Skip to main content

Black Women vs. White women
SHOSHANNA JOHNSON VS. JESSICA LYNCH!

Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch were just given the 'women of the year' award. Shoshanna seemingly thrown in as an after thought in light of the white racist media's frenzy over Jessica, versus their cruelty towards Shoshanna. Remember that front page photo that they never would have done to crippled Jessica? That though minute in comparison to their on-going racism was the ultimate insult and the perfect example of the 'dividing line' with regard to black women versus white women in so-called 'just and fair' white America's eyes.

The entire treatment of the 2 women shows the demonic madness within the women of the diabolical white race. (Note:Whites can be divided up into 2 groups caucasian people of goodwill, versus the diabolical white race which consists of those who are bred in, and act on, the what the Bible would call 'demonic spirit' of white racism which consists of arrogance, lies, hate, DECEIT, ignorance, killing, stealing, destroying.)

Jessica has been offered millions, had a ticker tape parade, and is fawned over in the media while we have to search long and hard to find out about what Shoshanna's doing. Now, I'm not like some who protest the madness on what 'should have been equal celebration of both Shoshanna and Jessica' in that Blacks could and should throw our own ticker tape parade, offer her guest spots on TV shows, and in videos, (well the few decent ones) instead of waiting for white demonism to be less demonic in its blatant racist/bias expression as we see from the different treatment, they will not.

This is why it is an abomination for colored boy ilk to fight for this ilk to have the same 100% un-restrained power over blacks as they had in segregation. And Black women, spelling out the twisted so and so's disposition it amounts to, LET WHITE WOMEN HAVE RULE, FAVOR, PREFERENCE OVER WE BLACK WOMEN!

Like I said, WAR!!! This is not a drill, this is the REAL THING AND OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF, OFFENDED HUSBAND, no less, GOD ALMIGHTY HAS AWAKENED AND COME DOWN TO FIGHT FOR US, FIGHT AGAINST THEM, AND SO PROVE IT!

At any rate, the awarding of Shoshanna and Jessica as 'women of the year' is not the only thing that sparked this another FYI post, but some white women commentary on of all things their 'doped up, son' Rush Limbaugh. Out of support of our beloved together sister Star Jones I watch "The View." The day following Rush the drug addict's voluntary admittance into a insane asylum Star called him just what he was a JUNKIE whereas her co-hosts Meridith Vierra tried to play it down and actually had the gall to utter in his defense, 'he should be a little less prejudice.'

Let's examine that statement. What does that say about that type of white women? It says, they coddle, nurture, the demonism in their white offlings, sons, fathers, brothers, and when their white offlings are shown up for the monstrosity, deceiver, hypocritical dope fiends that they are, they are 'suckled and pacified' by the white woman who nurtures them in their mad state.

"A little less prejudice?!" So they admittedly KNOW it is PREJUDICE and they BLESS IT. They know it is EVIL and they 'coddle, relish and defend it.' They KNOW it is an ABOMINATION and they 'NEVER SAY A WORD AGAINST IT UNTIL IT IS SHOWN UP FOR WHAT IT IS! Such a mindset in such women uphold the demonic spirit of white racism that their male beings spew and that, in the name of Jesus.

See then 'she' is the enemy as much as her demon spawn. She is as goofy, deceitful, wicked, filthy as he is. Look at goofy Ann Coulter she is an open avowed racist whose book makes the best seller lists. Did she teach Rush the statement he made to a black man caller on his radio program, 'get the bone out of your nose?' Did she complain then? No, only when her demon spawn is caught being the decietful, hate-filled, doper that he calls 'Christ-like', does the white woman jump up and that, to dilute and defend the white male in his madness.

Now let's examine the issues with regard to her. Affirmative Action let the white woman into the white male dominated work world that her white mate kept her locked out of. In other words, she had to make use of the BLACK POWER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BILL to even enter into the work world as her mate was abusive to her and locked her out. So she prospered from BLACK RESISTANCE just like the few blacks that got in the door prospered. In fact, all stats show the white woman 'DISCRIMINATELY' prospered moreso from Affirmative Action than all other people of color who also prospered from it, be they, red, yellow, brown. BLACK RESISTANCE aka CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, VOTING RIGHTS is the GREAT EQUALIZER! The Black's collective legalized 'JOHN HANCOCK' written into American law that made life better for black, brown, yellow, red, and white women, and it would do ALL well to remember this TRUTH that white males and their colored trained ones 'CAST TO THE GROUND' (Daniel 8:12,23-25; 9:26).

It almost goes without saying, that the point being made is, BLACKS MADE AMERICA MULTICULTURAL AND FAIR, to a degree not WHITE MALES who complain about being 'POLITICAL CORRECT/MULTICULTURAL' so showing their nature remains 'RACIST AND DEMONIC' to find fault in implementing 'politcal correctness,' 'cultural sensitivity,' and every other FAIR AND JUST ACT that they and their colored proselytes HATE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT.

Mind you, this WHITE MALE/FEMALE ilk COMPLAINS while still retaining 100% rule and reign over the resources of the U.S.. 100% white male control over the resources of Africa of which they use to run their white nations. 100% controll of the tax dollar, the hiring and firing in corporate America, the OILWELLS OF IRAQ, etc., etc. if you get my drift. The fact is, they had and continue to hold everyone down with their power and evil, one of which is complaining about the very laws and bills that forced them to do right. Well that, and taking advantage of the simpleminded aka their colored trained ones. But I digress.

Now granted, Caucasian men and women joined in with Black Resistance and their white so-called 'Christian' brothers beat, violated and killed them just like they did to Blacks for our over 400 year sojourn with the Caucasoids. Still, the sufferage was mainly ours as a collective people and we've got the countless number of dead bodies to prove it.

Now as such is the case, we see that the white female of the diabolical white race is not only arrogantly puffed up with deceit, and a murderous, wicked heart, but she is stupidly puffed up with deceit and a murderous, wicked heart. She got in the work world because of blacks that she has the gall to look down on.

Remember now, we black women know a lot more about them than they could ever know about us as our ancestors lived among them and watched them partake of the same ghoulish, demonic spirit of racism as their mate did. Oppressed themselves, they gleefully oppressed black women. They were very jealous of their he-mate demon fiend RAPE of the countless black women that were raped and so brought forth our mulatto and fair-skinned children's existance.

We know of their savage barbarity the white female was capable of exacting on enslaved black humanity. Not only did she beat and KILL the mulatto born children of her cheatin ass, filthy, abominable white he-mate, but she tortured many a black child in her midst and was quite lewd and lascivious with the slaveboys. We all know the TRUTHFUL horrid stories surrounding the white mistress enslaver's demonic nature and conduct.

The point being, she is a not focused on evil in this white male hate and rule over black humanity. Well, what I mean is, she's not focused on and addressed enough for her WILL TO KEEP BLACK WOMEN UNDER HER CLAW whereas she is fawned over by her colored boy monstrosities who are fit to serve her in hell where they both belong.

As well, the split is seen in WOMANISM vs. FEMINISM and all that entails. Rather than elaborate, I'll just put the link of postings that spell out the differences in philosophy between Black women of Truth and white women of the diabolical white race.

https://www.africanamerica.org/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=60260642&f=40070883&m=27970893

The bottom line is her conduct is as abhorrent, savage, wicked as his. She is actually arrogant, blind, and stupid enough to become a live exhibit in as much as such a one would arrogantly come up in a Black woman's site, and denounce Black TRUTH addressed solely to black women and think that a black woman, or girl, and maybe a righteous black man, wouldn't see her as the arrogant, stupid, incredibly stupid, blind, deaf, and dumb true to form fool who colored boys would fight to let have 100% UN-RESTRAINED RULE AND REIGN OVER BLACK WOMEN!

Of course, let the record proclaim such a 'she-ra' would be so full of arrogance as to dare to be bold enough to burst into a black woman's site, and denounce ALL BLACK TRUTH while praising white lies as if they are the truth and as if Black women looking in, aren't disrespected and oh so, black woman-like want to strangle such a fool. The only lesser fool would be a colored gal proselyte a rotin' or altogether stupid, cowardly, dunce of a white or white/like girl to stupid to know what an absolute EDUCATED imbecilic fool she is....you know what I mean, black women? Wink

How right does such a one prove the Bible when it says, 'how foolish it is to educate one who has no HEART for the TRUTH' (Prov. 24:2 PP).

I could go on and on, but you are wise, and you get the drift. I'll just say, ponder these matters in your heart black women, begin to voice the truth, speak the truth, murmur the truth, write the truth, until a choir is singing, shouting the truth enough to shake HEAVEN AND EARTH.

