Hillary, Obama, and the Politics of Race
The 5-4 Supreme Court decision Thursday banning race-based school assignments was the correct decision, after the fashion of Brown v Board of Education in 1951. It doesn’t surprise me, though, that Democrat candidates for President of the United States disagreed with the decision, which re-emphasized the ban on racist government control of where children attend school.
It’s ironic that people vaunting to become your next president have no clear understanding of the history of one of the most well-known Supreme Court cases in American history–Brown v. Board of Education. Here’s a little background:
In Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda’s father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, [of the NAACP] and asked for help. The NAACP was eager to assist the Browns, as it had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools. … Other black parents joined Brown, and, in 1951, the NAACP requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka’s public schools.
At issue in Brown was the unconstitutionality of government controlling where people went to school based on race. At particular issue was that,
- without regard for race, families should be allowed to send their children to schools that were convenient to their neighborhoods.
- school boards could not provide better school facilities for one particular race over others.
A 5-4 Supreme Court decision (including one black justice) upheld the essence of Brown on Thursday, by specifying that neither could government compel attendance at particular schools in an effort to foster integration.
“Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin,” said Roberts, joined by Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He said the districts in this case were also trying to justify “differential treatment on the basis of race.”
A correct decision. Pretty simple. But not, somehow for four Supreme Court justices and not for several candidates for President of the United States.
Unfortunately, black voters have overwhelmingly positive opinions of the two presidential candidates who are trying the hardest to destroy black upward mobility in America–Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. During a Thursday night debate at Howard University, it was Hillary who outdid Obama in her incitement of a predominantly black audience to hatred of non-blacks and to blaming non-blacks for the problems they faced.
“If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country,” Clinton said to the biggest applause line of the night, bringing the audience to its feet.
It seemed to work, as propaganda replaced reasoned logic in “inspiring” the debate crowd at Howard University.
All the candidates decried the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the day that rejected school diversity plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., saying it turned back the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Brown did not, nor could it ever, promise integrated schools. What it did promise, and under the Constitution could promise, was that government would not use compulsion on the basis of race to assign children to school attendance.
But people like Hillary and Obama, who decry the Court’s decision, subscribe readily (and contribute) to the race-baiting tactics of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. For them it’s really all about power and control.
So for some liberals, Brown wasn’t about freedom of choice. It was a confirmation of their deepest inner secret–that they don’t care about the children, but rather that they will use any wedge they can find to destroy relations between the various races in America. All as a means to gain greater government control.
This article was originally published as “Brown v Board of Education Was About Racism After All” on Simple Utah Mormon Politics.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article hillary clinton Hillary, Obama, and the Politics of Race » Posted at One Utah [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Imagine– politicians pandering to different constituencies and bringing up wedge issues. Who ever heard of such a thing? And the nerve of some people to think we are supposed to have integrated public schools today, a mere 53 years after everyone thought the issue was decided by the Supreme Court.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:45 am
So are you saying you think “Brown” required forced integration? Of course it didn’t. It only said that there could not be government force in the issue. If we take your implication to its logical conclusion then my high school was in violation, because not only did we not have as many blacks as the national average, we didn’t have any in our school. It was only because they didn’t choose to live there, but what your conclusion means if carried out would be that we would have to, for example, force some black students from Las Vegas or someplace to attend our schools to ensure integration.
People like Jesse, Al, Hillary, and Barak have caused the lion’s share of the dissonance that we have between the races in America today. Government can’t solve the problem other than what it did in “Brown”. It is up to us as individuals and families to befriend everyone we meet regardless of race, nationality, sex, etc.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Frank, you are confusing integration with quotas. Basically, the Brown v. Board of Education decision said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” That is, public schools must be integrated.
What I think is that President Bush has stacked the Supreme Court with enough right-wing jurists to reverse some of the progress we have made since 1954. But the Court has handed an issue to the Democrats that will help them win elections.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Frank, You are a master of semantic manipulation. One might goes so far as to call it semantic dishonesty.
