-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bennett Fires Back Against Racism Charges
- Thread starter Dragoon68
- Start date
F
Filmproducer
Guest
Facts are facts even when we don't like them. There is a proportionally greater - six to seven times greater - problem with violent crime in the black population of America than there is in other races. Some stereotypes are formed upon myths but some are formed upon experiences and realities.
It can be unfair when a person is stereotyped as something they, as an individual, are not because the group - any kind of group - to which they belong, on average, may have the characteristic assumed by the stereotype. Fortunately, most untrue stereotypes are quickly disolved in personal - one on one - relationships. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, here is the problem with your analysis. The incidence of crime is higher in the African American population, however, the MAJORITY of African Americans are not criminals. That is what the numbers prove, but it is something you do not want to see. Look at the NUMBER OF HOMICIDES and compare it to the TOTAL AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION. Here is where the truth in the data can be found. We can just agree to disagree because you will not convince me that this stereotype is true. My life's work is in studying race relations, not to mention media bias.
By the way there was no difference between my statement and Bennett's. My statement was just as incorrect and offensive as his. He was wrong and it is not PC to say so. HIS STATEMENT WAS NOT TRUE IN ANY WAY, RACIALLY. IT WAS BASED ON A FLAWED PREMISE, THEREFORE ILLOGICAL. He played on the stereotypes that so many of you believe to be true, and will not let go of, even when you are given proof. That is the problem with race in America. It has nothing to do with the democrats and the republicans, or the conservatives and the liberals. Things will never change until people begin to open their eyes to the truth.
The difference is that I do not particularly think he is a racist. He did, although, make a racist remark in nature. One that, frankly, was ridiculous to make. I realize it was taken out of context. Should this make or break his career? No. Should he be held to a higher standard? Yes, as should all media outlets. What is so hard to understand about that? People are selective listeners, as well as selective readers. How can race relations improve in America if we continually allow the media to make comments that PERPETUATE STEREOTYPES? This, of course, includes all media, and anyone involved in leadership for that matter.
This is all I will say on the matter. Please look at the data, and try to put aside preconceived notions. Crime is higher in proportion to total population, but the VAST MAJORITY of the population are not criminals. To those of you who believe that the stereotype can be resolved upon meeting with and talking to people, you fail to realize that in some instances you cannot meet someone first, or have chance to talk to them. Why should the majority of African Americans have to suffer the label of this stereotype, when the majority are not criminals? Why should they be treated differently when the go to a place of business, than their white counterparts? For example, why is it all right for the workers of Dominos not let an African American inside after dark, but allow other white patrons? I ask this, because this is a specific incidence that I witnessed. We had just gone to movie and decided to order a pizza before we went home. I stayed with our son and William tried to order. He was ignored. They pretended they did not hear him knocking. They allowed other white customers entrance, some to pick up pizza (3), and one to order and wait (1). All the while my husband was outside. I was shocked. I was angry. He came back to the car, and said let's go out somewhere. I said no, I was no longer hungry. I would not leave though. I went to see if I could get in. I thought that maybe they were closing, therefore they wouldn't let him in. When I went tot he door I did not even have to knock, I was buzzed right in, and asked what I would like to order. Needless to say I complained to Dominos regional management. They were very apologetic and gave us a lot of free pizza, that we never ate. What had happened was that after dark the store is automatically locked and the workers have to buzz you in? Apparently on that night the two females working saw my husband, but were scared, because he looked like he was up to no good. The male was out on a delivery, so that for their own safety they decided not to open the door. They were reprimanded and had to take a sensitivity class. Why did my husband look like he was up to no good? Because he walked over from the theater, instead of driving? Maybe it was because he was so big. He played football at UK and was 6'1 and 300 pounds, and all muscle. So when you say that stereotypes can be dispelled upon meeting, I say that may be so, but for those who do not have the opportunity to meet we as society need to work to dispel the stereotype before hand.
F
Filmproducer
Guest
Sorry, didn't realize it was something you read, I assumed it was something you had seen on TV or heard on the radio, as you were talking about that previously. Well, you know what they say when we assume.Originally posted by Bunyon:
FP,
My friend, I can read, that is how I now it was not talking about genocide in rowanda. I'll go get the book agian perhaps and give you exact details. If you have ever listened to black talk radio you know what I am talking about. You know, Bennet never held any real hight post, and now he is just a radio talk host. Even if his statement was a senister as you think, it is not worth all of this. But the statemant was questionable at best, what we see is the political attack macine in action here. This same machine is the macine that chews up blacks an spits them out. I hope you will see this someday. We are a couple of night owls aren't we? Good night, sweat dreams!
