Why are we white people so angry?

[bluedawg12]

Why are we white people so angry?

For pete’s sake we need intensive daily psychotherapy.

Was gammy’s trust fund too small?

You didn’t get into the Ivy League school of your first choice?

Bob is a still a junior VP at the brokerage firm?

Mom had to cut the trip to the Hamptoms short because she made managing partner at the law firm and she is simply buried under work, dahling?

Dan’s Beemer is the wrong shade of blue? drat! Double drat!

Passed over for skull and bones, again? So sad.


The strap on your Blahniks broke? Your Vuitton has a broken zippr, ah my dear, you are suffering like a saint.

Is it so hard being the ruling class and race in the greatest and wealthiest nation on the planet, finding a good nanny is such a drudge and the town house is positively too small, we need a week-end home on the lake.

We white people have so much suffering, by way of our degraded class, and disrespected status, no one of the plebs remember how to treat their betters.

Seriously, where do the mAnn KKKultures, and Don I-mess’s and Fat Limpbags get off with their venom and hate? How have they earned the same right for venom and anger and anarchy as say an oppressed Russian peasant under the czar?

Michael Screaming meemie- sauvage-ugly little hairy scrotum faced troll of a man, the sad bag of regularly scheduled verbal flatus and anal wisdom where does this privileged prick get off with his rants?

Michelle Malkill- what makes that ego driven, mirror loving, tonsil voiced munchkin so angry?

What is up with all these angry white people? And now recovering, watery eyed, cries on a dime, Glenn Beck also entering the fray?

Where did the left go wrong?


Did progressives ask too much?

Civil rights?
Women’s rights?
Animal rights
Ecology
PC speech
Gay rights

Did our progressive attempt at a decade of “LOVE” and “Unity” put them over the edge.

What makes these @ss holes so f##kng self righteous?

Is it their wounds from life’s battles?

Show me your wounds you sons and daughters of privilege or otherwise turn in your mikes and high profile well paid jobs and just shut up and fade away.


Honsetly does anyone know? Do the angry white folk even know?

[Syrinx]

1. I'm white and I'm angry because...

George W. Bush is still the goddamn president.

And, last time I looked Michelle Malkin wasn't "white."

[Karenina]

18. I hope BD12 will correct me if I'm wrong...

but I read his "we" as though he were speaking as a member of the highly paid, widely broadcast hatemongers club. I didn't interpret it as talking about white people in general, rather a very specific group of white people. Framed thusly, it's an interesting question.

[bluedawg12]

23. Thank you Karenina- well said.

I think you said it a heck of a lot better than I did.

I should know better, irony, and sarcasm do not translate well into written text on the inter net.

The "we" I was referring to was just as you said.

The right wing media hate machine that kicks into attack mode anytime someone on the left makes a mis-step and into full protection riot gear anytime some one on the right screws up -as happened with the shock jock.

I recently listened to the inter net hate experienced by women who post political blogs. they are not challenged on ideas, they are attacked in a vicious and sexual manner.

I heard the "fag" comment made recently in a very public forum about Edwards and was appalled at the snickers and guffaws from the well healed audience.

I have listened to more than I care to recall, from the right, truly vile speech and it has gone by unremarked.

Think of the right wing media machine and the majority are aggrieved white folk playing on homophobia, nationalism and patriotism, fear of change, and underneath it as a subtext, every once in a while racism rears it's ugly head, as did last week with the aged jock, and a series of truly despicable comments were made that for once did not slip by and he was called on it.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. You confuse skin color with power

While most of the powerful in this country are white, the vast majority of whites are no more among the powerful than anyone else. Watch who you paint with that broad brush.

As for your list of things progressives want, chuck the animal rights and PC speech nonsense, and you might have a chance at a quorum.

[Big Pappa]

3. Dude

it's time to go to bed. Ok?

[Bicoastal]

4. Um, this is just poorly worded.

I understand what you're trying to say about the "angry white male" complex, but the hyperbole of your opening statements should be toned down a bit. You're making it sound like you believe every Caucasian American is a member of the idle rich, and I'm sure that's not the case.

