Black Rednecks and White Liberals (by Thomas Sowell)

I'm currently enraptured in a cultural and ethnic studies book given to me, named, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." I've only read about 50 or so pages so far, but the author makes an attempt to bring down long held beliefs concerning ethnic relations and attempts to trace their roots or origins. What I've read so far is both well written and well informed.Since I'm only 50 or so pages into it, I figured I would just quote the jacket and we can start a discussion on that. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(by Thomas Sowell)" to the topic title.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I would have thought that Brisbane is very contemporary. I'd never heard of him either until about two weeks ago when a friend sent the book to my wife and I. Now we are arguing over who gets to read it first. I lost that debate Yes, I agree. Thanks for posting that. His candor concerning his endeavors as a writer is especially pleasing since I too have attempted to write a book. I thought it was pretty decent for being my first shot at an actual book. But as I review it in plenary after the fact, I realize that the first editor that came across it would give it the ax.So far, the first chapter has been devoted to tearing down old beliefs that have subtly become known as "fact" simply by sheer repetition. For instance, in this first chapter he goes over how black culture is anything but authentic, but rather, actually shows evidence of a highly dysfunctional white, southern redneck culture. And he doesn't stop there because the antebellum South borrowed its poor manners from across the pond in the Scottish highlands. He uses philology and mannerisms to trace it back to these roots.He then attempts to uncover why such modes of speech and mannerisms seem to persist in Southern culture today. But more than that, Sowell claims that South is moving away from these attitudes, but not contemporary blacks who seem to not only condone such brash behavior, but also glorify it.He then explains why this rationale is so highly favored amongst black communities in America. He makes a beeline straight toward white liberals who have coddled, praised, and perpetuated such ill-behavior. Sowell alleges that white liberals have placed all the blame on white society for all of the abject misery that has come upon the negro culture in America. He quickly dispels such a notion in a very thoughtful and insightful manner.So far, this book is highly recommended, even if you or anyone else doesn't ascribe to his line of thinking.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Well, we certainly can't indict all liberals to support such a "gangsta" mentality. Indeed, not only is that not true of white liberals, but its not true of all blacks. He is making the indictment against a prevailing culture and whoever those constituents may be. I'll give you a for instance, however, of how liberals have tended to praise such affectations.You may or may not have heard of Mumia Abu-Jamal. If not, I'll provide a brief synopsis. Mumia was arrested for the slaying off of a Philadelphia police officer named Danny Faulkner. Basically, Faulkner pulls of Mumia. Mumia shoots Faulkner in the face and chest according to eyewitness accounts. Mumia's attorneys naturally opted for the TODDI defense-- (the other dude did it). A mixed-raced jury deliberates against Mumia. Naturally, allegations of racism fly.Now, we've all heard of death row inmates. What makes Mumia different is his activism where he dutifully paints the picture that he's some sort of political prisoner in order to illicit the sympathy of an all-too-willing liberal audience ready to take up arms in his defense-- evidence be damned. Along comes Ward Churchill, practically the poster child for frenzied liberal crusaders. The cry heard is of the vast rightwing conspiracy.To put it this way, Churchill makes Michael Moore seem like little Lord Fauntleroy in application. In fact, Moore, speaking about Mumia, is quoted as saying, "He probably killed that guy. There, I said it." That, of course, doesn't overshadow his unwaivering support of Mumia because Mumia has so enshrined himself in the prgressive pantheon that his crime is virtually of no consequence to the Left. But anyway, Churchill denounced Moore publicly, by saying, "Michael Moore is a fraud. There, I said it."The point is, there is this entire counter-culture who fight for people like Mumia Abu-Jamal or Tookie Williams simply because they are black. And somehow, they are just victims of the evil white conspiracy to oppress them. Therefore, in the strictest sense of the word, they are racists-- people who base their opinions of others based solely on race rather than the merits of any given person.Thomas Sowell attempts to make this kind of connection-- not that I needed him to mark the dots for me. That is already apparent to me. What makes it all the better is that Sowell is very fair and impartial in his assessment. He just gives it to the reader very plainly and candidly, not afraid to ruffle the feathers of the P.C. police, who have already derided him as an "Uncle Tom."And that's another thing. An Uncle Tom is a black person who thinks that social barbarism, lauded by the Left, is somehow untrue to their roots. But Sowell very clearly explains that these roots derive from white southerners-- hence the name of the book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." But interestingly, the Left tends to demonize white southerners for virtually the same type of social barbarism as their black, urban contemporaries. That's surely a contradiction in terms. The truth is that slavery has been around as long as humans have been. And while American slavery, in many cases, epitomizes all the horrors of what slavery can bring about, the reality is the standardized belief portrayed in "Roots" was far from the norm. Because you're a liberal?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

