This comment by Loonyblitz is typical white racist stupidity. Again, no one has been able to point out even ONE case where a lost election resulted in a riot in a black community. I can point out many historical cases going back to at least Reconstruction of WHITE mass violence to either prevent an election (or at least exercise of voting rights by Blacks) or to nullify the results.
Frankly, I thimk you racists are projecting your savagery onto us.
In all cases of Black insurgent violence, the provocation was always WHITE violence, police repression, and judicial exoneration of scumbags guilty of violence against Blacks.
The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, arguably the most esteemed leader of the Black freedom Movement, was an act of violence against the Black community.
And many within the Black community responded with rioting. And after several long hot summers, from Watts in 1965 to Detroit and Newark in 1967 (each of which was provoked by white police violence), a person in 1968 would have had to be RETARDED to be surprised that King's murder wouldn't provoke a VIOLENT reaction in ghettoes across America.
This just doesn't compare to a lost election.
About the only way I can imagine Black rioting breaking out in connection with Obama losing the election is that there would have to be accompanying police violence (perhaps connected with enforcement of new stringent voting laws in some states), and perhaps with the courts exonerating the cops.
But if it's just a lost election rioting is extremely unlikely. If Walter Williams were honest or better informed, he'd know that.
Considering that there have been more threats against Obama's life than the lives of any previous presidents, it's probably more reasonably to cast a suspicious eye elsewhere.
And I seem to recall that recently some white supremacists were arrested for plotting (and arming for)--not just chattering about--assassinating Barack Obama.
Again, white paranoia is the primary reason why some fear Black rioting in the event Obama loses the election.
After all, there has been NO Black rioting in reply to any other election loss.
Again, if someone SHOOTS Obama then all bets are off. But a riot because he loses an election?
Again, this is probably just the vain imaginings of the paranoid mind of right wing white America.
I thought there were to be no links in this thread.
Because Black people have been stating that they will riot.
New Threats to Riot if Obama Loses Election
And after the events surrounding the Martin cases, the potential for violence/rioting is being taken seriously. Especially, should there be any talk of "stealing" the election.
I trust that people don't riot in that there will be no Rodney King riots part 2 in that any public disorder will be immediately shut down.
At any rate, that's an obscure report from a obscure source. If Black people were talking about rioting in the event of Obama losing the election, I would have HEARD about it by now. I am a part of the Black community myself.
At any rate, there are NO examples that I know of in which rioting broke out in AA communities because of the unhappy election outcome.
If you look at the historical record of such rioting as has happened, it almost always happened in reaction to police brutality or judicial exoneration of racist police brutality. The 1968 riots were somewhat different in origin since it was in reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rioting because of an election outcome? I know of NO examples of this.
It sounds like the delusional imaginings of a paranoid white mind.
America has what some of us leftists call a plutocratic republic or class elitist democracy, and what some (especially some Marxists) call a bourgeois democracy.
lol...too bad the presidential debates don't...
Inadequate as it is this form of democracy is preferable to any kind of dictatorship.
What's UNDEMOCRATIC about presidential debates(and our political life as a whole) is that people outside the two corporate dominated parties are excluded from the debate.
This is an example of why we often say that the plutocratic republic (or bourgeois democracy), though better than an outright autocracy, is still not a GENUINE democracy. It's a disguised autocracy with some allowed
Republicans quashed Ron Paul--whom I also opposed. But quashing him is wrong. Demccrats excluded progressives who are more than center-left. Jill Stein of the Green Party is excluded. The Labor Party was also excluded from public discourse and relegated to the margins.
It is this plutocratic bias (which is probably today stronger than the eexist or racist bias) which makes a mockery of democracy in our so-called democratic republic.
America must eventually undergo a FUNDAMENTAL democratization of her entire political and life, or undergo a retrograde deterioriation resulting in an undisguised autocracy and the loss of whatever civil freedoms still exist.
Note by Me: I don't agree with calling someone a miscreant, but I get the rest of the point.