Oh, and one final thought, like I said, in the Black Calafia post, 'What a fool, what a tool' a live exhibition that God gave us to go along with posting TRUTHS so Black girls coming in now and in the future can be enlightened and set free!

[This message was edited by Prophetessofrage on November 12, 2003 at 01:32 PM.]
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

By TIM WISE

So now we know how Rush Limbaugh lost all that weight. It wasn't will power, it wasn't exercise, and it wasn't the Atkins Diet. Instead, it appears to have been a legal opiate called OxyContin: legal, at least, for those persons who have a prescription for it, which Rush doesn't. Limbaugh, according to the former housekeeper who scored drugs for him since 1998, is addicted to painkillers.

Rush's dope habit, however, is not the subject of this column, except insofar as it might explain in part his tendency to say some really stupid shit. People who are high, after all, are known to have clouded judgment, which is probably why Limbaugh hasn't denied the allegations of pill-popping, since pill-popping might end up being the last best defense he has against the charge that he's an ignorant, pompous blowfish.

Limbaugh's most recent outrage--claiming that NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb is overrated but avoids serious criticism because he's black and thus the media goes easy on him--is frankly mild compared to many things he's said over the years. Even in the realm of comments considered racist, as this one has been by many, the quip ranks pretty low on the bigot-meter.

After all, early on in Rush's radio career he told a black caller to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back," and since then has said that all composite sketches of criminals look like Jesse Jackson. Additionally, he once dismissed the notion that black opinions matter by ranting that "they're only 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

The comment about McNabb--a three-time Pro Bowler--which Rush made in his capacity as a recently-added ESPN Sunday football commentator is, to hear Rush tell it, no big deal. And the reaction to his remarks, again to hear him tell it, only indicates how far "political correctness" has gone. In fact, in Rush's mind, not only was the remark not racist, but he is now the victim of a liberal-left cabal intent on stifling any conservative commentary in the public arena: a strange claim to make when you're a multimillionaire who has gotten rich off of very un-stifled conservative commentary.

To be fair, Rush is right about one thing. His comment was not, in and of itself racist. He did not, after all, allege that McNabb's talent (or presumed lack thereof) was due to his being black, and therefore somehow incapable of commanding an NFL offense.

But at the same time, this is not where a proper analysis of his remarks (or racism for that matter) should end. For the simple fact is that racially-charged comments, which this surely was, take place against a backdrop of larger social commentary.

Statements of this nature exist not in a vacuum, as if mere isolated flotsam and jetsam on the national airwaves, but rather within a broader context, where their interpretation and symbolic value become greater than the sum of their linguistic parts.

In the case of a comment such as Limbaugh's, one must consider the effect, not simply the intent behind the words. It is this consideration that can legitimately cause Limbaugh's remarks to be viewed as racist or at least an example of white racial resentment, which in turn can feed the problem of racism, whether or not this was the goal of the speaker.

That Rush would likely never understand this is not surprising. Indeed, his understanding of racism, like that of most white Americans it seems, is so limited that it only allows the label to be used to describe the most vicious and deliberately bigoted of statements or actions. In other words, Rush, like most whites, views racism as requiring the evil intent of an individual racist, and thereby considers the event through the eyes of the perpetrator rather than the victim. If he didn't mean any harm, then there was no foul.

But just as football players can be penalized for holding whether or not they meant to do it, so too can someone be guilty of fomenting racism, with or without the conscious desire to contribute to such a thing.

Fact is, what Rush did on ESPN was to play the conservative and white version of the so-called race card. The one that goes like this: "Black people get treated with kid gloves, get coddled, get preferential treatment, get held to a lower standard, get away with sub-par performance in ways that no white person could."

It's a card that Rush and others like him have played for years in their diatribes against affirmative action. It's a card that Rush himself played a few months ago when he and other prominent conservatives insisted that New York Times plagiarist Jayson Blair got away with his dishonesty for so long merely because he was black, and because the Times had an overzealous commitment to "diversity" at the expense of quality. In fact, there is virtually no difference between Rush's treatment of Blair and McNabb: both black, both supposedly getting by on their skin color alone and being coddled by the typically-liberal media, desperate to find ability among black folks who aren't really that good.

Putting aside whether or not Rush is right about McNabb's abilities--and this is something about which honest football fans can disagree, I suppose--the remark can only be viewed as a continuation of the "undeserving black guy gets ahead" theme so common among an increasingly resentful white public.

And keep in mind this is a public that has already been fed lies about affirmative action for so long that today many seem to think that whenever they fail to get a job, it must have been because of some preference given to a person of color; or that if their kid didn't get into the college of their choice, it had to be because of quotas.

Ignore the evidence of course, since it gives the lie to such silliness. Ignore the fact that the very same blacks who presumably take white jobs are two to three times more likely to be unemployed, even when their credentials are equal to their white counterparts.

Ignore the fact that whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to get into their first-choice college, while blacks are the least likely to do so.

Ignore the study published in the Journal of Economic Literature--actually an analysis of over 200 other studies--which found that persons who have benefited from affirmative action perform equal to or better than their white contemporaries, indicating that not only are they not being held to a lower standard, but are meeting whatever standard exists for everyone else.

Even within the ranks of football, ignore the recent study indicating that black coaches are fired more quickly than their white counterparts, even when their records are just as good or better.

Ignore the fact that another black quarterback, Tennessee's Steve McNair, has long been under-appreciated by the national media, stretching back to his days in college at Alcorn State, where he was a Heisman Trophy candidate.

Why, one might ask, would the same media that falls all over itself to kiss the ass of Donovan McNabb just because he's black, constantly minimize McNair's talents on the field, rarely praising him beyond noting that he's "gutsy and plays with pain?"

Only this year, after four straight seasons of high passer ratings and 60 percent-plus completion rates is McNair starting to get some credit for the Titans strong play. But given Rush's worldview, this hardly makes sense. After all, if the media is itching to praise a black quarterback, why would they seemingly have been allergic to such praise in the case of McNair?

Speaking of McNair, imagine what white conservatives would say if he, or any other black football player or commentator were to suggest that the reason the media hasn't given him much credit for his QB skills was because he was black? In other words, what if McNair were to claim that racism against blacks was the reason he failed to get the credit he deserved? Odds are good that Rush and his loyal listeners would hit the roof, blow a gasket, and then have to pop twenty or thirty pills to ease the pain.

Such a claim by McNair would be viewed as stoking racial resentment on the part of blacks. It would be viewed as playing the race card in an arena where it didn't belong. It would be viewed, in short, as racist by many on the right, or at least an example of poisoning the well of race relations.

Well the same logic applies here. When the national dialogue on race includes an unhealthy dose of diversity-bashing from the right, replete with claims of blacks receiving unearned preferences, to then claim that this kind of favoritism explains McNabb's treatment by the press can only further that narrative. In doing so, it can only poison the well of race relations and engender white backlash against the mildest of civil rights efforts. And it can do all of this, irrespective of the self-proclaimed benign intentions of the speaker in question.

Of course the impact of Rush's remarks on McNabb will likely be negligible. After all, an athlete like Donovan McNabb isn't likely to care too much about an analysis of his skills coming from someone whose main form of exercise is washing down the equivalent of synthetic heroin with water. But the impact it can have on the black community generally--especially young black kids--is anything but insignificant.

For blacks to once again hear a white person insist they really aren't that good and that anything they achieve is only because of race, is for them to have planted in their minds the seeds of self-doubt that can cripple achievement. It is also to subject them to yet more proof that no matter what they do, many whites will never think they are truly competent.

Rush of course offers up one last defense, but if anything it actually makes the point of his critics. On his radio show, Rush recently noted that he has also criticized white quarterbacks Vinnie Testaverde and Kurt Warner as being overrated by a doting media, and thus, his criticism of McNabb cannot be seen as either unique, or racist.

Yet when casting doubts upon the skills of these white players, and when questioning the media's generally fawning attitude towards them, Rush naturally never suggested that their treatment might be due to the media's desire to have a "great white hope," at quarterback; or because, being white, Warner or Testaverde fit some racialized notion of "all-American boys."

Such comments could be made, one supposes, though with not any greater legitimacy than the ones Rush actually offered. That his criticism of white quarterbacks came without the racial angle attached leads one to wonder: if not race, then what else could possibly explain the media's love affair with Warner and Testaverde? And if there is an answer other than race available in these cases, then why wouldn't this also be true for Donovan McNabb?

