education of people who otherwise might not have such access, resulting in a more educated work force. And it’s cost is much less than, say, trying to tally up the cost of a hundred years of past unpaid labor, plus a couple of centuries of interest.
Sorry T, but I disagree (I know, big surprise)!
Affirmative action does nothing more than give somebody something for nothing period.
We will evolve again as a society in a positive manner when citizens actually work for their just rewards again and take responsibility for themselves and their actions.
All of the sudden (well since 1945) we have a government more and more willing to pay for everything from cradle to grave for anybody and that instills NO work ethic in it’s citizens whatsoever.
If you suffer from “white guilt” for the sins of your ancestors and feel obliged to help, by all means do so, just do it with YOUR income not mine.
We’re not just talking about distant ancestors here. My parents were entering adulthood when the Brown case was heard. From those conditions that our country allowed to exist, a responsibility arises. I feel no guilt, your facile characterization notwithstanding. But I do recognize our country has a responsibility to alleviate the damage that was done. If this causes you to wallow in white victimhood, then that is a sad, unintended consequence.
Now are we specifically accusing Michelle Obama of not having a work ethic? Because I thought we were only accusing her of being ungrateful for affirmative action–not being lazy as a result of it.
I come across plenty of people with a good work ethic who are behind the eight ball in terms of debt. Some are poor planners. A few – not many, relatively speaking – seem to like to live beyond their means. And plenty are just unlucky (see, however, poor planning).
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty who are just not too interested in taking responsibility for themselves.
I was going to mention that I didn’t notice too many blacks in my collection practice, but that’s not a valid sample, really since blacks make up less than 3% of Lafayette’s population. I suspect the surrounding areas are even whiter.
For what it’s worth – not much, I suppose, – failing to pay your bills seems to run in families. I’ve mentioned it before, but years ago, when I was just getting started, I told the founder of our firm that I was starting to get to know some of the debtors pretty well. He laughed and said, “Yeah, you’ll get to know some of their kids and grandkids pretty well, too.”
We are kind of mixing arguments here, T, I don’t and didn’t accuse Michelle Obama of anything, I was only riffing on the affirmative action and entitlement programs as being a cure that is worse than the problem as they tend to create a mindset that Doug encounters daily……..a lack of personal responsibility.
I see it daily, too–and none of it due to affirmative action of any kind.
Governments and societies can only do so much to instill work ethic. Most of it has to come from within, or from families as Doug alluded to.
I see affirmative action, at least in regards to education, as being something that can foster a work ethic in the recipient. In the case of someone who has maximized his or her educational potential in a setting such as a substandard school, it can allow a chance to continue on with an education and better achieve his or her potential through hard work in a better educational setting. The entrance requirements may be relaxed to some extent. But the exit requirements aren’t. The only thing that will get the person from point A to point B is hard work.
Conflating entitlement programs and affirmative action doesn’t make sense to me. Most entitlement programs are band-aids for the present condition. Unfortunately, a lot of people (as you’ve both noted and I have seen, three generations successively on welfare) have no intention of getting off. Laziness and resignation to never being able to change their conditions leave them in it. In many cases they leave themselves in it. It’s very frustrating.
On the other hand, affirmative action is more of an investment society makes in its own future. It is giving opportunity for those willing to work to further their educational or employment opportunities and in many cases attain the tools necessary to leave conditions that breed dependence on entitlement programs. In a perfect world, “entitlement programs” and “affirmative action” aren’t co-equal evils–rather affirmative action can be to some extent a cure for the need for entitlement programs, at least to some extent.
T,
I have always hated afirmative action. However, your point:
…is well taken.
However, an area I can’t get past is how do you say who gets the benefits of AA* and who does not. How African do I need to be? Does South Africa count?
If it isn’t my country but the color of my skin, how brown does it need to be?