Ruling class? Feh! The only ruling class in this country are the rich, and while the majority of those people are white, the majority of WHITE people are nowhere near the preppy stereotypes you drudge up. Neither, I'm guessing, are most of the angry white men who watch Fox on a daily basis and boo when the names of Jackson and Sharpton are mentioned.

[izzie]

5. Off hand I would say because we see the days of this going

the days of being the elite. When 5 percent of the pop. of the world who are white have to start sharing it with the rest of the pop. you can be sure that small elite group will not go up but will become more like the rest of the have very little of this world. That small percent of the pop, now has its own elite usually white even richer and more powerful rulers. Most of us angry people are in the Middle and going down. No one likes it.It is almost like a Middle age thing with a royalty class coming back and every one else moves down. And this even richer white class seem to be buying their way in and not always with talent. Look at who is running the country. Not a happy thing to see happen in a country that is bases on self rule and being able to move up a social scale with work and education.

[sandnsea]

6. Huh?

Most white people I know don't even know anybody who went to an Ivy League School and gammy left them a funeral bill. Most white people worked as hard for nothing as anybody else and resent the hell out of the kinds of implications you just made in your post.

Having said that, there are white people who need to realize that as hard as it is for them, it's even harder for minorities and that that's largely true due to white people.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. While most rich people are white....

... most white people aren't rich. I'm white and I can assure you I don't have a trust fund, don't know anyone who has a home in the Hamptons, and no one in my family is a corporate VP or owns a luxury car. Don't you think it's a little silly to assume that all white people identify with the monied aristocracy?

Also, Michelle Malkin is Asian, not white.

[xchrom]

8. see this is why i'm a PC advocate --

i don't think imus should have said ''nappy headed hos'' -- and i certainly don't think you should use the term Mann KKKulture to refer to ann what's her name.

i think everybody on both sides is getting their racism on -- their sexism on -- what ever -- and it's not ok.

but what we'll see hear are hysterical protests of it's about the hypocricy -- or some such nonsense.

what i see is that we've brought back the language of racism, we've brought back the culture of sexism -- and where does it stop?

[DemBones DemBones]

11. I agree, DUers should stop referring to Ann Coulter

as "MAnn" or "Mann KKKulture," which I haven't seen before, or discussing her looks. Focus on the hate she spews rather than on her appearance, and don't suggest she has anything to do with the Klan when there's no proof of that. Talk about what she's said that can be documented.

[xchrom]

15. please see my reply #14

[Arkansas Granny]

12. I have to agree with you about the name calling. It's no more

appropriate for one group than it is for others. It is really disappointing to see that some of the progress we've made in the last few decades is being eroded by some who would use those issues to try to drive a wedge between Americans once again by using hate as a tool. It's also disappointing to see that their tactics are working.

[xchrom]

14. we have to decide if language really matters.

we live in an age where the ''picture'' -- ''image'' has become more important than language.

we are really stuck -- people equate being language appropriate with infringement on their individualism.

libertarianism becomes a cry for self attention -- self expression -- WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING the power of language.

this is a deep subject that weill get short shrift at DU.

and that's too bad.

[bluedawg12]

24. Language does matter and if it matters to you

then I hope you were as conscience driven to speak out when right wing media hired attack people claimed that those who oppose the current adminstration's policy in the war as "aiding and abetting the enemy."

I hope that the very sensibilty regarding the $10,000/speech right wing blond liberal-hater was aroused when she called John Edwards a "fag" at a Repug fund raiser.

I hope that you reject loudly the important words that further divide this nation, when the self proclaimed cultural warrior peddles his venom and his book.

I hope that you are alway as incensed with their vile speech as you were at my clumsy attempt at irony.

[bluedawg12]

50. Language matters greatly,it is the tone of civil society.

The right tries to ridicule us for being thought police when we decry and denounce hate speech or un-PC speech

But hate words, The J word, The F word, the N word, The D word etc etc all impact the victim and can shake a young person the core.

We don't want self hating victimized folk-we want strong proud kids and adults.

