What conservatism means here

[rakovlam]

As you all noticed, I post a bunch of editorials based on what I believe in. The issues include: why affirmative action failed, there's a race based media bias, how "black leaders" harm the black community, why the interment of the Japanese during WWII wasn't a race based policy, and why lynching isn't just an exclusively white institution. Yet somehow, some people decided to group these issues all together and call it racism. At first they tell me why they disagree with me. I figure, "good we can debate this" so I vigorously defended these article which reflected what I believed (they're not random articles, I chose them specifically for a reason). While this is happening, some people decide that its time to hit me where it hurt. THis is the part where it became less debating and more flaming. White supremist, that fightin' whites poster, ultraconservative (which meant I was in the same league as Islamists and KKK). Hell, someone even said I was bible-thumping. Finally, for defending my ideas, and myself, I was punished by the board. At first, my posts were just locked up. Then, for a day, anything admin didn't like was filtered. (admin proudly proclaimed that he brought down the "Republican revolution", Tom Daschle couldn't be more proud).

Amazingly, I'm finding all of this to be very amusing. All the sudden, there was panic throughout the board. People are thinking, "My God! There's a conservative on the board! Kill it!" I've been told many times to chill out (which is a nicer way to say, shut the hell up!). I've been given the "you are entitled to express your opinions, but" (as if the 1st amendment stated exceptions) speech numerous times. It's such a good time to be conservative.

I have no problem with people being liberal. As a matter fact, I'd rather be hanging around liberals. I haven't called anyone a Nazi or a Red for opposing war or tax cuts. I don't find these ideas radical or extremist. I wish your opinions have as much exposure to as many people as possible (that's when you have to deal with people form all walks of the politcal spectrum, not just me). I've stopped posting editorials, so how about a good old debate? I'll buy the beer. :)

[lethal]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 10:43 PM
ultraconservative (which meant I was in the same league as Islamists and KKK).
I'll go over the other points later, I have a paper to write tonight, but from this I believe you're referring to me.

You got the assertion that I meant Islamists and KKK from where? I'd like you to point that out before you defame me.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 10:43 PM
I figure, "good we can debate this" so I vigorously defended these article which reflected what I believed
*ahem*
no offense or anything, but below are some examples of how you "vigorously defended" one of your articles:


"So are we to assume that colonialists were unhappy that they had slaves, and that they in fact did not want slaves and that the act of owning slaves were forced upon them?"

There was no United States before 1776, what history book did YOU read?

"Ok, but white population is also 9 or 10 times the size of black population, and the number of blacks lynched were 4 times greater than whites lynched.
And who lynched who? Were blacks lynched almost entirely by whites, and vice versa? So how can that not be described as racially motivated"

You just implied that whites lynched all blacks... thus answering your own question. To be lynched is to be killed by a mob. What other motives could a mob have for hanging someone.... insanity? Economic reasons? How about political reasons?

"It's funny how the author failed to remind the readers that he's talking about a justice system where a black person was not allowed to testify against a white person..."

You can stop laughing at yourself and explain to me about the justice system that forbids a black man from testifying against a white person.

"Actually I'd like to know whether or not the U.S. even allowed dual citizenship with Italy and Germany back then. And if not, then of course Italian Americans and German Americans would not renounce their American citizenships. What about public backlash that Japanese Americans must have felt because they were visibly Japanese while one could not distinguish on sight an Italian American or German American from any other white person?"

I don't see why wouldn't they have this priviledge. The US was neutral back then. Your arguement is based on some facts you are uncertain about.

Next time, read your history carefully before challenging me.


doesn't really look like you're defending anything but your own ego.

[Chris]

Talk about feeding your own ego. I was going to remain neutral in this but based on your recent postings. I find that it too much time to feed your ultra conservative agenda. If you feel that you don't like it. there are obviously other forums that will suit you better before you get banned.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Jan 13 2003, 11:46 PM
I'll go over the other points later, I have a paper to write tonight, but from this I believe you're referring to me.

You got the assertion that I meant Islamists and KKK from where? I'd like you to point that out before you defame me.
you called my views ultraconservative. Maybe you don't know this, but the KKK and Islamist define ultraconservatism. I know you didn't mean them, but next time have a better choice of words.

[iris]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 11:43 AM
Amazingly, I'm finding all of this to be very amusing. All the sudden, there was panic throughout the board. People are thinking, "My God! There's a conservative on the board! Kill it!" I've been told many times to chill out (which is a nicer way to say, shut the hell up!). I've been given the "you are entitled to express your opinions, but" (as if the 1st amendment stated exceptions) speech numerous times. It's such a good time to be conservative.
You have the right to express your opinions but so does everyone else, is the end to that sentence by most of the posted statements and that has nothing to do with restrictions or exceptions to the first amendmant.

Because someone presents an opposing view doesn't mean that they hate conservatives or burn effigies of them in their front yard. While many on the board haven't agreed with your views, you have not been great with backing them up either. The way to persuade people to your side is with reason and logic, not personal attacks and flippant statements - and that goes for both sides.

I don't agree with the lock down of your threads. That usually occurs when a thread has nothing beneficial to say or breaks the rules of the forum - one of which is to post articles that deliberately incite antoganism. I don't feel like your articles crossed that line, but neither do I believe you were presenting your POV clearly and rationally. You jump to conclusions and infer meaning from other members that don't exist. Case in point:

Originally posted by rakovlam @ Jan 14 2003@12:04 PM
you called my views ultraconservative. Maybe you don't know this, but the KKK and Islamist define ultraconservatism. I know you didn't mean them, but next time have a better choice of words.

Ultraconservatism is also used to describe members of the Republican party who are neither part of the KKK or Islamist Front. It's applicable to the very wealthy stratosphere of American who are very fiscally conservative. It's been said of surbanites happy in their fifties lifestyle. It's also applied to two of our very respected Supreme Court Justices, one of which is Chief Justice. That word does not automatically carry a negative connotation and I doubt LW was attacking you in that sense.

Personally I've stayed out of your threads because the term "constructive criticism" does not seem to register with you.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Chris@Jan 14 2003, 12:03 AM
Talk about feeding your own ego. I was going to remain neutral in this but based on your recent postings. I find that it too much time to feed your ultra conservative agenda. If you feel that you don't like it. there are obviously other forums that will suit you better before you get banned.
banned for what? Talking? And yes, I am arrogant, and I'm proud of that. Once again, that word ultraconservative. I like this forum because I can get into a debate quite quickly. What's the fun when everyone agrees with me?

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 13 2003, 11:52 PM
*ahem*
no offense or anything, but below are some examples of how you "vigorously defended" one of your articles:




There was no United States before 1776, what history book did YOU read?

"Ok, but white population is also 9 or 10 times the size of black population, and the number of blacks lynched were 4 times greater than whites lynched.
And who lynched who? Were blacks lynched almost entirely by whites, and vice versa? So how can that not be described as racially motivated"

You just implied that whites lynched all blacks... thus answering your own question. To be lynched is to be killed by a mob. What other motives could a mob have for hanging someone.... insanity? Economic reasons? How about political reasons?



You can stop laughing at yourself and explain to me about the justice system that forbids a black man from testifying against a white person.



I don't see why wouldn't they have this priviledge. The US was neutral back then. Your arguement is based on some facts you are uncertain about.

Next time, read your history carefully before challenging me.


doesn't really look like you're defending anything but your own ego.[/quote]
Yes, add ego to the list of things I must defend. I'm sorry if that hurts you. I can actually get into a healthy debate with you. But that's who I am.

[lethal]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Jan 13 2003, 11:46 PM
I'll go over the other points later, I have a paper to write tonight, but from this I believe you're referring to me.

You got the assertion that I meant Islamists and KKK from where? I'd like you to point that out before you defame me.
you called my views ultraconservative. Maybe you don't know this, but the KKK and Islamist define ultraconservatism. I know you didn't mean them, but next time have a better choice of words.
Maybe to you this is what ultraconservative means. To me (and I would surmise most people), the definition of ultraconservative is the views of someone like Antonin Scalia or WIlliam Rehnquist and to a lesser extent Clarence Thomas. To them, ultraconservative is a term of pride.

The KKK would be more like a radical faction. Few reasonable conservatives would want to be associated with those groups whereas most reasonable conservatives find favor with people like Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

Perhaps you should ask what a term means to the person using it rather than defining it for them and then criticizing their choice of words.

I've stayed out of your threads with the exception of the murder in Texas. I asked a few questions. You ignored them.

Oh and...
Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 11:04 PM
Maybe you don't know this
Could you perhaps disagree without insulting my intelligence? Tact is useful in debate.

[Chris]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 08:09 PM
banned for what? Talking? And yes, I am arrogant, and I'm proud of that. Once again, that word ultraconservative. I like this forum because I can get into a debate quite quickly. What's the fun when everyone agrees with me?
a debate consist of a discussion involving opposing points and unforunately when we argue with your points, it goes on death ears. That rakovlam is not a debate its a vendetta of your dialogue to only get your points across.

[Danny]

dude, honestly, I am really conservative on many issues, but there is a right way and a wrong way to defend issues that you bring up. There is also a right way and a wrong way in posing your question. Seriously, you got a chip on your shoulder and you are looking like a total fool in trying to defend yourself in some pretty preteen britney spears I have no brain fashion.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by iris@Jan 14 2003, 12:06 AM
You have the right to express your opinions but so does everyone else, is the end to that sentence by most of the posted statements and that has nothing to do with restrictions or exceptions to the first amendmant.

Because someone presents an opposing view doesn't mean that they hate conservatives or burn effigies of them in their front yard. While many on the board haven't agreed with your views, you have not been great with backing them up either. The way to persuade people to your side is with reason and logic, not personal attacks and flippant statements - and that goes for both sides.

Personally I've stayed out of your threads because the term "constructive criticism" does not seem to register with you.
I always back my opinions with facts (and no, I do not make them up). Whether I can connect them together depends on the issue. No, I don't think anyone here hates me, they just don't want me around. I'm like people who smell really bad.

