Poor Blah Child

[Bravus]

One of the smarter posts on welfare I've read: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/07/1052518/-I-was-born-a-poor-blah-child?via=siderec

[lazarus]

Blah people, LOL.

Santorium is so ridiculous. His pants are on fire. Exactly the kind of racist trash that I was referring to on the other thread.

[Dr. Shane]

Even if he did say black people, that does not make the remark automatically racist. I disagree with the whole concept of cutting welfare and forcing people off from it. But I do not accuse those that disagree with me of being racists.

Don't most people think it would be best to help poor Black, White, Asian and/or Hispanic people get a good education with marketable job skills rather than keeping them on welfare? I am sure most of us agree with that. We disagree with the issue of 'how'. How do we do that?

Now I think that philosophy of people like Santorum is bordering on being cold-hearted but I can give him the benefit of the doubt of just being ignorant. But I don't cast racism on him. I am sure folks like him want to kick White folks off from welfare as fast as they want to kick Black folks off. I don't think there is any racial motivation there at all.

[olger]

[bonnie]

One of the smarter posts on welfare I've read: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/07/1052518/-I-was-born-a-poor-blah-child?via=siderec

One of the most slanted one sided posts on what most that are opposed to the welfare system as it is actually mean that I have read

[bonnie]

Like many I am one of the "blah" children.Looking around me now as an adult that has lived in a variety of financial circumstances I am not sure how much I would change>Altho many things I really would have no wish to redo or wish on others.

I can't think of any one that just waits to find the downtrodden so they can kick them again and make sure they stay down.

To assume that all on welfare are incapable of at least helping themselves to a larger degree is really demeaning.We make it so they think those that require that are somehow wanting them to die in the streets.

There should be some kind of sensible middle ground,expecting of those on welfare what is expected of those lower/middle class.

When my children were little and we had to watch the use of the gas or feed the kids,we did not wily-nily go unnecessarily.Wic wasn't an option.I have watched and talked to far to many young mothers use WIC,wear clothing that I would not even buy today expense wise,buy expensive concert tickets etc. Why not,Wic was there and it was free.Priorities for their children is not necessary.

Somewhere between the neighbor of mine that has sat on his backside for 2 years because he could not find a job worthy of him,living off the taxpayer to care for his family,while moaning about the lack of snow as he can't snowmobile,and the seriously handicapped young man working at Wal-Mart determined to make it on his own and doing so,something should change.

The young woman with mild Downs Syndrome is doing same. Remarkable young woman,no longer being cared for by the state and living independently.

Contrast the young woman living across from me.Working three part time jobs,raising her baby,taking college online.No welfare.I have encouraged her to accept some help so her life is not so hard. She says a flat out no.She says, My foolishness,thought if I became pregnant,babies father would offer support.He took a hike.She is almost to the end of the road and will be an asset anywhere she goes.A young woman living five doors down is demanding second gastric by-pass from the state.Every taxpayer benefit she can squeeze out for her and her child.On full welfare support,does nothing but wait for just the right job before she will consider working.Which of course will not come.

The young black woman I worked with that was having a hard time finding a place to live she could afford.She just about took my head off when I suggested subsidized housing. Asking me if just because she was black I thought she needed to live off the state.She did the unthinkable and took another part time job.

Three others were a little miffed that they could not get larger subsidized apts.

Those that can do more for themselves and refuse to because it is "free" are robbing those that are doing all they can,needing a hand up.Help for some that really need it is often times limited.

Those that can do more for themselves and don't are not this tiny minority giving the majority a bad name.

There are so many absues it is staggering

[lazarus]

Why talk about black people at all when it comes to welfare at all. That's the point.

[Dr. Shane]

Why be so sensitive when people talk about black people in a neutral way? Maybe the Lord has placed a burden on his soul for black folks. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why assume the worse? If he actually wants to help black people get a good education and find good jobs, that would hardly be a racist thing, would it?

[lazarus]

Why be so sensitive when people talk about black people in a neutral way?

The point is that it was not neutral. Why not say I don't want white people to have their lives improved by welfare. Sorry "Whah" people.

[Dr. Shane]

When I read Santorum's explanation and then listened to the video, his explanation is certainly plausible. So one really does have to want to assume the worse about him not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he did say "black" (which wouldn't make sense since he said "more and more of you" and was talking to a bunch of white people) it wouldn't necessarily be racist.

[Dr. Shane]

The point is that it was not neutral.

I would have to say one has to be hyper-sensitive, almost to the point of paranoia, to believe anyone is proposing that only black people get kicked off from welfare while other races can stay on it. Those that talk about welfare reform do so in a neutral way. They do not propose different rules for different races.

[Bravus]

But that's exactly the point. The word 'black' should simply never have been raised in this context. It was not relevant to the topic. Its only purpose is to draw on resentment of black people. If you want to tall about welfare reform, you talk about 'people'. Not black people. Not even 'blah people'.

[Dr. Shane]

I honestly don't think he did use the word black. He certainly was not being articulate at that point. If one watches the video, he is surrounded by white people and in the context of the discussion he says "more and more of you" and a few seconds later is when he says "blah". I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Some people think that most welfare recipients are black. That may be hard to believe but there are some uneducated and ignorant folks out there. I would hope Santorum isn't one of them. But even if he did use the word black, we don't have to assume the worse. I can give him the benefit of the doubt and still disagree with his position on welfare reform. I don't have to make him into a villain in order to make an argument against kicking poor folks off from welfare.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is why it was an ignorant racially insensitive (at best) statement, or at worst a racist statement born of ignorance (or willful misrepresenting) intended for an audience predisposed the believe its underlying racist stereotype. He was talking to an almost exclusively white group about welfare. It is a racist stereotype among many white folk that welfare recipients are predominantly black. At the very least, the welfare free loaders are perceived as being black.