Here is an example of hate speech:

See what you think:

April 10, 2007

The “H” word again:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

Limbaugh called alleged Duke rape victim a "ho]"
.......................
“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264646,00.html

NEW YORK — Syndicated talk-radio personality Don Imus apologized Friday for calling members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" during a segment yesterday in his "Imus in the Morning" show.

...Rosenberg was twice fired from the Imus show, once for racist comments about Serena and Venus Williams, and again for remarks about singer Kylie Minogue, who was battling breast cancer.

"She won't look so pretty when she's bald with one ," Rosenberg said on air.

Each time, Imus rehired Rosenberg following on-air apologies.”
......................

About the Duke case- look here and you see the tie and code-gay rights, womens rights all considered by the RW as special interest groups getting special privileges rather than human right activism:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011507/content/truth_detector.guest.html

“What happened at that campus with those three guys? They were walking through campus after this all happened with big banners saying castrate them, suspend them, expel them or what have you. Can you imagine if anybody had done that with a group of gay students or female students or whatever? This was all tolerated. You know, so of course I'm not surprised you're going to have some lunatic show up on Martin Luther King Day doing a little convocation here on feminism and the civil rights movement and what have you..”

.............

Imus' McGuirk on "young colored fellah" Obama "pretty much deckin' the old bag from New York"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160007

.............

He's back? Rosenberg alluded to previous racially insensitive remarks that first got him fired from Imus
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703280001
.................

On Imus, McGuirk said that "bitch" Clinton will "have cornrows and gold teeth"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703070009
...........
Imus: "t was Bernard who said, 'Besa mi culo' ... not me"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090002

it was Bernard who said, 'Besa mi culo ... Gordo, not me." The phrase loosely translates to "kiss my ass, fat one," in Spanish. As Media Matters for America noted at the time, however, Imus echoed McGuirk
.........

Imus producer referred to Obama's "Jew-hating name"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020009
..........

MSNBC's Imus referred to "Jewish management" of CBS Radio as "money-grubbing bastards"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612080006
...............

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/10/gay_couples_see.html
October 27, 2006
Talk Show Host: Gay Couples Seeking Marriage Actually Hate Marriage – And God
.........
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=3157

OP-ED: REPUBLICAN ATTACK DOGS
Correspondents covering President Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama would write about how sex and/or race impacts certain decisions. Op-Ed articles would second-guess as to whether or not Clinton or Obama were pandering to certain constituencies. Reporters would also watch very closely to see how leaders of foreign countries react to a female or African American Commander in Chief.


Once the Republicans controlled the House and Senate in 1994, they kept independent prosecutors investigating the Clintons. From Whitewater in 1994, to Travelgate, Paula Jones, campaign finance and finally, Monica Lewinsky, Republicans used the independent prosecutor to create an air of distrust between the Clinton White House and the American people. While the Clintons were never found guilty of any allegations leveled against them, the strategy worked in large part.


Senator Barack Obama’s campaign was an unexpected bonus for the Republicans. As much as the United States likes to think of itself as color blind, it most certainly is not. Republicans know this and won’t hesitate to play the race card as they did with Congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee in the 2006 mid-term election. Republicans have a history of using race when they need to pull out a close race (see Southern Strategy).
..........


http://mediamatters.org/items/200704060010
>>On Fox, Hannity, North, and Coulter baselessly attacked Pelosi over Syria trip

In the April 4 segment -- which was accompanied by on-screen text that read "Damascus Diva" --

During the interview, Coulter agreed with Hannity's
"The one person who's happy is Cindy Sheehan, since there's now one person even less sophisticated in foreign policy."

Coulter also implied that Pelosi never mentioned the topic of women's rights during her trip to the Middle East.

She said, "I think it would have been good if Nancy Pelosi had mentioned something about women's rights," adding, "but I do think she looked cute in that burqa."<<
........

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703120010

Citing reader support, several papers will keep publishing Coulter.

To date, eight newspapers have dropped Coulter's column since her March 2 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which she referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."