So far almost everyone had a turn with my opinions, and I'm not complaining. Actually, the sentence usually ends with something about me being annoying and how I need to "give it a rest". I've been defending my position in a billion different ways, and all I'm getting is more flaming (flippant statements if that's your term) and rhetorical questions.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Chris@Jan 14 2003, 12:15 AM
a debate consist of a discussion involving opposing points and unforunately when we argue with your points, it goes on death ears. That rakovlam is not a debate its a vendetta of your dialogue to only get your points across.
Maybe if people stop with the rhetorical questions and personal attack they can get their point across. Lately, most of the posts pertain to me rather than to my opinion.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Danny@Jan 14 2003, 12:18 AM
dude, honestly, I am really conservative on many issues, but there is a right way and a wrong way to defend issues that you bring up. There is also a right way and a wrong way in posing your question. Seriously, you got a chip on your shoulder and you are looking like a total fool in trying to defend yourself in some pretty preteen britney spears I have no brain fashion.
Perhaps, but I believe eventually I'm gonna be right. And yes that's the ego speaking.

[SunWuKong]

rakovlam, as long as you don't reply to my responses to you with snide remarks like the ones i quoted above, you'll be fine by me. and like i said before, i agree with some of the articles you post.

that's all i have to say.

[kasia]

i don't think people have been disagreeing with you as a result of your self-proclaimed conservative views. people aren't responding to your logic or reasoning, but rather simply correcting your misstatement of facts.

btw, i thought there were limitations to the first amendment. regardless, the first amendment prohibits the government from intruding upon an individual's right to free speech. yw, however, is not a government entity. therefore, there is no such right here (limitations to speech are listed in the yw guidelines). your ability to express yourself here is not a right, but rather a privilege, bestowed upon you by our webmaster, our admins, and our moderators. you really should thank us :) better yet, send us a donation:Donate to YW (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=32&t=4778&st=30&#entry63972)

[iris]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 12:29 PM
I always back my opinions with facts (and no, I do not make them up). Whether I can connect them together depends on the issue. No, I don't think anyone here hates me, they just don't want me around. I'm like people who smell really bad.

So far almost everyone had a turn with my opinions, and I'm not complaining. Actually, the sentence usually ends with something about me being annoying and how I need to "give it a rest". I've been defending my position in a billion different ways, and all I'm getting is more flaming (flippant statements if that's your term) and rhetorical questions.
I doubt anyone thinks you make facts up, but there is a difference between relevant and irrelevant facts pertaining to your point. Asking someone whether they have read a history book when they obviously have or presenting rhetorical and irrelevant statements instead of logic isn't going to win anyone over to your side. The reason I say this is because for the very example SWK posted. Taz did a good job of deconstructing your arguement to show you hadn't done your research and didn't back it up with verifiable facts.

rakovlam
SunWuKing
Tazadar

Originally posted by Tazadar @ on Jan 11 2003@10:49 AM
?
rakovlam,

"So are we to assume that colonialists were unhappy that they had slaves, and that they in fact did not want slaves and that the act of owning slaves were forced upon them?"

There was no United States before 1776, what history book did YOU read?

Black slavery existed in times of colonial America and earlier parts of United States of America. Aside from your irrelevant reply, now, answer the question.

"Ok, but white population is also 9 or 10 times the size of black population, and the number of blacks lynched were 4 times greater than whites lynched.
And who lynched who? Were blacks lynched almost entirely by whites, and vice versa? So how can that not be described as racially motivated"

You just implied that whites lynched all blacks... thus answering your own question. To be lynched is to be killed by a mob. What other motives could a mob have for hanging someone.... insanity? Economic reasons? How about political reasons?

SWK is not implying "whites lynched all blacks." If that was the case, then there wouldn't be any African American descendants of black slaves today. You aren't giving SWK much credit to his intelligence.


Your response was to refer back to the article that you had posted and reply with irrelevant remarks attacking the intelligent of others.

You have a good opportunity here at YW to interact with many people with equal intelligence as yourself. Several of our members have graduated from college and/or graduate school. We have many attorneys skilled in logical thinking and doctors with methodological ways of thought. Instead of ignoring their valuable advice, take the time to listen. You don't always have to agree, but progress is measured by openess to the opinions of others.

There is a difference between flippant and flaming statements and you really should stop trying to define words for me and others. We have members of conservative viewpoints on this board and we accept their beliefs because they can defend them well. As Kasie said, it's the way you support or don't suuport your points that causes confusion and debate.

[wylin]

no more idle talk become a fellow facist!

[loserbutt]

the japanese internments were not race based? now that is clearly bullshit

[VV o n g B a]

rak, if u say that race based initiatives are wrong, then i agree with u. they are wrong for they deprive whites of opportunities even when they operate as intended (which they often do not). however they were put into place as a punishment to whites and were meant to be lifted at a time when race became a nonissue in hiring. however as shown by this post forums link (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=4366&hl=resumes) that is not yet true. u say that u think u will eventually be proven right, but u're arguments imply that u think the correct answer is to do away with an civil rights actions right now. i too hope that u will be right on issues such as AA, but i don't see this as the case right now.

as to taxation issues, i think the current tax scheme is full of holes. u probably agree with bush's plan to eliminate the dividend tax. well, in a tax system with NO holes, it would be great. if tax was just a flat percentage of income, nobody could complain too much. but many conservatives would hate to see this very equitable tax system because it would eliminate church donations and other loopholes. and bush isn't even eliminating all dividend tax anyways. only the companies that have paid "sufficient" profit taxes will be allowed no taxation on dividends. otherwise u get very rich ppl that pay no taxes each year and that would be too much over the top. and he's applying old school supply side reaganomics or "trickle down" where Say's law says increased supply creates its own demand. this could have worked back in the new economy days where jobs and products were in demand, but with weak demand, all u do is contribute to the current supply glut and that makes things worse. it could drop prices and might push us into a japan like deflation.

trade? i'm all for globalization and elimination of protectionist policies which bush is increasing.

few ppl here are as one dimensional as u make them out to be.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 10:43 PM
People are thinking, "My God!  There's a conservative on the board!  Kill it!"  I've been told many times to chill out (which is a nicer way to say, shut the hell up!).  I've been given the "you are entitled to express your opinions, but" (as if the 1st amendment stated exceptions) speech numerous times.  It's such a good time to be conservative.
Oh please. Persecution complex is just as annoying when it comes from my side of the political spectrum as when it comes from the other side, and I'm not gonna hesitate to take it on here. I am a regular reader of FrontPage (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/), VDARE (http://"http://www.vdare.com), and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/) (I usually disagree with them on international relations, but I like their articles on tax policy). The two writers who have influenced my politics the most are Steve Sailer (http://www.isteve.com) and Razib Khan (http://www.gnxp.com/), see for yourself what they argue for. Here on YW in various threads, as well as formerly on my blog (http://www.xanga.com/home.asp?user=ericlien) (used to be here (http://mixedasian.blogspot.com/) until I got sick of Blogger problems) which was known to any poster on the board who read my signature, I've argued against affirmative action, against permissive attitudes towards Mexican illegal immigration, in favor of the deportation of Middle Eastern men who violated the terms of their student visas, against multilingual ballots and provision of most government services in any other language but English, against public education, against the existence of the catch-all racial category "Asian-American" on the census, in favor of school vouchers, in favor of national-origins profiling of men from Islamist countries, in favor of Ward Connerly's proposition to outlaw public institutions from making racial classifications, in favor of a flat tax, in favor of the idea that there are racial differences in IQ, etc.

As you can see from my profile, I've been on this board for nearly six months now. I've never had a single post deleted by a moderator. Not a single thread was ever closed due to a comment I made or an argument I started. Yeah, those liberals are really out to get me and want to censor me at all costs. You want conservative positions to be accepted here? Concisely point out in your own words the relevence and benefit to Asians instead of flood-posting a bunch of articles which barely have anything to do with Asians.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 14 2003, 03:41 PM
Oh please. Persecution complex is just as annoying when it comes from my side of the political spectrum as when it comes from the other side, and I'm not gonna hesitate to take it on here. I am a regular reader of FrontPage (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/), VDARE (http://"http://www.vdare.com), and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/) (I usually disagree with them on international relations, but I like their articles on tax policy). The two writers who have influenced my politics the most are Steve Sailer (http://www.isteve.com) and Razib Khan (http://www.gnxp.com/), see for yourself what they argue for. Here on YW in various threads, as well as formerly on my blog (http://www.xanga.com/home.asp?user=ericlien) (used to be here (http://mixedasian.blogspot.com/) until I got sick of Blogger problems) which was known to any poster on the board who read my signature, I've argued against affirmative action, against permissive attitudes towards Mexican illegal immigration, in favor of the deportation of Middle Eastern men who violated the terms of their student visas, against multilingual ballots and provision of most government services in any other language but English, against public education, against the existence of the catch-all racial category "Asian-American" on the census, in favor of school vouchers, in favor of national-origins profiling of men from Islamist countries, in favor of Ward Connerly's proposition to outlaw public institutions from making racial classifications, in favor of a flat tax, in favor of the idea that there are racial differences in IQ, etc.

As you can see from my profile, I've been on this board for nearly six months now. I've never had a single post deleted by a moderator. Not a single thread was ever closed due to a comment I made or an argument I started. Yeah, those liberals are really out to get me and want to censor me at all costs. You want conservative positions to be accepted here? Concisely point out in your own words the relevence and benefit to Asians instead of flood-posting a bunch of articles which barely have anything to do with Asians.
damn it alibaba, beer's on me if we ever meet up. :)

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Jan 14 2003, 12:15 PM
the japanese internments were not race based? now that is clearly bullshit
read my post called "racial myths and realities". Might not do much, but I'm not shitin' you.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Jan 14 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Jan 13 2003, 11:46 PM
I'll go over the other points later, I have a paper to write tonight, but from this I believe you're referring to me.

You got the assertion that I meant Islamists and KKK from where? I'd like you to point that out before you defame me.
you called my views ultraconservative. Maybe you don't know this, but the KKK and Islamist define ultraconservatism. I know you didn't mean them, but next time have a better choice of words.
Maybe to you this is what ultraconservative means. To me (and I would surmise most people), the definition of ultraconservative is the views of someone like Antonin Scalia or WIlliam Rehnquist and to a lesser extent Clarence Thomas. To them, ultraconservative is a term of pride.

The KKK would be more like a radical faction. Few reasonable conservatives would want to be associated with those groups whereas most reasonable conservatives find favor with people like Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

Perhaps you should ask what a term means to the person using it rather than defining it for them and then criticizing their choice of words.

