SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (270200)1/28/2006 4:50:35 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Respond to of 1573678
 
Re: Is that the perception from Belgium? Or just yours?

Don't worry, it's just mine... but then, only a handful of Belgians take the trouble of observing and learning about US politics as thoroughly as I do. As you may be aware of, Belgium is split into two constituencies: Flemings in the North and Walloons in the South, with Brussels as a French-speaking enclave in Flanders.... Most Flemings, I believe are earnest supporters of the US, if only because Flanders' economy heavily relies on US capitalism. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Flanders has also special ties with neighboring "Holland" (the Netherlands), another Protestant, US ally... Not to mention Antwerp's Jewish community busy in the diamond trade and somehow vested with maintaining friendly ties between Belgium and the US. I guess that's why NATO and SHAPE were relocated in Belgium thirty years ago.... I would even venture to claim that, had it not been for France and Germany's combined pressure in 2003, Flanders on her own would have been eager to send a few Flemish troops in Iraq alongside the US's. Flanders is much more rightwing than French-speaking Wallonia, hence the success of the Vlaams Belang party.

As for French-speaking Belgians, they tend to be culturally and ideologically attuned to the French, hence their indulging in state socialism....

Re: For hating all those people we sure have a lot of them.

Indeed. Likewise, you used to have a lot of slaves once upon a time... Did you (I mean your slave-owning forebears, of course) hate them?

occawlonline.pearsoned.com

rwor.org

Excerpt:

But meanwhile, it became clear that Lott had said exactly what he believes: In November 1980, at a Mississippi political rally, after Thurmond had made a fiery speech backing Ronald Reagan, then-congressman Lott told the crowd: "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." In 1992, Lott told a meeting of the Klan-like racist organization, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC): "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." He is quoted at several places in his career saying that the figure he "feels closest to" in American history is Jefferson Davis--the Confederate leader who led the slaveowners in war. It even came out that when Lott was a college student back in the 1960s, he led a fight to keep Black students out of his Sigma Nu fraternity.

In other words, Lott's recent remarks are no mistake. This is a long-time defender of white supremacy who has worked to lead and rally today's white racist forces--from high within the government and the Republican party.

Jim Crow segregation was defeated long ago--in the intense struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. It is no longer considered acceptable, even in the South, for officials to publicly and openly defend the old forms of white supremacy. But apparently these days reactionaries are so puffed up that Lott felt safe to let it hang out in front of the microphones in the Senate building itself.

As outrage has spread, pressure has mounted for Lott to resign. His former supporters, allies and colleagues have backed away. President Bush went on television to distance himself from any nostalgia for Jim Crow segregation--though he did not openly call for Lott's resignation.

Many in the power structure are asking: Won't it hurt the political system, if one of us keeps his top post after letting his racism hang out too publicly? Isn't it necessary for Lott to go, so the Republican Party and the current government don't all look totally like racist pigs?

Some Republicans have pointed out that the prominent Democratic Senator Robert Byrd used the word "n*gger" (twice!) in a recent TV interview--and that Republicans had not made a "big deal" out of it. They complain that forcing Lott to resign violates the long-standing practice of covering up such statements by the powerful. And they wonder who among them would be safe, and who might be next.

After all, the power structure is full of people whose racism is notorious. For example, Attorney General John Ashcroft (the man in charge of federal prosecutions, civil rights enforcement and the growing police powers), is famous for praising slave-owning Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. Another example: Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist first participated in politics as a "poll watcher" to harass Black and Latino voters during Arizona elections in the 1950s.

All of this leads us to ask some questions of our own: What kind of a system gives great power to well-known racists like Trent Lott or John Ashcroft? What kind of a system gives a stone-to-the-bone white supremacist like Strom Thurmond powerful political posts for 74 years--and then openly celebrates his life as he crumbles away? What kind of future can people expect from a system where such men hold power?

And, most important, when can we finally overthrow them all? When can we sweep these outdated, creepy monsters from the stage--and finally get on to the business of ending the mistreatment of Black people forever?!
________________________________