[MistressOverdone]

40. Indeed, granny

this is rather unfortunate wording. If it was about black folks, fried chicken, watermelon and tap dancing, it would be more easily recognized. The folks in the example are a fringe element. All cultural groups have them and smearing the whole lot of the group with their characteristics is the same old same old, different page of the book.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. I think I understand what you're saying although your references to

trust funds and Ivy League colleges, etc. are far from the norm for white people. You are asking, if I understand you correctly why there are so many angry whites eager to bring down minorities, not realizing the advantages they have had due to their ancestry and skin color. The right wing commentators argue against affirmative action, not seeing why it was, and may still be, necessary. Should it stop at some point? Sure. Are we there yet? Probably not.

Are many white people harmed by affirmative action? Don't think so. If a white man doesn't get into college or med school, etc., but a black person, or a woman does get in with slightly lower grades or SATs. MCATs, etc., it has to be considered that the white male had the deck stacked in his favor, yet was at the bottom of the pool of white male applicants, i.e., he didn't make the cut. Chances are good that the person who "takes his place" has worked harder to get there and will continue working harder.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. I understand you completely.

Too many anglo Americans I know feel they have the right of way on the road to success, and this belief gets reinforced because most successful people they know, happen to be white. It's the keeping up with the Joneses thingie.

Methinks the problem is that we define "success" too narrowly in this country, and there is just not enough pie out there for everyone to have a good taste. So, those who do get to the table first, may get bigger pieces, but they have to gobble it down so fast, that they hardly get to enjoy the taste of it themselves.

I think it would be best, if America opens up the menu and just lets people grow their own victory gardens.

And that's it for metaphors, for one day.

[applegrove]

13. If you have to ask, you don't know. Things are being done in your name

in Iraq... a slow war for instance...and you got fooled into it. Try that for starters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. You could sit me on a golden throne in a palace or rubies

and stupidity would still make me angry.

Yours is a prime example, I'm afraid.

[Marrah_G]

17. I'm white and I'm not generally angry

Until I see asshole posts suggesting that somehow all white people are wealthy, selfish and egotistical.

I am as white as they come, practically fucking transparent. I am also a single, divorced, mother of three teenagers that I am raising completely on my own. I work hard, I make barely enough to pay the bills, my kids didn't even have Yule (christmas) presents this year. Thankfully I have good, kind, understanding children. If they were upset they didn't show it.

I can't remember the last time I bought myself an article of clothing.

So spare me the posts lumping all white people into the same spoiled upper-middle class basket.

Privilege?

Lack of Wounds?

OH. FUCKING. PLEASE.

Edit: spell check is my friend.

[bluedawg12]

26. Marrah_G: If language matters then:

Please spare me the terms:

"asshole posts"

"OH. FUCKING. PLEASE."

Then, go back a read Karenina's reply, that DU'er understands what I was saying and did not have a knee jerk reaction after mis-reading what I wrote.

I may not be getting a literary prize but at least I am trying to make a point, take a stand and matter.

Sorry if it was convoluted.

[Marrah_G]

29. I didn't mis-read anything

Your post was VERY badly written, seeing that now you should realize why we have reacted the way we have, it was not a knee-jerk reaction. It was a reaction to a very racist post.

What you wrote did not match what you were trying to say. I reacted to what you wrote. I would react in exactly the same way if I were to read it again. I think perhaps what you should do is ask that they delete your post so you can re-write what it was that you had intended to say in the first place. I would bet people will react very differently.

:)

[bluedawg12]

34. Are you advocating censorship?

I already admitted I wrote this badly- that is clear from the reaction.

I don't mind if they delete this post.

It's was just an opinion badly framed but the opinion is the same about the right wing elite media-and the names that come to mind are Caucasian, like me, and the slur by the shock jock offended me and I can only speak for myself about how I feel about that comment.

It has made me very angry because of it's intrinsic unfariness and mixed message for young women of color, of any color or no color. Broadly speaking it sends a message to all women: stay in your place. It sets a double standard.

As far as re-writing this, geez, I am not certain I want to open this can of worms again. I am no literary genius and the second time around me be worse yet.

:-)

[Marrah_G]

35. No No!

I am not trying to muzzle you. I am simply saying that you should re-write what you truly meant, because I thought it wasn't a bad point.