He hasn't gone into economics. He's uncovering the social tendencies of the ghetto culture. Also, Thomas Sowell is himself a black man. So, he surely can't indict everyone and doesn't. Again, the focus isn't on being poor, though he does go over why people use that as a convenient scapegoat."White liberals in many roles-- as intellectuals, politicians, celebrities, judges, teachers-- have aided and abetted the perpetuation of a counterproductive and self-destructive lifestyle among black rednecks. The welfare state has made it economically possible to avoid many of the painful consequences of this lifestyle that forced previous generations of blacks and whites to move away from the redneck culture and its values...

​

Blaming others for anything in which blacks lag has become standard operating procedure among white liberals. If blacks do not pass bar exams or medical board tests as often as whites or Asians, then somehow that shows that something was wrong with the test itself, as far as many white liberals are concerned. Best-selling author, Andrew Hacker, for example, says that academic problems in general are created for black students in "white colleges" (whatever that is), because such curricula focuses on "white learning and logic, in their conceptions of scholarly knowledge and demeanor." Why this does not seem to be a problem for Asian students remains to be a mystery, even though blacks have lived in this white society centuries longer than either Asian Americans or contemporary immigrants from Asia who seem to excel." -Thomas Sowell Name the companies who hire felons over black people with "black sounding names," otherwise, its a bare assertion and a convenient scapegoat. And therein lies the problem. You still believe that you are somehow indebted to the negro for slavery. I'm not. I wasn't there and neither were those who are claiming reparations for their ancestors. Here's the fact: Racism still exists. It will always exist. A novel idea would be to not base our beliefs about people over the color of their skin, but of the content of their character. By coddling those who claim just such a hardship, you are hindering them, not helping them. You are giving them no incentive with all hand-out's (based solely on their race, interestingly enough) than you would if you just gave everyone the same opportunity equally-- truly equally, not this superficial, politically correct, dog and pony show.It seems to have worked just fine for an honorable man like Thomas Sowell.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

In the legend on the lower lefthand corner is the number of eyewitness accounts that said Mumia was the trigger man, not his brother, nor anyone else. That's an awful lot of witnesses. And then of course, he was caught with smoking gun evidence-- literally.But really, this thread isn't about Mumia. I just used him as a reference to how liberals run to the defense of the criminal and criminalize the police. Kind of like how you just did. Was he not afforded an adequate defense? Was his trial unfair? Was he not convicted by a jury of his peers? Eh, we all fall short. Some of us just fall further than others. What a ridiculous assertion. I wouldn't hesitate to assert that there were and are corrupt judges, but as you should know, judges don't decide cases, the People do. The only time activist judges can exercise sweeping authority is on the highest levels of court, such as the Supreme Court. Though in some cases they can ban crucial evidence if they feel that it paints the defendant in a negative light. But more than that, you are making a sweeping indictment against judges that they are mostly racist and would send a man unjustly to jail just because he's black. What a disparaging and unfounded comment. Though this is exactly the kind of behavior that typifies Sowell's argument. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

Thomas Sowell attempts to make this kind of connection-- not that I needed him to mark the dots for me. That is already apparent to me. What makes it all the better is that Sowell is very fair and impartial in his assessment

---

No. First of all, Sowell is black. Secondly, he routinely posits that blacks are in no way inferior intellectually than anyone else, something I firmly believe. Nor does he place the blame on economic status. He speaks about social ills that hinder many black American cultures today which directly affects their economic and academic levels, not the other way around which liberal assert. No, its right in line with what I said. I think you just misunderstood me.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

The book has actually only thus far dedicated one chapter to either progressives or blacks. I just finished reading a chapter, entitled, "Are the Jews Generic?" The whole chapter is dedicated to the historicity of middlemen in various countries that have been persecuted in a similar way as Jews.Now, I'm on the third chapter which is talking about slavery. I imagine I'll be delving back in to negro and progressive culture.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

I wouldn't hesitate to assert that there were and are corrupt judges, but as you should know, judges don't decide cases, the People do.