But the truth is that 70% of food stamp recipients nationwide are white. And it is even worse among the group to which he was pandering. Among Iowans, 84% of food stamp recipients are white and only 9% are black! And that is why it was a racist thing to say in the context in which it was said.

It's pretty hard to polish that turd.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is why it was an ignorant racially insensitive (at best) statement...

No. At best it is what Santorum says it is. And that is what it is if we give him the benefit of the doubt. He claims he didn't say the word "black" and was stumbling for a word.

Does Santorum have some history of racism that we should make us assume the worse about him?

At worse it was an ignorant racially insensitive statement. I can agree with that.

[Tom Wetmore]

If it is as Santorum "explains" it, he started to say "black" and self-corrected his unfortunate Freudian slip. Again, he should have manned up and said he goofed and apologized, instead of trying to polish the turd. That he took that approach makes it very hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's not assuming the worst about him. There are things about him much worse than this Freudian slip.

[Dr. Shane]

If it is as Santorum "explains" it, he started to say "black" and self-corrected his unfortunate Freudian slip...

No that was not his explanation. His explanation was that it was an audible pause. Many people do this when they search for words. In college my speech professor would count the number of audible pauses in every speech we gave. He was speaking to a group of white people about the government trying to get more of *them* on welfare.

[lazarus]

I would try really hard to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt but it just fits a familiar pattern. There is ample evidence of black people being cast in a negative light by GOP politicians.

There's Ron Paul less than convincing explanations.

And then there is Gingrich. A man recently confronted Gingrich with these words:

"you mentioned that black people should be able to earn a paycheck, not be on welfare, implying that black people in general are on welfare," said Lamothe. "And I really took exception to that because it demeans my accomplishments, my hard work, because I have worked all my life. I have never been on welfare. You know about history. You know that back in the 1930s, Hitler started talking in Germany about a Jewish problem. My question to you is, do you think that blacks represent an American problem, and if you don't think that, will you stop using blacks in general as a stepping stone or a punching bag?"

Remember George Allen?

Allen apologized, first saying he intended to say "mohawk," an incorrect reference to Sidarth's hair cut. He then revised his story, saying he meant to call Sidarth "caca" and then claiming that he did not know the meaning of the word.

It so much a part of republican strategy and thought that even Hermain Cain had to say something negative.

[lazarus]

His explanation was that it was an audible pause.

Aren't you the one that is always saying you don't buy into conspiracy theories. Even 911 truthers wouldn't accept that one.

[bonnie]

And then there is Gingrich. A man recently confronted Gingrich with these words:

"you mentioned that black people should be able to earn a paycheck, not be on welfare, implying that black people in general are on welfare," said Lamothe. "And I really took exception to that because it demeans my accomplishments, my hard work, because I have worked all my life. I have never been on welfare. You know about history. You know that back in the 1930s, Hitler started talking in Germany about a Jewish problem. My question to you is, do you think that blacks represent an American problem, and if you don't think that, will you stop using blacks in general as a stepping stone or a punching bag?"

Gingrich did not say more blacks on food stamps.Nor did he say we have a black president that is the food stamp president.HIs other remarks were addressed to a black man challenging him on what he did not say.

"I didn't say what you just said," he said. "Let me be very clear, because this is something that makes me, quite frankly, very irritated. ... What I said was, there's a real problem in America because you have a president who's put more people on food stamps -- people, I didn't say any ethnic group, people -- than any other president in history. ...

Speaking to the black man challenging him he said....And I said I would be willing to go to the NAACP annual convention -- which most Republicans are not willing to do -- and I'd be willing to talk about the importance of food stamps versus paychecks."

[lazarus]

By why go to the NAACP to talk about that?

[bonnie]

By why go to the NAACP to talk about that?

I would think because he was talking to a black man that was taking personal offense at a general remark,acting as if it were aimed solely and directly at blacks

[lazarus]

His remarks were not general. He mentioned black people and visiting the NAACP in his original comments. The question is why?

[bonnie]

His remarks were not general. He mentioned black people and visiting the NAACP in his original comments. The question is why?

I would have to go back and check but I believe the comments he first got hammered on was this.

What I said was, there's a real problem in America because you have a president who's put more people on food stamps -- people, I didn't say any ethnic group, people -- than any other president in history. ...

Pretty general as far as I can tell.Then speaking to a black man he mentioned black people and the NAACP.

Which by the way is a racist group as far as I can tell.

How far at this time would any group of white-Americans would get by with that

[bonnie]

As a black man you have no more right to demand every word be weighed so that you never find anything offensive,than I do as a woman.

This super sensitive game of weighing every word and then yelling "Gotcha" really gets tiresome.

Things can be said many times without any offensive intent.

When break dancing became a fad,and it was not a fad strictly reserved for blacks,I was sitting with a group of black co-workers when the topic came up.Some of this group had become more than just friendly co-workers. It fascinates me as I don't understand how anyone can contort the human body in that way physically.

I made a remark that it did not look human.That did it.All at that table assumed their race was so important every word was about the color of their skin and had to be scrutinized.Didn't have a thing to do with anyone's skin color.I will tell you that I would not have wanted to be alone in a dark alley with that particular group.

That pretty well ended the friendships I had with some.I was civil and polite,but quite frankly I do not care to be around people like that unless there is a decided change in their attitude.

If every careless remark that can be tied to the color of the black race has to be atoned for,picked apart and reassembled in such a manner that allows you to yell racism,I for one will keep my distance on a personal level