Since, I do not know the author, I cannot comment. Let me ask you this though. Do you like, or even believe, all the white or conservative authors you read? This person may have written a book, but that does not mean that everyone believes he/she is credible. I will not make a judgment, because I have no idea who the author is.
Also, there are some websites out there that talk of black genocide and abortion. Church Mouse Guy posted a link early in this thread. My previous comment did not mention this.
As far as thinking his comment is sinister, I don't. It was an incredibly ridiculous remark that lacked common sense, but not sinister. My postings in this thread have dealt with why his comment perpetuated a stereotype, not necessarily with him. I don't think the comment should be a career breaker, I just think he should use more common sense next time.
I do not doubt the "political machine in action". That is the way it works with any ridiculous statement. Just as it did with Jackson and his remark about NO after Katrina. While I do not necessarily agree with the "political machine", it is necessary to hold people accountable.
As far as sleep... What is that? I forget.
Many of us can relate stories similar to yours based upon incidents wherein we believe race, gender, age, language, or national origin was a factor in how we, or someone else, was treated. These things do happen and not just to blacks. I've already made it clear that my family - within the four (I had written three but forgot about the little ones) living generations - is composed of persons of three races, five nationalities, and four languages. We can start thinking that every act, such as you related, is the result of racial stereotyping and is based in some evil disdain of people of other races when in fact it might be nothing of the sort, and even if it is, based on some real experiences or knowledge of experiences of others. Or we can realize that people always have, and always will, react cautiously, suspiciously, etc. to others who are "different" than themselves or to situations where someone "appears" intimidating because because of size, gender, clothing, conduct, timing, situation, and, yes, even color of skin. It's just the result of human nature and our internal defense mechanisms that keeps us wary of others. Rumors and myths, real life experiences, known statistics, and, yes, even stereotyping is a factor. We "learn" both truths and lies as we go through life. We can err on the side of being too trusting just as easily as we can of being too mistrusting. Racial hatred - and, more importantly, actions based upon that hatred - are something completely different.
This thread is nearing it's end and it has been one of those intense topics that can sap a lot out of a person. It tests our abilities to communicate our thoughts in a Christian manner. That's an extreme challenge in the realm of politics! I want to make it clear that I respect the persons who've disagreed with me out of their sincere convictions and passion for the topic. I wish I were perfect enough to say that this stuff doesn't get me riled up but I'm not and I can't. I try to remain civil but I admit I do err from that ideal. I try to always keep in perspective the fact that no matter how smart - which is highly questionable - or how right I might believe myself to be I know that in the final analysis only God Almighty knows the truth because He is Truth. I'm no better than any of the rest of you Christian brothers and sisters with whom I debate - even argue - topics of mutual interest. We should love one another and pray for one another even when we can't stand each other's opinions or ranting about them. Some day, hopefully, we shall all be in Heaven where none of this things will matter. In Heaven there will be no racism - or any other evil - and all God's chosen children will be in harmony in the presence of our Creator, Savior, and Guide. That'll be a better day!
Slate had a nice point counter point on the Bennett gaffe...and we see the same sanitizing
here on this board..like I said he was extremely
unwise in his words. Racist perhaps not and I hope not, but only God knows what is in his heart no
one else not even Dragoon68,nor I but he did sterotype our Afro-American brothers and sisters
and even those who will be saved and be Christian
but yet he threw them out as well.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2127378/
1. Bennett didn't say it. According to the Weekly Standard, "The AP wire blared the headline: 'Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime,' which was pretty much the polar opposite of what he actually said and believes."
Nope, sorry. Read the quote. That's exactly what he said. Twice.
2. Bennett didn't single out blacks. Here's how Bennett retold the tale on Hannity & Colmes: "I said abortion is invoked in another way; you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate—you saw the quote—you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community; you could do it in other places. … I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and … morally reprehensible."
Wrong again. Bennett didn't say you could cut the crime rate by practicing abortion "in other places" or "any other community." He said you could cut it by aborting blacks.
3. Bennett admitted his mistake. John Gibson of Fox News claims that Bennett "says he misspoke. I mean, one of the ways he misspoke is not saying, 'Let's abort every white and black baby, then your crime would go down. It's not just black babies.' "
Misspoke? That's a mighty charitable description. But no, Bennett hasn't admitted even that. Thursday night, CNN asked him whether he owed anyone an apology. He replied, "I don't think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."
