reappropriate

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Neo-Nazi March in Ohio turns violent

A Neo-nazi march in Toledo Ohio turned violent today, sparking six arrests. Apparently a white supremacist group consisting of over two dozen members had gathered to march under police protection to protest what they perceived to be harassment of whites by violent black gangs. A group of counter-protesters arrived at the scene, and eventually violence erupted. Details are sketchy, but it sounds like part of the situation included counter-protesters throwing rocks and bottles. I dislike defending nazis and white supremacist thought, and I think the counter-protesters are being portrayed as the instigators of the violence without much of a nod towards how reprehensible it is to demand that a marginalized community tolerate city-sanctioned hate speech against them. Then again, the counter-protesters were not justified in reacting violently. And, the question that has to be asked is whether this country is willing to protect free speech to the point where protecting neo-nazi hatred of people of colour is more important than the response of racial minorities. "Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for initially allowing the march. "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29." What do you think? Should neo-nazi demonstrations be protected under free speech or is there a line that should be drawn in a civilized society against speech that promotes intolerance of others?

36 Comments:

Anonymous James Cape said...

On the one hand, I'm in favor of free speech, and think that reasoned debate is the way to go -- I pride myself on being adept at debating the those who hold right-Libertarian views (mainly because I used to hold them and thus it's just a matter of mapping the path I've already walked). And in a one-on-one situation with a Nazi, you can probably talk them out of it with a thorough recitation of personal experiences with racism and similar bullshit injustice.

However, this was a rally, not a one-on-one debate. A seemingly universal trait among fascists is that they gain and maintain popularity by demonstrating their strength; their only claim to power is the "Strong Leader" mythos. Conversely, they loose all power when they are demonstrated as the impotent hatemongers they really are (see also: Bush approval ratings over the last few years).

It's also important to note that they hold these rallies for the same essential reason the anti-war protesters hold rallies: to expand their influence. And of all the people who should have zero influence on government, fascists must top that list -- they very nearly buried the entire continent of Europe and most of Eastern Asia by starting the bloodiest war ever. In the case of the white supremacists, they proceeded to cap the war off with attempted genocide.

Those who wish to repeat the darkest hour in our species' history do not deserve a debate where their side is presumed to have an equal position.

That's why I say mob their racist asses, and sing the hook to Dead Prez's "I'm a African" while you do it.

[Disclaimer: I'm white and I support the ARA.]

10/15/2005 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Either everyone has the right to freedom of speech, or no one does.

Should a white mob have been permitted to disperse the Million More Movenment in Washington today? After all, Farrakhan is every bit the hatemonger that these Nazis are. We all know that would never have been permitted to happen -- and every institution and white leader of any significance would condemn such actions if there were even an attempt to prevent Farrakhan's rally from happening.

I'm just curious -- where are the responsible black leaders condemning the action by this mob of African-unAmericans in Ohio?

10/15/2005 08:56:00 PM  
Anonymous James Cape said...

The Millions More Movement is not a nazi rally, and the Nation of Islam is not a "hate organization". From your own blog you note that there was a gay group onstage at the end. Further, back when I was still a student, I was in a play organized and put on by the NoI on campus. I did not get any sense of racism or "I hate you because you're white" bullshit. So this "well, black guy X is racist too" nonsense has to stop.

Farrakhan wants the Black community to control it's own resources and the politics within the black community, rather than depend on production by white-owned businesses, food from white-owned farms, and shops owned by people of [insert group he has slured here] descent. I personally think that's kind of short-sighted (after all, white people have no problem exploiting each other, why would black people in a similar situation be any different), it's somewhat antiquated post-desegregation, and I obviously do not support his use of racial slurs. However, Farrakhan is not a Black supremacist. Luis Farrakhan is not concerned with rounding up all the white people and killing them. There are no fantasy novella about nuking the "white" rural areas in the NoI and Black Nationalist subculture.

The National Socialist Movement, however, is concerned with rounding up the non-white people (and gay whites, and leftists, and basically anybody else that defies them), and the Turner Diaries inspired Timothy McVeigh (in the book, the main character started his life of terrorism by blowing up a Federal Building). Finally, the German Nazi Party's full name is the "German National Socialist Workers' Party", and as noted the event in Toledo was put on by the National Socialist Movement and the National Alliance.

That's the difference.

P.S.: Please don't listen to the media transcripts of police news conferences about protests and clashes with the police as though they are gospel truth. They aren't.

P.P.S.: I'd be really surprised if the people doing the rock throwing and car-burning weren't white. I personally don't know any black people brave/stupid enough to throw shit at the cops, because it's a good way to get yourself shot. Personally, I think taking advantage of white privilege to fight white racism has that "fucking sweet" ring to it.

10/15/2005 09:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Mac Diva said...