I've stayed out of your threads with the exception of the murder in Texas. I asked a few questions. You ignored them.

Oh and...

Could you perhaps disagree without insulting my intelligence? Tact is useful in debate.
ultraconservative - adj : extremely conservative n : an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism

now go take your fight to Merriam-Webster.

[VV o n g B a]

"Most of these people will never make the headlines and their names will not appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live -- men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization -- because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake." - MKL Jr. Dec. '64

isn't this supposed to be MLK?

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 04:20 PM
ultraconservative - adj : extremely conservative n : an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism

now go take your fight to Merriam-Webster.
huh? i don't see how this helps your definition. are you not in fact an opponent of liberalism?

[lethal]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 05:20 PM
ultraconservative - adj : extremely conservative n : an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism
So...you, Scalia, and Thomas don't meet that definition? Only groups such as the KKK do?

You deny that you are an extreme conservative?

Your views fit in with mainstream conservatism? GW Bush, Dick Cheney style?

FrontPage would not meet that definition?

Sure, you define the word, but you do not differentiate yourself from the definition. From what I've read of your views in your posts and those articles, you seem to meet that definition.

[wylin]

im a fantical Zeon soldier.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

a conservative is someone who believes in small and limited government and preservation of the individual rights of American citizens, e.g. those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. an ultraconservative is just someone who believes strongly in these principles. I'm an ultraconservative (or maybe just a plain old libertarian who doesn't believe too strongly in social freedoms) and I'm proud to bear the label - I believe in such things as complete elimination of the government welfare system, complete privatization of education, elimination of affirmative action, and a flat tax. I can justify all these beliefs on the grounds that they are good for Asian people, without any reference to what blacks do to white people. There is a difference between conservatism and white nationalism.

The KKK might vote Republican, but that doesn't make them any kind of conservatives ... they're authoritarians/fascists. Their political and social platform doesn't preserve the liberties of Americans, even of white Americans. Read William Pierce or American Renaissance sometime ... though their attacks on democracy are usually veiled under attacks on "Jews" and "media influence," they rather clearly do not trust even the white Americans for whose rights and preservation they claim to fight to select their own leaders, because they think that goes against the goal of racial preservation.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 14 2003, 04:41 PM
a conservative is someone who believes in small and limited government and preservation of the individual rights of American citizens, e.g. those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
i dunno... by that definition, bush and cheney don't seem to fit the mold b/c they're increasing the size of gov't and its intrusion into individual citizens' lives.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jan 14 2003, 05:49 PM
i dunno... by that definition, bush and cheney don't seem to fit the mold b/c they're increasing the size of gov't and its intrusion into individual citizens' lives.
Bush and Cheney are plain old corporatists. They want to use the power of the state to help the people who donate money to their campaigns and to reduce the power of the people who donate money to Democratic campaigns. Same shit as the Democrats. Republican doesn't necessarily mean conservative. I voted for Bush cuz I wanna see more strict constructionists on the Supreme Court and cuz he's less likely to approve more gun laws, which I believe preserves liberty, not cuz I approve of most of his economic program (hello, steel tariffs?), which definitely doesn't preserve liberty of Americans to buy whatever they want from whomever the hell they want to without government interference.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jan 14 2003, 01:59 PM
rak, if u say that race based initiatives are wrong, then i agree with u. they are wrong for they deprive whites of opportunities even when they operate as intended (which they often do not). however they were put into place as a punishment to whites and were meant to be lifted at a time when race became a nonissue in hiring. however as shown by this post forums link (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=4366&hl=resumes) that is not yet true. u say that u think u will eventually be proven right, but u're arguments imply that u think the correct answer is to do away with an civil rights actions right now. i too hope that u will be right on issues such as AA, but i don't see this as the case right now.

as to taxation issues, i think the current tax scheme is full of holes. u probably agree with bush's plan to eliminate the dividend tax. well, in a tax system with NO holes, it would be great. if tax was just a flat percentage of income, nobody could complain too much. but many conservatives would hate to see this very equitable tax system because it would eliminate church donations and other loopholes. and bush isn't even eliminating all dividend tax anyways. only the companies that have paid "sufficient" profit taxes will be allowed no taxation on dividends. otherwise u get very rich ppl that pay no taxes each year and that would be too much over the top. and he's applying old school supply side reaganomics or "trickle down" where Say's law says increased supply creates its own demand. this could have worked back in the new economy days where jobs and products were in demand, but with weak demand, all u do is contribute to the current supply glut and that makes things worse. it could drop prices and might push us into a japan like deflation.

trade? i'm all for globalization and elimination of protectionist policies which bush is increasing.

few ppl here are as one dimensional as u make them out to be.
I got the stats for the MIT research, here is the percentage of names who got called back.

"White" names
Kristen: 13.6%
Carrie: 13.1%
Laurie: 10.8%
Meredith: 10.6%
Sarah: 9.8%
Allison: 9.4%
Jill: 9.3%
Anne: 9.0%
Emily: 8.3%

"Black" names
Ebony: 10.5%
Latonya: 9.1%
Kenya: 9.1%
Latoya: 8.8%
Tanisha: 6.3%
Lakisha: 5.5%
Tamika: 5.4%
Keisha: 3.8%
Aisha: 2.2%

Now, if employers really discriminate against blacks, how come Ebony and Latonya got more responses than Anne and Emily. One could say that Emily, Anne, and don't sound "white" enough, but that would just ruin the study. And didn't I post an article about the Supreme Court review the Chauvis vs. Bakke decision (If not, I'll post it)? Affirmative action programs could be gone in the near future.

If it was up to me, I too would just call for a flat income tax. No deductions, no loopholes, a one paragraph law. But, that isn't happening anytime soon. I really would like to know what conservative is opposing the Bush divident tax reform. Maybe you know more than me, but I can't find any. I found some stats made by the IRS (but compiled by William P. Kucewicz of NRO...here's the article (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_kucewicz/kucewicz011003.asp)

It shows how the class warfare arguement is not a reason to oppose Bush's plan. I know there will be loopholes, after all they are politicians. But the dividend tax cuts would affect some 80 million shareholders.

Your right, I think the protectionist policies such as the steel tariffs are such a bad idea.

You have no idea what even a few 1-D people could do in this board.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jan 14 2003, 06:23 PM

isn't this supposed to be MLK?
yeah, sorry for the typo.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Jan 14 2003, 06:28 PM
So...you, Scalia, and Thomas don't meet that definition? Only groups such as the KKK do?

You deny that you are an extreme conservative?

Your views fit in with mainstream conservatism? GW Bush, Dick Cheney style?

FrontPage would not meet that definition?

Sure, you define the word, but you do not differentiate yourself from the definition. From what I've read of your views in your posts and those articles, you seem to meet that definition.
huh? But tell me, what is an ultraconservative according to you?

[pfc beansprout]

hehehe...this is entertaining :lol:

[lethal]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 06:09 PM
huh? But tell me, what is an ultraconservative according to you?
I'll use your dictionary definition.

ultraconservative - adj : extremely conservative n : an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism

Like I said, from your posts and articles, you seem "extremely conservative," much moreso than mainstream conservatives such as Bush, Frist, Armey.

Like VVongBa, you also are an opponent of liberalism.

Do you think you do not fit that definition?

This is my last post on this topic. I called you an ultraconservative and I stand by it. You replied with a definition where only groups such as the KKK fit (putting words in my mouth, insulting my intelligence in the process I'll add). Then you replied with a dictionary definition, which you meet. I'm done with this rant.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 06:05 PM
I got the stats for the MIT research, here is the percentage of names who got called back.

"White" names
Kristen: 13.6%
Carrie: 13.1%
Laurie: 10.8%
Meredith: 10.6%
Sarah: 9.8%
Allison: 9.4%
Jill: 9.3%
Anne: 9.0%
Emily: 8.3%

"Black" names
Ebony: 10.5%
Latonya: 9.1%
Kenya: 9.1%
Latoya: 8.8%
Tanisha: 6.3%
Lakisha: 5.5%
Tamika: 5.4%
Keisha: 3.8%
Aisha: 2.2%
uhh... according to those numbers, "white" women have an average of 10.4% chance of getting called back, while "black" women have an average of 6.7% chance of getting called back... that kind of strengthens support of a need for affirmative action, doesn't it?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 14 2003, 02:41 PM
There is a difference between conservatism and white nationalism.
I agree...by the same token, I don't like to assume liberals are pro-Asian, although I'm sure a lot of people here would disagree with me.

[SunWuKong]

here's an old post regarding the "name" issue (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=4366&hl=name)


(*ahem* notice how the thread quickly steered toward asian issues, since this is yellowworld...)

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 14 2003, 03:32 PM
here's an old post regarding the "name" issue (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=4366&hl=name)


(*ahem* notice how the thread quickly steered toward asian issues, since this is yellowworld...)
Who wants to talk about old white guys anyway? :lol:

[Shuriken]

Rakovlam's posting have struck me as an effort to stir up verbal fistfights on this site. Because of this, I have not risen to their bait. The gist of his posts seems to be that race is not the factor in American society that "liberals" make it out to be. But I would imagine that the personal experiences of the various members of this site will prove him wrong. And to those who agree with him, I can only say this: We might all agree that race ought not to be a discriminating factor in this society, but the reality is that race has acted as an intrinsic social element on the American land mass ever since the Vikings landed here in the Middle Ages, and as such, we need to deal with it.

I'm not sure what the purpose was in Rakovlam posting that highly misleading and circumscribed editorial about the whites who were interned during World War II. Most of the accounts regarding the Japanese American internment that I have read acknowledge that some German Americans and Italian Americans were indeed interned during the war. But the disparities between the internment of whites and the internment of JAs speak volumes about just how racially biased the latter was. Rakovlam's article cites several misleading figures about the number of ethnic Japanese who were interned. The figure that the article does not mention was that more than 120,000 U.S. residents of Japanese ancestry — more than two-thirds of them American citizens — were forcibly removed from their homes without due process of law. The lower number of white internees pales (no pun intended) in comparison.