1 day ago
Unfortunately, all too many of the poor white majority in the South sided with the slaveholding planters--an elite that also oppressed them (though in a less direct and brutal manner than the oppression of the slaves)My family has a long history in the "Confederate states". None ever had slaves- at least none that has been found through vast document research, wills, a huge amount of letters, personal diaries, etc. I wish there had never been slavery here. I wish that the 70-80% of Southerners who didn't have slaves would have turned on the 20-30% of Southerners who had slaves and demanded the US government take them to DC and make homes for them in that area- because DC was the one who legalized it in the first place for about 90 years and England in the Colonies before that. Then, after returning the slaves to the north the majority of Southern people would have still wanted to secede because of taxes and oppressive government policies and there would have still been a war.
To this day the backwardness of the white South, the political immaturity of most whites, is due to the system of slavery and the racial caste system that followed.
That Blacks were oppresed in the North as well as South, before and after slavery, is OLD NEWS to most of us Blacks. The foundation of that oppression was a racial caste system rooted in slavery which generated a culture of racism on a national scale.
No, for the North was also implicated in slavery. Though slavery was not as deeply rooted in the North as in the South, the North for a long time benefitted from slavery. The commercial capitalist interests in the North (and UK) benefitted from the trade in slaves, and from profits created by slave labor which helped to launch the industrial revolution.(Take a look at Eric Willaims' CAPITALISM AND SLAVERY).
That is for those who hold up all Southerners to be total demons/"Medieval rednecks" regarding this subject and all Northerners to be total heroes/advanced moral geniuses.
The irony is that once the industrial revolution took off, industrial and manufacturing interests came increasingly into sharp conflict with agrarian interests in the South.
That conflict created space for Abolitiionists to become more effective in the 19th Century than they ever previously.
But by that time racism throughly polluted the North as well. The North ended slavery earlier because its economic history took a different turn than in the South. But there was (and is) Northern as well as Southern racism, only in the South it has been more blatant, often taking on protofascistic forms.
The only prohlem with making up a lie about being a Harvard graduate is that to teach at the university level you must supply an OFFICIAL transcript. And Barack Obama taught a number of years at the Univerity of Chicago.
Never said that, post a link not a lie.
No it doesn't, anyone can make up a lie about them being a Harvard graduate. I can tell you are a typical liar Obama voter, with an average IQ. Wouldn't surprise me if you were a member of the racist New Black Panther Party.
I teach at the university level myself. I've taught in a number of university in the northeast, southeast and southwest. I've never encountered a university that didn't require you transcript which would include the award of your Ph.D. and a records of classes taken and grades received.
If you wan to believe the myth that Obama faked his education and /or citizenship, don't be surprised if INTELLIGENT citizens regard you as a doufus.
I know what I wished had happened. I wish that the masses of poor whites had been more perceptive than they were. The landed gentry began creating the racial caste system in the 1600s not only to assure themselves a supply of cheap labor, slave labor. They also created this system to DIVIDE African slaves, exploited poor whites and Indians (marked for extermination) to prevent an alliance of the dispossessed---the 99%--against the ruling elite.
Do you think if the south had freed the slaves earlier (which I wish they had) nothing would have led people to secede? You do know it had been talked about for a while- and for different reasons?
Had the elite failed to dupe the poor whites, the dispossessed may have united to topple the elite. And we'd have a different kind of America today. Take a look at Howard Zinn's A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. Before the invention of race, before the institutionalization of racism, there numerous indications that the dispossessed might unite. There beginnings of a movement in that direction.
The gentry aborted this progressive democratic development by means of racism.
It is largely because of racism that America is even today perhaps the least progressive, least egalitarian and most underdeveloped (politically & socially) of all the industrially advanced nations.
The stupidity of an OhReally or a Max or Lunarblitz has historical-social roots.
The triumph of democracy and humanism in America depends on whether the American people can overcome our debilitating legacy of racism and begin a NEW history of America, and help create a new history of humankind.
Will America rise to the challenge before it is too late?
Yes, Savant is a democratic socialist. As was Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Rosa Luxemburg, A. Phillip Randolph, Wendell Phillips, George Orwell, Albert Camus, Erich Fromm and innumerale other luminaries and humanists.
And I'm proud of it.
But in the present context, what's important is that I know how to engage in rational discourse. Hopefully, one day you will learn this as well.