Your original post was just way over the top. Re-write it or not, it's your choice. I just thought others who maybe passed by this thread because of the first post might be interested in seeing what you really were trying to say.

[bluedawg12]

39. Marrah_G: I know you are not muzzling me and I thank you

for encouraging me to re-write it.

I was just trying to see if I could get this thread deleted. It has taken up alot of my work day already and maybe another time I can get my ideas across in a better way. We'll see.

I think there is something for me to learn in the reaction I got because I really didn't expect it.

You know, I am and was upset by Imus' comments and found them hurtful to the women and very unfair.

If I can get this pup removed I will and maybe try to say things better.

Thank you.

Bluedawg12

[bluedawg12]

41. Please delete this thread.

Dear Moderators- please delete this thread, if you can.

I have miss stated my point of view and I have achieved the opposite affect of what I intended.

Instead of raising a point of discussion or awareness of an issue it has become far too divisive and it is counter productive to be of benefit to this forum.

I hope you can do this and I hope this is the way to notify you.

I have never asked to have a thread deleted before so I hope this is the proper means.

Thank you.

Bluedawg12

[Marrah_G]

45. what he said was very nasty and says more about himself then those young women

I think he will lose alot of listeners over this.

Good luck with your re-write!

:hug:

[bluedawg12]

19. Now I understand.

I concede this was poorly worded.

I was being ironic.

Of course "all" white people aren’t angry.

And, no, most, I repeat most white people aren’t worried about trust funds, they are worried about maintaining themselves and their families, paying the bills and surviving as two members of the household must go out and work to make ends meet.

But, those folks aren’t being spoken for, by the angry RW chattering class.

Of course it’s not a matter of skin pigment, but it is a matter of historical fact about which class of people have had the most power in the US.

That class has donned the mantle of self righteous moral indignation and more and more apparent anger, sham or otherwise, it is pervasive.

It is a very calculated and cynical political strategy that has been used to divide the nation in order to gain and maintain power.

I was referring to members of the RW chattering class that I have heard for many years, using very public forums and very public airways filling the ether with their venom and spewing hate.

Like what?

I recall the self righteous vitriol from right wingers appearing daily and hourly on TV denouncing then Pres. Clinton, only to learn that at the very same moment some with the loudest voices were themselves embroiled in adultery or had been. Remember Hyde, Livingstone, and Newt?

What else?

You say drop PC speech and animals rights as part of my example of the angry rant from the right?

No matter whether progressives do or don’t chuck them, we have been saddled with them and ridiculed as tree huggers. To this very day, when pundits talk about Al Gore they tend to drag out old lies about him, attack his weight and attempt to discredit his ideas about global climate change by attacking him as a man.

You drop animal rights. I won’t. You and the right can equate me with the label of protecting the spotted owl, but the fact is that animals in nature are sentinels for the health of the environment and a reflection of ecology.

No I will not mention these people by name. But, the radio and TV pundits abound.

They make fun of, demean, and in so doing on a daily basis deligitimize progressive causes reducing them to a punch line.

The comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team was not the beginning of the story, it far down the line of punch lines and gags about progressives and progressive issues and it is emblematic of the angry RW voices without a cause that use hyped up “cultural wars” to maintain political power by constantly imbuing their ideology into the public consciousness.

Of course not every single white person male or female is an Ivy league legacy case, nor wealthy- that was my point. The ones in power, the ones who have made it are crying the loudest and about what?

Name calling is in bad taste?

So is calling a presidential candidate at a major opposing party political fund raising event a faggot.

Name calling is in bad taste?

So is miming a man who has Parkinson’s disease and attempting to make a difference, like Michael J. Fox was, and then parodying him like a marionette with a herky jerky motions. THAT was disturbing and distasteful.

So are the angry statements about the women’s movement and feminists in general by professional female right wing political shills.

What is it the makes the RW so angry that they attack Hillary on a personal level and use her to bait the base into giving more money by showing her pictures?

What is it that makes right wingers feel that they can attack Nancy Pelosi as a person, about her voice or some personal characteristic rather than her ideas?