4. Bennett only said the black crime rate was high. On Opinionjournal.com, James Taranto asks, "Yet somehow it's considered invidious to point out that blacks, or black men at any rate, have a higher crime rate than nonblacks?"
Nice try. But Bennett didn't say anything about today's black men. He said crime would go down if you aborted "every black baby."
5. The crime rate of the next black generation can be predicted from this one. Several of my favorite writers have taken this line. Here's Andrew McCarthy in the National Review: "The [black crime] rate being high, it is an unavoidable mathematical reality that if the number of blacks, or of any group whose rate outstripped the national rate, were reduced or eliminated from the national computation, the national rate would go down." NR's Ramesh Ponnuru makes the same point: "Bennett's claim about what would happen to crime rates if, somehow, all black babies were aborted, is nearly incontrovertibly true because it is sadly true that blacks are disproportionately involved in crime." Matthew Yglesias of TPM Café agrees that abortions of black, male, poor, or southern fetuses would reduce the crime rate because "southern people, poor people, black people, and male people have a much greater propensity to commit crime." And Nick Schulz of Tech Central Station writes, "lacks commit a disproportionate share of violent crimes in the United States. … Given that fact, it's not a monumentally difficult conceptual leap to surmise that if you aborted every black child in the country from here on out (a hideousness that no one is advocating), the crime rate would drop."
Actually, it is a monumental leap. It's a leap from people who have committed crimes to people who haven't even been born. You can't just call such an inference "mathematical" or assert a criminal "propensity" among blacks. You have to explain it. If three apples fall from a tree, the next apple will follow. But if three flipped coins come up heads, you can't predict that the next coin will do the same. Are black babies more like apples or coins? What law of nature entitles Bennett to say he "know that it's true" that aborting them would lower the crime rate?
Taranto says we need to speak frankly about the current black crime rate because it subjects black men to stereotypes. Fair enough. But what do we accomplish by asserting the criminal propensities of today's black babies? Such talk does nothing to lower the crime rate, and it subjects those babies to the same stereotypes as they grow up. Bennett understands the psychological effect of negative assumptions in the context of affirmative action: To suggest that "black young people couldn't get into college unless we gave them points for their race is to be involved in the bigotry of low expectations," he argued two years ago. But when the context is blaming blacks for crime rather than helping them get into college, the bigotry of low expectations escapes both his notice and his lips.
6. The idea of linking crime and abortion to race came from liberals. Bennett implies he got the idea from Slate: "The author of Freakonomics, Steve Levitt, engages the theory that abortion reduces crime, and he also discusses, as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime. And he does that in an extended debate on Slate.com."
Sorry, wrong again. Here's Levitt's debate in Slate. Paste his comments into a word-processing file and run a search for the word "black." You won't find it. The only person who brings up race in the exchange is Steve Sailer, a conservative Bennett supporter. Levitt shrugs it off, saying "race really is not an integral part of the story." As to Bennett's latest comments, Levitt repeats,
Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument … [O]nce you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement.
Sailer and Taranto point out that four years ago, Levitt mentioned the black crime rate in a paragraph deep in a 67-page article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Please. The probability that Bennett ever read this article is zero.
So, where did Bennett get the idea? Gibson blames "all those arguments white liberals have with white conservatives about abortion, in which the white liberal eventually defends his pro-abortion position by saying, 'Well, they'll just grow up poor and be criminals anyway.' " Really? I've heard a lot of white liberals talk about abortion, and I've never heard one of them say that.
If liberals aren't saying it, who is? Follow the clues. Thursday morning, Bennett said, "These are matters which scholars talk about, which people write books about, which are debated in public policy relations among abortion, crime, and race." Thursday evening, he warned, "There are people who are making draconian proposals about abortion and this and that and the other thing." Friday, he wrote that these issues have been "much debated in the think tank community in Washington." Bennett is a fellow at the Claremont Institute, has been a longtime scholar at the Heritage Foundation, and was a speaker last month at the American Enterprise Institute. Do the math.