“The decision, which re-emphasized the ban on racist government control”
There is a big difference between “racism” and race-based. Thus what may appear to be a masterful misuse of that term through equivocation may cause you to pump out your chest in self-pride, know that the applause is coming only from your masters on the right whose embarrasingly unapologetic dishonest public barrage of talking points has worked as perfectly in this case as it did when they got you and most of America to go along with the war in Iraq, repeal of the death tax, repeal of habeaus corpus, the Geneva Conventions, right to privacy, voter rights and all the rest.
The blatant dishonesty following your uninformed declaration, “The 5-4 Supreme Court decision Thursday banning race-based school assignments was the correct decision,” precludes me from reading the rest of your post.
Here’s a truth; racism is alive and well in America and it is as unjust and unamerican as anything. You have never experienced it and are unqualified to speak about it unless it is to ask yourself, how do I, Frank Stahali contribute to the perpetuation of racism in American, Land of The Free (if you’re white), and how can I use my voice to stop it.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am
Frank,
I couldn’t help myself and read the rest of your article. I just wanted to make sure I hadn’t been hypocritical in my assumption that you did not acknowledge racism anywhere.
I was though, further saddened to find more parroting of the right-wing talking points, with comments like ascribing democrats words as “race-baiting tactics” and “they will use any wedge they can find to destroy relations between the various races in America” as you interpretation on Brown V Board. PUUUUULEEEASE Frank.
Perhaps you will tell us how Hillary’s comment about AIDS/HIV works “as propaganda replaced reasoned logic”.
WHAT pray tell, is the reasoned logic?
July 1st, 2007 at 11:31 am
It’s not really that white guys don’t / haven’t experienced racism, what we often experience is the ‘up-side’ of it. Customer service complaints are different things to different races, and I suspect to different classes as well. Here’s the spectrum: Rich, white, male>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>poor, black, female.
Hillary / Barrak 08 (why not)
July 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Richard,
I honestly (despite what Cliff may write) cannot see how you think that forcing people to come together is progress. Progress is encouraging people to come together of their own free will. I agree that we have done a terrible job at this, but government not only will not solve the problem, they have caused a great deal of the problem by getting people to concentrate on how their race makes them different than others, in much the same way that Sunni and Shia never used to think about their religious differences much until the US invaded.
Cliff,
Enough with the “talking points” talk. Please think about who you’re writing to before you write. Maybe we should get together over lunch some time so that you can really come to understand that I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh every day to get my walking and talking orders. I have tried to understand your perspective on multiple occasions, but the only time to try to understand mine is when I agree with you!
My (in my opinion) well-thought-out opinion is my own (in my opinion). You know me well enough by now to know that I don’t have others tell me what to say, and you should understand that:
(a) I don’t seek applause from my “masters on the right”
(b) I didn’t support the Iraq invasion
(c) I don’t support repeal of habeas corpus
(d) I don’t support violating people’s right to privacy
However, I do support people keeping the money they have earned, if that’s what you mean by your “death tax” insinuation.
How could you in your first comment accuse me of blatant dishonesty “following” my statement about the 5-4 decision, if at first you hadn’t even read the rest of the post (”following” that statement)?
You are correct that racism is alive and well. That was the main point of my post. I just see it being exacerbated by government and race-baiters (sorry…talking point…I’m not allowed to say that, am I?) like Al and Jesse whose entire fortunes are based on causing and retaining division and hatred between the races. I have experienced racism, while in the military. I don’t condone it, but I empathize with blacks who have been made to feel inferior by whites, based on the handful of times I have been ganged up on by blacks to be made to feel inferior.
Perhaps you can tell me how Hillary’s statement about AIDS was “reasoned logic”? The reasoned logic is to try and work together as different races and sexes and nationalities and sexual preferences and etc. to celebrate rather than to hate the differences that we have, and to solve the problems that we have. How more or less likely are you to work with someone when you are constantly told that you are the cause of their problems? Hillary was attempting to create anger in her audience, and based on the couple of news articles I read, she succeeded. Anger will not accomplish a solution to the racism problem. As long as we are preaching hate, we will never come together.
Also, I referred to “race-based” when I spoke of Brown, and I referred to “racist” when talking about how some people interpret Brown’s result. How is this equivocation?
