One quick, effective way to piss people off is by mentioning the negative economic impact of desegregation. It's not like suddenly white people felt free to shop at businesses owned and operated by black people. They weren't risking arrest for doing so before, after all. Or not so I've heard; I urge you to correct me if I'm wrong on that. Or anything else. Informed debate is welcome, it's the other kind, the far more commom kind, leads me to tell the tourist to fuck away off.
Add institutionalized racism in obtaining funding and distribution to a dwindling customer base, and you actually ended up with fewer economic opportunities for independent black entrepreneurs. Funny, that.
For expansive definitions of "funny" anyway.
Ties in to what Jason mentioned a while back about supporting local businesses, or the reasons Walter Mosely gave for choosing his small(er/ish) publisher, but we're not meant to talk about that.
While there was hope [note construction - The Mgt.] that the Congressional Black Caucus would follow the advice of its in-house think tank and move forward. the CBC still insists on blaming the Jewish community and the Democratic Party for the defeats of Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney.
[. . .] (link via Amish Tech Support)
Don't follow that last link.
Why look, it's more accusations and hyperbole out of the Congressional Black Caucus blaming J-E-W-S for recent primary losses. Apparently, Majette and Davis aren't black enough for them, and Fox News is taking their line of unreasoning to its illogical conclusion.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
Meanwhile, the front page post at MeFiMe observes:
Participants in this month's Congressional Black Caucus conference say the defeat of two black House members in bitter primaries not only suggests a widening rift with Jewish Democrats, but trouble within the Democratic Party itself. I have long considered the Democrats in trouble: one of their charms. A Black loses to another Black and it is the fault of the Jews? Reparations? Assuming there had been a strong lobby at work to get the Jewish vote to come out against these candidates, is that un-American? Don't we vote for those we feel best serve our interests? Odd that he Protocols of Zion not mentioned.
Odd because. . .?
No, that's not a rhetorical question. You don't want me linking the self-congratulatory rhetoric that came up after Hilliard's and McKinney's defeats, do you? This would involve me reading it again.
Bill Peschel, whose permalink brings up the HTML source in lynx, adds:
Black democratic lawmakers seem mired in racial politics of the past. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at the defeat of Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard and pointing fingers at Jewish groups who backed their opponents.
This is soooo 20th century, and ignores the fact that both incumbents were opposed by black politicians. While both were active Palestinian supporters. McKinney in particular received a ton of money from the Arabs for her stance, especially after she accused Bush of being behind a conspiracy to bomb the WTC. This wasn't just support for the Palestinians, McKinney headed into nutjob Lyndon LaRouche territory with that remark.
Not that that's what she said, but who needs facts?
Nearly a century ago, W.E.B. DuBois wrote, "The problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line, the relation of the darker to the lighter races in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea."
Did I miss a memo, then, and this was all settled when the ball dropped in '99? Or in 2000, if you want to be that way about it? Douglas Adams settled the issue in an essay reprinted in Salmon of Doubt, pointing out that it's all arbitrary and anyone looking to defuse an excuse for a party isn't nearly as intelligent as they'd like to think they are. . .
Mind you, if there were more black people participating in those discussions linked above, you might, possibly, see mention of Al Jolsen, or Amos'n'Andy, or those fun-loving kids at Jewish Task Force. Just to bring some balance, you know? Instead, we just get Mr. Thornton, and he's statistically insignificant.
That sentence works just as well if you leave out "statistically."
Should I not be mentioning people's actual names, rather than their domain names, when I refer/link to them, by the way? The latter seems rude, for folks who actually use their real names. Not that I'm consistent with this my own self, but seeing as I rarely, if ever, refer to myself as "Uppity Negro," I fail to see the. . . fuckit, who gives a shit.
As for the title, I'm pretty much at the "if I saw you lying in the street bleeding to death, I'd walk over and spit on you" stage with most of these people. And moving rapidly towards "walk over and repeatedly kick you in the face and groin, if I'm not wearing good shoes."