It's painful to watch conservative writers sanitize Bennett's remarks. He "did not suggest that [the black crime rate] is high because of something immanent in the black condition," McCarthy argues. "He was merely dealing with life as we find it. And that, of course, holds forever open the possibility that if the conditions inducing people to behave a particular way were changed, their behavior, too, would change." If only Bennett had said that. If only he had confined his comments to the crime rate as we find it, leaving open the possibility that the next generation of blacks might differ from the last. But that's exactly the possibility he foreclosed. Shame on him.
here on this board..like I said he was extremely
unwise in his words. Racist perhaps not and I hope not, but only God knows what is in his heart no
one else not even Dragoon68,nor I but he did sterotype our Afro-American brothers and sisters
and even those who will be saved and be Christian
but yet he threw them out as well.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2127378/
1. Bennett didn't say it. According to the Weekly Standard, "The AP wire blared the headline: 'Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime,' which was pretty much the polar opposite of what he actually said and believes."
Nope, sorry. Read the quote. That's exactly what he said. Twice.
2. Bennett didn't single out blacks. Here's how Bennett retold the tale on Hannity & Colmes: "I said abortion is invoked in another way; you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate—you saw the quote—you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community; you could do it in other places. … I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and … morally reprehensible."
Wrong again. Bennett didn't say you could cut the crime rate by practicing abortion "in other places" or "any other community." He said you could cut it by aborting blacks.
3. Bennett admitted his mistake. John Gibson of Fox News claims that Bennett "says he misspoke. I mean, one of the ways he misspoke is not saying, 'Let's abort every white and black baby, then your crime would go down. It's not just black babies.' "
Misspoke? That's a mighty charitable description. But no, Bennett hasn't admitted even that. Thursday night, CNN asked him whether he owed anyone an apology. He replied, "I don't think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."
4. Bennett only said the black crime rate was high. On Opinionjournal.com, James Taranto asks, "Yet somehow it's considered invidious to point out that blacks, or black men at any rate, have a higher crime rate than nonblacks?"
Nice try. But Bennett didn't say anything about today's black men. He said crime would go down if you aborted "every black baby."
5. The crime rate of the next black generation can be predicted from this one. Several of my favorite writers have taken this line. Here's Andrew McCarthy in the National Review: "The [black crime] rate being high, it is an unavoidable mathematical reality that if the number of blacks, or of any group whose rate outstripped the national rate, were reduced or eliminated from the national computation, the national rate would go down." NR's Ramesh Ponnuru makes the same point: "Bennett's claim about what would happen to crime rates if, somehow, all black babies were aborted, is nearly incontrovertibly true because it is sadly true that blacks are disproportionately involved in crime." Matthew Yglesias of TPM Café agrees that abortions of black, male, poor, or southern fetuses would reduce the crime rate because "southern people, poor people, black people, and male people have a much greater propensity to commit crime." And Nick Schulz of Tech Central Station writes, "lacks commit a disproportionate share of violent crimes in the United States. … Given that fact, it's not a monumentally difficult conceptual leap to surmise that if you aborted every black child in the country from here on out (a hideousness that no one is advocating), the crime rate would drop."
Actually, it is a monumental leap. It's a leap from people who have committed crimes to people who haven't even been born. You can't just call such an inference "mathematical" or assert a criminal "propensity" among blacks. You have to explain it. If three apples fall from a tree, the next apple will follow. But if three flipped coins come up heads, you can't predict that the next coin will do the same. Are black babies more like apples or coins? What law of nature entitles Bennett to say he "know
Taranto says we need to speak frankly about the current black crime rate because it subjects black men to stereotypes. Fair enough. But what do we accomplish by asserting the criminal propensities of today's black babies? Such talk does nothing to lower the crime rate, and it subjects those babies to the same stereotypes as they grow up. Bennett understands the psychological effect of negative assumptions in the context of affirmative action: To suggest that "black young people couldn't get into college unless we gave them points for their race is to be involved in the bigotry of low expectations," he argued two years ago. But when the context is blaming blacks for crime rather than helping them get into college, the bigotry of low expectations escapes both his notice and his lips.
6. The idea of linking crime and abortion to race came from liberals. Bennett implies he got the idea from Slate: "The author of Freakonomics, Steve Levitt, engages the theory that abortion reduces crime, and he also discusses, as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime. And he does that in an extended debate on Slate.com."
Sorry, wrong again. Here's Levitt's debate in Slate. Paste his comments into a word-processing file and run a search for the word "black." You won't find it. The only person who brings up race in the exchange is Steve Sailer, a conservative Bennett supporter. Levitt shrugs it off, saying "race really is not an integral part of the story." As to Bennett's latest comments, Levitt repeats,
Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument … [O]nce you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement.