Rhymes with Right has a very ugly racist tirade up on his blog in which he sides with the Nazis. Perhaps one should not spend too much time refuting someone like him. He obviously has problems with literacy and cant't distinguish opinion from fact. Still, I think people who try to sneak racism pass under the rubric of free speech shold be challenged. The right to free speech can only be taken away by the government. The government allowed the Nazis to march in Toledo. So, this is not a free speech issue.

10/16/2005 12:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Kaede said...

Isn't there a Clash song that says 'you have the right to free speech/as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it'?

I don't actually believe that free speech should necessarily be 'for all' as someone posted. I do believe in it to a certain extent, but no, not to the extent where it 1. condones illegal activities such as pornography, pedophilia, neo-nazism, drug and alcohol abuse etc. and 2. where it clearly (and maybe even not so clearly) impinges on a (legal) community's rights, such as minorities, homosexuals etc. (not intending to mean neo-nazis, because by their very nature, they are illegal...cuz of the serious hate goin' on).

I could go on and on about it, but that's pretty much my views. That being said, there is nothing about free speech in the Canadian Constitution (nor is there in the UK statutes, for that matter) so.....I was not raised to believe in it so much that I would allow others to use it to demonstrate and justify just how much of a prick they really are.

10/16/2005 02:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

I guess that is the difference between you folks and I.

I believe freedom is a right for everyone, including the Nazis (who I condemn in my "ugly racist tirade") and the Nation of Islam (which I also condemn in my "ugly racist tirade" due to its history of anti-semitism and black supremacist rhetoric).

You folks want the government to have the power to ban speech -- or for violent mobs to be permitted to do the same. That isn't a "[progressive" position, but is instead a "regressive" one which moves away from any notion of liberty.

Oh, silly me -- I thought that the progress you folks seek involved an increase in freedom for everyone, not just the folks you like.

Oh, by the way -- if you want to read the "ugly racist tirade" that condemns the neo-Nazis as "a disgusting group of racists and white supremacists who are rejected by all decent people, and which I condemn wholeheartedly", come n by and take a look.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/126467.php

10/16/2005 09:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Rtother said...

Well, could this parade been seen as similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater? I don't know.

I think banning speech like that of the neo-nazis is a bad idea, as it pushes them more underground and almost gives a legitimacy to their fake cries of oppression (or whatever they're jabbering about). And when these ideas are in the public sphere, one can debate them and show their foolish ideas for what they really are.

Of course if we really want to deal with the problem of hate groups we should try to understand why people choose to be involved with them. We don't have to agree with their reasons, but it would be far better to strike at the root, then to simply prune some branches by banning them.

10/16/2005 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Jenn said...

"Well, could this parade been seen as similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater? I don't know."

I think it can be correlated -- this isn't just about speaking your opinions, but, in many ways, could be viewed as trying to incite a riot, by spouting intolerance in an environment where others will feel threatened and angered, with the intention of stirring up trouble.

That being said, I do believe that we should not restrict reprehensible speech, because then we start going into the realm of who decides what is reprehensible? I dislike infusing the need to distinguish morality into constitutional rights.

At the same time, the neo-nazi group was not blameless. They are disgusting in their points of view and the effect of their hateful words should have been seen and heard. I do not blame the counter-protesters as much as others might because they were reacting to racist hatred against them. I think they have the right to speak, but they do not have the right to be heard and their opinions respected as appropriate.

The Nation of Islam is not a black supremacist group. They do believe in black separatism, but not because of a misguided belief in their own racial superiority. They are also reacting to an history and institution of oppression and marginalization. Comparing Farrakhan to someone like Hitler is completely disingenous.

10/16/2005 01:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Interestingly enough, the first speech that would need to be banned under a law forbidding speech intolerant of others would be. . . demands that intolerant speech be banned. After all, it would be insisting that those who hold and express certain opinions not be tolerated.

10/16/2005 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

Rhymes, do you think it's acceptable for a person to shout racial, sexual or derogatory epithets at another person with the intention of verbally abusing them? In the context of hate crimes based on racial or sexual prejudice, should there be no understanding that civil liberties should include protection from dehumanizing treatment and hatred?

On an unrelated note, should members of the military or Americans in general be allowed to threaten the president's (or really anyone's) life? Under your interpretation of the first amendment, it sounds like you would advocate a repealing of such laws.

10/16/2005 04:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

1) Acceptable? No. Constitutionally protected outside the context of an assault? Yes. And remember, no one has the right to not be offended by the words of another, so I do not accept the premise that civil liberties include "protection from dehumanizing treatment and hatred" by private individuals.

2) See answer #1 -- as a threat to commit an act of violence legally constitutes assault.

10/16/2005 06:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Equal means Equal Not Superior said...

I don't understand. Why is it that if a situation is bad that many black people think the best way to solve it is to destroy property and/or steal from innocent people and then blame white people for their actions?