While I might be convinced that AA* has had its place at some point in the past, I contend that it MUST stop at some point or it will be another thing that divides us. We can’t be a completely colorblind country until we stop looking at the color or gender of the people we are hiring and admitting.
*No Alcoholics Anonymous jokes, I’m just that lazy.
Buzzcut and Tim Zank display a common technique for hiding their oh-so-typically right-wing sociopathy: they pretend that all racial discrimination has vanished, all systemic inequities eliminated, and a completely level playing field established. Some may concede that some sort of redress once was necessary, but no more; others argue that the Emancipation Proclamation was all that was needed. These are the more subtly devious ways of expressing the age-old racist notion that all poverty is solely and entirely caused by the darkies all being lazy and shiftless. Why don’t you fellows just admit it: you’re just cleverly rephrasing the notorious words of Cain!
Terry,
No, poverty isn’t just from being lazy and shiftless. Many people are born into a difficult or impossable situation. Those people are from all races and walks of life, and they should get equal help.
To protect AA from detractors, one must say why we’re doing it. Is it like T said, to repair the damage done to a race? OR is it that we need to help people in poverty? Those are different goals, and they need different tactics.
Affirmative Action like many government programs was created to solve specific problems of non -inclusion that the private sector has no interest in solving,or was making worse..Even if the program is legitmately criticized for bad decisions,and is not doing what it was created to do,doesnt mean that the targeted problems are not still existing.That’s a separate issue to examine.Every program,supported by public money, should be regulalry re-examined and modified. I bring up another well-intentioned program that I am much more familiar with , bi-lingual education, as another program legitimately criticized that has been corrupted and mishandled way out of the parameters for which it was created. Hispanic advocacy groups got hold of it and made it into a Hispanic education mandate that keeps bi-lingual teachers teaching til retirement is some cases and keeps kids speaking Spanish for years at public expense. Shouldnt bi-lingual education be judged as a success by how short a time a Spanish speaking student stays in the program before he is fluent in English,not by how many teachers s there are and how many students are involved, as it too often is now? Affirmative Action could be judged by how many people have achieved success who wouldn’t have under normal expectations.
My point is that Affirmative Action needs to be re-evaluated like any program to see if the goals of the program are in sync with the problems it promises to address,and then evaluate in that way.Also people need to be aware of just what the problems are being addressed. Many who are against government in principle too often don’t care if a program can be improved. They’re just looking for an excuse to throw it out, with no counter plan to address any remaining issues.
I’m glad I started a discussion on AA. Good arguments all.
I think Michelle Obama highlights the problems that AA causes. First, she wasn’t qualified to go to the schools she went to. This is reflected in that when she came upon the first hurdle that didn’t have AA, she failed it. I’m talking about the bar exam.
Doing some internet sleuthing, I found a study showing that whites pass the bar at 85%, African Americans pass at 53% (see my blog). That is Affirmative Action in a nutshell. What happens to all those law school grads who simply can’t pass the bar? What happens to all the African Americans that are admitted to these schools but never graduate, and who would HAVE graduated had they gone to a lesser school?
Secondly, I think that Michelle Obama’s hatred of America as it is (or had been during her adult life) is a profound self hatred from knowing that she didn’t really earn what she has on her own merits. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for her statement in light of her and Barack’s personal success.
And really, where would Michelle Obama be without AA? She probably would have gone to community college and a state school, and would have done just fine for herself. Not First Lady fine. Not hospital executive fine. But by the standards of this society, she would be middle to upper middle class, and thus, very successful.
And where would the African American community be without AA? I keep hammering away at the African American high school dropout rate. The majority of African Americans DON’T GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL!!!!
THAT is the real problem for African Americans, and along with the out of wedlock birth rate and the problem of widespread criminality, are the cause of the African American underclass. None of which has anything to do with past historical wrongs done to African Americans. It has to do with an African American culture that is not future oriented, and one that we in the larger community are doing NOTHING to address, Barack and Michelle Obama especially.