Of course there are other answers, but for a flamethrower who has made his living pushing buttons, those answers don't matter. Rush's job, as it were, for fifteen years has been to serve as the voice of pissed off white men and the white women who love them: pissed off at blacks for everything under the sun; pissed off at immigrants for not learning English fast enough; pissed off at liberals for taxes; pissed off at Bill Clinton for blow jobs. Just plain pissed off.

Now we learn that if someone had simply asked this pissed off superstar to piss in a cup, his star would have darkened long ago. But like I said, this article isn't about the fact that Rush is a drug addict. Did I mention that, by the way?

Tim Wise is an antiracist educator, essayist and activist. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com
A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Early Racial Preferences

We all know the old history, but it's still worth reminding ourselves of its scale and scope. Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Jim Crow laws, instituted in the late 19th and early 20th century and not overturned in many states until the 1960s, reserved the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools and hospitals for white people.


The Advantages Grow, Generation to Generation

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut through and destroyed the vitality of non-white neighborhoods in the central city.

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.


Reaping the Rewards of Racial Preference

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


Rather than recognize how "racial preferences" have tilted the playing field and given us a head start in life, many whites continue to believe that race does not affect our lives. Instead, we chastise others for not achieving what we have; we even invert the situation and accuse non-whites of using "the race card" to advance themselves.

Or we suggest that differential outcomes may simply result from differences in "natural" ability or motivation. However, sociologist Dalton Conley's research shows that when we compare the performance of families across racial lines who make not just the same income, but also hold similar net worth, a very interesting thing happens: many of the racial disparities in education, graduation rates, welfare usage and other outcomes disappear. The "performance gap" between whites and nonwhites is a product not of nature, but unequal circumstances.

Colorblind policies that treat everyone the same, no exceptions for minorities, are often counter-posed against affirmative action. But colorblindness today merely bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices have enabled white Americans to long accumulate.

It's a little late in the game to say that race shouldn't matter.



Copyright (c) California Newsreel, 2003
RACE - The Power of an Illusion
A three-part documentary series from California Newsreel
For more information or video purchase: www.newsreel.org or 1-877-811-7495
Visit the companion web site at http://www.PBS.org/Race

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm22.htm
White Women and Affirmative Action

cerpted Wrom: XRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSW Ambivalence Towards Affirmative Action: Theorizing Political Accountability in Coalitions, 71 University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review 399-418, 399-402 (Winter 2002) (94 Footnotes Omitted)

I once attended a media-training workshop on affirmative action designed to enhance communications skills necessary to discuss affirmative action in the post-Proposition 209 climate. The consultants presented focus group data the most and least effective ways of swaying people to support affirmative action. Workshop attendees were instructed that people are more likely to support affirmative action if it is portrayed as a remedy benefiting "women" rather than "people of color, particularly African Americans." The consultants also seemed to be saying that affirmative action supporters should target their message to white women as a group, appealing to the group's self-interest in maintaining the programs.

Similar survey data were generated relating to the Washington ballot initiative to end affirmative action in that state. For example, a 1998 Seattle Times poll of likely voters showed that upon being informed that the initiative would ban affirmative action for both people of color and women in state and local government, women who had supported the measure before being told of its overall effect were less likely to favor the measure, support dropping from 59 percent in favor to 46 percent. "Women" in this position, which pollsters call "second guessing a first impression," became the most significant group of potential supporters. Of course, in the state of Washington, where whites are the overwhelming majority, "women" can be assumed to be understood to mean "white women".

Armed with this information, affirmative action activists and women's organizations crafted strategies to defeat Washington's I-200. While some organizations focused on the misleading nature of the measure, which posed as a "civil rights initiative," it soon became apparent that the strategies relying on exposure of the "deception" would fall short of victory in the context of Washington's battleground. The strategy of exposing the deceptive labeling of the initiative, designed primarily to educate voters about the actual intent of the measure was derived from the lessons of a 1997 Houston, Texas campaign to end affirmative action programs in the state. Political analysts credited the mayor of Houston with successfully defeating an anti-affirmative action proposition by adding language to clarify that the city's "civil rights" initiative would eliminate affirmative action. But such a "truth in labeling" intervention only worked because Houston had a majority of people of color with whites making up only 10 percent of the city population. There, whites supported the proposed ban on affirmative action by a 2-1 margin, with 72 percent of white men in favor and 54 percent of white women in favor. Thus, it was the overwhelming opposition in the African American community that voted against the measure by a 9-1 margin that saved affirmative action in Houston.

Given the state of Washington's racial demographics, where 86% of the population is white (and the proportion of white voters even higher), the Houston strategy designed to counteract the misleading nature of an anti- affirmative action proposition could not be expected to make the difference. Thus, white women became the primary target audience on which were spent the precious resources of the pro-affirmative action coalition. But that strategy too failed. To the surprise of many experts, I-200 passed by a comfortable margin garnering 58 percent of the vote. More surprisingly, approximately 51% of white women in Washington voted to end affirmative action. This support was in keeping with the Houston case where 54% of white women voted against affirmative action, with the percentage even higher in California--58 percent of white women in favor of Prop 209.

So what happened? Why didn't at least a simple majority of white women support affirmative action in any of these cases? Opponents of Washington's anti-affirmative action measure learned from mistakes in the California's Prop 209 campaign, and seemingly did everything right, running a strong campaign. The "No on I-200" campaign avoided the divisions that plagued the No on Prop. 209 campaign and presented a unified front. It also had four times more funding than I-200's supporters, with key corporate support from Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Cosco, Weyerhaeuser, and the Seattle Times. Additionally, key Democratic leaders in the state, such as Governor Gary Locke and U.S. Senate candidate Patti Murray and even Al Gore spoke against I-200. The media and educational materials were professional and conveyed their intended message to white women.

It is instructive to compare the Asian Pacific American (APA) response to Proposition 209. Ward Connerly and his forces used APAs as the poster children for affirmative action victimization, in part, to head off charges of racism by putting a face of color on the movement. Indeed, contrary to the data showing white women were the primary beneficiaries of Washington's affirmative action program, the stakes for APAs in California's affirmative action programs were much more equivocal. In addition, intense media coverage sensationalized socalled APA victims of affirmative action and played to the myth of APAs as a "model minority" whose interests diverged from other groups of color.

Despite all of this, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 61% of APAs voted against the anti-affirmative action measure. In a poll undertaken by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center in conjunction with University of California at Los Angeles social scientists (which was more extensive than the LA Times by interviewing more southern California APAs including non-English-speaking ones), APAs were found to have voted in the same proportion as Latinos against Prop 209 at 76 percent. African American voters rejected the initiative at 74 percent. Despite conservatives' deployment of affirmative action as a "wedge issue" vis-a-vis the APA community, and despite the fact that APAs do not benefit from many affirmative action programs, APAs "rejected a narrow conception of self- interest and chose instead a broader vision of social justice" as UCLA Professor Jerry Kang observed. So why didn't even a simple majority of white women choose a broader vision of social justice, especially in light of the clear economic interests white women had in maintaining such programs?

[a1]. Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[URL=http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm23.htm]
Affirmative action affects women, too
Posted on Fri, Jan. 24, 2003

By GRETCHEN BORCHELT

Iam a white woman, and I support affirmative action -- because it is a women's issue, too. Although it is often framed solely in racial terms, it is a critical tool that expands opportunities for women. It's important to answer the opponents of affirmative action. Targeting affirmative action plays into existing racial prejudices and ignores the benefits of affirmative action to women. Such a strategy is calculated and divisive for two main reasons:

¥ÊThe strategy of using white women to challenge affirmative action pits white women against women of color by disregarding the fact that affirmative action has helped all women make enormous strides in higher education. After all, it was not so long ago that the schools in which some women claim a rightful spot did not admit any women at all.

¥ÊSuch a strategy also pits whites against people of color. Affirmative action does not give minorities slots that ''belong to'' white students; no person has a reserved spot. Instead, affirmative action ensures that qualified individuals of all races and both genders have equal opportunity to compete for positions. Affirmative action not only levels the playing field for women and minorities but also brings diverse viewpoints and experiences into fields that have been dominated by white men.

I can attest to the value of such diversity in an education setting. My class at Columbia University law school consisted of men and women of all races and ethnicities, with a mix of ideas, backgrounds and talents. This diverse learning environment allowed students to recognize and celebrate differences and was an invaluable part of my law-school experience.