When are people including Authorities and the Media and really other races in general get sick of it and start calling them on it and telling black people essentially that they are full of $h!t and to start acting responsibly. When are people going to stop catering to black people and when are they going to essentially stop enabling them to be the way they are. Many of the rioters are on video. How come no one is investigating these videos to arrest all the criminals involved and charging them like they do when there are riots at lets say a mostly white university like Michigan State for example?

How long will the media do things like make excuses for rioters and do things like call them "protestors" instead of rioters and say that these nazis caused this. The Nazis, as bad and ignorant as they are, were NOT the ones who destroyed innocent peoples property and in fact weren't even there when the rioters were rioting.

If these Rioters were angry with the Neo-Nazis, then how does looting and pillaging solve their grievances?

Oh and most importantly; when are people going to realise that many black people simply mask ther racism towards other races by calling someone else a racist simply to get it out there first- and thus feel like that arguement cant be used against them. I mean it's so childish and simple that I'm suprised more people haven't figured it out by now. Passive aggressive behavior is a weapon of cowards. If someoneone has a problem then one of the best ways to divert attention from it is to tell someone else they have said problem. Not to mention the fact that it's much easier for a racist person to recognise their own shortcomings in others and hate them for it.

Oh and by the way, I agree, the Millions More Movement is definately racist.

"...When Hurricane Katrina struck, some said that they busted the levees; I do not know how true that is, but I know that White people have done worse than that.

The youth today do not know anything about this ENEMY, because grandparents did not tell their children about the evil of the people that we have been living among in this country. So the youth think it is a party going on and you think they have changed..."
~Minister Louis Farrakhan

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2200.shtml

Thats a pretty racist statement by any standard. White people going around calling black people "The Enemy" and "evil" are AUTOMATICALLY branded as extreme racists so It works both ways.

The sickening thing is Black racists such as this guy are so filled with hate but are at the same time unable to recognise their hatered and will simply channel their hate onto others and pretend that others hate them and not the other way around.

10/17/2005 03:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gotten from --
http://www.peteholiday.com/archives/001854

Toledo Riots (posted by Pete)

There are a lot of pertinent questions I have here...
Is there really anything wrong with being against crime?
Does it matter what kind of crime?
Is there something wrong with being against "black crime"?
Did the people protesting the demonstrators mean to imply that they are in favor of "black crime"?
Did they mean to imply that they don't think black people commit crimes?
Did the demonstrators mean to imply that people other than blacks do not commit crime?
Did the irony of black people rioting to protest a demonstration against "black crime" not dawn on anyone protesting?
Why is the chief of police bragging about failing to make a "couple hundred arrests" in the name of "restraint" (which is another word for 'damn that's a lot of paperwork!')
Why is it that the story seems to discount the acts committed against the demonstrators as though it was no big deal?
Do they deserve any less legal protection than anyone else?

Maybe equally important, how long will it take someone to call me a racist for this post?

10/17/2005 05:32:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

When are people going to stop online masturbating their hatred of Black people?

I have to say, the neo-Nazis make free speech concerns easy. Everyone already considers their opinions foolish, so no one loses face publicly by disagreeing with them. Still, we believe in free speech, and hope that repugnant racists like the neo-Nazis can spout their evil at much as possible, without harming anyone else while doing so.

It's unclear if the Toledo incident provides an example of this or not. However, lets clear up a few misconceptions.

1) People upset at formal marches decrying their very existence are not gang members if they respond with violence. They may not support free expression, depending on the circumstances, but they are not gang members or prone to violent action. They may be defending their homes and their children for antagonistic hate.

2) No one needs to waste time with the incorrect and obvious lie that the Millions More Movement spoke 'Black supremacy'. Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are not synonymous with neo-Nazis. The real question here is why some White American conservatives and bigots (Fox News, for example) feel justified in supporting the 'right' of neo-Nazis to march in Black neighborhoods with the idea that Black people have hatemongers too. We don't - no Black leader or organization of any influence within the Black community has ever spouted hateful anti-White bigotry. Ever.

3) White people can not and should not try to define Black leadership for Black people. Has Farrakhan made anti-Semitic comments in the past? One could argue that is so, given some of his comments in the 1980's. But that doesn't mean that every Black person who supports the Millions More Movement is an anti-Semite. I'd never characterize all White people from the comments and actions of a George Wallace, or David Duke, or George W. Bush, or Karl Rove. It would not make sense.

4) Black racists have no influence in the Black community, because Black people never gain from racism. The response to the neo-Nazi march in Toledo may be an example of Black rage. Given Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, unceasing police brutality, racial health care disparities, and the omnipresent poverty much of Black America still suffers under, some Black people may not want to walk outside their front doors on a Saturday afternoon to watch swastika-clad White youngsters shout epithets decrying the Black person's very existence. The reaction may be a result of rage against domestic forces that allow anti-Black hatespeech and promote African American joblessness. America needs to be able to handle Black rage without calling Black people 'gang members' when they show how fed up they are with the American status quo.

