Maggie's Farm

mudbug: When I first heard about this, I thought he was saying to disengage with blacks, but he’s not saying that.

Adams said, "the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people. Just get the fuck away." That means not working with Blacks, not going to church with Blacks, not shopping with Blacks, not living in neighborhoods with Blacks, not having Black friends.

bobby b: One of the most "objectionable" things he said was, it's okay to be racist against racists.

He said Blacks are a hate group.

mudbug: Frederick Douglass: "Everybody has asked the question, ... 'What shall we do with the Negro?' I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!"

Except they didn't, did they? They spent the next century overtly oppressing Blacks, and replacing the history of oppression with statues to those who fought to preserve slavery.

mudbug: Adams also said to be “we should be friendly” so that implies interaction.

This is what he said: "we should be friendly like I'm not saying start a war". Guess as long as they stay in their place, he's okay with it.

mudbug: 'it’s not ok to be' vs. 'weren’t sure it was ok'

To be clear, those are not the same statements.

mudbug: Blacks as a hate group - when a significant percentage, nearly a majority, says it’s not ok to be what you have no choice in, how would you characterize that group. ]

"It's OK to be white" is a troll originating on right-wing blogs and picked up by white supremacists. Rasmussen was trolling for your benefit. Even if you take it at face value, it's still racial prejudice, ascribing some to all.

mudbug: If 47% of white people said they weren’t sure it was ok to be black, you would rightfully say that there is a real problem in the white population.

That wouldn't make whites a hate group. It would mean there were a lot of bigoted whites (surprise!). For comparison, the KKK is a hate group.

More particularly, unless you are being willfully blind to American history, there is a huge difference between "White Power!" and "Black Power!"

mudbug: The “they” you refer to are Democrats who enslaved, then lynched, then ostracized, and finally (with liberals of both parties) destroyed their families their economic progress at the very time they were making it on their own.

The Democratic Party was the political vehicle, but the people pushing for oppression were a majority of southern whites and many northern whites acting both through the law and through custom. The United States and the individual states involved were complicit.

mudbug: You seem to have a very low opinion of whites. Do you have the same opinion of blacks?

In-group/out-group dynamics are part of the human condition. People tend to be suspicious of people from outside their experience and will use stereotypes to prejudge strangers. When there is a long history of antagonism, it can prevent reaching a more fruitful relationship.

mudbug: in other words, almost exclusively Democrats.

You are still confusing cause and effect. The Democratic Party was the vehicle by which whites, especially those in the South, implemented their oppression. It's what the white majority wanted.

If you are trying to say that the Democratic Party was complicit, then sure. However, in the twentieth century, there was a struggle within the Democratic Party over the issue. When Truman integrated the military, the Dixiecrats walked out and ran against him as a third party, almost costing him the election. Then Kennedy introduced and Johnson pushed through the civil rights and voting rights acts, which led to the migration of white southerners out of the Democratic Party, while minorities have since largely supported the Democratic Party.