DIFFERENT VIEWS ''Colorblind'' admissions ignore a crucial fact of life: Differences exist in people. We are not all the same, our history is not the same, and the talents we offer and experiences we bring are not the same. Affirmative action recognizes this -- standing alone, it cannot eliminate racial, ethnic and gender bias or education disparities. But it is a component of a larger strategy to achieve equal opportunity for all, and it is a tool worth preserving because it has made a difference.

I am not concerned that opportunities are being ''taken away'' from me by people of color. What I fear is a society that ignores a history of discrimination and does not prioritize the elimination of racial and gender inequality. Gretchen Borchelt is a women's law and public policy fellow at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

© 2001 miamiherald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.miami.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News and Announcements | AAD Home Page

Carl Gutiérrez-Jones,
Department of English
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
E-mail: carlgj@english.ucsb.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[URL=http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/womentoo29.html
Throughout western history, have white women been the primary agents of oppression?
by Bill McDonald
Copyright © 1993 by Bill McDonald

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About 1960 a favorite joke went something like this: "My wife and I have a clear understanding. I make all the important decisions. I decide what the family position is on the recognition of Red China, how many wings of B-52s the Air Force needs, and what to do about the federal debt. She makes the more routine decisions; where we live, what schools the kids go to, and who we invite to dinner."
That joke got a good laugh in an era before Women's Lib; it captured the essence of women's power. Women control the social agenda. Since Women's Lib, however, the only politically correct position is that women have no power. Moreover, it insists that we men, at least those of us descended from dead white European males, are the root of most evil.

This guilt trip comes mainly from radical feminists who lead the "politically correct" movement. While few in number, they seem to have seized control of most of the media and much of academia. As the joke suggests, however, women have always had power to set the social agenda, and for both sexes. The constant complaint that women are powerless victims of a male dominated world is not and never has been true.

Just look at history. The strict Victorian middle class moral code was imposed by women on both sexes. That code was designed to protect women's social power which comes from controlling male access to sex. Never mind that women could not vote and held no political office. They could still induce male politicians to enact laws or support customs which protected women's power and control over the social agenda.

That Victorian agenda had enormous social and political consequences later on. Consider racism as illustrated in India during the British Raj. Before the memsahibs (Victorian British women) began arriving in numbers after about 1840, British men generally treated Indians as social equals. They consorted with Indian women and often took them as wives. They regularly invited Indians into their homes.

Once the memsahibs arrived, however, male social openness came to a screeching halt. It was just too threatening to British women. They did not want to compete sexually with Indian women unencumbered by the Victorian moral code. Mostly Protestants, the memsahibs were potentially vulnerable to divorce. Accordingly, they quickly managed to impose a code which branded all Indian nationals, of both sexes, as social inferiors and banned them from all British social functions. Likewise, the memsahibs banned British men who had Indian wives or openly consorted with Indian women. They saw to it that these outcasts were also ostracized from British men's clubs or other all male social functions. Such men had virtually to "go native" where they posed no "role model" threat. A 150 years tradition of social equality practiced by British men went out the window. That memsahib social code soon became the standard throughout the British empire.

In the American slave-holding South, something similar happened much earlier. It would have been terribly threatening for white women if slave-holding men could fall in love with, then free, and later marry their former slaves who would then have rights of inheritance and such. So the white women quickly put a stop to that. The tactics were the same as the memsahib's. They branded black slaves as social inferiors, even subhuman, and then ostracized white men who openly consorted with them. The ethic remained in effect long after the North freed the slaves and we are still coping with its aftermath.

The Protestant Reformation played a role here, of course, because it opened up the right of divorce. On that issue we can compare what happened socially to ex-slaves in the U.S. with those in Brazil which remained Catholic and outlawed divorce. White women thus enjoyed much more protection. Even if their husbands took concubines from among the slaves as many in fact did their property was safe. Thus white Brazilian women did not feel the necessity to denigrate the social worth of slaves nearly as much as Southern American women did. Hence, when Brazil ended slavery in 1888, the former slaves socially integrated into Brazilian society much more quickly than in the U.S.

We can make almost precisely the same comparison of the Amer-Indians. On both sides of the Rio Grande white males, when alone, quickly accepted Amer-Indian women as social equals, hence as wives or open consorts. But, North of the Rio Grande, when the white settlers showed up with white wives, it was memsahibism all over again. The white women felt threatened and reacted by making the natives into social inferiors and ostracizing white men who consorted with them.

South of the Rio Grande in Mexico, the story was much different. It was a repeat of Brazil. Anti-divorce laws protected Spanish white women. So they did not feel so impelled to impose a social code which demeaned the native Americans or to ostracize Spanish men who consorted with them.

In none of these examples did women hold formal positions of power. Still they had no trouble getting those who did to enact women's self-protective social agenda which then did much to create the tradition of racism found in the U.S.

I won't condemn, years later, what women did to protect themselves. They were vulnerable and faced real threats. They had limited options. So they did what they felt they had to do. I understand that and don't presume to judge them. I mainly want to point out that they had real power and they used it, ruthlessly if necessary, to protect themselves. Not that men don't have much to answer for, they do. But I do wish people of radical feminist persuasion would quit blaming our WASP great grandfathers for the whole legacy of racism inculcated in our culture when our WASP great grandmothers in fact played a central role.

Meanwhile it amuses me to hear radical feminists whine about how little power they have. But the fact that they wallow in collective self pity and a well cultivated and highly politicized sense of victimhood is mainly a political tactic. It sets the stage for their key weapon, mainly the bum guilt trip. If only grudgingly, however, I must conceded the effectiveness of that weapon; they have used it like a flame thrower to frighten a nearly all white male Congress and White House into enacting much of their current social agenda. But in my view they have gone too far. Men are waking up to the fact that it is a bum guilt trip. Our culture, for better or worse, was created by both sexes. If in different ways, with different kinds of power, both sexes participated in forming our culture and both must work together to change it. Scapegoating one set of ancestors or another can only delay the changes we want to make.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ JULY ] [ BACK ]

------------------------------------------------


http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1996/7-jul96/memsahib.html
The Price of Slavery


Several high-profile lawsuits filed recently in this country are seeking redress for slavery and other racial wrongs, focusing national attention on the re-emerging question of reparations. Climenko professor of law Charles Ogletree Jr. leads a team suing Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the racial violence of 1921 that killed 300 and destroyed the African-American community of Greenwood. And lawyers who won multibillion-dollar awards from European companies for Holocaust victims have filed class-action suits against several large corporations on behalf of descendents of American slaves.
The reparations issue is an old one. On January 16, 1865, U.S. Army General William Tecumseh Sherman granted the now legendary "40 acres and a mule" to 40,000 freed slaves along the Atlantic coast. In March, a month before the Confederate surrender, Congress authorized giving Southern blacks 40 acres to farm for three years. But after Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson overturned both these acts.


Chart by Steve Anderson


Since then, Americans have repeatedly debated the reparations-for-slavery issue, but very little empirical research clarifies the opinions that blacks and whites hold on the subject, says professor of government and Afro-American studies Michael Dawson, Ph.D. '86. A recent study that he did with Rovana Popoff of the University of Chicago, however, investigates what separates those who favor reparations from those who oppose them.

Dawson and Popoff analyzed data from a larger survey that Dawson had conducted earlier with Lawrence Bobo, Diker professor of Afro-American studies and professor of sociology. The researchers asked 831 blacks and 724 whites whether they support federal initiatives "” specifically, apologies and monetary payments "” to address past wrongs, both against African Americans for slavery and Japanese Americans for internment during World War II. (The survey posed the questions hypothetically, although in 1988, the U.S. government actually paid $20,000 to every Japanese American who had been interned.)

Most blacks surveyed (75 percent) "” but only 43 percent of whites "” favored a governmental apology to Japanese Americans. An even larger majority of blacks (79 percent) supported an apology to African Americans, although even fewer whites (30 percent) did so, opening up a huge "race gap" of 49 percentage points. Regarding monetary reparations to descendents of slaves, two out of three blacks voiced support, against a mere sliver (4 percent) of the white respondents, creating a racial gulf of 63 points.

"These numbers are relatively shocking by any standard," says Dawson. "When we talk about gender gaps in American politics, we're talking about gaps of 5 to 15 percent. Here we're talking about gaps of the order of 50 to more than 60 percent." Deeply polarized perceptions of racial equality (or its lack) are a major factor underlying the overwhelming disparities. While a majority of white respondents (64 percent) thought that blacks had achieved or would soon achieve equality, an even larger majority (78 percent) of blacks believed the opposite: that African Americans would not achieve racial equality in their lifetimes, or that they would never achieve equality.