But non-Black people know this already. They don't support the neo-Nazi cause. So, at best, Rhymes with Right and Equal means Equal Not Superior are so far outside the American mainstream with their anti-Black dispersions and illogical anti-Black insinuations that they are just online jacking off. Guys, maybe you should find a porn site or something, and leave the discussion on free speech to people who don't have to hate Black people to discuss race in America.

10/17/2005 05:33:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

Just to put it out there, what the hell is "black crime" and why is it more worthy of protest than just basic crime?

10/17/2005 05:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Hey, lest you think that the Nation of islam is not a racist organization, consider one of its "uniquebeliefs" that separates it from real Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub

I apologize for bothering you with litle things like facts that disprove your contention that the NOI and Farrakhan are not racist, black supremacist organizations.

10/17/2005 06:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Oh, and by the way -- point to a single anti-Black comment I have made. You won't find one.

What i have done is defend the First Amendment rights of ALL Americans, and noted the sad disparity in treatment dished out to those who spout racialist/racist rhetoric based upon the race of the speaker.

Oh, and James -- given your fascination with pornography on the internet, I'm surprised that you can still type given the number of "DNA samples" you have spilled on the keyboard.

10/17/2005 06:08:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

Oh, and James -- given your fascination with pornography on the internet, I'm surprised that you can still type given the number of "DNA samples" you have spilled on the keyboard.

Mature, Rhymes, mature.

10/17/2005 06:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Let me point out the comment to which it was an appropriate rejoinder:

So, at best, Rhymes with Right and Equal means Equal Not Superior are so far outside the American mainstream with their anti-Black dispersions and illogical anti-Black insinuations that they are just online jacking off. Guys, maybe you should find a porn site or something, and leave the discussion on free speech to people who don't have to hate Black people to discuss race in America.

Unless, of course, those of us on the right (or is it those of us who are white?) are held to a different, and may I point out higher, standard.

10/17/2005 06:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Equal said...

~Words from a Black Man:

"...Current Black Leaders preach racial hatred and welfare dependency, not peace and independence. They earn their fat salaries by stirring up the racial pot and portraying blacks as the hopeless victims of racism. Unfortunately, most blacks have accepted these men and women as their new slave masters and have allowed these individuals to speak for them. We don't need their leadership.

It is a dangerous thing for a person to blindly put himself under the leadership of any man or woman. Blacks who allow themselves to be led around like sheep by the likes of Jesse Jackson are forfeiting their independence and free will. These current black leaders tell blacks how to think, whom to vote for, and how to live their lives.

By preaching race hatred and the cleverly packaged ideology of socialism, these leaders have convinced millions of blacks that white America owes them special treatment: welfare checks, affirmative action programs, and even different grading systems in our nation's universities. Black educators have even created a fictional 'Afrocentrist' history that pushes phony notions of black racial superiority in our nation's schools. Other educators have devised what they call critical race theory, which claims that there's no such thing as objective reality - that "rationality" is simply a tool of white males and is designed to oppress minorities.

Black preachers who have been seduced by these deadly attitudes and political philosophies are perpetuating a cycle of hatred and violence within the black community. They, too, have given up any reason or logic in their preaching and simply parrot the latest politically correct opinions from the Jacksons and Sharptons..."


~Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson from his book SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America

Also he says in another article

“Farrakhan is still a racist and anti-Semite. This is a separatist movement designed to turn blacks against whites and their own country. Farrakhan will once again take millions from mostly low income blacks who cannot see him for what he is—an American Hitler.

Blacks should think about the following questions before signing on to this crazy agenda. 1) What did Farrakhan do with the money raised from the last march? 2) What have blacks leaders done for you lately? 3) As a Christian, how can you empower a hate monger?“



I suppose you'll come up with some reason to discredit him.

James,

Your obvious hatred and anger towards white people is seething through. You cant even get through your post without using pornographic assertions towards those who you would have others believe hate you, when the truth really is that you hate them. Your Bigoted and biased diatribe loses all credibility pretty much after the "masturbation" comment of the first sentence.

If you have a fascination with internet porn you shouldn’t necessarily assume everyone shares the same attitude you do. Also if you insist on being a racist, then don’t pretend a good way to hide your racist beliefs is to label others whom you hate as racist.

Believe me, if a bunch of white people rioted and destroyed a neighborhood I would consider them a bunch of idiots too. If they blamed another race for their idiotic behavior I would definitely bitch about it.

Start acting responsible and grow up and quit playing victim.

Lastly how is it that you single out "Rhymes" when it James that started with all this immature namecalling?

Jenn said...

Oh, and James -- given your fascination with pornography on the internet, I'm surprised that you can still type given the number of "DNA samples" you have spilled on the keyboard.