July 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
OK, its that white guys don’t experience the down-side of it.
There has never been one day in Frank’s life when he woke up, looked in the mirror and was reminded that his skin is dark brown.
Frank has likely never stopped to wonder if he would be living the sweet life he enjoys today if he were born black.
Frank has probably never had to consider what he would do if he put his house up for sale and a black couple tried to buy it and his Bishop came to him to relay in the kindliest way that some in the ward would prefer if he would sell the house to a nice white family, NOT of course because anyone is racist, but out of sympathy for the nice black family who for their own good, would probably be better off in a nice “mixed” neighborhood because sadly, so and so, not the Bishop of course, but you know, some less open-minded brothers and sisters, aren’t quite there yet. So, you know, for THEIR own good, the nice black family should probably live somewhere else.
BUT, BUT, BUT, race should NEVER be used as an excuse for not having the Stahali-Sweet life. No no no, THAT is racism.
What Frank CAN say without hesitation, is that he personally is not a racist, and somehow that takes him off the hook.
What I don’t understand is how that gives him the authority to claim that acknowledging the FACT of racism is this country is somehow racist.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
[...] One Utah « Hillary, Obama, and the Politics of Race [...]
July 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I have a field that needs fertilizing, I am forwarding this thread to depleted furrows, post haste.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Question: Is the propensity of hiring illegal alien latinos over legal African Americans for jobs Americans seemingly won’t do…racist?
What a hoot…it gonna be dyin time for the dems and all that voted for amnesty.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Come on Frank. It is just plain mean to say “Al and Jesse whose entire fortunes are based on causing and retaining division and hatred between the races.”
What the FUCK is that?
Do you really KNOW their histories? A whole hell of a lot of people have fought really hard for civil rights in this country, white and black, and sacrificed a lot.
…and I have a very strong suspicion you have no CLUE about that and the proof is in THIS MORONIC statement: “I honestly (despite what Cliff may write) cannot see how you think that forcing people to come together is progress.”
Brown v Board was not about FORCING people to come together, it was about PREVENTING WHITE MEN IN POWER FROM EXERCISING RACISM!
Please, Frank forgive my language and anger, but your giving me your interpretation of 40 years of the civil rights fight in America is kind of like Pat Robertson lecturing YOU on the history of the Mormon Church.
All are entitled to their opinions, but none are allowed to re-write history with broad sweeping dead wrong conclusions without being called to account.
btw: Just because you used “race-based” correctly in one place does not excuse the utterly offensive use of equivocation in the title of your post “Brown v Board of Education Was About Racism After All†on Simple Utah Mormon Politics as in “that Democrat candidates for President of the United States disagreed with the decision, which re-emphasized the ban on racist government control of where children attend school.”
Any idiot can see what you are doing here. SO, you can either drop the argument that democrats are racist OR change the word “racist” to “race-based” in the post which would of course destroy the premise of your MASTERFUL use of semantic gymnastics to paint “some liberals” as deliberate race baiters (for the purpose of giving government more control?)
Tell me THAT reasoning does not come from talking points or is that “well-thought-out opinion is my[your] own”?
July 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Jesus; educate your kids, plain and simple, what is racism if your children as a whole test out in 3oth fucking place in international competency testing?
Jesus; If parents and their own communities, and that includes racially based motivations, won’t educate their kids, who the FUCK will?
Jesus; Why has it come down to some concept that someone outside of your own lives can decide where any children become educated.
We owe da massa fo sho, we all gotta be educated to abject stupidity and to the fine hone of 3oth fucking place in competency based international testing.
God, what do want people, morons of equality?
July 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
The big story here is the hard right turn of the Roberts Court. A third of the cases were decided by 5-to-4 margins. Roberts even disregarded precedent in several key decisions.
The New York Times summarizes the cases this term. The one thing they all have in common: equality of opportunity loses out.
From Slate’s Emily Bazelon: “Any hope liberals and moderates had that the Roberts Court would be modest in its ambition were dashed this week with the parade of 5-4 decisions (conservatives win, liberal-moderates lose)…. Roberts may not go in for rhetorical swashbuckling, but he gets the job for the right done.”