Racial politics, in fact, trump all other factors "” age, gender, education, and political party "” affecting support or opposition to federal reparations. Among whites, affluence and education do not mean a more liberal stance. Although slightly more white women than white men support an apology for World War II internment, white men and women of all backgrounds almost unanimously (96 percent) oppose monetary reparations for slavery. Among blacks, women are more likely to favor reparations, but more affluent blacks of both sexes are less likely to support federal payments for either slavery or World War II internment.

One highly significant predictor of support for apology and reparations to African Americans held true for both black and white respondents. "Attachment to George Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Colin Powell all have the same effect, which is to suppress support for reparations and apology. Attachment to Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson has the opposite effect. It leads blacks to be more supportive of reparations," Dawson explains. "So the key here is not, as many of us would expect, political party or race, but whether one is inside or outside the conventional electoral system."

Perceptions of fair play also have an effect, Dawson says, noting that whites who believed that the economic system is unfair are 5 percent more likely to support reparations. On the other hand, those whites who thought that nothing should be done about possible black disenfranchisement in the 2000 election "” even if disenfranchisement had occurred "” were much less likely to support an apology.

What most surprises Dawson is the hostility he and other academics encounter when they discuss these issues in public. "I'm surprised by how visceral a reaction this issue provokes, even when people present the arguments neutrally," he says. "It's very easy for opponents to dismiss the other side out of hand." Dawson hopes to encourage further debate, and concern, about the enormous differences in black and white perceptions of racial politics. "Talking about these issues is not going to create these issues. The issues are there," Dawson says. "Therefore the task for the nation is: How do we address the divisions underlying these beliefs "” and the emotions that are attached to them "” and move forward?"

~Harbour Fraser Hodder

Michael Dawson e-mail address: mdawson@latte.harvard.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050319.html

------------------------------------------------
If anyone had doubt about the existence of white slaves, the picture "EMANCIPATED SLAVES, WHITE AND COLORED" in an 1864 edition of Harper's Weekly would have been proof (Frontispiece). The article in Harper's was entitled "White and Colored Slaves." All of these slaves were set free by General Benjamin F. Butler in New Orleans and were attending a school for emancipated slaves when this picture was taken. The article went on to name and describe each individual. The descriptions of the white slaves were as follows: "Rebecca Huger is eleven years old.... To all appearance she is perfectly white. Her complexion, hair, and features show not the slightest trace of negro blood....Rosina Downs is not quite seven years old. She is a fair child, with blonde complexion and silky hair.... She has one sister as white as herself.... Charles Taylor is eight years old. His complexion is very fair, his hair light and silky....this white boy...has been twice sold as a slave.... These three children, to all appearance of unmixed white race, came to Philadelphia last December." Harper's Weekly was very popular, having a circulation of around 200,000 before the Civil War.

Another example involving white slavery made public had to do with the work of Reverend Henry Ward Beecher, the brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, who held mock slave auctions of light and white slaves at his church in Brooklyn, New York. The moneys raised were used to purchase their freedom. The choice of skin color was intentional, given that whites could more readily identify with slaves who were themselves white or approaching white. Such slaves also had appeal to those who were only concerned with the enslavement of white people and their plight. In 1848 the Edmonson sisters-- "two respectable young women of light complexion"--were sold at auction. Beecher's son and biographer recorded that "this case at the time attracted wide attention." A young girl named Pinky who was "too fair and beautiful a child for her own good" was auctioned off and also freed with the moneys raised. In 1856 another slave woman was rescued. Beecher's son had "a handful of photographs of children, white and beautiful, who had been set free...white-faced, flaxen-haired children born under the curse of slavery."

The art produced at any given time in any given culture reflects the reality of that particular time and place. The artist as part of that context is in effect a contemporary spokesperson. White slavery was on the mind of the public in the antebellum North, and this was reflected in the fictional literature of the period.

The Slave: or Memoirs of Archy Moore by Richard Hildreth was published in 1836 and holds the distinction of being the first antislavery novel. Archy is a white slave (PLATE 3) who tells his readers early on, "From my mother I inherited some imperceptible portion of African blood, and with it, the base and cursed condition of a slave." Later he laments, "I had found, by a bitter experience, that a slave, whether white or black, is still a slave; and that the master, heedless of his victim's complexion, handles the whip, with perfect impartiality." The novel was greatly enlarged and expanded in 1852 with the new title, The White Slave; or, Memoirs of a Fugitive.

Why was the character of Archy Moore depicted as a white slave? Why was the title changed from The Slave in 1836 to The White Slave in 1852? Art imitates life. Hildreth's choices were in accord with public concern over white slavery. White readers could readily identify with the trials and tribulations of a slave who was as white as they were. Before the first word in the book was read, the impression of the title alone enabled empathetic readers to emotionally experience the words, "The White Slave" (PLATE 4).

The character of Archy Moore as a white mulatto set the precedent for the heroes and heroines of antislavery novels that followed. Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published in 1852. Twenty thousand copies were sold in three weeks and around three hundred thousand by the end of the year. George Harris, a slave, is described as "a very light mulatto" who could "pass for a white man." E. Bruce Kirkham has analyzed the novel and called attention to Stowe's change in the description of Eliza from a mulatto to a quadroon. "The change is important because, whereas a mulatto is either a Negro with one white parent or merely a Negro with some white blood, the term 'quadroon' is applied only to a Negro with three white grandparents. Eliza's blood line and therefore, to some degree, her color, education, and social background are more clearly defined by 'quadroon' than 'mulatto'; she is made whiter." Avery O. Craven has studied antebellum culture and concluded that Uncle Tom's Cabin was successful because the "morally confused North had been supplied with concrete stereotypes with which to clarify and simplify its thinking." George Harris, Eliza, and their son Harry were indeed "concrete stereotypes" of light and white slaves. In the words of Harriet Beecher Stowe's contemporary, George Fitzhugh, a Southern writer about whom there is much said in Chapter 6, "To defend and justify mere negro slavery, and condemn other forms of slavery, is to give up expressly the whole cause of the South--for mulattoes, quadroons, and men with as white skins as any of us, may legally be, and in fact are, held in slavery in every State of the South. The abolitionists well know this, for almost the whole interest of Mrs. Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, arises from the fact, that a man and woman, with fair complexions, are held as slaves." Up through 1861 no less than seventeen novels utilized a stereotype known as the "tragic mulatto." The heroes and heroines featured in these novels had light or white complexions and found themselves in such "tragic" situations as the surprise discovery of slave status, death before dishonor, or being sold into slavery. William Bedford Clark has studied this genre and states that a white-looking woman was most often the "tragic mulatto" in such stories. This choice was absolutely intentional. "As students of this tradition note, the fact that the slave protagonist in such novels was to all appearances white and shared the characteristics of the typical white heroine of melodramatic romance helped address the arbitrary nature of racial distinctions in general and therefore short-circuited whatever racial biases the northern audience itself maintained." The Octoroon, a very popular play scheduled to be performed at Ford's Theatre the night after Lincoln attended Our American Cousin there, shows that the "tragic mulatto" character had broad appeal and was not limited to novels. White readers and theatergoers were readily able to identify with white or nearly white characters and their oppression under slavery. This explains the reason they were utilized instead of characters with darker complexions.

There were two distinctly different ways of looking at white mulattoes--socially and physiologically. Socially, a white partus slave looked as white as any white person but was considered a black person because he or she had "one drop" of black blood from a distant black female ancestor who was a slave. Such was the case when Mr. C. was told, "That's not a white girl; she is a nigger, sir." Physiologically speaking, however, white partus slaves were white people because all traits of their remote black ancestry had disappeared. The North saw these white slaves as whites. The South saw these white slaves as blacks. An 1857 issue of the Chicago Daily Tribune commented on racial classification in the South. "The southern census takers, it is notorious, returned all persons as blacks who, were not more than half white. Those who possessed straight hair and Anglo-Saxon features they set down as mulattoes, many of whom were as white-skinned as their owners." The actual number of white mulatto slaves is unknowable because all shades from "one drop" to those showing some discernible degree of black admixture were classed together as mulattoes without any distinction as to color.