Jesus Christ. I thought this was a lawyer’s blog, not a Klavern.
Doug, if you’re gonna exercise your prerogatives to reproach my sometimes purple (blue?) prose, can ya do the same for the folks burning a cross on your blog’s lawn?
Branden –
“Cross burning” seems like an excessive characterization.
And Doug is sick – so it’s up to you to rebut, if you want.
If you do, though, you should address Buzzcut’s asserted facts as well as his opinions, I think.
The specific answer is a cop out, in that I haven’t wallowed through the mass of text, but I glanced at it and didn’t see directly personal commentary. The more general answer is that I roughly draw the line at directly personal instead of the more general stuff.
I’ll probably blow a virtual whistle at “you’re an asshole” where I won’t with “white people are assholes” even where both comments are unfounded.
I’ll bite.
Buzz, reading the last paragraph of what you said, am I getting your point correctly that you think African Americans are, as a race, prone to the behavors you listed?
When I think of all of the things you mentioned there, I think I could replace the word “poverty” where you used “African Americans” and come up with a more correct statement.
Lastly, I still have not seen any quote or other evidence that Mrs. Obama hates (or hated) America. She has said that she has not been “very proud” to be an American, but that is a VERY far cry from hating American.
I might be the very best dad/husband, but that statement doesn’t mean I abuse my wife and kids.
Jason, my contention is that poverty is no longer an economic phenomenon. It is a cultural or behavioral phenomenon. How you act determines whether you will be poor or not, not the class you come from, and certainly not your race or ethnicity.
Look, regardless of race, if you get a high school education, get married before you have kids, and stay clear of the criminal justice system, your poverty rate is negligible.
I don’t think that African Americans as a race are more or less prone to those behaviors, but the culture that a lot of African Americns subscribe to IS a lot more prone to “bad” behaviors. For example, what do you make of this?
And I can’t help but notice that such successful African American luminaries as Barack and Michelle Obama and Oprah don’t subcribe to that culture. Coincidence?
Yet why isn’t Barack’s “acting white” a talking point of his campaign? Because Democrats are enablers of poverty. They wouldn’t have jobs if there wasn’t a permanent underclass.
Culture is destiny, and the culture of poverty needs to change. This will help all poor people whether they be African American or white.
Now, you can be like T and say that government and society can’t change culture. If that’s true, I think then you just throw up your hands, buy into a gated community, watch cartoon network, and try not to notice the societal chaos around you. But any traditional liberal “intervantion” is bound to fail, because it doesn’t recognize the root cause of poverty in the 21st Century.
“Stop snitchin'” (per the link above) appears to be the Ward Churchill of this thread. Something that apparently is so bad as to be dangerous, except that almost no one has ever heard of it.
I’m still surprised to hear that history has nothing to do with the overall present conditions of blacks in America. The majority of blacks who existed in this country from the 1600’s through 1865 were the property of others. For the next hundred years there was government-sanctioned segregation limiting their opportunities for advancement. Such conditions have been largely done away with for about fifty years now. That’s it. Fifty years of opportunity after centuries of entrenched denial of opportunities based on skin color and race.
The notion that Democrats enable poverty as a means to preserve their political jobs is just silly.
Parker,
I thought the nature of Buzzcut’s logical fallacies were pretty obvious.
Premise: Some black folks commit crimes, drop out of school, and obtain unearned employment due to affirmative action programs.
Conclusion: “Black culture” promotes criminal behavior, abandonment of educational goals, and quests for undeserved economic benefits.
That’s an inductive fallacy right there, best illustrated by the old joke:
Buzzcut then builds upon this inductive fallacy with simple syllogistic reasoning:
Major premise: Black folks manifest Black culture, including the negative aspects enumerated above.
Minor premise: Michelle Obama is a black person.
Conclusion: Michelle Obama manifests the negative aspects of Black culture.