Sailer and Taranto point out that four years ago, Levitt mentioned the black crime rate in a paragraph deep in a 67-page article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Please. The probability that Bennett ever read this article is zero.
So, where did Bennett get the idea? Gibson blames "all those arguments white liberals have with white conservatives about abortion, in which the white liberal eventually defends his pro-abortion position by saying, 'Well, they'll just grow up poor and be criminals anyway.' " Really? I've heard a lot of white liberals talk about abortion, and I've never heard one of them say that.
If liberals aren't saying it, who is? Follow the clues. Thursday morning, Bennett said, "These are matters which scholars talk about, which people write books about, which are debated in public policy relations among abortion, crime, and race." Thursday evening, he warned, "There are people who are making draconian proposals about abortion and this and that and the other thing." Friday, he wrote that these issues have been "much debated in the think tank community in Washington." Bennett is a fellow at the Claremont Institute, has been a longtime scholar at the Heritage Foundation, and was a speaker last month at the American Enterprise Institute. Do the math.
It's painful to watch conservative writers sanitize Bennett's remarks. He "did not suggest that [the black crime rate] is high because of something immanent in the black condition," McCarthy argues. "He was merely dealing with life as we find it. And that, of course, holds forever open the possibility that if the conditions inducing people to behave a particular way were changed, their behavior, too, would change." If only Bennett had said that. If only he had confined his comments to the crime rate as we find it, leaving open the possibility that the next generation of blacks might differ from the last. But that's exactly the possibility he foreclosed. Shame on him.
F
Filmproducer
Guest
Hopefully you will learn more than one side of race relations as you continue on with your life's work in this field.
I'm sorry you feel I don't. I respect your opinion, I just do not hold it, as I'm sure you feel with me. (As you have previously stated)
As far as my life's work is concerned, I do not deal in balck/white issues, so to speak, alone. I also am not trying to "demonize" the white race, of which I am a member. I want to understand the underlying cause of stereotypes and work to inform people of inaccuracies. That is any inaccurate stereotype, not just white on black. The project I am involved with at the moment deals, in some manner, with the stereotypes non-christians hold of Christians.
Many of us can relate stories similar to yours based upon incidents wherein we believe race, gender, age, language, or national origin was a factor in how we, or someone else, was treated. These things do happen and not just to blacks. I've already made it clear that my family...
I have never discounted the fact that others of many different races, nationalities, religions, etc., have had similar experiences. This includes white people. In fact, some African Americans tend to racially stereotype white conservative males. I believe this is just as wrong as any other stereotyping. No one has the right to judge someone else on looks or beliefs alone. This is not to say that this does not happen, it will probably even continue to happen for years to come. My problem lies with the media who perpetuate any stereotypes, not just Bennett. We can all learn from our mistakes. I believe if we hold all media more accountable for what they say then we can in the long run dispel stereotypes and greatly improve race relations in this country.
As far as the experiences I related, neither happened to me, but my husband. He takes them in stride, as par for the course. He even says to me, "I've been black my whole life, I'm used to it by now". I don't want my children to feel the same way, though. We as a society should work toward changing inaccuracies and stereotypes, for the betterment of future generations. I do not doubt that others on this board, although they disagree with my conclusions, feel the same.
You keep harping the point about the majority of blacks not being criminals yet no one on this thread is arguing it with you.
Yet, you claim that the stereotype is true? I do not really understand the logic here. I don't disagree with your numbers, just your conclusions. (i.e., that his statement about black babies would be true). After all his statement implied ALL black babies, when in reality a SMALL MINORITY would grow up to criminal. I guess that is really my point, and the problem I find with his statement.
This thread is nearing it's end and it has been one of those intense topics that can sap a lot out of a person. It tests our abilities to communicate our thoughts in a Christian manner. That's an extreme challenge in the realm of politics...
Well said! I sincerely do hope I have not offended anyone on this board. I was not personally attacking anyone, or their beliefs. Healthy debate is necessary in any society, as long it is respectful. It is the only way to grow together, and learn from one another. I am very passionate about this subject, (which is probably a good thing, otherwise I could never justify the debt of grad school
) I have learned not to get angry about it, though. My ultimate goal is to gain understanding of public opinion and stereotypes, and the effects of media bias. Ultimately these form the basis for political decisions in the basic lay person, instead of actual issues. I find it fascinating, and extremely unfortunate, that the majority of people who vote do not research issues or candidates, but rather base their decision on interest group ads, etc. I genuinely respect those who research and come to their own conclusion in political matters, even if I do not agree with their views.