Travelers who spoke of white slaves in the South, advertisements for white runaway slaves, newspaper articles about white slaves, and light and white heroes and heroines in "tragic mulatto" fiction all served to validate that there were white people who were enslaved in the South. Disbelievers were shown, in the words of the newspaper article cited earlier, that "Slavery has no 'prejudice against color.'

http://www.multiracial.com/readers/tenzer3.html
On "Lynching Song"

Onwucheka Jemie

Most lynchings are for rape. But it is common knowledge that in the South it is extremely rare that a black man has actually raped or attempted to rape a white woman. In the South, sexual contact between black men and white women, from slavery times to the present, has almost always been initiated by the white woman. And every black man in the South knows that if he is unlucky enough to become the object of a white woman's affections, he must leave town or die. When a white woman invites you to love, you are doomed. If you accept and it is found out, as it will sooner or later, she will cry rape, and you will be lynched. If you refuse, she will in humiliation and revenge cry rape, and you will be lynched.

The rape-and-lynch psychosis must be viewed in the context of the perverted sexual mythology whereby white Americans first reduced black people to subhumans, then invested them with a hypersexuality, forced access of white males to black females, blocked access of black males to white females, and proceeded to project white lust and puritan guilt onto black males and victimize them for the sins of white males. For Southern white men to publicly admit that in liaisons with black men, Southern white women are usually willing accomplices, most often the provocateurs, is for them to lose control of reality as they wish to know it. Instead, that secret knowledge drives them even more rabidly violent. It is this psychological cat and mouse game that gives a poem like "Silhouette" its ironic power:

Southern gentle lady,
Do not swoon.
They've just hung a black man....

From Langston Hughes: An Introduction to the Poetry. Copyright © 1976 by Columbia University Press.


------------------------------------------------

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/hughes/lynching.htm
Tha Watcher why are you ashamed to post this link you posted in the PRIVATE TOPIC PUBLICLY? You should have NO SHAME in loving a white girl. It doesn't bother black women, it would bother us if you didn't, really it would. Stop being cowardly afraid of the WHITE MALE and show the WHITE MALE this link you put up in the PRIVATE TOPIC as he knows this is what you colored boys are like. After all, he trained ya. Oh, and don't fear this link being deleted as they haven't deleted all your other nonsense why would they delete this link you were cowardly afraid to put in PUBLIC so the WHITE MALE wouldn't see you for what you are.

In other words don't send this link to PRIVATE TOPICS as black women already know you're like this. Why do you think we're so grateful to white girls for taking ya?

http://www.videosexunderworld.com/video_vortex/white_slavery/
AFRO BELLES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White Women: The Silent Racist

All too often when people think of racist they envision the white male. The confederate flag-totting red neck, the red-faced arrogant supervisor, or the corporate god sitting on the golden throne of a large company, but never does the image of the white woman fit the profile of a racist. Why? because most people view the white woman as an advocate against racism and the calming force of her white male counterpart on racial issues.

For some reason white women have been given an unspoken clearance from being racist because people believe that most are against it and may have been a large reason why slavery and more modern forms of racial oppression have subsided. People assume that the sensitivity of white women eased the brutalities of white men thus making the white male more passive toward Blacks and other minorities.

This reasoning is logical enough because white women possess a type of innocence in their demeanor that would suggest such sensitivity and empathy, however, not many people consider the fact that white women also contributed many times to the oppression and brutality of other minorities, also in so many unspoken words. They are, in fact, and always have been, the motivation behind the white male.

To look at the white woman who sits across from you at work and picture her chanting racial slurs at the local Klan meeting may seem far-fetched to many but this image is not unrealistic at all. Since the growth of the Internet, which allows more people to collaborate together from many parts of the country and world, hate groups have risen quite fast. And more [white] women are joining these groups.

"The number of women in some groups now ranges 25 to 50 percent of the membership," according to Kathleen Blee who authored the book: Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement.

However, "Blee found that women tend to join not because they subscribe to racist or anti-Semitic ideology, as men do, but for personal reasons. They will befriend a member of such a group, often without knowing it, and slowly begin to subscribe to the group's beliefs in a cult-like fashion, she said."

"White supremacist groups are increasingly recruiting women because they tend to be overlooked by police and are less likely to leave the groups than are men, according to research by a University of Pittsburgh sociologist."

Should minorities be concerned about such a rise in racist white women? No, because the hate group will never actually gain too much power to fear nationally, but minorities should be concerned with hidden racist attitudes held by the white women we see everyday. Many secretly hold the belief that they should have first rights to positions of high authority and decision-making in the work force over those of minorities.

"Like their male counterparts, extremist women deny that Blacks, Jews and other minorities are equal to whites. Yet many extremist women argue that they themselves should be given the same consideration as white men in the workplace. By joining the workforce, these women believe they can better aid the white supremacist movement."

People, especially Black people, believe that the days of the "conspiracy" is over, but this belief should not be counted out so fast. There is always potential for a rise in certain beliefs based on many social factors of society. For instance, some group could feel that there are too many illegal aliens in the country and begin to target them for the welfare system. Because of a rise of one variable, a reaction of another is sparked naturally. Thus, since the rise in minorities in the work force, white women must somehow protect their jobs and futures.

According to and article at the Her Race Web site, Jane Burton presents appropriate "Careers for White Women," such as "Lawyer," "Human Resources Worker," "Advertising Writer," and "Real Estate Agent." Telling women "the White race needs" their help, Burton writes, "You need to work; so work in the right direction!" She asks, "What well-paying, interesting jobs could you choose that would most advance your race?"

Think that white women are only interested in protecting their financial futures? Think again. Many are prepared to protect their children and family if violence is involved. This is another image people tend to overlook. What if it really came to a race war is there any reason to believe that all white women would be standing in between the opposing forces crying "peace, love, and not war?" Not likely.

"Many other racist women suggest that females should be equal partners in the extremists' struggle, even when that struggle involves violent action. Nancy Jensen believes that women who would choose to lead the "movement" on the battlefield should be given the opportunity to do so. "As for the issue of women physically defending their race or country," she writes, "if they possess that desire and ability, than [sic] they should go for it."

Even in the political arena, more white women are pushing for higher positions that would allow them to secure laws and policies beneficial to their own interest. Not all white women are for "saving the children and the homeless," but more are concerned about their children's future and protecting it from extinction because of too many minority workers and workforce diversity.

"Other concepts promote female extremist political activism. "Diana, Love of a Princess" by Lisa Turner recognizes "the unique power a woman can have in the political world." Writing without any apparent sense of irony, Turner states that the white supremacist "movement" "desperately needs more women" because "women can represent nurturing, love, reaching out, touching, bridging a gap, and bringing a gentle, diplomatic approach to the problems at hand."

Never think that these are hate group concepts alone. Both conservative and liberal high social class elitist have the same ideas, they just do not promote them as openly. There are hundreds of elitist social clubs - not considered as "groups " - that are comprised of rich whites and the women who nurture this club's motivation have lots of social power.

In fact, it can be safely assumed that most racist are not confederate flag-totting red necks, red-faced arrogant supervisors, or the corporate gods, but are made up of democrats, republicans, and judges in positions of high authority throughout the country. As more women move into political and social positions of authority, be aware that not all of them believe minorities are their equivalent.

Source from: http://www.adl.org/ - http://www.religionnewsblog.com/

© 2003 by CR Hamilton


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/justice/hatecrimes/whtwomen.php
quote:
Originally posted by thelawofMAAT:
Good posts Prophetessofrage,

i remember hearing that white women were the ones who started the rumor of the mammy in order to keep their whites husbands from prersuing black slave women. Is this true?



Hi again LawofMaat, Thanks for the props. I don't know where the specific article is located but I read that truth as well.

In the post above entitled, "Throughout western history, have white women been the primary agents of oppression? by Bill McDonald, we see WHITE IN-HOUSE FIGHTING AND POINTING THE FINGER as the author speaks thus:"Just look at history. The strict Victorian middle class moral code was imposed by women on both sexes. That code was designed to protect women's social power which comes from controlling male access to sex. Never mind that women could not vote and held no political office. They could still induce male politicians to enact laws or support customs which protected women's power and control over the social agenda.

That Victorian agenda had enormous social and political consequences later on. Consider racism as illustrated in India during the British Raj. Before the memsahibs (Victorian British women) began arriving in numbers after about 1840, British men generally treated Indians as social equals. They consorted with Indian women and often took them as wives. They regularly invited Indians into their homes.

Once the memsahibs arrived, however, male social openness came to a screeching halt. It was just too threatening to British women. They did not want to compete sexually with Indian women unencumbered by the Victorian moral code. Mostly Protestants, the memsahibs were potentially vulnerable to divorce. Accordingly, they quickly managed to impose a code which branded all Indian nationals, of both sexes, as social inferiors and banned them from all British social functions. Likewise, the memsahibs banned British men who had Indian wives or openly consorted with Indian women. They saw to it that these outcasts were also ostracized from British men's clubs or other all male social functions. Such men had virtually to "go native" where they posed no "role model" threat. A 150 years tradition of social equality practiced by British men went out the window. That memsahib social code soon became the standard throughout the British empire.