---

This is what you've chosen to stop and comment on? The thread isn't about Mumia and it isn't about how courts work. They are merely examples. But I'll play along for a little bit. I'm aware that activist judges, particularly, liberal activist judges exist. They're in a bad habit of letting ritual offenders off so that they can rape and murder little girls all over again. However, this is certainly not the norm. If it is, why haven't you contacted your congressman? I have a friend who is an appellate attorney and he never seems to be out of business. Also, anyone can motion for a retrial. Once the case is out of the hands of the initial court, that's it. The case gets reviewed by another court.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Lets just review the actual case instead of spinning rhetoric. (Click on "Case Files") How does me telling you about William Cook prove that racism is endemic in the criminal justice system?

quote:

---

Was he not afforded an adequate defense? Was his trial unfair?

---

Of course that's his defense. That was his defense before he ever shot and killed Faulkner. He was already entrenched in the overtly racist organization, the Black Panthers, and the radical leftists movement, MOVE, long before he killed Faulkner. Interesting how you make no mention of his own racist demons but immediately move to his defense simply because, he's a black man, and you haven't even reviewed the case. You seem to be the exact kind of person that Sowell is referring to in his book. Read the case and the court transcripts. There is a reason why he is in prison-- and it isn't because he's black, its because his guilt is transparent.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

That's exactly the point! And it isn't "white people" per say, anymore than it is "black people" per say. And this is what Sowell is distinguishing. There is a specific kind of people who are perpetuating the thug mentality. And that is this MTV generation liberals who spun the wool over the eyes of the lemmings, who fall all over themselves for such superficial nonsense. By cheering it on and calling it one thing when its something totally different is the problem. The point is that it really isn't a white/black issue. Its an issue of mentality spewing out of an ideology-- a liberal ideology that exacerbates it. Unaffected? We're all affected by it, but in particular, those in either the urban environment. And by the way, it isn't about wearing pants low or saying, "fo shizzle." Its about a mentality that is largely self-destructive. Neither of your links opened. Can you post them again?

quote:

---

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is randomly assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews.

---

Well, I would agree with this. I think it was ABC's Primetime who conducted a study on how important names can be when it comes to initial perception. Somebody named Kevin might get a call back more readily than somebody named Shaquanda. You know, if a black man came to interview with me and he was thoughtful enough to dress appopriately, speak eloquently, and showed that he had an aptitude for the work he's applying for, there is no reason not to hire him. However, if I have some jackass white guy who's under dressed for the interview, can hardly compose a cogent sentence, and is incapable of demonstrating that he has any grasp on the task at hand, there is no way he's going to get the job. So what does that mean? Its not about race. Its about performance. Its about who is going to add to the team instead of detract.But liberal mentality wants everything to be about race, sex, religion, nationality, etc. They're absolutely infatuated with it-- so much so that they inherently do the one thing they claim so abominable-- which is treat people specifically by their race, gender, nationality, etc. And you prove my point quite nicely as you're standing on your soapbox. Its not about race, its about attitude. And the longer you try to make some sort of connection that thug-mentality is inherently black, you're perpetuating it. Its utter nonsense. And the proof was seen back in the division of this country from North and South. Northern negro's were far more advanced culturally than their Southern counterparts. There was no biological difference whatsoever, which means, the difference stems from a sociological stand point. The point being, maybe it is many blacks who are segregating themselves, rather than they are being segregated against. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I'm gonna act the fool so that I can justify this perceived racism against me." Well, it doesn't have to be that way.And there is this belief that this is just their cultural roots extending back to Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know how Africans-- actual Africans-- who are embarrassed by the African American. They're embarrassed because they get lumped in because of their race.The reality is that this mentality is borrowed from the white rednecks of the antebellum South, which is borrowed from the Highland's of Scotland.

quote:

---

A novel idea would be to not base our beliefs about people over the color of their skin, but of the content of their character.

---

You can be apart of the solution, or you can remain the problem by not addressing the real problem and conveniently labeling it one thing when its something entirely different.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

The point is, there is this entire counter-culture who fight for people like Mumia Abu-Jamal or Tookie Williams simply because they are black.