I'm sorry you feel I don't. I respect your opinion, I just do not hold it, as I'm sure you feel with me. (As you have previously stated)
As far as my life's work is concerned, I do not deal in balck/white issues, so to speak, alone. I also am not trying to "demonize" the white race, of which I am a member. I want to understand the underlying cause of stereotypes and work to inform people of inaccuracies. That is any inaccurate stereotype, not just white on black. The project I am involved with at the moment deals, in some manner, with the stereotypes non-christians hold of Christians.
Many of us can relate stories similar to yours based upon incidents wherein we believe race, gender, age, language, or national origin was a factor in how we, or someone else, was treated. These things do happen and not just to blacks. I've already made it clear that my family...
I have never discounted the fact that others of many different races, nationalities, religions, etc., have had similar experiences. This includes white people. In fact, some African Americans tend to racially stereotype white conservative males. I believe this is just as wrong as any other stereotyping. No one has the right to judge someone else on looks or beliefs alone. This is not to say that this does not happen, it will probably even continue to happen for years to come. My problem lies with the media who perpetuate any stereotypes, not just Bennett. We can all learn from our mistakes. I believe if we hold all media more accountable for what they say then we can in the long run dispel stereotypes and greatly improve race relations in this country.
As far as the experiences I related, neither happened to me, but my husband. He takes them in stride, as par for the course. He even says to me, "I've been black my whole life, I'm used to it by now". I don't want my children to feel the same way, though. We as a society should work toward changing inaccuracies and stereotypes, for the betterment of future generations. I do not doubt that others on this board, although they disagree with my conclusions, feel the same.
You keep harping the point about the majority of blacks not being criminals yet no one on this thread is arguing it with you.
Yet, you claim that the stereotype is true? I do not really understand the logic here. I don't disagree with your numbers, just your conclusions. (i.e., that his statement about black babies would be true). After all his statement implied ALL black babies, when in reality a SMALL MINORITY would grow up to criminal. I guess that is really my point, and the problem I find with his statement.
This thread is nearing it's end and it has been one of those intense topics that can sap a lot out of a person. It tests our abilities to communicate our thoughts in a Christian manner. That's an extreme challenge in the realm of politics...
Well said! I sincerely do hope I have not offended anyone on this board. I was not personally attacking anyone, or their beliefs. Healthy debate is necessary in any society, as long it is respectful. It is the only way to grow together, and learn from one another. I am very passionate about this subject, (which is probably a good thing, otherwise I could never justify the debt of grad school
) I have learned not to get angry about it, though. My ultimate goal is to gain understanding of public opinion and stereotypes, and the effects of media bias. Ultimately these form the basis for political decisions in the basic lay person, instead of actual issues. I find it fascinating, and extremely unfortunate, that the majority of people who vote do not research issues or candidates, but rather base their decision on interest group ads, etc. I genuinely respect those who research and come to their own conclusion in political matters, even if I do not agree with their views."Since, I do not know the author, I cannot comment. Let me ask you this though. Do you like, or even believe, all the white or conservative authors you read? This person may have written a book, but that does not mean that everyone believes he/she is credible. I will not make a judgment, because I have no idea who the author is."------------------------------------
But that was not the point, the point is this political attack machine that is attacking a man who has served his country well over one questionable statement, does not hold its own to the same standard, therefore it amounts to nothing but cheap racial polotics. Blacks are seldom called on their racisim. Until they are, I will not help the attack machine attack people like Bennet over one statement. And I think no matter how much we talk and complain about what you husband experienced or what Bennet said, It wont change until the propensity of the black community to be 7 times more likely to commit a crime than other races is changed. As long as this is the case, all blacks will be effected by it. I honestly think blacks are the only ones who can change this. They must take responsiblity and quite makeing excuses for it. And stop attacking their own, and others when they insist on telling the truth.
But that was not the point, the point is this political attack machine that is attacking a man who has served his country well over one questionable statement, does not hold its own to the same standard, therefore it amounts to nothing but cheap racial polotics. Blacks are seldom called on their racisim. Until they are, I will not help the attack machine attack people like Bennet over one statement. And I think no matter how much we talk and complain about what you husband experienced or what Bennet said, It wont change until the propensity of the black community to be 7 times more likely to commit a crime than other races is changed. As long as this is the case, all blacks will be effected by it. I honestly think blacks are the only ones who can change this. They must take responsiblity and quite makeing excuses for it. And stop attacking their own, and others when they insist on telling the truth.