This modus ponens argument is valid, but validity is not proof against fallacy. A fallacious premise can lead to fallacious conclusions, as, I submit, Buzzcut illustrates.
Here’s another example:
Major premise: Socialsts hold that workers should jointly own their means of production.
Minor premise: Buzzcut is a socialist.
Conclusion: Buzzcut holds that workers should jointly own their means of production.
This argument is structurally iron-clad. I trust that it doesn’t take a genius to find the flaw in it. Buzzcut might be so generous as to offer that even a black person could identify it. :-/
Correction: I misapplied the term modus ponens above.
A modus ponens argument takes the form:
1. If A, then B.
2. A.
:. B.
My examples could easily be re-constructed in that form; “If Michelle Obama is a black person, …”, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. :)
You made my point for me:
IF you can do all of those things, then yes, poverty rate is negligible.
In the town I grew up in, there where like two people that were not lilly white. When it came to someone’s chances of “success”, the amount of wealth in the family seemed to be the deciding factor.
The wealthy familes often had a parent that stayed home. Grades were better, and teen pregnacy was lower. In the poorer famlies, many were single parent. The police would visit those houses frequently to deal with the parents. Little suprise that later they would be arresting the children.
Since we agree poverty is bad, can you please fill me in on what the “root cause of poverty in the 21st Century” is?
I thought it was by-product of a capitalist system, and the only place you could see poverty elminated is in a PURE communist system where even the ruler is given the same ration of funds that everyone else is.
I’d be glad to hear your thoughts on that.
Wow, nevermind my post. Branden wins this thread.
Guess I’ll shuffle off and go debate the proper place of Windows Vista on Slashdot…
Blacks have always lived in Black areas and Whites in White areas in the USA. It’s been also true that poor Whites have lived in different areas from poor Blacks.Blacks were always easy to ignore as long as they stayed in their neighborhoods.I remember the first days of integrating schools and I was in high school the same time high school in Little Rock was being forceably integrated,so I had an early awareness of what was going on.Every day the troopers took the Black kids to school through taunting Whites. After that the integration marches started all over the South.It must have been similar to the opening up of Japan to the rest of the world in the 19th century!
Later,as an adult, I rented in France in public housing called HLM.I was astounded that everyone was assigned where to live. I lived with all different races and all these different race children played together in the play ground,and there seemed to be no racial tension.At the time, I took pictures because I knew people in the states wouldn’t believe it.
My point is that race treatment is historic and cultural,and there is no inherent difference in anybody y based on race.We in the USA have made race the issue, and now we have to deal with it.
That being said,the French are having new problems with Islamics wanting to do away with French secular law and follow Islamic law in the Parisian Islamic suburbs,and other cities in France. But if you ask the French about it, they would say that Islam has islolated itself willigly,now they don’t want to follow French secular law and that’s a very emotional issue for the French ,but they consider it a religious problem, not a race problem.
Busing and integration were well-meaning at the time and seemed the most logical solution to Black isolation,but we were never ever able to solve the isolation of Blacks in housing until very recent times, but it’s still very uneven progress across the country.IMO, segregated housing patterns have undermined integration. And kids still go to school where they live,and no wants their kids bussed.That experiment is dead.
IF you can do all of those things, then yes, poverty rate is negligible
So what’s the problem? We agree. Yes?
If you bring me a poor person, and they’re not doing these three things, I say to that person, do these three things, and you’ll get out of poverty.
My job is done! Simple, huh?
Sad thing is, we don’t even tell poor people to do these things.
Hey, T, people come from third world countries, from situations just as bad as African Americans have had historically (think untouchables in India) and make it in America in one generation, at most two. 40 years, at most. And often they don’t even speak English when they come here.
This is a pretty amazing country, I have to just say it again.
T, if you think “Stop Snitchin'” is something I just made up, you must be daft. IT HAS ITS OWN WIKIPEDIA PAGE!!! Did I make that up?