---

There are two names mentioned there, not one. I also offered Ward Churchill and Michael Moore too. Either way, I just used them as a reference. They are just four of many names. I suspect, however, that even if I advanced fifty names, you might say, "What, only fifty?"

quote:

---

The truth is that slavery has been around as long as humans have been.

---

No, I'm just saying that slavery was a way of life since the beginning. It was never viewed by anyone as an immoral act in itself until the 19^the century. It was kind of like sexual immorality in that, sex alone isn't immoral. There is specific behavior attached to it that makes it so bad. Likewise, slavery for many slaves was closely akin to what we began to call indentured servants. But even though many masters and their slave families had a respectful and reciprocal relationship, it doesn't detract from the fact that many people over many centuries have been plucked from their homes against their will and sold into slave labor. That's immorality of slavery. And most unfortunately, in the last 300 years of slavery, this became the norm until the UK, US, Dutch, Germans, and French finally put an end to it. Well, what I mean to say is that the assumption is that slavery was the result of racism. That's not true. Racism grew out of slavery. (Not that it makes it any better). And then there came to be this sociological standard that the white man was entitled to owning the negro. But in many homes, the master treated his slaves well because its the intelligent thing to do. In fact, the term "cracker" came to be known by terrible masters who, as the name implies, "cracked" the whips. They were tyrannical in their application. So, what I mean is that the assertion is that this was the norm and all people that owned slaves were just awful people who got their jollies off by whipping people. I'm just saying that this wasn't the norm, as it is so often portrayed. Obviously, that doesn't excuse those crackers who acted like that. It just wasn't the norm. No, no, don't get me wrong. He condemns it. He just believes that those of a liberal persuasion have used it inappropriately and distorted the reality in order to advance a political agenda. He also makes the distinction that slavery didn't begin with the United States. In fact, British and US naval forces used to patrol various places in an anti-slavery effort in places like Brazil, the Med, Asia, etc in search of slave traders.

quote:

---

Because you're a liberal?

---

You asked why you weren't surprised. I answered an open-ended question with, "because you're a liberal?" If you think the word "liberal" is a dirty epithet, I can't help you there. I realize that most liberals prefer to be called "progressive" now or days, but its the same thing.As to why I offer those of a leftist persuasion is obvious to me. The Democrats have referred to themselves as the "colored people's Party". To put it bluntly, I'll just allow you to read a short essay offered by a black man. I offer a black man's opinion to curtail any allegations of bias. Since he put it so eloquently, its just easier to direct to his testimony.I'm not a liberal--I'm far to the left of contemporary American liberals (who would have been mainstream Republicans 30 years ago). Mumia is transparently guilty. There aren't looming questions surrounding the case. It was pretty much and open and shut case. The case makes the O.J. Simpson case look like an enigma. The problem is, Leftists have looked upon Mumia as if he was a vulnerable baby seal being clubbed to death when he's anything but. They aren't really interested in the justice system, they just love him because of his activism. And progressive iconoclasts like Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, etc, etc, have squandered their moral energy on an unrepentant murderer for the sake of advancing their own political interests. Of course such things happened and its bullshit that it did. But Sowell posits that the poison is in telling people that because of such things, there is this mentality that their descendants must somehow be entitled to reparations for something that never happened to them. And moreover, that we all must capitulate for something that a caucasian was never involved in. I know people of various races who have been freed by the advent of DNA testing. First of all, I don't doubt that such a thing has happened before. You, however, are making it seem commonplace. Since we're discussing Mumia, and you have not offered one actual instance for the allegation, we'll just look at what was stacked against him. Mumia was seen by numerous witnesses, most of them were black. He had smoking gun, literally, in his hand as he was slumped on a curb as police responded with that gun in hand. The bullets from the gun were the same as those found in Faulkner. The chamber of missing bullets matched the number of bullets in Faulkner. The motive was clear. He was a leftwing radical who happened to see his own brother being pulled over. Right there the motive is established. The murder weapon was in his hand and witnesses say that Mumia was the shooter. It doesn't get much better than that for a lawyer. A mixed jury convicted him. There was no reasonable doubt. It was obvious who the trigger man was. LOL! Ah, yes, it was planned on Martin Luther King Jr's memorial. First and foremost, I'm no racist. And to prove it, I don't pander to people or patronize them simply over the color of their skin. If you're a dirtbag, no matter what your race is, I won't hesitate to share that. If you are honorable and upstanding person, I don't hesitate to share that either. I happen to love and respect Martin Luther King immensely. Why? Because he was honorable man fighting for an honorable cause in a productive manner. King was not counterproductive like the much coveted Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a died-in-the-wool racist, though he thankfully recanted some of his ways, which is why the NOI had him killed.Secondly, if I was a racist then why do I have immense respect for Sowell and King? This is exactly what Sowell means. By capitulating simply over race, whether it works in the favor of a specific race or not, is racism. Treating people differently just because of their race is what racism is all about. I don't do that. I judge the character, not the skin.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