July 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Cliff,
A whole lot of black people agree with me about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
You say: “how that gives him the authority to claim that acknowledging the FACT of racism is this country is somehow racist.” How did you arrive at the conclusion that this was my thesis? Stop letting your anger get the best of you, because you don’t think clearly when you get that way.
As to your claim of my “masterful…semantic gymnastics”. I would say thank you, but I was not trying to nor did I think it was either masterful or semantic gymnastics. I happen to think that it IS racist to force people of any race to attend school somewhere based purely on their race, whether it is out of a desire to FORCE them to SEGREGATE or FORCE them to INTEGRATE That’s my simple thesis, but you don’t want to try to understand that, apparently.
Why not just accept my opinion as what it is? I can’t trick you, anyway. You’re much to smart for that. Except when you get pissing mad.
By the way, if I today sold my house, and a black family wanted to buy it, I would sell it to him, and if my bishop suggested to me that I perhaps shouldn’t sell it to a black family, I would as kindly as I could tell my bishop TO SHOVE IT UP HIS ASS!
July 1st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Richard,
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal when they are made that way by government on purpose. So are integrated ones.
I wish that blacks, whites, and people of all races didn’t have such trouble in many instances integrating into the same society and neighborhoods. But if you were black and people like Hillary Clinton kept telling you that all your problems are the white man’s fault, why would you want to move into their neighborhood? This is why I think “some liberal” politicians have set the clock back by decades on racial integration. Put another way, if race-baiters had shut their yaps, we would have been much more integrated today than we are. And that would have been a good thing. If we really want to integrate–which I do and I think many people do–then why to we keep listening to the crap that comes out of Jesse’s and Al’s and Hillary’s mouth on that subject?
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
I don’t think Hillary Clinton either believes or claims that all racial problems are the fault of white people. Everything Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say is not “crap.” Sometimes they have said things I don’t agree with, but it’s way over the top to call them “race-baiters.”
School integration is largely an accomplished fact, which Chief Justice Roberts and his allies on the Supreme Court want to roll back. Why?
In my lifetime, this country has made great strides in racial equality. Many people have made sacrifices large and small to help bring this about– they were heroes. This kind of social progress doesn’t happen automatically, and if we take it for granted the right will be able to reverse it.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Frank, so true…crying racism in this country is akin to screaming fire in a movie theatre. There is a fire, it is in movie projector, but that doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t get up and bail from the theatre. This is some low lifes’ bread and butter. Al has been found to be simply lying to foment racial divisiveness(Tawana Brawley case), for what reason, I, and I think he, doesn’t know. I attribute this to the fact that he may not have learned anything in school, and at this point in his life, doing the bullshit dance is all he knows.
It isn’t serving his people well. Furthermore, isn’t it racist to not include all elements of society in solving problems between them, rather than prejudice all debate with a racial bias to your own side?
As the world is finding out, there is no equality between peoples until you earn it, despite any laws or social pressures to make it so. There is no equal opportunity but for what an individual makes for themselves. If people are prejudiced against you for any reason,well then, it is your mountain to climb, or walk around, or ass kick those doing it.
Given that we as a “free people” have placed burdens on so many peoples around the world, economically, militarily, socially, it is beyond time for Americans to, grow up and quit whining about their lot in life, and realize you are only as free as you make yourself, and if somebody tries to stop you, we all have the right to take action, with consequence, against it. ….keep in mind John Brown, a hero of mine.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Richard,
How can you say that 5 members of the Supreme Court want to roll back integration? They have no authority to do this, nor have they claimed that’s what they were doing in their decision. What they claimed to be doing is upholding the Constitution. What they didn’t do is act like the predominancy of activist judges of the previous 20 years by saying that whatever they say goes.
It’s up to the people to make integration work, not for the Supreme Court to force everyone into it, which wouldn’t work anyway.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
The legal community seems to think the Roberts Court is definitely in the rollback business. Check out the American Constitution Society blog.
From former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger:
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
[...] want to acknowledge Frank Staheli’s post below. Until he mentioned it, I had missed the significance of last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision [...]