I understand that some of the Germans and Italians who were interned were U.S. citizens, but the only white internees that Rakovlam's article cites were either foreign nationals or naturalized citizens of foreign birth. By contrast, as I just mentioned, the clear majority of ethnically Japanese internees were U.S. citizens. Why weren't Japanese-born U.S. citizens stripped of their citizenship like the naturalized Germans and Italians? Because, at the time, immigrants from Asian countries were not allowed to become citizens on the basis of race. It wouldn't be until 1952 that the law would be changed to allow Asian immigrants to apply for naturalization. So, if anyone is interested why no Japanese-born U.S. citizens were stripped of their citizenship, that racist policy is the reason: there weren't any.

Also, those relatively few ethnic Germans and Italians who were detained were singled out because of their political associations or their beliefs. By contrast, every single person of Japanese ancestry had to be either evacuated from the West Coast or working for the military: hospitals were emptied of their ethnic Japanese infirmed, and orphanges were emptied of their ethnic Japanese children — though what threat these innocents posed to the country wasn't clear. Moreover, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a pardon for all internees of Italian ancestry on October 12, 1942, in honor of Columbus Day. Although some JAs were released from camp during the war to work in the Midwest, there was no comparable blanket pardon for JA internees during wartime. Perhaps German American and Italian American internees have their own redress case to make, but it's certainly smaller in scope that the one pressed by the JA community.

Rakovlam's article also cites instances where some Japanese Americans were not loyal to the U.S. And this has been acknowledged elsewhere. In fact, the kibei, those U.S.-born JAs educated in Japan, have been noted as being very pro-Japanese, and some were "repatriated" (there's a misnomer for you!) after the war. Indeed, one wonders to what extent their loyalty to Japan might have been shaped by their experiences of racism in this country. However, this was a very small percentage of the community. A government report on the JA community carried out by State Department representative Curtis B. Munson in October and November of 1941 certified that the JA community was overwhelmingly patriotic (pro-U.S.), and it concluded, "There is no Japanese problem."

In 1983, the Congressional Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians conducted a study of the JA internment and concluded that the mass imprisonment was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and failure of political leadership." Unlike the typical dictatorship, the United States admitted that it made a mistake and owned up to it. For that act of national honesty and contrition, the entire country should be proud. However, some increasingly conspicuous voices refuse to believe that this country could ever make a mistake, and they seem bent on "proving" that the Japanese American internment was not an injustice that singled out a minority group just because of its ethnicity and its status as a racial minority. The article posted by Rakovlam is part of that dubious crusade.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 05:05 PM
I got the stats for the MIT research, here is the percentage of names who got called back.

"White" names
Kristen: 13.6%
Carrie: 13.1%
Laurie: 10.8%
Meredith: 10.6%
Sarah: 9.8%
Allison: 9.4%
Jill: 9.3%
Anne: 9.0%
Emily: 8.3%

"Black" names
Ebony: 10.5%
Latonya: 9.1%
Kenya: 9.1%
Latoya: 8.8%
Tanisha: 6.3%
Lakisha: 5.5%
Tamika: 5.4%
Keisha: 3.8%
Aisha: 2.2%

Now, if employers really discriminate against blacks, how come Ebony and Latonya got more responses than Anne and Emily. One could say that Emily, Anne, and don't sound "white" enough, but that would just ruin the study. And didn't I post an article about the Supreme Court review the Chauvis vs. Bakke decision (If not, I'll post it)? Affirmative action programs could be gone in the near future.

If it was up to me, I too would just call for a flat income tax. No deductions, no loopholes, a one paragraph law. But, that isn't happening anytime soon. I really would like to know what conservative is opposing the Bush divident tax reform. Maybe you know more than me, but I can't find any. I found some stats made by the IRS (but compiled by William P. Kucewicz of NRO...here's the article (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_kucewicz/kucewicz011003.asp)

It shows how the class warfare arguement is not a reason to oppose Bush's plan. I know there will be loopholes, after all they are politicians. But the dividend tax cuts would affect some 80 million shareholders.

Your right, I think the protectionist policies such as the steel tariffs are such a bad idea.

You have no idea what even a few 1-D people could do in this board.
i don't find your rebuttle of the MIT research to be very convincing. certainly if u look at each detail, then u can find trendbusters. but as a trend, do u not see any sort of a pattern in those statistics? none at all?

as for the tax cut, yeah, the rich pay most of the taxes. no doubt. but 2/3 of the WORTH of dividends are paid to 1/10 of the population. sure it'll give average americans some money. but not MUCH money. not NEARLY as much money as it gives to the rich who aren't as likely to spend this money on average stuff that'll get the economy moving. and as long as we're pasting links (yours from a conservative site, mine from a liberal one), i'll paste one myself: link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35391-2003Jan9.html)

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jan 14 2003, 08:00 PM

i don't find your rebuttle of the MIT research to be very convincing. certainly if u look at each detail, then u can find trendbusters. but as a trend, do u not see any sort of a pattern in those statistics? none at all?

as for the tax cut, yeah, the rich pay most of the taxes. no doubt. but 2/3 of the WORTH of dividends are paid to 1/10 of the population. sure it'll give average americans some money. but not MUCH money. not NEARLY as much money as it gives to the rich who aren't as likely to spend this money on average stuff that'll get the economy moving. and as long as we're pasting links (yours from a conservative site, mine from a liberal one), i'll paste one myself: link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35391-2003Jan9.html)
It means nothing if the 2 groups overlap. Some of the white names are quesitonable (should of used names from the Zappa clan). I say this study is still inconclusive unless they can get white names on the 9-15% range and black names on the 1-8% range.

The last time we had got a surplus was a result of several tax hikes aimed mostly at the upper-middle class. Its logical that the rich would get a majority of the package because they pay the majority of the taxes. Perhaps the rich won't spend as much as the middle class, but if corporations get some extra spending money, they will spend it. That means companies will have a chance to expand, thus creating more jobs and a profit. Revenue is good since profits are taxed. Whether consumers spend or save their extra cash is always benificial to the economy. This is a long term plan, it will take awhile for economy to recover.

Besides, if the government gets less spending money, maybe they'll think of spending it wisely (aka less pork).

[iris]

Props to the peeps of YW. The sheer intelligence of our members rock my world. From this thread alone, I've picked up so much info. This is why I'm addicted to YW. Clever debate without the bad attitude. Thanks.

Special high-five to Shuriken and Alibaba. I am smarter now. :lol:

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 09:02 PM
It means nothing if the 2 groups overlap.  Some of the white names are quesitonable (should of used names from the Zappa clan).  I say this study is still inconclusive unless they can get white names on the 9-15% range and black names on the 1-8% range.

The last time we had got a surplus was a result of several tax hikes aimed mostly at the upper-middle class.  Its logical that the rich would get a majority of the package because they pay the majority of the taxes.  Perhaps the rich won't spend as much as the middle class, but if corporations get some extra spending money, they will spend it.  That means companies will have a chance to expand, thus creating more jobs and a profit.  Revenue is good since profits are taxed.  Whether consumers spend or save their extra cash is always benificial to the economy.  This is a long term plan, it will take awhile for economy to recover.

Besides, if the government gets less spending money, maybe they'll think of spending it wisely (aka less pork).
actually in any studies, the median, mean, and 50% quadrant is the most important part of the numbers. and there are almost always outlyers in any study. the entire point in having multiple names is to eliminate unknown variables that would affect samples that are narrowly defined. any research methods course will tell you this. and i've taken a few in undergrad. there's no denying that those numbers show that "white" names have a higher chance of being called back than "black" names.

most of the money that the government makes comes from the middle class. the rich is a tiny minority in this country and despite the fact that they pay a bigger percentage individually, as an entire group, they pay less than the middle class. in fact the income tax system only became law because the idea was sold to the middle class as something that would only affect the rich. but eventually it turned around and bit the middle class in the ass.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 14 2003, 09:21 PM
most of the money that the government makes comes from the middle class. the rich is a tiny minority in this country and despite the fact that they pay a bigger percentage individually, as an entire group, they pay less than the middle class. in fact the income tax system only became law because the idea was sold to the middle class as something that would only affect the rich. but eventually it turned around and bit the middle class in the ass.
Repeal the 16th amendment!

[pfc beansprout]

Originally posted by iris@Jan 14 2003, 09:14 PM
Props to the peeps of YW. The sheer intelligence of our members rock my world. From this thread alone, I've picked up so much info. This is why I'm addicted to YW. Clever debate without the bad attitude. Thanks.

Special high-five to Shuriken and Alibaba. I am smarter now. :lol:
yeah no shit...btw, R, you still haven't replied back to shuriken(mad props for gettin in this mix!) yet..........

[Shuriken]

I'm not addressing these comments to anyone on this site in particular, but one thing I've grown really tired of is the intellectual dishonesty in a lot of conservative commentary. A lot of conservative pundits rely on distortions or verbal sleights of hand in order to put down the other side. I'm sure that one can also find examples from liberal commentators, but the conservative brand seems much more flagrant because it's so much more pervasive.

One example in particular that sticks in my craw is from Ann Coulter's recent book Slander. Early in the tome, Coulter asserts that O.J. Simpson was incorrectly found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife because a prosecution witness, white L.A.P.D. officer Mark Fuhrman, uttered the dreaded "N-word." Coulter thus complained that saying a racial slur is worse than murdering someone. It's that kind of hyperbole that really cheapens political discourse. O.J. didn't walk because Fuhrman said the N-word — he walked, in large part, because Fuhrman lied under oath, which helped Simpson's defense to undermine the prosecution's case. It's interesting: all during 1998-99, most conservatives screamed that President Clinton should be removed from office because he lied under oath (in circumstances that many of the rest of us saw as courtroom entrapment). But when someone they sympathize with lies under oath, it's conveniently forgotten.

Yet, Coulter's pompous propaganda has spent weeks on the best-seller lists. The gist of her book is that liberals are to blame for the lack of civility in political discourse. But it seems to me that Rush Limbaugh and the Newt Gingrich Republicans's are more to blame for their harsh, take-no-prisoners rhetoric. I was listening to a radio show where the host challenged Coulter's thesis, and she insisted that Limbaugh had never made any ad hominem attacks on his show. When the host produced evidence that Limbaugh had once referred to then-13-year-old Chelsea Clinton as a "dog" on his TV show, Coulter became unreasonable and hung up on the host. Apparently, Coulter's publisher is too hip to check her facts.