Come on, dude. This is a major reason that the Gary PD can’t close out murders. People KNOW who did the murder, they just refuse to come forward and snitch.
If you’re interested, the phenomenon is documented here.
One more thing: the economic statistics of African Americans were improving faster in the 20 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1965 than the 20 years after, and those statistics have not budged in the last 20 years.
The legacy of Jim Crow and Slavery are NOT the cause of the African American underclass.
Correction: I misapplied the term modus ponens above
Hey Brendan, have you seen this website? Check it out and let me know how many of the 75 points apply to you.
Buzzcut,
I’ll interpret that as a forfeit, given that you’re evidently not willing to do even light lifting on your own behalf.
Buzzcut: I’m African-American–surprise! My gravatar is not a picture of myself. I passed the bar exam on the first–and obviously only– attempt.
Just so you know, there are plenty of smart black people who earn their degrees, grades, accolades, high-falutin’ jobs, etc. by meeting and/or surpassing the same standards that whites are allegedly held to. Sorry to disabuse you of whatever fantasies you may have had about minorities getting ahead without having earned their way. And that’s about as nice as I can be to you.
Indians, Filipinos, etc., were not held in this country as property for centuries. Blacks freed from slavery were poor, and there were millions of them at once taking up residence in areas that by definition because poor areas. Then another century of legal and societal discrimination.
Indians, Filipinos, etc., usually were not in an underclass in their countries before coming here. They also came in smaller numbers, and being of some means often didn’t end up in the poorest areas, with the poorest schools, the highest crime, etc. The did not enter a country with centuries of history of mistreatment of their specific race.
Other than those those few points, there’s no difference I’m sure.
T,
Actually, Native Americans would seem to have a claim to pretty serious mistreatment, and we also see many of the negative aspects that Buzzcut identifies as characteristic of “Black culture” in Native American societies.
But Native Americans are largely off the national political radar. I think this in large part because there are so few of them left. The Black community was able to stagger on, wounded, after such glorious, All-American efforts as COINTELPRO and the Chicago Police Department’s assassination of Fred Hampton, but it’s not clear to be that Native Americans in the U.S. have really recovered from similar efforts aimed at Leonard Peltier.
(If Michelle Obama has had trouble being proud of America in the course of her lifetime, it may be due to stellar instances of good government like those mentioned in the previous paragraph. Apparently it’s such a chore to carry the White Man’s Burden that knowledge of such things cannot be retained in the Caucasian brain. Even if I personally am a counterexample to this hypothesis, Buzzcut clearly isn’t, and by his rules of logic, that is enough to condemn my entire race.)
Sorry to disabuse you of whatever fantasies you may have had about minorities getting ahead without having earned their way.
What is your interpretation to the differential in bar exam pass rates between the races?
Indians, Filipinos, etc., usually were not in an underclass in their countries before coming here.
Um, are you familliar with this?
The Indians INVENTED the underclass!
and being of some means often didn’t end up in the poorest areas, with the poorest schools, the highest crime, etc.
I guess you’ve never been to a “convienence store” in Gary. What little commerce is done in Gary is pretty much Indian/ Arab/ Pakistaini/ other ethnnicity owned and operated. Being as Gary is pretty much the poorest community in Indiana, that would make your statement… wrong?
I’ll interpret that as a forfeit, given that you’re evidently not willing to do even light lifting on your own behalf.
You didn’t answer my question. How many of the 75 points apply? #62, certainly. #8, undoubtedly.
If Michelle Obama has had trouble being proud of America in the course of her lifetime, it may be due to stellar instances of good government like those mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Come on, dude, listen to yourself? Michelle said “her adult life”. The two things you referenced happened in 1969 and 1975. Maybe Michelle Obama doesn’t even know who those people are. In any case, those incidents did not occur during her adult life.
Neither Hampton or Peltier have anything to do with anything in the real world. In the world of leftwing conspiracy nuts, well, not even then.