In the American slave-holding South, something similar happened much earlier. It would have been terribly threatening for white women if slave-holding men could fall in love with, then free, and later marry their former slaves who would then have rights of inheritance and such. So the white women quickly put a stop to that. The tactics were the same as the memsahib's. They branded black slaves as social inferiors, even subhuman, and then ostracized white men who openly consorted with them. The ethic remained in effect long after the North freed the slaves and we are still coping with its aftermath."


http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1996/7-jul96/memsahib.html


So when their own white males gets to spilling the beans on them, we see, it is a fact, that it was this batch of em' who did do this evil
with regard to black, brown, yellow, red women.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for ES, both look like SOLDIERS and both should have been EQUALLY honored as SOLDIERS as both of their lives were at risk on behalf of the U.S..

But you do well, to show the mind of the caucasoid as 'discriminating' as well as 'unable to comprehend' the depth of insanity that is about them. Your disposition is just more proof that blacks need to remove 100% white rule off of us. Thanks for so verifying it.
Hi everyone. I'm new. I just want to say I'm glad I found out about this web. I think It's great. Anyway, Prophetessofrage, keep spreading the knowledge. I enjoy reading your post. Oh one more thing, I messed up on my name. Instead of putting Solamee, I put "NO" instead. Would you show me how to correct that please? I tried....and couldn't do for some reason. Thanks!!
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
If you can't register your name properly AND think that Prophetess is anything other than a complete online BS artist, then you're too dumb to be on this site. Try the Sesame Street web board.


^^ There is know need to be rude a**hole. Why don't you take your a** to the Sesame Street web board. Stupid F*CK!!

Sounds like yo mammy didn't teach you any manners.
quote:
Originally posted by no:
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
If you can't register your name properly AND think that Prophetess is anything other than a complete online BS artist, then you're too dumb to be on this site. Try the Sesame Street web board.


^^ There is know need to be rude a**hole. Why don't you take your a** to the Sesame Street web board. Stupid F*CK!!

Sounds like yo mammy didn't teach you any manners.


Hello No, good to meet yet another 'rare on this site' intelligent person. Thanks for the props. Having put forth the truth I had moved on spreading the word of Truth as is other black women all over the net.

You know No, I understand about the mix-up in names, I actually hate computers and all the tech-mess, the only good thing about it is that we get to spread the word of truth that the captive may go free.

Now, let me first say, EGBERT SOUSE?!! What type of devil is this that popped up? I've never spoken to a "Ignant Louse" such as this white abominable seed of satan.

However that this filth shows up INFERRING that "iT" knows ME and what I'm about just goes to prove I was right when I came over here and told blacks that "white demon seeds literally are staked out on all these black sites."

In fact, since this ilk is STUPID ENOUGH to infer that it personally knows what I'm about, explain to blacks how? I don't go on white sites. I've never seen this demon name on this site before. Is this parasite attached to all black sites? I've never seen his name on the other black sites I visit.

The fact is, parasites like this, not only show their stupidity but they show blacks with 'eyes to see and ears to hear' the power of the MESSAGE BOARDS. They fear Black message boards as they know blacks have a powerful tool able in which to communicate and put forth TRUTH which is their enemy.

I do thank the power of truth for flushing out this germ LOUSE as "It's" very declaration is proof that I was RIGHT about the power and importance of the MESSAGE BOARD FORUM.

Blacks keep speaking the TRUTH for as LOUSE has shown you it burns the enemy asunder. TRUTH is what I put forth and the reality is, the idiotic demon seed has lost by reason of TRUTH being out there and that I put it out there is the victory itself that stupid just isn't able to comprehend.

Annnnnyhoo, nice meeting you NO, and let all blacks of TRUTH keep putting forth the knowledge for as LOUSE has proven, it works, it really works, the blind, deaf and dumb, idiot!
KOLAFANRazzosted December 17, 2003 04:02 PM December 17, 2003 04:02 PM
MEDIA EDIT
================================================
by Nafisa Goma
Publicist for Kola Boof



"Connie Chung humiliates Kola Boof"

Why did the Ultra-conservative

FOX NEWS confirm the Kola Boof story
instead of CNN?


During an interview with JANE magazine Kola Boof reveals several degrading experiences she's been put through by the mainstream
media...a major one involving a racial insult hurled by superstar journalist Connie Chung via a CNN producer.

Kola Boof didn't hold anything back on the tape recordings. She told JANE magazine:

Around Jan. 9th...Betsy Goldman telephoned both me and my publicist, Nafisa Goma, to book me as a guest on CNN's Connie Chung Show. They
wanted to discuss the news stories of Jan. 7th in which I had to remove my son from school because reporters thought he looked like Osama Bin Laden and tried to take his picture at the elementary school--the elementary school called the Police...and then the Police called both
> myself and the media. Worried for my son, I became violent and vicious (which I do regret), threatening to kill the reporters--so it got ugly and made the newspapers.

Connie Chung read the news reports and had Betsy Goldman contact me.

I said that "yes", I would make the t.v. appearance and told Betsy Goldman what a huge fan I was of Connie Chung. I STRESSED...that my
intention for going on the show was to explain that I did not willingly become Bin Laden's girlfriend, I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time...and to explain that both my sons are fathered by the same wonderful black man...NOT by Osama.

The following day another producer from the show phoned me to do the pre-interview.

This producer said that Connie Chung was skeptical about my story because....according to the Producer: "Connie was wondering why a man
of Bin laden's wealth and stature would have a black woman as his permanent mistress?"

Of course, I was deeply wounded by that comment, but I explained that Somi prefers his women "infibulated" and doesn't go by color--but
genital circumcision--of which I don't know too many blue eyed trophy blonds with circumsized vaginas. Maybe they're all working over at
ESSENCE magazine.

Anyway, the Producer insisted that I bring my son on the show...to prove that he DID NOT look anything like Bin Laden!!

I refused. I told her that I would never let my son be photographed or be on t.v. The Producer seemed disappointed that I wouldn't give
in...and then she reiterated...."Well, Ms. Chung thinks that her viewers might find it unbelievable that a man with Mr. Bin Laden's
background would have a black mistress and one raised in America at that."

Am I sure that Connie herself made the comments that were passed on to me by her producer? Of course not, but the producer obviously was
representing Connie Chung's show, because...
the following day, Betsy Goldman called me back and told me that if I wasn't willing to have my son on the show...the events of Jan. 7th 2003
being the topic of the show...then they were cancelling my booking. I said fine.

Over the next few weeks, I sent several messages directly to Connie
Chung, both in writing and by telephone, expressing my hurt feelings behind the things that her producer alleged that she said...but I have NEVER...gotten a response or an apology, so I took her silence to be embarrassement and fear of a confrontation...as well as "confirmation" that she said the [censored].

KOLA BOOF also said on the tape recorded interview:

"There's a name for women like Connie Chung and Julie Salaman (N.Y. Times)...not that I'd use it outside of a kennel."

Although FOX NEWS recently confirmed the "fatwa" death sentence issued against Boof's life and interviewed her at length about Osama Bin Laden (while showing stock footage of the terrorist)...many in the press had
ignored the death threats against the black womanist writer AND HER CHILDREN for more than a year...even going as so far as to call her a
liar and insinuate the she was making up stories to sell books...despite the fact that a firebombing forced Boof's books out of print and publishers in the United States.... have also received "death threats" just for receiving the manuscripts from Boof's agent.

KOLA BOOF told JANE magazine: "It's very odd to have female journalists like Natalie Danford
(Salon.com) writing that I don't exist...that I'm a fraud...that my story "sounds" fishy....just because spoiled American white women like her don't know a damned thing about the struggles of African women writers, about the political Jihad in the Arab world, about being a Unicef child as I was, about being in hiding, about being sexually exploited by powerful men and about being...FORCED...to come forward about Osama Bin Laden because I feared deportation from the United States and feared for my children's lives--not because I was seeking publicity."

"There's a name for women like Connie Chung and Julie Salaman (of the N.Y. Times)...not that I'd use it outside of a kennel."