Mature, Rhymes, mature.


yet no mention was given to: When are people going to stop online masturbating their hatred of Black people?

...with their anti-Black dispersions and illogical anti-Black insinuations that they are just online jacking off. Guys, maybe you should find a porn site or something...


How are these comments considered mature?

10/17/2005 06:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Kaede said...

People like Sharpton and Farrakhan may be high profile, but they are by no means representative of their people. Believe me, I have no love for them either, (and yes, I do consider them racist) but I do believe that the majority of African American people would prefer to just go their own way, minding their own business and being the good people that I feel the majority of them are, and that is as it should be. It is about time that everyone else started doing the same. Maybe we'd get a bit more peace and quiet around here then.

10/17/2005 08:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Splenda said...

Wow it may be the Icehouse but I like Kaede's response and it seems to make a hell of alot of sense. Im all for going your own way.

Im all for going my own way too!

I think thats what people should spend more time doing instead of letting the Minority (not meant racially) decide for them.

You see it's the minority and usually a minority that are politically powerful in ANY race even us white people that are mussing it up for the rest of us. This applies except for the fact that in politics it seems to be the minority that are actually interested in doing whats right.

I even believe that its a minority of Black people who do silly things like riot and beat the crap out of a gas station and set fire to a bar, but it is a LOUD minority. I also think that Slimy cheese-ball Neo-Nazis are a minority, as are greedy slimy corperate criminals, but they also are a Powerful minority.

Another problem is that so many people want to do their own thing and go their own way that they don't want to be bothered by the minority of those with loud voices so these minorities with loud voices get their agends pushed through and ruin it for everyone else.

Watch the next presidential election. The news media will report what YOU and I care about.

"Well what you care about in this upcoming election is... um... oh yeah, abortion and uh... Gay rights and ... lets not forget those darn terrorists!"

I find it interesting that around election time the actual issues become like POP-Music. You know they are popular, but you're not quite sure how they became that way.

Anyways Im ranting - I gotta go

10/17/2005 10:13:00 PM  
Anonymous James Cape said...

Rhymes:

It is not "those of us who are white." I'm white. You're just plain incorrect. Go check out the NSM website and the MMM website, and tell me they are the same. Really, tell me how a self-proclaimed "American Nazi Party" rally and the Millions More Movement, which claimed to gather "pledges to restore lives, rebuild communities and repair families" are the same.

If you want to make comparisons, the Million Man March/Movement would come closer to a Promise Keeper rally, sans the Men-Only admittance, homophobia (wow, men-only and homophobic, eh?), and Jesus-freakishness.

I'm sure one could also find wacky conspiracy theories in the PKs, only involving ancient pagan curses and demon possession instead of a mad scientist and a bedtime story about how white people got white. The aliens thing might be shared, I dunno.

But more to the point, you're demanding that the Responsible Black People(tm) condemn Farrakhan for some idiotic things he said decades ago, but not demanding that Bush condemn the Nazi Party in Kansas three days ago. Why not? Because white people are afforded the nicety of being treated as individuals, a right that white people routinely deny others.

A white Christian blows up an abortion clinic, gay bar, and nearly blows up a public park; there are no demands for repudiation by random white people. Another white christian stocks machine guns, cyanide bombs, and fake U.N. security credentials in his basement and there's not a peep. Still another kills 161 men, women, and children in the worst continental terrorist attack of the 1990s, and his racist views are regularly referred to as "just a passing fad, he wasn't really racist."

One black person makes some anti-semetic remarks four presidents ago and every other black person in the country, forever, must denounce him as though he was on trial in Stalin's Russia.

That doesn't strike you as hypocritical, if not hypocritically racist? The Nazis are actually killing people, the worst Farrakhan ever did (well, unless you believe Spike Lee) was talk shit when he was being recorded.

10/17/2005 10:51:00 PM  
Anonymous James Cape said...

[Ohio, not Kansas, obviously]

10/17/2005 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

James Cape just made a hell of a lot of sense. People should pay attention.

I call the Rhymes with Right and Equal Means Equal Not Superior 'anti-Black' because they promote free expression and free assembly for themselves while attempting to deny free expression and free assembly to Black people.

I attended the Million Man March in 1995, and am very proud of it. Farrakhan's supposed anti-Semitism is not my concern - I'd rather brainstorm ideas that alleviate Black poverty and strengthen Black political influence. I don't need non-Blacks to tell me who I can and can not brainstorm with. Seriously.

Kaede, Sharpton and Farrakhan are not racists. Flashy demagogues maybe, but not racists. They don't hate Whites, or anyone else - they'd just rather see Black people succeed politically and economically at higher levels than currently shown. If they were racists, Black people like Jesse Jackson and Keith Boykin wouldn't work with them.