Maybe I am still not explaining this too well, maybe it’s because I feel it in the gut.

Here’s what I know.

When society sets standards, such as: get an education, defer child bearing until you are ready and able to raise and nurture your kids, participate in sports for a strong mind and a strong body and when a group of young women of color actually succeed in doing just what society holds up as a gold standard they are dragged down publicly and humiliated and be reduced to a racial stereotype and a sexual stereotype by some loud mouth boor.

You bet I am angry.

I am white and I am angry.

No I don’t have a trust fund.
No I am not Ivy league.

And no, they don’t represent me, those wealthy white folks with the power of the microphone, who think that calling others “faggots” and spewing hate about women in politics, is an acceptable substitute for discussing the ideas of those women in politics, who think that throw away lines about the Williams sisters being “beasts” is jocular, and who think nothing of casually referring to young collegiate female athletes in a racially and sexually demeaning manner.

I have listened to the radio shock jock in question, he is on MSNBC as I get ready for work in the early morning. Funny, I have wondered how he gets away with his vile coarseness and often change the station, about a week before this last bit of ugliness hit the fan I heard something, really don’t even remember what it was, I just know I thought this is pathetic and vulgar and ugly and I realized that this is his daily modus operandi and switched channels deciding I would never listen to him again- and then the Rutgers thing came up. That guy is out of control and has a pattern of similar behavior and should retire.

As I started out with the hyperbole. “Why are we white people so angry,” I was trying, in my clumsy way, to point out that we didn’t have as much to be angry about, as those on the right who feed off misplaced anger make us believe.

And the real issues that we are angry about, they either misdirect their audience or spin the truth or fall back on cheap bigoted words to rally their supporters.

Ever wonder who that DJ is playing to?
Who is his audience?
How will they vote?
Do they get all their news from this old man?
Scary- but that is power.

But, there is much to be angry about and it is not what the professional anger peddlers on the RW have us believe is at issue.

If nothing else, now I know why I am angry.

[BlameCanada12]

20. Absolutely the most RACIST post I've ever seen here.

and I've lurked for many years. This is disgusting and if the race in this pile of garbage was anything other then white, it would have been dealt with. Words can't express how outraged I am by this. To think all white people have trust funds - fuck you pal. I've seen the gov't come and take my parent's land, and everything we owned except the shirts off our backs - fuck you.

[bluedawg12]

22. they don’t speak for “we.” Do they?

I guess I should have just dropped the irony and asked: why are white right wing commentators so angry?

I used “we” as irony.

Because they don’t speak for “we.” Do they?

What I thought might be the reply from my fellow mates on DU is the answer: we are not angry about what those people constantly beat the drums about- our issues are the ones they attack- and they, in a position of power and wealth have little to complain about and are not down trodden and not the victims of cultural wars and a declining society of due to permissiveness from progressives, so no, we can't explain why they seem so angry- but they do and they are many and they are part of a ruling class who has historically not been victimized.

I made a distinction about the angry right wing white commentators who have little to be angry about the particular issues they actually harp on.

Yes, there is much to be angry about- but not among them are: left wing Hollywood, women’s right’s, the war, the economy, racism, gay rights, health care, the environment.

Yet, that is what THEY attack.

The words about the women basketball players slipped out like business as usual- just another yuck, another punch line. It was second nature to the speaker and likely accepted by his audience.

I mentioned the RW chattering class as being the aggrieved ones and I listed the topics they are aggrieved about. I pointed out that from their position of privilege and power their mounting rage is questionable.

I expected to get people thinking and not reacting.

I said that the RW anger mongers have little to be angry about from their position of power and yes wealth.

The issues they chronically denounce are actually the issues that impact the average person.

The war in Iraq.
The economy.
Health care.
The educational system.
Etc. Etc.

I asked: did we ask too much of them with our position on human rights (blacks, women, gays).

Did we stress them into the frenzy of anger heard on the most recent comment by the shock jock and also recently witnessed on the encounter between Bill O and Geraldo, when we took a position on climate change, on the war, on any of the issues they constantly attack and demean?