"My life has been a living nightmare for two years...I have no way whatsoever of earning a living, because of the fatwa, other than to
write and promote my writing....how else will I feed my children? Am I expected to go on welfare?...and yet all these pompous, two-faced
selfish superior caucasoids in the writing community could do was cast me as "too fantastic" to be real and...and cast me and my children's reality as unimportant. I am born in Sudan, but I am an American citizen like everyone else. There is no way that a white American author, especially a woman, would be so shabbily treated and disrespected as I have been...for two years now. It is very painful
and exceedingly unfair to have reporters at the Los Angeles Times make fun of my name--Kola Boof--and ask what kind of name is that? It is
very cruel to have people say that because I am black...I must be making my entire life up...for attention!"

"Yes...I am very bitter about my experiences with arrogant, cynical journalists...who think that the lives of black women writers and their
children have no importance. No matter how much bad luck they are wishing for Kola Boof, no matter how many lies they intend to tell about me...I am born Naima...the one who is victorious. In the end, I will be redeemed. I will be victorious!"

The JANE magazine interview hits stands in February.

IN Feb. 2004....Kola Boof's 1995 Arabic novel, "Flesh and the Devil"
(translated to English by Said Musa) will be released in the United States. This LINK provides an exciting preview:

http://flesh.5u.com


KOLA BOOF is currently featured in "Politically Inspired: Fiction for Our Time--Edited by Stephen Elliott" (MacAdam/Cage), an anthology of All New short stories featuring Z.Z. Packer, Anthony Swofford, Stewart O'Nan, Charles Baxter, Kola Boof, David Rees and Stephen Elliott. All proceeds from the sale of the book go to the OXFAM Children's Relief Fund...to help starving children in Africa and Iraq. The book also has its own web site where you can read more about Kola Boof's contribution:

http://www.politicallyinspired.org


FOX NEWS Transcript:

Rita Cosby interviews Kola Boof
_________________________________

August 23, 2003 Saturday


Transcript # 082305cb.262

Fox News Network


SECTION: News; International


LENGTH: 749 words

Fox News August 23, 2003


HEADLINE: Interview With Kola Boof

GUESTS: Kola Boof

BYLINE: Rita Cosby


BODY: COSBY: Our next guest is a poet, author, and activist. She is also, get this, the former mistress of Osama bin Laden, calling him a billionaire gangbanger.

Kola Boof was kept under lock and key by bin Laden until he was, quote, tired of her and met another woman and she was able to escape to the west.

Now in America, Kola still fears for her life.


Her home country of Sudan has issued an fatwa, an edict for her death. And bin Laden told her he would like to kill her himself. She recently told her story to "Black Book" magazine. And Kola joins us now from an undisclosed location to talk about one of the most wanted terrorists in the world.


Kola, thank you very much for being here. You have had an astounding life.

And I want to first ask you, when you met Osama bin Laden -- I was reading that you met him in 1996 at a restaurant in Morocco. What did you think of him?

Fox News August 23, 2003


KOLA BOOF, BIN LADEN'S FORMER MISTRESS: I was very frightened of him. And
-- he's very tall. He's like 6 foot 6, you know, and his men came up to the date that I had and they told him to leave, and I was very terrified. I mean, he's a very terrifying man, but at the same time, back in 1996, he was very
good looking, you know. He was -- there was an erotic charge but at the same time I was very frightened because I liked the guy that I was dating.


COSBY: And you were so frightened you ran back to your hotel room but he followed you. Tell us what happened?

BOOF: Yes. He raped me that night, the first night that I met him. Yes. It was very terrible.


COSBY: But then after that you became his mistress. Was that out of fear?


BOOF: Well, yes. Also because of the climate of where we lived. I mean this is in Morocco. And so I can't just get up and run away. You know,
there's nothing -- woman are not protected. And so he -- his men took me to Lamasan Arap (ph) which is in Stone Wall City, Koda'a Medina. And there's no way out on foot.

And you know, he has guards. And you know, women don't have rights.

COSBY: When you talked about him being sort of an animal, did he have many mistresses? Would he go out on a date or would he want to be intimate with you?


BOOF: You know, Americans really don't understand what it's like over there so I am going to just -- you know, we don't have a lot of time, so I am going to just say that, you know, he's charming but at the same time there's not a lot of respect for a woman's rights or what you are interested in or what you
want. You know, also added to that is in that country he's considered white and I
am considered black. And so it was -- you know, Rita, it was just very, very terrifying for me. Also I am a very intelligent woman so I thought,
well, I am going to make him fall in love with me, and that wasn't going to happen.


COSBY: Did he ever talk about his very extreme fundamentalist views, his hatred toward America?


BOOF: Well, of course. Of course he did. But you have to remember, I am born in Andaman, Sudan, and so I am completely surrounded by that kind of mentality anyway. We have slavery in my country. Many people have been murdered
in front of me. I have seen slaves chained up to the back of houses by Arabs. I am half Arab. I was raised to hate America. I was taught in school, you know how you go to elementary school? On a daily basis they would teach us kids how to hate the American people and ...


COSBY: But he was obviously so extreme. I mean to the point, look, he masterminded the attacks on American soil. Did you see that there was
this obviously extreme capability about him and also a charisma to guide people to do this horrible act?


BOOF: Yes, there was. He's a very brilliant man. Some of the most brilliant poetry I have ever read was written by Sami, who's Osama. But, he is a brilliant man. He is -- like me, he was passionate, but he's a very violent man.
He's like Hitler in a way, you know, it's who I would compare him to. And then it's like being the Ike Turner and Hitler combined. It was a very bad relationship. And he is a very passionate person who really believes that what he is doing is right.

And it's very evil, though. For instance, he told me that he didn't want me to have tits.


BOOF:What did he say?


COSBY: We have got to wrap up, because we are going to a hard commercial break, but I definitely want to have you back on again, Kola. It is fascinating, and I am glad you escaped from him.


COSBY: Thank you. We will be right back.

BOOF: OK.

================================================Prophetessofrage

posted December 23, 2003 01:15 PM December 23, 2003 01:15 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kolafan:
The islamic world has already issued FATWA(a death sentence) on her, and she is STILL fighting.

i pray to God that it doesn't go through. I have the UTMOST respect for this lady. She is my idle. she is TRUELY a queen and an authentic WARRIOR in EVERY sense of the word. To top all of that, she is a talented writer and actress. If she idies, it will truely be a great loss to humanity. there are FEW people that can match her in any way, shape or form. Angela davis, Sonia sanchez, and sista Soljah can't come within a mile of her.


and what really irks the HELL out of me me is that the US media keeps issues concenring kola boof so hidden that few people in america know about her. A lot of folks from africa know her though. She intimidates the HELL out of the US and those who participate in the evils that are carried out in the sudan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Kolafan nice to meet you, great info. you put forth. Of course don't be surprised if the moron colored boy white worshipping filth accuse you of being me, for speaking this dynamite truth.

Still, let me say, that's just that demonic nature in whites that makes them look down on a black queen. They are the seed of Satan along with all who want to hurt this woman.

Connie Chung is white bred in ideology so it stands to reason she would behave as her white trainers. I will pray for Kola. She's tough and strong as black women have to be in this racist bred world. Hats off to her!


===============================================

The 'denial' and 'disrespect' hurled her way by whites is what they do with regard to IR dating in general. That is, they love to show the world stupid colored boys fawning all over their white she-seeds, but you will rarely see pictures of white men of prominence with black women.

In fact, one of the top neurological specialists in the world is married to a African/American woman. I can't think of her name right now, but he is rarely seen photographed with her, versus grinning colored boys with white gals who are seen at all times.

Even Robert Deniro the great actor is rarely photographed with (I'm lousy with names) but the famed black woman who he had a child with.

Still, BLACK TRUTHFUL history taught us righteous blacks that practically every one of the famed white empowered males from George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, to that 100 yr. old, recent dead relic Strom Thurmond, all PREFERRED the black woman over their white she-mates and it is their white she-mates who can't handle the truth so white powerful males married to and/or dating black women are rarely seen.

This is why we must break all white rule off of us as a people as those satanic beings are avowed enemies who must be put underfoot.

GOD AND THE BLACK WOMAN, WE DO GO IT ALONE IN SO, SO, MANY WAYS! I THANK GOD FOR OUR 'FEW' and I do mean, 'FEW' BLACK MEN ALLIES WHO ALSO AID US
-----------------------------------------------

Anyway, if you don't mind, I'm going to put this post under 'black women vs. white women' as it is more proof of the white demonism we must ever resist.

Again, great, great information.

[This message was edited by Prophetessofrage on December 23, 2003 at 02:16 PM.]

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×