I'd be more open to the Republicans' arguments for economic reform if they'd get out of bed with the cultural conservatives who seem bent on turning this country into a theocracy. Already the Bush administration is misleadingly characterizing the separation of church and state as "discrimination" against religious groups. But that's just more intellectual dishonesty. And it's just par for the course.

[iris]

Originally posted by pfc beansprout@Jan 15 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by iris@Jan 14 2003, 09:14 PM
Props to the peeps of YW. The sheer intelligence of our members rock my world. From this thread alone, I've picked up so much info. This is why I'm addicted to YW. Clever debate without the bad attitude. Thanks.

Special high-five to Shuriken and Alibaba. I am smarter now.  :lol:
yeah no shit...btw, R, you still haven't replied back to shuriken(mad props for gettin in this mix!) yet..........
I meant it for everyone. Thanks to Rakovlam for initiating and stirring debate otherwise we wouldn't have learned anything. Dullsville.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Jan 14 2003, 07:53 PM
Rakovlam's posting have struck me as an effort to stir up verbal fistfights on this site. Because of this, I have not risen to their bait. The gist of his posts seems to be that race is not the factor in American society that "liberals" make it out to be. But I would imagine that the personal experiences of the various members of this site will prove him wrong. And to those who agree with him, I can only say this: We might all agree that race ought not to be a discriminating factor in this society, but the reality is that race has acted as an intrinsic social element on the American land mass ever since the Vikings landed here in the Middle Ages, and as such, we need to deal with it.

I'm not sure what the purpose was in Rakovlam posting that highly misleading and circumscribed editorial about the whites who were interned during World War II. Most of the accounts regarding the Japanese American internment that I have read acknowledge that some German Americans and Italian Americans were indeed interned during the war. But the disparities between the internment of whites and the internment of JAs speak volumes about just how racially biased the latter was. Rakovlam's article cites several misleading figures about the number of ethnic Japanese who were interned. The figure that the article does not mention was that more than 120,000 U.S. residents of Japanese ancestry — more than two-thirds of them American citizens — were forcibly removed from their homes without due process of law. The lower number of white internees pales (no pun intended) in comparison.

I understand that some of the Germans and Italians who were interned were U.S. citizens, but the only white internees that Rakovlam's article cites were either foreign nationals or naturalized citizens of foreign birth. By contrast, as I just mentioned, the clear majority of ethnically Japanese internees were U.S. citizens. Why weren't Japanese-born U.S. citizens stripped of their citizenship like the naturalized Germans and Italians? Because, at the time, immigrants from Asian countries were not allowed to become citizens on the basis of race. It wouldn't be until 1952 that the law would be changed to allow Asian immigrants to apply for naturalization. So, if anyone is interested why no Japanese-born U.S. citizens were stripped of their citizenship, that racist policy is the reason: there weren't any.

Also, those relatively few ethnic Germans and Italians who were detained were singled out because of their political associations or their beliefs. By contrast, every single person of Japanese ancestry had to be either evacuated from the West Coast or working for the military: hospitals were emptied of their ethnic Japanese infirmed, and orphanges were emptied of their ethnic Japanese children — though what threat these innocents posed to the country wasn't clear. Moreover, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a pardon for all internees of Italian ancestry on October 12, 1942, in honor of Columbus Day. Although some JAs were released from camp during the war to work in the Midwest, there was no comparable blanket pardon for JA internees during wartime. Perhaps German American and Italian American internees have their own redress case to make, but it's certainly smaller in scope that the one pressed by the JA community.

Rakovlam's article also cites instances where some Japanese Americans were not loyal to the U.S. And this has been acknowledged elsewhere. In fact, the kibei, those U.S.-born JAs educated in Japan, have been noted as being very pro-Japanese, and some were "repatriated" (there's a misnomer for you!) after the war. Indeed, one wonders to what extent their loyalty to Japan might have been shaped by their experiences of racism in this country. However, this was a very small percentage of the community. A government report on the JA community carried out by State Department representative Curtis B. Munson in October and November of 1941 certified that the JA community was overwhelmingly patriotic (pro-U.S.), and it concluded, "There is no Japanese problem."

In 1983, the Congressional Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians conducted a study of the JA internment and concluded that the mass imprisonment was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and failure of political leadership." Unlike the typical dictatorship, the United States admitted that it made a mistake and owned up to it. For that act of national honesty and contrition, the entire country should be proud. However, some increasingly conspicuous voices refuse to believe that this country could ever make a mistake, and they seem bent on "proving" that the Japanese American internment was not an injustice that singled out a minority group just because of its ethnicity and its status as a racial minority. The article posted by Rakovlam is part of that dubious crusade.
My opinion stirs up verbal fistfights? Damn... must be a tough crowd. My purpose is not to inflame anyone because if I was I would have posting outright racist content. Instead, my issue is how civil rights today devolved into racketeering and the quest to remove all signs of insensitivity to others. Another thing that ticks me off is this new movement also has a double standard, especially towards whites (specifically straight white males). What I did was post editorials (which, I admit, could have never put my point across here).

Now that my mind is clear (I was pissed off then due to the flaming), I'll explain why I posted that article. To this day, I still do not think Roosevelt's internment policy was racist (Did I think Roosevelt should have had an internment policy? No). Shuriken says that, because more Japanese was interned than Germans and Italians, he concluded that the US was racist towards the Japanese. That's like saying because police arrest more blacks than whites for crimes (which is true), the police is racist towards blacks (which is not the case). The article also states how many Japanese valued their US citizenship.

"For example, approximately 14,000 filed to renounce U.S. citizenship. The demand for renunciation was so great that in 1944 Congress amended the Nationality Act of 1940 to allow U.S. citizens to renounce citizenship during wartime. Of these 14,000 petitioners, 5,620 followed the process through to full renunciation, and gave up citizenship. They were then interned as enemy aliens, a consequence that probably kept many other disloyal Japanese- Americans from renouncing citizenship. Without this group of 5,620 Japanese - officially known as "renunciants" and, in effect, self-selected internees - the number of European internees would have been greater than the number of Japanese. There are no known cases of a U.S. citizen of European origin renouncing citizenship during the war. When forced to choose between their homeland and the United States, many Japanese chose to side with their race"

While I find this passage interesting, that's not the point. But the came the reparations after the war. Each time they demanded for reparations, race was used as the reason. I don't mind the fact they are receiving reparations (they, living members of the interment, made a better case than the black case for reparations). But why didn't the Italians and Germans receive reparations or an apology? Weren't they interned too? Is that justice? People on this post made it sound like I was favoring interning Japanese during the war. But to tell you the truth, I have two favorite army units in WWII. One is the 101th Airborne (the unit that held Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge) and the 100th Infantry. That was the all-Nisei unit that served most admirably in Italy. This was the unit that rescued the "Lost Battalion" and was one of the first units to liberate Rome. They become the most decorated unit in WWII.

I wasn't here to argue that no race suffered a racist past. By posting "Racial Myths & Realities" I was questioning the history that many of the "civil rights leaders" fall back on. Currently, there is a lawsuit led by Johnnie Cochran & James Ogletree that demands trillions of dollars for reparations (plus millions acres of land) to the decendents of slaves. Their targets are the US government and universities and companies that could have profited from slavery. In addition to the fraud, one of arguments was if Japanese internees get reparations for the "racism" they received, then why not blacks?

However, the reason I posted this editorial on this specific board is that it is a response to the constant white-bashing on this board (Thanks to my efforts, it's no longer white-bashing but rather rakovlam-bashing. Oh well, at least I'm a justifiable target). One of the biggest peeves this board has towards white was the Japanese internment. Many people refer to it when whitey strikes again. One of the problem with this editorial is that it covered too much on the subject. I first wanted to focus on the 1st myth on the editorial. But then I ended up spending most of my time defending the other two myths.

I was thinking, "Good. We have a debate. Let's talk about other issues." So I posted stuff on affirmative action, media bias, and issues that pertain to certain groups. Unfortunately, because I posted more things on blacks than any other race, I was immediately considered a white supremist (we're back to paragraph two). Then I got really pissed off since it was near impossible to defend myself. I ended up lashing at almost everybody when I should have excluded a few from my wrath (including you, I guess). Do I regret doing that? Not really, though I did learn something from this.

I realized I was outnumbered in terms of ideology (not to mentioned ticked off). But guess what? I'm still arrogant and I still won't apologize to most of the people on this board. Call what I do here dubious, but in the end I shall have the last laugh.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Jan 14 2003, 11:45 PM
I'm not addressing these comments to anyone on this site in particular, but one thing I've grown really tired of is the intellectual dishonesty in a lot of conservative commentary. A lot of conservative pundits rely on distortions or verbal sleights of hand in order to put down the other side. I'm sure that one can also find examples from liberal commentators, but the conservative brand seems much more flagrant because it's so much more pervasive.

One example in particular that sticks in my craw is from Ann Coulter's recent book Slander. Early in the tome, Coulter asserts that O.J. Simpson was incorrectly found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife because a prosecution witness, white L.A.P.D. officer Mark Fuhrman, uttered the dreaded "N-word." Coulter thus complained that saying a racial slur is worse than murdering someone. It's that kind of hyperbole that really cheapens political discourse. O.J. didn't walk because Fuhrman said the N-word — he walked, in large part, because Fuhrman lied under oath, which helped Simpson's defense to undermine the prosecution's case. It's interesting: all during 1998-99, most conservatives screamed that President Clinton should be removed from office because he lied under oath (in circumstances that many of the rest of us saw as courtroom entrapment). But when someone they sympathize with lies under oath, it's conveniently forgotten.

Yet, Coulter's pompous propaganda has spent weeks on the best-seller lists. The gist of her book is that liberals are to blame for the lack of civility in political discourse. But it seems to me that Rush Limbaugh and the Newt Gingrich Republicans's are more to blame for their harsh, take-no-prisoners rhetoric. I was listening to a radio show where the host challenged Coulter's thesis, and she insisted that Limbaugh had never made any ad hominem attacks on his show. When the host produced evidence that Limbaugh had once referred to then-13-year-old Chelsea Clinton as a "dog" on his TV show, Coulter became unreasonable and hung up on the host. Apparently, Coulter's publisher is too hip to check her facts.