Of course most people of any color are not wealthy. That was the point they, the ones I referred to and their colleagues are in a constant state of anger. Over what? Cultural wars? That is fabrication.

But the ones that cry the loudest about their anger over progressive issues are wealthy and powerful and privileged on the right and what do they complain about- are the very things that matter to the average person of any color.

[primative1]

36. I got the joke immedietly ...

I am shocked anyone had a problem getting it.
Who else hasnt got a clue about how amusing it is that the mantra of "having life dicked" based upon whiteness is allowed to pass.
I'll go one further. White maleness doesnt buy you a broom to push either.
It sucks the same for all of us.
This is class warfare and anyone fanning race, gender, religion or other divides is mearly profiting from distoring reality.
Wake up.

[bluedawg12]

46. primative1- You nailed it. We are being divided

primative1- You nailed it. We are being divided whether we know it or not or want it not.

That is a Rovian principle that he used to gain the WH and to regain the WH and for his plan to have a RW rule for the next 40 years.

They play to their base. And they play rough. The politics is of personal destruction goes back a long time. Even McCain was not spared in 2000.

I saw a documentary from a Va. race with Chuck Robb many years ago. I was shocked that even then they used a slide show of certain "Liber-uhls" to fan the audience into a frenzy of donating money for the RW candidate.

They showed slides of Hilary, Teddy K., and Babs Streisand and it was Pavlovian, the hissing and booing. Now, in 2007 we have become almost immune as a nation until finally the aged shock jock went too far and he was called on it.

[BlameCanada12]

47. I have no idea what you are talking about. It has nothing to

do with my post.

[bluedawg12]

48. BlameCanada12- true it is out of sequence

not sure what happened.

[Javaman]

21. What's this "we" crap?

I'm not angry, in fact I'm pretty happy.

[Sammy Pepys]

25. For one, I'm not upset at all...

For two, why do you assume all of this Beemer/Blahnik/Vuitton stuff is the exclusive domain of white people? Seen a rap video lately?

For three, for someone railing on a group for being "self-righteous", you're treading an awfully fine line yourself on that count.

[bluedawg12]

28. I am tired of the right wing anger machine.

Aren't you?

Did you see the shock jock on Rev. Sharpton's show?

He was aggrieved and angry. Over what?

He was not the aggrieved party.

Yeah, I feel self righteous about this: those young women that were subjected to the vile language and slurs for simply going to college and playing sports were humiliated and "put in their place" by an angry old white man. For what? How dare he?

They should have been praised for their achievements.

This kind of sly, semi-coded, slurring goes on all the time. Sometimes more blatantly than this, sometimes in a much more polished manner. This time it was brought out in the open.

What did that shock jock have to be aggrieved about?

His candidate Rick Santorum wasn't re-elected?

His last pick, John McCain has let him down?

His limo was late?

[Sammy Pepys]

30. "This kind of sly, semi-coded, slurring goes on all the time."

Like in your post about upper-middle class trappings and their inherent "whiteness?"

[bluedawg12]

32. Like I said,

I was trying to use irony and not write an economic screed about the buying habits of various demographics.

Do people other than white people have Beemers. Vuitton, Blahniks, Rolex's?

Of course they do.

What does that have to do with my point? What does that have to do with the fact that I was referring to a specific subset of people, who have media access, who are perpetually angry about society, and yet, they enjoy the fruits of that society and are not disadvantaged, except maybe by their own personal demons, yet, they chose to demean women who have achieved something and they chose to attack issues that promote their view of how society should organize it self?

If every single American owned the trappings of crap that you focus on so intently would that make it better that certain RW hosts claimed that the 9-11 widows used their husbands death for political fame and an agenda?


If every single American owned the trappings of crap that you focus on so intently would that make it better that certain RW hosts claimed that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms of Parkinson's to help elect a dem to the WH?

If every single American owned the trappings of crap that you focus on so intently would that make it better that certain RW hosts and their co-hosts called the Williams sisters beasts and when one appeared in Playboy they commented that these accomplished and talented athletes should have been in National Geographic instead?

If every single American household had the brand names I alluded to, I guess as a metaphor for wealth, in their possession would that ever make up for hurtful personal attacks on them or others, who are the target of a political POV? Doubt it.