William Cook, who might have been expected to testify on his brother's behalf, and who was present at the scene at the beginning, did not testify, but has stated in a signed affidavit that he is willing to testify and that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not kill Officer Faulkner.

---

Wow, his brother said he didn't do it? He must be innocent if his own brother says so. As well, you do understand how courts work, right? Lawyers often don't allow their defendants or family members take the stand because they may drop the ball. The defense doesn't allow their defendants to even speak one word in court because under pressure they'll give away too much to the prosecution and the jurors. I don't believe for one minute that presiding judge wouldn't allow for William Cook to testify.

quote:

---

:William Singletary's testimony (11 August 1995) describes how police tore up his written statement, and forced him to sign a different statement which they dictated.

---

Why so late to the party? 1995? And the case was in the early 80's...? You also left out some critical information.

quote:

---

"Another witness not called by either party was William Singletary."

---

So because I think that Mumia, a black man, is guilty of his charge, I must then default to being a racist? You knew nothing of the case, and in true liberal fashion, you came rushing to his aide. I even thought of posting a reply of how resident EvC liberals would react just to show how spot on I was in my initial assessment. Too bad I didn't. I did know that. The last time I reviewed this case was years ago. Quote me where I said something incorrect. And since you allege that I have "consistently" gotten the facts wrong, I assume you'll post numerous instances that were incorrect. Answer me this: If a white man actually killed Faulkner, but there was a black man to pin the crime on near by, do you honestly believe that I would want the murderer to go free just so I screw up one black man's life? That's beyond stupid. Back that up. Even Wiki, (not that its the be-all, end-all, doesn't affirm your conjecture. Crash, this is an old case-- really old. I'm actually surprised that no one here has ever heard of him before. He's quite popular. If I seem like I'm not curious, its because I no longer am. I've already looked at the case. Its one of those cases as bad Scott Peterson or O.J. Simpson. Its so obvious that he did it, that's its laughable that people still talk about it. The reason I used this specific case was for a number of reasons.

Any other correlation you derive is simply a fanciful construct of your mind. First of all, Sowell makes no mention of Mumia in his book. Mumia is just something that popped in my head while I was explaining Sowell's views. Again, I just used Mumia as an example. I'm a little perturbed that the thread has turned into a discussion about Mumia, rather than Sowell and his book on how ghetto culture spawned from redneck culture, and how liberal's, who admittedly try and do the right thing, end up doinf more damage in the long run. I don't know what Sowell's views are on Mumia. I'd go out on a limb that, you know, since he's rational, that he probably believes that Mumia guilty.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

There is a specific kind of people who are perpetuating the thug mentality.

---

Albums don't sell in a vacuum. You have to have people buying into the nonsense in order for Hollywood and the music industry to peddle it successfully in the first place. Its not the clothing, its the mentality. Its destructive. And somebody like yourself, being such an advocate for speaking out against misogyny, I would have expected that you might have had the moral gusto to speak out against this very thing that pervades the thug mentality. But I guess because they're black that trumps misogyny. That's usually the way it works for the Left. They're all too willing to compromise the integrity of one belief if another is on an even bigger soapbox. What do you consider, "just fine?" Making lots of money? Its a crap shoot. One man from the ghetto might strike it rich off of his talents and prostitute himself before the camera in a display of pride. And the little guys love it. They want to emulate them so that when they grow up, they're gonna spend their money on a piece of crap hooptie with really nice rims. When a set of rims is twice the value of the car itself, something tells me that their priorities have gone all out of whack. A mental illness? No. Its not psychological, its sociological. Ah... That would be the problem. I use Firefox's version. I don't do Adobe Acrobat anymore. It turns my computer into sludge.

quote:

---

Somebody named Kevin might get a call back more readily than somebody named Shaquanda.