I'd be more open to the Republicans' arguments for economic reform if they'd get out of bed with the cultural conservatives who seem bent on turning this country into a theocracy. Already the Bush administration is misleadingly characterizing the separation of church and state as "discrimination" against religious groups. But that's just more intellectual dishonesty. And it's just par for the course.
I'm a big fan of Ann Coulter. I understand that boths sides of the political map likes to throw mud at each other. However, I believe the difference between liberals ranting and conservatives ranting is that liberals can pretty much get away with it most of the time while all hell breaks loose when a conservative says something inflamatory. But more on that tomarrow... I'm getting tired (I have school the next day and it's 12 right now).

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 08:02 PM
It means nothing if the 2 groups overlap. Some of the white names are quesitonable (should of used names from the Zappa clan). I say this study is still inconclusive unless they can get white names on the 9-15% range and black names on the 1-8% range.

The last time we had got a surplus was a result of several tax hikes aimed mostly at the upper-middle class. Its logical that the rich would get a majority of the package because they pay the majority of the taxes. Perhaps the rich won't spend as much as the middle class, but if corporations get some extra spending money, they will spend it. That means companies will have a chance to expand, thus creating more jobs and a profit. Revenue is good since profits are taxed. Whether consumers spend or save their extra cash is always benificial to the economy. This is a long term plan, it will take awhile for economy to recover.

Besides, if the government gets less spending money, maybe they'll think of spending it wisely (aka less pork).
if u choose to be blind on the race names, thats completely your choice.

as for the tax cut, like i said before, supply side economics only works at full employment, not when you have a supply glut as there is now. yeah it'll create a few new jobs and more stuff will come out. but who's gonna buy it? not likely the recently unemployed. even at full employment, when the money gets to the middle class, it stops there because consumer prices chase wage increases when they hit the majority of spenders. so the poor in this case stay even or even get poorer. they might get a small increase in minimum wage, but that probably won't offset the higher prices they'll see in the stuff they have to buy.

now, maybe if stock prices rise b/c the tax is lifted, there could be a wealth effect where rich ppl feel like they can buy more luxury goods and travel. this might have a ripple effect on down the line. but its pretty risky. who knows, it could work. or it could create budget deficits like we've never seen. hopefully it works is all i can say.

[Craig]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 14 2003, 11:02 PM
I'm a big fan of Ann Coulter.
Did you really need to restate the obvious ?

[VV o n g B a]

But to tell you the truth, I have two favorite army units in WWII. One is the 101th Airborne (the unit that held Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge) and the 100th Infantry. That was the all-Nisei unit that served most admirably in Italy. This was the unit that rescued the "Lost Battalion" and was one of the first units to liberate Rome. They become the most decorated unit in WWII.


funny, i thought about posting something on this group yesterday but i forgot. i was going to ask if ppl here really thought they were heroes and would follow in their footsteps in the same situation.

i could not. i respect their courage and bravery in the face of danger, but i would almost call them traitors to their own ppl. to fight and die willingly for the country that was holding your family members captive is almost beyond my comprehension. it's as if they felt they had to prove their loyalty to the country that had just betrayed them. in no other situation would i say this. but almost makes me sick that they would do what they did. by no means would i sell the US out, but HELL no i'm not gonna fight for them either if my family and friends have been locked up.

[iris]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 15 2003, 12:55 PM
Shuriken says that, because more Japanese was interned than Germans and Italians, he concluded that the US was racist towards the Japanese. That's like saying because police arrest more blacks than whites for crimes (which is true), the police is racist towards blacks (which is not the case). The article also states how many Japanese valued their US citizenship.

"For example, approximately 14,000 filed to renounce U.S. citizenship. The demand for renunciation was so great that in 1944 Congress amended the Nationality Act of 1940 to allow U.S. citizens to renounce citizenship during wartime. Of these 14,000 petitioners, 5,620 followed the process through to full renunciation, and gave up citizenship. They were then interned as enemy aliens, a consequence that probably kept many other disloyal Japanese- Americans from renouncing citizenship. Without this group of 5,620 Japanese - officially known as "renunciants" and, in effect, self-selected internees - the number of European internees would have been greater than the number of Japanese. There are no known cases of a U.S. citizen of European origin renouncing citizenship during the war. When forced to choose between their homeland and the United States, many Japanese chose to side with their race"

While I find this passage interesting, that's not the point. But the came the reparations after the war. Each time they demanded for reparations, race was used as the reason. I don't mind the fact they are receiving reparations (they, living members of the interment, made a better case than the black case for reparations). But why didn't the Italians and Germans receive reparations or an apology? Weren't they interned too? Is that justice? People on this post made it sound like I was favoring interning Japanese during the war. But to tell you the truth, I have two favorite army units in WWII. One is the 101th Airborne (the unit that held Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge) and the 100th Infantry. That was the all-Nisei unit that served most admirably in Italy. This was the unit that rescued the "Lost Battalion" and was one of the first units to liberate Rome. They become the most decorated unit in WWII.

However, the reason I posted this editorial on this specific board is that it is a response to the constant white-bashing on this board (Thanks to my efforts, it's no longer white-bashing but rather rakovlam-bashing. Oh well, at least I'm a justifiable target).

I was thinking, "Good. We have a debate. Let's talk about other issues." So I posted stuff on affirmative action, media bias, and issues that pertain to certain groups. Unfortunately, because I posted more things on blacks than any other race, I was immediately considered a white supremist (we're back to paragraph two). Then I got really pissed off since it was near impossible to defend myself. I ended up lashing at almost everybody when I should have excluded a few from my wrath (including you, I guess). Do I regret doing that? Not really, though I did learn something from this.

I realized I was outnumbered in terms of ideology (not to mentioned ticked off). But guess what? I'm still arrogant and I still won't apologize to most of the people on this board. Call what I do here dubious, but in the end I shall have the last laugh.
I'd like to point out that your statement isn't entirely correct. While we should not generalize a faction of the population whether they be members of YW, police, conservatives, or liberals, we do know that one of the reasons why more minority (a.k.a. blacks) have criminal records is due to several factors, one of which is racial profiling and inherent racist beliefs.

We can say that proportionally more blacks commit crimes than whites and thus the reason why more of them are arrested but that would be a lie. While socio-economic status is a contributing characteristic in the likelihood of committing a crime, in cities where wealth is fairly evenly distributed and where whites outnumber blacks, the number of blacks arrested are still higher than any other race. Authority figures have been documented saying they believe blacks are geneticially disposed to committing acts of a criminal nature, but no scientific study of genetics or anthropology have proven this claim.

However, this is besides the point because your analogy is comparing apples and oranges. In the police situation, these people are committing crimes and should be punished. We are just saying everyone should be punished and not just blacks. Tie in Shuriken's statement to see his meaning. He states that the Japanese valued their American citzenship to demonstrate that they had done nothing wrong. These JAs were not criminals and were deemed guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunately while the Germans and Italians were rounded up to go off to internment camps by virtue of their contributions to Nazi activity, Japanese Americans were more or less picked up by the very nature of their birth. Although some might have been involved in Hitler's movement, I doubt over 120,000 JAs including children in orphanages were part of the Axis powers. Thus why JAs presented a stronger case for reparations than Germans or Italians. For those Germans and Italians who were later found innocent, equality in reparations would have been a fair situation if one believed in reparations. When a group of people is singled out negatively because of their inherent characteristics as a fate of birth instead of by their individual activity, then that is racism.

[iris]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 15 2003, 12:55 PM
I wasn't here to argue that no race suffered a racist past.  By posting "Racial Myths & Realities" I was questioning the history that many of the "civil rights leaders" fall back on.  Currently, there is a lawsuit led by Johnnie Cochran & James Ogletree that demands trillions of dollars for reparations (plus millions acres of land) to the decendents of slaves.    Their targets are the US government and universities and companies that could have profited from slavery.  In addition to the fraud, one of arguments was if Japanese internees get reparations for the "racism" they received, then why not blacks?

However, the reason I posted this editorial on this specific board is that it is a response to the constant white-bashing on this board (Thanks to my efforts, it's no longer white-bashing but rather rakovlam-bashing.  Oh well, at least I'm a justifiable target).  One of the biggest peeves this board has towards white was the Japanese internment.  Many people refer to it when whitey strikes again.  One of the problem with this editorial is that it covered too much on the subject.  I first wanted to focus on the 1st myth on the editorial.  But then I ended up spending most of my time defending the other two myths.

I was thinking, "Good.  We have a debate.  Let's talk about other issues."  So I posted stuff on affirmative action, media bias, and issues that pertain to certain groups.  Unfortunately, because I posted more things on blacks than any other race, I was immediately considered a white supremist (we're back to paragraph two).  Then I got really pissed off since it was near impossible to defend myself.  I ended up lashing at almost everybody when I should have excluded a few from my wrath (including you, I guess).  Do I regret doing that?  Not really, though I did learn something from this.

I realized I was outnumbered in terms of ideology (not to mentioned ticked off).  But guess what?  I'm still arrogant and I still won't apologize to most of the people on this board.  Call what I do here dubious, but in the end I shall have the last laugh.
As a side note, there was a discussion on reparations (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=4327&hl=reparation&st=30) that you might find of interest.

I have seen some white bashing too which is not cool. No one is asking you to apologize for your beliefs. I think most people just want you to be more open to those of others.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by iris@Jan 15 2003, 01:35 AM
We can say that proportionally more blacks commit crimes than whites and thus the reason why more of them are arrested but that would be a lie.
why? are we expected to accept as an axiom the idea that all races commit crimes at exactly the same rate when you correct for socioeconomic status, and that any deviation from this idea automatically reflect police bias?

Unfortunately while the Germans and Italians were rounded up to go off to internment camps by virtue of their contributions to Nazi activity
They were interned on the basis of foreign citizenship, many without any proven link to Nazis or Fascists aside from national origin.

[iris]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 15 2003, 03:16 PM
why? are we expected to accept as an axiom the idea that all races commit crimes at exactly the same rate when you correct for socioeconomic status, and that any deviation from this idea automatically reflect police bias?

Of course not, but when we do correct for socio-economic statues as the next line in my post above states, the arrest rates for blacks and whites do not change PARTIALLY due to racial bias as I've also said above. One reason is the racial demographic of the police force, less blacks than whites. Psychology studies on faces have shown we just tend to trust those who look like us more. Many things contribute to the propensity to commit crime. Your childhood, your living environment, your social economic status, your friends. Blaming something solely on racism is unreasonable, but so is denying that it exist.


Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Jan 15 2003, 03:16 PM
They were interned on the basis of foreign citizenship, many without any proven link to Nazis or Fascists aside from national origin.
I stand corrected.

[pfc beansprout]

To this day, I still do not think Roosevelt's internment policy was racist (Did I think Roosevelt should have had an internment policy? No).


i'm sorry....this, i really, really do not understand...could u get that to me one more time R?

[contra_diction]

i sense an inner battlecat in rakovlam. unfortunately, ego and arrogance don't translate well to a debate like they do in rhyme. these kinds of replies should be posted logically, not hostily.

[SunWuKong]

i'm still interested in how many german americans and italian americans had dual citizenships prior to WW2, and whether or not that was even allowed by the countries involved.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by contra_diction@Jan 15 2003, 08:39 AM
i sense an inner battlecat in rakovlam. unfortunately, ego and arrogance don't translate well to a debate like they do in rhyme. these kinds of replies should be posted logically, not hostily.
Have you seen an angry man type? Well... you just did.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 15 2003, 05:13 PM
Have you seen an angry man type? Well... you just did.
technically he didn't.
he only saw the text that an angry man typed. :P

[Shuriken]

I'd like to resume addressing some of the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the article "Racial Myths and Realities" that Rakovlam posted, particularly those misleading statements regarding the Japanese American internment. If it was the intent of the article to examine some of the nuances that are frequently glossed over in discussing the internment — for example, that some German Americans and Italian Americans were interned before and during World War II — then it went about it in a completely wrong-headed way. And because of this, I strongly question the intentions of the author. The most blatantly false statement in the article is this:

The fact is that about half of those interned by the U.S. government during WWII were white.

This is absolutely untrue. Ethnically Japanese internees numbered 120,000. In her book, Years of Infamy: The Untold Story of America's Concentration Camps, the late Michi Weglyn, an internment survivor, explained the number this way:

Although 110,000 individuals were involved in the West Coast evacuation, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry eventually came under [War Relocation Authority] custody.  This included 1,275 institutionalized individuals transferred to the centers, 1,118 citizens and aliens evacuated from Hawaii, 219 voluntary residents, and 5,981 who were born in the camps.  WRA Statistics Section.  (Weglyn, p. 21 fn)

If the article had included the 120,000 in its discussion of the internment, I might have given it more credence. But the fact that the article egregiously under-reported the number of ethnic Japanese who were interned tells me that the author is not interested in an honest discussion. This automatically marks the article, in my mind, as revisionist propaganda — and therefore as unworthy of being reprinted on this site.

Rakovlam devotes special emphasis to the passage about the "loyalty" of the 1940s Japanese Americans:

For example, approximately 14,000 filed to renounce U.S. citizenship. The demand for renunciation was so great that in 1944 Congress amended the Nationality Act of 1940 to allow U.S. citizens to renounce citizenship during wartime. Of these 14,000 petitioners, 5,620 followed the process through to full renunciation, and gave up citizenship. They were then interned as enemy aliens, a consequence that probably kept many other disloyal Japanese-Americans from renouncing citizenship. Without this group of 5,620 Japanese - officially known as "renunciants" and, in effect, self-selected internees - the number of European internees would have been greater than the number of Japanese. There are no known cases of a U.S. citizen of European origin renouncing citizenship during the war. When forced to choose between their homeland and the United States, many Japanese chose to side with their race.

The gist of this passage in the original article insinuates that many of the pre-war Japanese Americans were not loyal to the United States and therefore threatened the country. This argument has been used before to rationalize the internment. However, Weglyn arrives at a different figure. Those Japanese Americans who expressed sympathy for the Japanese government during the war were already concentrated in the Tule Lake Segregation Center in California, although the camp also included some Japanese Americans loyal to the U.S. According to Weglyn, after the Nationality Act was amended, the number of renunciation applications in Tule Lake numbered a scant 117. However, over the ensuing months, the applications snowballed to approximately 2,000. This increase is explained by a growing pro-Japan fervor that gripped the camp late in 1944, when the authorities were contemplating closing it due to the war's impending end. Weglyn estimates that fear of being turned back into the society that interned them in the first place made many internees fearful of being racially targeted once they were released, and that this fear was fueled by those zealous pro-Japan fanatics in the camp. The government held hearings on this phenomenon late into the war. In an affadaivit to the government in 1946, John Burling, then Assistant Director of the Alien Enemy Control Unit of the War Division of the Department of Justice, gave his own estimation:

Given...a group of 18,000 substantially idle persons [i.e., the internees in Tule Lake], most of whom had suffered racial discrimination for years and who had just been the victims of what must have appeared to them as the most outrageous incident of racial discrimination in American history, it was foreseeable that a state of very great emotional excitability would be created.  Given further a nucleus of genuinely pro-Japanese leaders, it seems, at least in the light of hindsight, also foreseeable that this group could be whipped up into a sort of hysterical frenzy of Japanese patriotism.  (cited in Weglyn, p. 240)

The implication of the "Myths and Realities" article is that thousands of Japanese Americans were predisposed to Japanese nationalism before the war, thus justifying the internment. But Burling's statement addresses a question that I posed in an earlier post: To what extent did the pro-Japan internees' experience of discrimination — especially their internment — contribute to their disloyalty and renunciation? "Myths and Realities" seems more interested in denouncing the renuniciates than in examining what led to their behavior. But most importantly, it must be remembered that the pro-Japan internees comprised a very small percentage of the Japanese American community. The aricle's speculation that the renunciation of some "probably kept many other disloyal Japanese-Americans from renouncing citizenship" is unsubstantiated and especially objectionable in its presumption of Japanese American disloyalty.

Finally, the article's misrepresentation of internment numbers seems designed deliberately to conceal an important fact: the internment policy initiated by Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 was aimed specifically at the Japanese American community, and not any other group. This is spelled out in a memorandum written to President Roosevelt on April 17, 1943, by then-Attorney General Francis Biddle:

You [President Roosevelt] signed the original Executive Order permitting the exclusion [of the West Coast] so the Army could handle the Japs.  It was never intended to apply Italians and Germans.  (memorandum by Biddle reproduced in facsimile in Weglyn, p. 200)

So, there it is in black & white by America's Attorney General in 1943.

Yes, there were indeed some ethnically German and Italian internees during World War II — and perhaps some of them were imprisoned just as unfairly and ought to receive redress. But the reality is that U.S.-born Japanese American citizens, and their immigrant parents who were prevented from becoming naturalized citizens by racist laws, made up the overwhelming majority of internment prisoners during the war. And unlike German and Italian internees, they were targeted specifically because of their ethnicity, and not because of their political affiliations or activities (and those affiliations and activities during the internment would be an ex post facto consideration). The assertion — or even suggestion — that whites and Asians were victimized equally by the internment is a lie.

[SunWuKong]

:)


shuriken, you deserve a dancing banana ---> <img src='http://www.slantedeyes.com/dancing_banana.gif[/img]

[Shuriken]

Rakovlam writes:

if Japanese internees get reparations for the "racism" they received, then why not blacks?


These are two completely different legal arguments. In the case of African Americans — and Native Americans, for that matter — their history of discrimination was caused because they were not acknowledged as full U.S. citizens until after the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment the the Constitution was ratified. This absence of full rights under the law is what enabled the horrifying, legally sanctioned racism against them.

By contrast, the Japanese American community experienced an unprecedented revocation of constitutional rights. On February 18, 1942, the Japanese American community was theoretically protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. When President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections were suddenly taken away.

I'm not in favor of "reparations" for the black community — estimating and paying the amount due to them would be impossible. I favor, instead, such equalizing measures as affirmative action. But if there is an argument to be made for African American reparations, the legal rationale would have to be different than the one used to redress the Japanese American community.

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 16 2003, 11:31 PM
:)


shuriken, you deserve a dancing banana ---> <img src='http://www.slantedeyes.com/dancing_banana.gif[/img]
Thanks a lot, SWK. But the word "banana" worries me...

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Jan 16 2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 16 2003, 11:31 PM
:)


shuriken, you deserve a dancing banana ---> <img src='http://www.slantedeyes.com/dancing_banana.gif[/img]
Thanks a lot, SWK. But the word "banana" worries me...
and it's yellow too! :D
you know, like yellowworld.org
hah. hah.
bad joke
sorry :P

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Jan 16 2003, 07:35 PM
Rakovlam writes:

if Japanese internees get reparations for the "racism" they received, then why not blacks?


These are two completely different legal arguments. In the case of African Americans — and Native Americans, for that matter — their history of discrimination was caused because they were not acknowledged as full U.S. citizens until after the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment the the Constitution was ratified. This absence of full rights under the law is what enabled the horrifying, legally sanctioned racism against them.

By contrast, the Japanese American community experienced an unprecedented revocation of constitutional rights. On February 18, 1942, the Japanese American community was theoretically protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. When President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections were suddenly taken away.

I'm not in favor of "reparations" for the black community — estimating and paying the amount due to them would be impossible. I favor, instead, such equalizing measures as affirmative action. But if there is an argument to be made for African American reparations, the legal rationale would have to be different than the one used to redress the Japanese American community.
That's not my question, that's one of the leading arguments by pro-reparations activist. I am NOT (excuse the typo) in anyway in support of reparations of the descendants of slaves (who many have some white blood in them since it was common that slaveowners impregnate their female slaves. Frederick Douglas is an example of a mulatto slave).

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 16 2003, 06:29 PM
I am in anyway in support of reparations of the descendants of slaves
say what? u call yourself a conservative and u support that?

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 16 2003, 07:55 PM
Very well done, sir. My admiration goes to you for having the patience to rebut such propagandistic garbage.
Propaganda? What isn't?

Garbage? Shuriken did a good job refuting many of the points of this article. So well that I'm beginning to question this article. However, I still believe that this is a valid argument.

[rakovlam]

Shuriken

You are the first one to really question myth #1 (before this, I spent most of my time defending myth #2 and #3). Now I believe that the author should of concentrated on the interment of whites instead of diverging into the loyalty of Japanese Americans which you thoroughly refuted.

However, it does not settle the question... Why didn't white internees receive reparations?

Or why did Japanese American use the race card in order to get reparations rather than say that internment violated their constitutional rights (remember, internment was before the Civil Rights Act, so any argument that the US government was racist is also ex post facto)?

