Skip to main content

jason's America: over 100 million hardline racists

From Delawareliberal this weekend:
Romney goes into this election, as he has lived his life – with a great many advantages. The Bush economy and the nation’s short memory of how we got here. The political press in the employ of his major financial backers. One third of the country being died in the wool racists. The list of reason why Romney should win goes on and on.
Start with the assumption that one out of every three people you meet will be racists, and your world will be a pretty dismal place.

That's well over 100 million hardcore racists.  One-third of the other students in your child's class--I look at the assembled parents in my grandson's class at Linden Hill Elementary School, and I wonder which nine families are secretly keeping KKK hoods at home in their closets.  I go to church and wonder which fifty of the people taking communion with my family are only here to cover up their virulent hatred of our African-American and Hispanic parishoners.

As I walk the streets I realize that, in jason's world, 206,000 of Delaware's registered voters are racists.  How can I know which ones?  Ah!  I see:  there are 183,645 registered Republicans.  We can assume by definition, according to jason, that ALL of them are racists. (Sorry, Joan Deaver.  Sorry Joe Miro and Mick Manolakos.)  That would also mean that another 22,435 of Delaware's independents, Greens, and Libertarians are racists (because, you see, only Democrats are not racists in jason's world.  It's sort of like a reverse Germany in the 1930s and 1940s where we should have two-thirds of the people wear big "Ds" on their jackets so we could know they are not racists.)

One third of all Americans are racists.

Of course, since only 72% of the country is white, that actually means that nearly 50% of all white Americans are racists in jason's view.  Every other white person he meets is secretly trying to figure out a way not to do business with Hispanics, not to hire African-Americans.

Wait!  Maybe he just meant it as a geographical comment.  Obviously, that must be it:  jason thinks (given the percentages you can note in the map below) that every single white person in the South is furtively planning to bring back Jefferson Davis and re-enslave the Freedmen:

OK, in all seriousness, I should point out that racism is still alive and well in the hearts and minds of many Americans.  Probably millions, maybe even tens of millions--I don't know.

But I do know that it is significantly less prevalent than it was when I was growing up, that the media and advertising images out there would not be out there if they were not selling products.  I know that racism in the United States is on the decline, and that even people who are Evangelical Christians, or conservatives, or Southerners--even if they are white--do not have to be racists by definition.

Except in jason's world, where everybody who doesn't think, believe, and vote the way he does can't just be an American with different ideas--they have to be both ignorant and evil.

Comments

kavips said…
I missed it in Jason's original but when you chose to highlight it, it jumped out...

"Died in the Wool" racists are those living around sheep farms who happen to pass over to the other side, while employed..... A rather small commodity, I dare say.

"Dyed in the Wool" is the proper term that should be used. I would tend to think that an editor/publisher given the charge of keeping the standards of the English language pure and intact, would have caught that slip before some humble lowly blogger accidentally stumbled across it... LOL.

"Died in the wool" Be a great title for a espionage novel set in New Zealand...
kavips said…
Btw... that is the most awesome map ever....

So far...

Why so many Afro Americans in Kent County?

What on earth is the American ancestry... Judging from its location it should the called... "Merican" ...

Why is Utah almost entirely English?

The one African American county in Oklahoma, is because of an airbase in an otherwise sparse territory.

The mafia REALLY populated Miami?

And it is a great thing the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. We never could have gotten the political approval otherwise.....
tom said…
Spelling and grammar have never been listed among DL's strong points.
Hube said…
It's all for the "team," Steve. No amount of utter nonsense is too much as long as "their" people win. 100 million racists. It's reasonable to believe George Bush knew in advance of 9/11. The recent ad blaming Romney for that laid off worker's wife's cancer death. Rounding up and shooting all Republicans.

The list is interminable.
Acethepug said…
So, if a third of the nation is made up of racists, how exactly did the "Post Racial" President get elected? Did most of them stay home? Remember, he didn't say VOTERS, he said one third of the COUNTRY.

Or are these people only racist when they don't vote for Obama? It's funny how much use the word "racist" has gotten since then-Senator Obama started his campaign, isn't it?

It was confirmed for me that Obama himself was racist once he commented on the incident in Cambridge the way he did. It started off Presidential enough, with "we don't have all the facts," but then he flushed all that goodwill and showed his true colors for all to see when he said later in the same conference that "the police acted stupidly." Why no one asked him then how he could make such a comment when he himself ADMITTED he didn't have all the facts is beyond me (no, it isn't really, the media is and has been in the tank for the Composite President from his campaign on).

We'll hear more about how the country is still steeped in racism when and if Obama isn't re-elected.

Thanks for posting!
540tony said…
Only a little over 1/3 of the country voted 121 million people voted.80%of Romneys voters were white. Somewhere around 30 to 40% of Obama votes were whites another 30% were black and then Hispanics,Asians,native American etc.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...