Equal, Rev. Peterson is without credibility in my opinion because I watched him discuss African Americans as patently, inherently incapable of governing major American cities a week or so ago, on C-Span. Watch yourself at rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e101105_vanguard.rm (deposit the link directly into your video player). The section I refer to happens about forty-five minutes in.

In general, I think the violence in Toledo was unfortunate, but I don't think anyone is helped by calling this a free speech issue. The Neo-Nazis make free speech concerns easy; of course they can march and speak what they want without government interference. Given that, I don't see the point of much of this argument, outside of online conservatives' using this blog as a new forum for fringe, reactionary views.

10/18/2005 12:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Kaede said...

You might not consider them racist, as you yourself are biased. Finally someone else on here sees the same as I do. I do consider them racist on the basis that they themselves constantly make comments that prove it, just the same as the white losers you are quoting in your posts. It's not based on comments made 30 yrs ago, it's based on their comments and actions of the here and now. I have no interest in what ANYONE did 30 yrs ago when I was too young to know my ass from my elbow. I am interested in the actions of NOW. Their actions and words of the last few years and months have proven to me, if not to anyone else, that they are as racist as any white (or other) person around. Racism is not confined to white people only, which is something I think you're forgetting.

If you mean they are demagogues in the sense that they use prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power and prestige (according to the dictionary definition) as I believe they do, how is this any different from being racist? Racists do exactly the same thing - using peoples' prejudices against them, portraying 'others' as somehow not good enough to wipe their boots or what have you. It's all semantics but a racist is a racist is a racist, no matter what fancy terminology you like to wrap it up in.

I reserve judgement on Jackson. Mainly because altho I do believe he's got racist leanings himself, I also feel (perhaps contradictorily) that he can be a good person, or at least tries once in a while. My only beef is that he sticks his nose where it's not wanted, as he did in trying to get himself into the Mohawk mess in Quebec, all for the sake of a bit of publicity.

I applaud you for attending that march, as I feel that it started out with good intentions, but things seem to have gotten lost along the way, and that makes me sad. When did the people stop believing in the good stuff, and start believing their own hype?

10/18/2005 01:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Ah, James, there you are a flat-out liar.

I promote free speech for EVERYONE. At what point did I advocate that free speech or assembly be denied to anyone based upon race? Quite the contrary, I have argued that EVERYONE has the right to free speech and assembly, no matter how repugnant their views -- wherther we are talking about the anti-black Klan and Nazis or the anti-white Nation of Islam. I have no problem with the folks who turned out to oppose the Nazis -- up until the point that they engaged in criminal activity designed to suppress the legitimate rights of those with whom they vehemently disagreed. Rock-throwing, car-tipping, and arson are not "free speech" -- they are crimes.

But then again, I've discovered that you are not particularly interested in telling the truth, as staying grounded in the truth (or in reality, for that matter) makes it impossible to smear those with whom you disagree.

10/18/2005 06:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Equal said...

Here Here!

Just a pointer to you James and other James.

Research is a good idea.

When I get more time I'll post some recent quotes from the good minister of the "Mother Ship" but for now I got alot to do so I can only give you 1.

[Editor’s note: The following article is based on an address delivered by Minister Farrakhan to a leadership meeting on September 7, 2005 in Norfolk, Virginia during his 23-city tour promoting the Millions More Movement and the 10th Anniversary of the Million Man March.]

When Hurricane Katrina struck, some said that they busted the levees; I do not know how true that is, but I know that White people have done worse than that.

The youth today do not know anything about this enemy, because grandparents did not tell their children about the evil of the people that we have been living among in this country. So the youth think it is a party going on and you think they have changed.


I know I already posted this but apparently you guys still wanna site him as saying racist things "decades" ago. September 2005 is hardly a decade ago.

10/18/2005 09:17:00 PM  
Blogger phillyjay said...

Well I guess I'll add my 2 cents since everyone already has.

Free speech issue: Sure everyone has the right to say what they want to say.And I have the right not to listen or call whatever they say bullsh*t.

Louis Farrakhan:

He's one of those guys who tries (very badly I might add) to give off the oppresion that he just cares dearly about his people and is not racist.Many people in the NOI are like that as well.But if you really get to know him (or his real views), and get past the false concern for others, you will realize that he is indeed racist.I know deeply religious black muslims who believe he is a racist and refuse to associate with him.I feel he has tricked a lot of good black people.He says some things about improving the family, education, and supporting black business that many black people want to hear.The problem is that once he hooks you good enough, the people that he claims prevent all those thing from happening get demonize.And little by little, the racism gets deeper.Some people who know he says bad/racist things about others, may be able to look past the racist things he has said in the past or present, and focus on the good things.

Like many people of the left he tries to come of as rightous and concernd.And if you disagee, you're racist by default.No questions asked.Many good people on the left can fall for it.Having said that, it doesn't mean this is typical of the left.

Many people of the right are similar.

They say a lot things that people want to hear, claim thier beliefs are facts/logical/fair, big time liberty/free speech pushers, non-polictally correct, etc, etc.Then you start hearing things about racial genetic intelligence, natural crime prone blacks, and anyone who disagrees is either denying the logical truth, pulling the "race card"(as if only a liberals do that) or is a (dirty) liberal.And again having said that, it doen't mean this is typical of the right either.

10/19/2005 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

"I do consider them racist on the basis that they themselves constantly make comments that prove it, just the same as the white losers you are quoting in your posts." - Kaede

Kaede (and anyone else who feels this way) - if you want to post quotes or other evidence of comments made by Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan that you consider racist, be my guest. (I may not agree; I don't see anything in Equal's Norfolk, VA 'quote' of Farrakhan that can be deemed 'racist'.) But until then, I'm totally unconvinced that either man expresses racist views or promotes racist policies toward anyone.

There is no need for 'radical equivocation", the trend among some people in political race discussions to make themselves feel better by seeking out Black racists to balance the White racists, like the neo-Nazis everyone already despises.

"Racism is not confined to white people only, which is something I think you're forgetting." - Kaede

How dare you? No one has implied here or anywhere else that only White people can be considered racist. I don't believe that, and I've never expressed such stupidity. The real question is, why do you need a person of color to remind you that all White people aren't racist? As a Black person, I shouldn't have to soothe whatever guilt may or may not exist in the mainstream by decrying Black racists for White audience applause. Sorry, but I'll never be your monkey.

This is the major reason Farrakhan and Sharpton still have podiums today - Black people are always told by some Whites to silence the Black speakers rejected by those Whites. I would agree with your definition of 'demagogue', but add that every demagogue is not a racist (take Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter, for examples). Further, no one is wrapping up racists in 'fancy terminology'; rather, I'm trying to discuss why it's dangerous to equivocate some groups with others, as people have done in this debate. For example, you are totally within your rights to think whatever you want about Jesse Jackson, but exactly why would he be considered a racist as well? Because sooner or later, the trend is this: any Black public speaker who discusses racism's effects on Black people will be considered racist himself, to negate and ignore Black perspectives on Black suffering.

If that's your goal, have fun. Free speech is bliss. If not, then examine why Black public speakers on race who are moderately supported by Black America are inevitably considered 'anti-White' or 'racist' by some White people. What do you gain from the idea of Al Sharpton's racism, Kaede? How do you benefit from Louis Farrakhan's supposed (perhaps even arguable) anti-Semitism? I think the benefit some Whites derive from this is a personal justification to ignore the poverty, police brutality, and institutionalized racism Black people suffer under in the West and around the world. We are all Invisible Men in some blue and green Anglo-Saxon eyes. Are yours included?

"You might not consider them racist, as you yourself are biased." - Kaede

Biased? Maybe. Black? Definitely. Which presents the problem?

10/19/2005 07:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Kaede said...

I'm not going to try and change your mind, basically because you believe what you believe, as I believe what I believe. I don't gain anything out of what I said, because I am not a white person as you would define a white person. I may be predominantly white, but that is not the whole me. I am also of First Nations (Native) blood and I feel the racism and prejudice every bit the same as you do. My people were almost eradicated and to this day, are considered even lower than black people. How's that for racism? Also, I was never told of this until well after I became of age, precisely because of the racism my mother and her sisters had to endure because of being half-breeds/quarter-breeds, meaning I missed out on a vital part of my heritage, all thanks to racist actions of others.

You present no problem to me as a black person; the problem is your reluctance to see the other person's point of view when it contradicts yours.

I stand by what I said, your rantings seem to only include racism where it's perpetrated by white people, not where it's perpetrated by African Americans, or by Hispanics, Asians, East Indians or whoever. Because it does happen. There's also such thing as reverse discrimination when such policies are used to discriminate against white people, as evidenced in the article I presented earlier. I just don't use it to excuse repression/oppression/racism by others, cuz there is no justification.

It just seems that you're making this out to be a personal attack on you, merely because I (and others) don't agree with your viewpoint. I feel that you're entitled to your views, as I am entitled to mine, whether you agree or not. I don't agree, and you argue rings around me anyway, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to express them when they are neither illegal, nor do they espouse hatred towards anyone. Not even you.

I am able (I think) to distinguish the difference. Are you?

10/19/2005 09:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Equal said...

Exactly what is all this about black suffering?

Blacks don't have special suffering that is allotted only to them any more. As a matter of fact in places like the military, government, in Education, and in many major businesses black people get the exact opposite and are many times favored.

To meet special quotas many of these places will hire or favor for promotion a person Just because he or she is Black. Just today I went by a road construction zone, which by the way is a HUGE employer and there were all these white people working the roads and shoveling and woodworking and then going a little further down the road I notice 2 inspectors walking with their clipboards towards the job-site and they just happened to be two black women. As a matter of fact just about every time I see a manager at McDonalds or an Inspector on the Road way or, when I was in the military, an NCO, they are/were black.

I’m not bitching about it. If companies want to do that, Great! If it makes them feel like their doing there civic duty to create unfair discriminatory quotas, Wonderful!

But then I have to hear someone that lives in a society nothing like slavery or the era of unequal civil rights have the audacity to talk about Black suffering.

Is $5000/week food allowance and buying SUVs and Sports Tickets and taking endless amounts of Tax-Payer money to spend mysteriously on who knows what - all done by the current Black Mayor of Detroit whom people have dubbed the Hip-Hop Mayor; considered suffering? Sure would be nice if he spent that money on all the poor oppressed black people that voted for him.

Oh and you also know that you are talking out of you a$$ when you say that white people are trying to silence Black speakers. I think you actually KNOW you are wrong but are so filled with this hate and victimization that you won’t allow yourself to believe it. All the media and government do are applaud and praise Black Speakers such as Sharpton and Farrakhan. Anyone who speaks out against them publicly is automatically branded a racist or an EVIL conservative extremist.

And if you agree with Farrakhan's statements about white people being evil and the enemy then you are no better that those people who belong to the Neo-Nazi group who consider black people evil and the enemy and thus are considered racist for those beliefs.

If Farrakhan preaches remarks that would be considered racist if another group made them; then he is a racist. On the other hand when four cops beat the hell out of some poor old black retired teacher who wants cigarettes, that is also racist, though I think those cops might have done that to a white guy too. Racism is Racism regardless of color.

Free speech is a great thing but when one group marches and speaks out it is free speech. When another group destroys public property and endangers the lives and well-being of the innocent people of a community that is Criminal Behavior and has nothing to do with free speech. I think it's even worse when one group uses the other group's opinions simply as an EXCUSE to act as criminals.

10/19/2005 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

"My people were almost eradicated and to this day, are considered even lower than black people. How's that for racism?" - Kaede

It's not about changing minds here. But I think you have missed a point I raised, Kaede. The simple fact that you compare your First Nations heritage to African American struggles suggests that for you, identity politics is on some level a competition over pity. It is not. I do not compare people's race narratives. Asking the question "who had it worse?" in any form cheapens every people's narrative.

Further, the entire idea that your ethnic heritage can be hidden (even from you) throughout much of your life says to me that skin-color prejudice is, thankfully, not something you have endured. You've passed. It stands to reason that your perspectives on race may be different than someone who did not have that luxury. That's why free speech is important; we need to hear your views, and everyone else's.

So don't cheapen your perspective with the belief that political minority thinkers need to find racism amongst their own populations in order to appear even-handed and fair. That's not only an unfair standard that no one asks Whites to meet, its also simple White guilt talking, and it unnecessarily clouds these discussions. White people aren't the eternal bad guy in all things racial, but I don't need to say that in order to make you feel better for being White. I shouldn't have to denounce every Eldridge Cleaver in Black history before some White people (you included) take my perspectives on modern-day discrimination seriously. No one has asked you to denounce any racist of any kind.

"I stand by what I said, your rantings seem to only include racism where it's perpetrated by white people, not where it's perpetrated by African Americans, or by Hispanics, Asians, East Indians or whoever." - Kaede

Again, why do you need a Black person to denounce Black people? What is driving that desire? Why do you want Black people to fight amongst themselves for your enjoyment, like some intra-racial Thrilla in Manila shown only on C-SPAN? Discrimination affects everyone, it doesn't get a special name when Whites are victimized. Further, I am not excusing "repression/oppression/racism" by anyone. I just don't see certain left-wing African American speakers as racists just because some individuals, often non-Blacks, who disagree with their rhetoric find them reprehensible. I'm sick of the idea that if some elements of White America do not approve of a Black speaker, that speaker should be denounced by other Black people. That plantation mentality cheapens all Black thought. We don't all work for you.

10/19/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Sponsor said...

A word from our sponsor

http://myspace-114.vo.llnwd.net/00260/41/15/260325114_m.jpg

10/19/2005 11:10:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

Sponsor:

So funny!

10/20/2005 12:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Equal said...

My reply is not my own and I like to think music is a wonderful way to send a message.

These are the words of a Black man.

It's only 6.1 MB and very worth it.

I am a DJ in real life and I like to spread joy through music. I also like to spread messages through the house and techno I play. Of course you may choose not to listen to it but that is simply a way to remain safe and uninformed. It's always so easy to argue with others when you remain uninformed and refuse to see another point of view.

This is a reply to both the recent threads I've posted in here as of late.

Enjoy (p.s. even without the message this is a pretty good song if you like house music)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FABGK4SR

10/25/2005 01:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home