Blahniks and Beemers are not a substitute for dignity and respect. Those who have these trappings seem to be crying the loudest and with the angriest voice and I wondered why? Oh wait that's was irony- I mean, I know why- because it suits their poltical purpose!

[Sammy Pepys]

33. It didn't seem to me that any of that stuff had anything to do with your point...

...it was just extraneous stuff for the purposes or ragging on some group or subset or whatever you want to call it. It was wholly unnecessary, and a distraction from what you were trying say.

Just say what you have to say...there's no need to dress it up with "irony".

[bluedawg12]

37. I agree and have said it already this was poorly worded

you all win.

I was wrong and nothing else I have said matters.

[treestar]

27. Do you assume all white people are of the upper class?

That's what it sounds like.

There are plenty of poor white people, in fact, probably more in numbers.

It's these people who fuel the resentment. I'm not angry, but I do run into those who are, and some of this stuff is not helping. If we want less racism, we need a new approach. The majority of whites are not wealthy, and the large white middle class is starting to get alienated because some of this stuff is so absurd. We all know Imus could refer to a group of blondes as bimbos and keep his job.

[bluedawg12]

31. Not anymore than I assume all white people are

right wing media purveyors of hate, anger and disinformation.

Of course there are plenty of poor white people

There are plenty of white people who are not extreme right wing conservatives and those are the people and their ideas who are under constant attack by people who make a handsome living, have trust funds, a house in the Hampton's, while, drumming up cultural issues, wedge issues and pushing the idea of cultural wars and feigning anger.

"some of this stuff is not helping."

No, its not my lame thread hereon DU that has set in motion the decades of divisiveness and wedge issues that have been fanned and nurtured by those who want to rule for the next 40 years.

“We all know Imus could refer to a group of blondes as bimbos and keep his job.”

treestar- that is the point, as well.

Isn’t it time to speak up against calling women Ho’s, bimbo’s, b*tches?

I see far too many ad hominem attacks against Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Clinton attacking their physical characteristics, their voice, their attire and NOT their ideas.

It’s so common now a days for certain factions of the chattering elite to knee jerk attack Barbra Streisand, Oprah, Rosie, Hilary and most recently the misogynistic addition of Speaker Pelosi.

It’s just my opinion, but I don’t see this kind of hissy venom for males unless the right brings up Michael Moore.

This Imus thing is just one in a series of far too many that have crept into the public discourse. But people listen to him, by the millions, his show is now as much about politics as comedy, if not more. Day in day out this guy hammer’s home his so-called populist aggrieved issues, but with a right wing twist. His was not some harmless slip of the tongue- I have heard him, as you point out, demean women and I understand he is known for all kinds of slurs about race and religion.

This is all done in the voice of “the common man,”. The common man does not have a high profile job like his, paying millions and does not ride in limo’s.

[Forkboy]

43. Heh

It’s just my opinion, but I don’t see this kind of hissy venom for males unless the right brings up Michael Moore.

One word.

NADER. :)


Otherwise a great thread. :thumbsup:

[bluedawg12]

44. Forkboy - Thank you! n/t

[treestar]

49. The "ho" part was the bad part, IMO,

"Nappy headed" I don't know, that doesn't really have to be an insult, I would hope, though I guess it implies the nonblacks on the team aren't hos, if there are any, so I guess it is here.

It is true that Speaker Pelosi and Hillary get comments on their outfits that men would never get, both positive and negative. Though I don't see that as much more than an annoyance and is likely to go away one day - we just have to live in our times, so making a big deal of these things makes sense, though just in an answering way, rather than in a punish-them way seems more sensible to me. It's not like Imus will go away either. Where did Rush go when he lost his sportscaster job?

[MistressOverdone]

38. I'm white, my family (with one exception)

is white. I'm sorry, I don't recognized any of the difficulties you mention in the first part of your post. I identify with absolutely none of them. Where are these white people you are talking about? I sure don't know any of them!

[bluedawg12]

42. Please refer to reply #18 Karenina

who explained it better than I could.