The US government didn't have to give reparations if racism was the reason, but did since it would eventually lead to the constitutionality of internment.

[Shuriken]

Rakovlam

I'm probably devoting so much time to this discussion because it gives me the chance to refute some of the intellectual dishonesty that I see in a lot — not all, but a lot — of conservative commentary. The article that you posted, "Racial Myths and Realities," was clearly written from a skewed perspective with a particular ideological agenda in mind. The thesis of the article is that "liberals" are distorting history, but it is filled with historical distortions of its own. Yes, the article does indeed build from some historical truths:

• Japanese Americans were not the only ones interned during World War II
• Slavery is not an exclusively American phenomenon
• Not all lynching victims were black

But from these facts, the article then veers off into numerous assertions that are questionable at best, and outright lies at worst. In doing so, the writer (I can't remember his name) distorts some uncomfortable truths himself. These truths are:

• Japanese Americans (both immigrant and native-born) were the primary target of wartime internment and the overwhelming majority of internees
• Slavery was incompatable with a government founded on the philosophy that "all men are created equal"
• Lynching was indeed a systematic method used to subjugate blacks in the American South well into the 20th century

The fact that the writer is so selective with his historical data tells me that he is not interested in a genuine examination of the truth, only in his own political agenda. Otherwise, why does he omit the fact that the ethnically Japanese wartime internees numbered more 120,000? Why does he limit his discussion of "Japanese" internees to foreign-born "enemy aliens" (and the figure that he cites is probably too low, anyway)? This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I was talking about earlier. As I said, the writer's refusal to acknowledge "the 120,000" instantly marks the article as factually suspect, and everything that it says ought to be taken with a grain of salt, if taken at all.

Now I believe that the author should of concentrated on the interment of whites instead of diverging into the loyalty of Japanese Americans which you thoroughly refuted.

Is that what you really believe? If so, why did you re-post in italics the paragraph about the loyalty of Japanese Americans, a paragraph which you said was particularly "interesting"? If you didn't think that the "loyalty" issue was worth concentrating on, why didn't you just leave the paragraph alone?

However, it does not settle the question... Why didn't white internees receive reparations?

I don't know. It's a good question. And I'm willing to believe that a case may be made for giving German and Italian internees reparations. However, I do wonder if the white internees were faced with the same particular circumstances faced by the Japanese American evacuees. The JAs were forced, with very little notice, to liquidate all of their belongings — including their houses — before being incarcerated. And under the circumstances, they were forced to sell their possessions at cut-rate prices. All that they were allowed to bring with them had to fit into a single suitcase. Entire communities throughout the West Coast were uprooted. And once the war was over, the JAs had difficulty fitting back into a society that still viewed them as "the enemy." Were these the same circumstances faced by the German and Italian internees? I doubt it. They had intact families and communities to return to, and the Italian Americans were not interned for as long. I'm speculating here, but maybe one reason why the white internees didn't receive the same kind of reparations as the Japanese Americans is because the hardships that they suffered weren't as great.

Or why did Japanese American use the race card in order to get reparations rather than say that internment violated their constitutional rights (remember, internment was before the Civil Rights Act, so any argument that the US government was racist is also ex post facto)?

You seem to believe that the Japanese American internment survivors were given reparations just because they accused the U.S. government of being racist. If this is what you believe, it's a misconception. They were given reparations precisely because the government did indeed violate their constitutional rights — and because the government lied about its reasons for doing so. The fact that Executive Order 9066 singled them out over the German Americans and Italian Americans was an aggrivating factor, but it wasn't the entire argument. And I question your use of the pejorative term "using the race card." When a racial injustice is addressed, must its racial character remain unacknowledged?

The US government didn't have to give reparations if racism was the reason, but did since it would eventually lead to the constitutionality of internment.

I don't know what you're saying here. Incidentally, the Supreme Court did uphold the constitutionality of the internment in its decision Korematsu v. the United States, handed down in November 1944. Ironically, the decision was used to defend the Nazi death camps during the Nuremberg Tribunal. Korematsu would not be overturned by the high court until 1986.

And this statement in "Racial Myths and Realities" really disturbs me:

In fact, we know quite a bit about lynching and the facts indicate it was far from a racist design practiced by whites to terrorize blacks.

This is not true either. The writer seems to believe that just because non-blacks were also lynched, lynching was not a tool of the racists and segregationists. This is illogical, and it completely overlooks the conditions of the American South during the decades of slavery and segregation. Lynching was indeed a terrorizing tool used to keep African Americans "in their place." In fact, when Strom Thurmond ran for president on a pro-segregationist platform in 1948, he opposed the passing of any anti-lynching laws by the U.S. Congress. Just because lynching was not used exclusively against Southern blacks does not mean that — when it was used against them — it was not "a racist design practiced by whites to terrorize blacks."

I'm tempted to go on a rant about how the "Racial Myths" writer concludes his article with a diatribe about how "liberals" have lied about history and how the conservatives are telling the truth. To call this an exaggeration would be to put it too mildly and too politely. Suffice it to say that this is only more intellectual dishonesty. The writer himself clearly lies — I can't characterize his false represenatations of history any other way — in order to accuse his opponents of lying. But I'm sure that if the writer were to read what I've written about his article, he would just dismiss what I've said as "politically correct whining" — even though I've supported what I've said with documentation while he has not. This all strikes me as part of the conservative agenda to deny that race has been and still is a strong, discriminatory force in this society. It's one tool in their self-righteous crusade to dismantle affirmative action and other race-conscious remedies to social injustice. They seem to believe that if we all just pretend that racial discrimination is not an issue, it will just go away.

[SunWuKong]

what really did it for me about that article was that the writer insisted that american slavery lasted for 89 years. sure it's not a lie, but it's a technicality. and it's an insult to his readers' intelligence.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 17 2003, 07:55 PM
what really did it for me about that article was that the writer insisted that american slavery lasted for 89 years. sure it's not a lie, but it's a technicality. and it's an insult to his readers' intelligence.
Pro-reparations advocates try to pin the United States for all 400 years of slavery. Then after the revolution, the founding fathers had to choose between an early split in the union or slavery. The constitution then did not ban slavery but allowed any state to ban it. the greatest insult by pro-reparations is that they have not acknowledged that over 400,000 Union soldiers, mostly white, died trying to free the slaves.

The author is trying to take on the race racketeers, not on the average reader.

[rakovlam]

I don't know what you're saying here. Incidentally, the Supreme Court did uphold the constitutionality of the internment in its decision Korematsu v. the United States, handed down in November 1944. Ironically, the decision was used to defend the Nazi death camps during the Nuremberg Tribunal. Korematsu would not be overturned by the high court until 1986.


I'm talking about 1986. Brown vs. The Board of Education is being enforced by then. So of course it was unconstitutional. I said said what you said above.

You seem to believe that the Japanese American internment survivors were given reparations just because they accused the U.S. government of being racist. If this is what you believe, it's a misconception. They were given reparations precisely because the government did indeed violate their constitutional rights — and because the government lied about its reasons for doing so. The fact that Executive Order 9066 singled them out over the German Americans and Italian Americans was an aggrivating factor, but it wasn't the entire argument. And I question your use of the pejorative term "using the race card." When a racial injustice is addressed, must its racial character remain unacknowledged?

Once again, it's not a racial. The United States had two fronts during the war; a Germany-Italy alliance on one side, and Japan on the other. Japan just bombed Pearl Harbor, nit Germany or Italy. You've got one side planning to invade the west coast of the US (Pearl Harbor and the capture of the Phillipines and the Aleutans was the beginning of this plan), and another still busy trying to invade USSR. Of course there are seperate policies for both sides cause Japan is a bigger threat to the US. Just because Japanese look different doesn't make this racial.

I don't know. It's a good question. And I'm willing to believe that a case may be made for giving German and Italian internees reparations. However, I do wonder if the white internees were faced with the same particular circumstances faced by the Japanese American evacuees. The JAs were forced, with very little notice, to liquidate all of their belongings — including their houses — before being incarcerated. And under the circumstances, they were forced to sell their possessions at cut-rate prices. All that they were allowed to bring with them had to fit into a single suitcase. Entire communities throughout the West Coast were uprooted. And once the war was over, the JAs had difficulty fitting back into a society that still viewed them as "the enemy." Were these the same circumstances faced by the German and Italian internees? I doubt it. They had intact families and communities to return to, and the Italian Americans were not interned for as long. I'm speculating here, but maybe one reason why the white internees didn't receive the same kind of reparations as the Japanese Americans is because the hardships that they suffered weren't as great.

Undue Process: The Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees (1997), Arnold Krammer, by Arthur Krammer. Before you speculate some more, go read this book first.

This is not true either. The writer seems to believe that just because non-blacks were also lynched, lynching was not a tool of the racists and segregationists. This is illogical, and it completely overlooks the conditions of the American South during the decades of slavery and segregation. Lynching was indeed a terrorizing tool used to keep African Americans "in their place." In fact, when Strom Thurmond ran for president on a pro-segregationist platform in 1948, he opposed the passing of any anti-lynching laws by the U.S. Congress. Just because lynching was not used exclusively against Southern blacks does not mean that — when it was used against them — it was not "a racist design practiced by whites to terrorize blacks."

It didn't say it wasn't a a white intrument to terrorize blacks. He said that's it only part of the story behind lynchings. Then he cites examples of lynching beyond racism which included plain old homicide and law enforcement in the territories.

I forget to cite one fact in my paper, I'm failed for pagurism. The author leaves out one important fact, you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty. To be intellectually dishonest, he's got to do better than leaving out only ONE fact.

One thing I cannot stand is the way liberals still associate whites with racism while turning a blind eye when minorities become racist. They still use white guilt in order to advance their agenda to this day. Conservatives are leading the charge to overturn Michigan Universitie's admissions policy on the basis that rewards minorities for being minorities. We're not pretending that racial discrimination doesn't exist, we justknow it isn't only whites.

As for politically correctness, the politically correct whining just caused the administration in our school to drop a school play because it "portrays two Asians gambling". Your "politically correct whining" is trying to shutdown Christianity from public universities and shutting down Christmas. Your "politically correct whining" allowed "Democrat" Senator Patty Murray to praise Osama Bin Laden without any repercussions while "Republican" Trent Lott gets ripped up (