---

It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with crappy names. Lets see, I have a friend who was named by his hippy mother, "Sunbow." That's not exactly of African-American origin. And he has a hell of a time for the same reason. He is as white as it gets. To add insult to injury, he's rough around the edges which just compounds the problem. So not only is his name odd, but he dresses inappropriately, his demeanor is uninviting, etc. It has nothing to do with his race. And I would agree that its crappy that people base their initial impressions just off of a name, but that doesn't mean that racism is inherently at the root. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean its racism, though I would say it does constitute discrimination. What is Sunbow's defense going to be? Yes, that would be discrimination. I'm just telling you that odd names, for whatever reason, does weird things to people. I know some women who are in love with a guy for all the right reasons, but seriously debated whether or not they wanted to marry him because the last names were so odd. Shallow, yeah-- racist? No. What? Its ALL about attitude. How the hell do you think stereotypes formulate in the first place? This is how racism works, Crash: From the attitudes, mannerisms, and behaviors of one race, another race starts to notice some sociological patterns that they are averse to. From that point on, the person averse towards it "assumes," based on the initial assessments, that all or damn near most in a certain race is going to behave in the way that racist doesn't like. So, what he does is prejudge them on their race before they ever have a chance to exhibit their behavior. Therefore, attitude is how it all starts. More advanced culturally is more exposure to other cultures which helps them understand what is sociology acceptable in those cultures. See, southern negros only had one kind of person from which to model after-- the Redneck. That's hardly somthing to aspire to. But the Northern negro's were exposed to a lot more education, a less crass of a culture, etc, etc.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Good job completely twisting everything I wrote. I guess I can justifiably assume, by default, that you are a racist simply by virtue that you were born white.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Making bad life choices does not allow one to use the piss poor defense of mental illness. No, I'm poor. I don't have that luxury. About the most expensive hobby I had was when I was actively drumming. I no longer play because I can't afford it. I've never owned any golf clubs. I don't know what they cost because it was presented to me as a gift. One. And I don't know what it cost either because this was also presented to me as a gift. That all depends on your income. If you chose to buy your MythTV box instead of paying your bills, then, yes, you're priorities are all out of whack. If you can afford such niceties then I don't see a problem. However, if someone can't afford a decent car, it likely means that they are not very wealthy. And if they aren't very wealthy but opt to rims that are more expensive than the vehicle itself, don't you think that's a terrible transaction? Don't you think the "bling-bling mentality" has superseded any legitimacy of the rims at that point? Yeah, we uninstalled Adobe a few weeks ago. Maybe I need to change my settings. All I'm saying is that bizarre names have been shown to reduce a persons chances of even getting a call back, whether the name is perceived as being black or not. The point is, racism may not be the culprit in all of, or even most of the cases. Secondly, when you apply for a job, all of your credentials and contact information are provided with the name. Nobody sends in a resume with just a name. If they do, that's the reason they don't get a call back. I'll ask my wife about the Adobe thing. She's the IT, not me. I wish I was a savvy as she was about computers. Crash, I don't doubt that such things have happened. I really don't. But perhaps you don't take in to consideration that weird names, period, play a vital role. I mean, either way, its discrimination. And its really fickle, especially when considered that we don't name ourselves. But when I can open your link, I will let you know what I think. No. But maybe that's because I grew up in Miami where such names are common. Not all black names are odd. You know, if someone was named Billy Bob, which to me is a weird name, what would that invoke? Wouldn't people think of some hillbilly who doesn't have a lick of sense? Maybe. That's not right to not call somebody in for an interview just for that, but would you consider that racist if a black-owned company simply assumed that Billy Bob was a racist just because of his name? Wouldn't that be racist, or at least, discriminatory in the same context, just in reverse? Give me a break. Are you telling me that your research shows that a man with a felony conviction was chosen, just because he was presumed white, over what was a presumed a black man, just because of his name? I was speaking about the antebellum South, not the South as we see it today. I'm from the South. I obviously wouldn't implicate myself in such an indictment. I was specifically referring to slaves who had no one else to model after except their slave owners.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis