The Practical Progressive takes a look at the disparity of perception between blacks and whites.

Please dont even get me started again. And before I get called a racist, which I am not, look at the facts. Are there more poor blacks than whites? yes do blacks not have the same opportunity whites do, no, they have more because they are black. I watched video of the aftermath on Katrina, was it just a coincidence I did not see any video of whites looting? I wonder how many whites raped and killed innocent people. I also saw video of whites trying to clean up the streets with brooms and rakes. It is just a matter of facts, blacks typically are not poor because they dont have the opportunity, they are poor because they choose to do nothing to try to better themselves, but can sit around and pop out baby after baby and get paid for doing it, are there whites that do the same thing? yes and I dont think any better of them for doing so. Plain and simple, no matter what race people are, if they dont want to at least put forth the effort to make this world a better place to live, if they are able to do so, then why in the hell should my tax dollars go out to help them.

I find it interesting that it took our president so long to respond to the tragedy in New Orleans. I tend to wonder if it had to do with the fact that there are a lot of blacks and poor people in New Orleans.

You should look at the facts before you demand someone else look at the facts.
In a Census Bureau 3 year average from 2002-2004, the total number of "Whites" in poverty was 24,346,000 while the number of "blacks" was 8,794,000. The point is that even if you were able to remove all 8.8 million "black" poor, there would still be a major problem in our country. This is easily shown by the 24.3 million "whites" who would still be poor.

I think what you mean to say is that a particular group represents a higher percentage of poor. For instance, in that same stat set, "whites" have a poverty rate of 10.5% while blacks have 24.4%. Of course, lets not single out "blacks" - hispanics have a 22.1% rate and American Indians have a 24.3% rate.
Of course, the general assertion about blacks is a bit extreme considering 75.6% are not poor and so generalities seem quite racist (especially when they are singled out as the greatest abusers of the system).

This is nothing short of ridiculous and hardly warrants a response but if you would care to expound, I will be happy to respond.
New Orleans has a larger than average size black population and no one is contending that the vast majority of the poor in New Orleans were not black. Clearly, the largest number or people unable to leave New Orleans were part of the black population which generally helps with the feeling that many blacks were "left behind". With the general attitude conveyed by people (such as your post) who else would you expect them to show as "looters". Those who will "loot" in the profits of Katrina are certainly not primarly "black" but they will not get much air time because profiting from the situation as a corporation is "different". Do you have any statistics on the ethinicy of the crimes committed or are you just making a general assertion based on your non-racists view? You keep speaking of "facts" so I challenge you to present them. I have spent the better part of 10 years studying poverty and I can tell you that your assertions are wrong as a significant representative of the whole. You can find plenty of examples but you will not find a statistically significant group doing what you claim they are doing. The notion that people want to remain poor or on welfare is ludicrous and unsupported by "facts". As a matter of fact over 50% of those on AFDC payments receive them for less than 2 years.The general notion expressed is that it is lazy people who represent the poor. This is statistically unfounded as well - most poor are under the age of 18, over the age of 65 or disabled It is fine to be upset at freeloaders in a society but I have met very very few people who can identify who these people really are as a statistically significant group. The general notion has been portrayed that the face of poverty is epitomized by a single black female (crack addicted no less) who continues to pop out kids for the welfare benefit. The notion is flat out wrong, unfounded and represents the very racism that so many try to denounce.

For those most offended, ask yourself.. "have I really studied this topic and know the "facts" or am I listening to generalized garbage by those who want the generalities to be true (aka Rush Limbaugh)?" The causes and proposed cures for poverty is a very complex topic but neither are well represented by the general assertion that the poor just need to get off their butts.

White America, in general, works hard to avoid the "racist" label. Most do not consider themselves racist. But racism can appear in very subtle forms and pervades even the mainstream media.

In the midst of the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans, this subtle racism revealed itself in photo captions published on Yahoo News — blacks loot, whites find...

May i suggest those who believe race is no longer an issue in America read Peggy McIntosh's article on White Privilege.

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac...Unpacking.html

I do too. He had to come off his vacation knowing a huge storm was coming. It wasn't the color of him that made him react slowly. It was the stupidness. He thought New Orleans had weapons of mass destruction and thought the hurricane taking care of the issue would save him from making the call to send up a bunch of troops like he did in Iraq.
Well, the troops were called anyway.
Bush don't have a color. He is in his own world of "I have mine, you get yours".

I don't think racism had anything to do with the government's response to the hurricane. However there are those who would have you believe so and I'm sure that they are profiting from the exposure (Rev. Jackson, et. al)

I disagree that racism had nothing to do with the government's response, but not necessarily in the ways many would think. It was not the short-term response, but the long-term policies stretching for several administrations. But that's a whole other, lengthy discussion.

In any case, anyone who profits on the backs of victims of a tragedy are reprehensible — whether that's financially or politically.

I am basing all I say from personal experiences in life. Lets see, two bikes stolen out from under me by groups of Blacks, my sister badly beaten by 13 blacks, my ex girlfreind raped by, you guessed it, blacks. And you have the balls to ask why I feel this way. I live two blocks from a black community, I hear the gunfire everynight, and even the automatic weapon fire two blocks from my house. When I go into a black area and see the bars on the doors and windows is it to keep the whites out of their houses or do they not even trust their own people. Who is more racist, let me tell you who, the blacks. No I cant back up what I say with stats, but I can speak from personal experiences.

[quote=Didaskalos]

This is nothing short of ridiculous and hardly warrants a response but if you would care to expound, I will be happy to respond.
QUOTE]
Lets hear it....... give it your best shot.

The fact is, the ones who had money and could afford to leave...did. The ones who were living in the low income, poverty area, had no means of transportation, and no money, so they stayed. I noticed that, although there were many blacks that were stranded, there were whites there also. Poverty has no color, however, just like in OKC, there are areas that are almost poverty level, and the majority of the residents are black.

Racism did not have anything to do with the delayed response in New Orleans. It was the lack of planning, and the lack of asking for resources, that caused many people to die. Did you realize that the head honchos in New Orleans made the Dome the place for evacuees to go, yet, they had nothing there for them? No food, water, or anything. They just sent them there...they had no real plan for them.

When I saw Jesse Jackson on the TV, "assisting" the evacuees, I turned the channel, because I knew that he would turn this into a racial thing. He always does. It wasn't racial, it was lack of planning.

Thank you, your exactly right. Jesse Jackson is THE biggest racist there ever was.

Read this, posted by MadMonk - some of it is pretty telling - it talks about behavior and choices - not neccessarily race:

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

[quote=mariner62]Notice I prefaced with... "if you would care to expound"... so, please give it your best shot

Yes, I do. If you believe that is representative of "black" America, you have a very limited view of the group. How about the experiences of blacks living in the south for the majority of American history? It was 1946 before the Justice Department had it's first successful prosecution of a lyncher. Florida constable Tom Crews was sentenced to a $1000 fine and a year in prison for the killing of a black farm worker.
Should you pay for the criminal actions of those who share your ethnicity? You do in a sense. I am sure you feel that you should not considering you yourself are not "racist". Neither should the vast majority of "blacks" pay for the crimes of their ethinicty. Hold those accountable who committed the crime, not the race as a whole.
Once again, is this your general assertion or can you demonstrate this through any empirical study. To suggest that the minorty group can be more oppressive to the majority group is laughable. This is especially true considering the effects of racism have been experienced very tangibly by the minority group while the majority group simply doesn't like the audacity of the minority group to see them as anything but angelic. No one can question your personal experiences but if you cannot provide stats to back up the theories you gained from your personal experience you must consider that your experiences are atypical or your generalizations are wrong.

So you believe all the statistics you read ?

No, but statistics serve as an empirical tool to determine whether a hypothesis is proven true or proven untrue. When someone demands that a person "look at the facts", where are they to look? I can come up with a general theory about anything and prove it by a limited number of examples. This doesn't very well prove whether my theory is correct. As an example, I can easily say that Republicans are white evangelical protestants. I can come up with dozens of examples to prove my point. Is there anyway to know whether my theory is true or not? There are a plethora of "statistics" to show that the majority of white evangelical Christians identify themselves as Republicans but I can also show ample evidence that not all Republicans are white evangelicals. Without putting a framework on the issue by providing statistics, they are simply generalizations and are likely to be inaccurate.

People who see the world in a particular manner make statements like "there are more poor blacks than poor whites". Depending on your circumstance and your perspective, this might seem true. Perception doesn't define reality. I have heard countless white people make this assertion. Luckily, the Census Bureau keeps statistics on these kinds of things so it is easy to tell if someone knows what they are saying or are talking simply out of an unfounded generalization. As poor whites outnumber poor blacks by 3 to 1, the assertion seems completely wrong.

Since the perception of posters was mentioned, I thought it was interesting to note that the perceptions of posters might be different if you look at the population of each city that they reside.

I'm not trying to imply anything, this thread just got me thinking how other people see the world ....

Detroit Michigan Census

Race


White 116599 12.26% City
Black or African American 775772 81.55% City


Oklahoma Census

RACE AND ETHNICITY

White 346,226 68.4 % City 76.2 % State
Black or African American 77,810 15.4 % City 7.6 % State

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

Absolutely, a non-violent civil rights advocate is much worse than Hitler, Talaat Pasha or even the wonderful six founders of the KKK (Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, Frank O. McCord)

You said it, not me. I dont feel that way.

Actually, you did say it. "Jesse Jackson is THE biggest racist there ever was."

No. That title goes to Al Sharpton.

Yah I said that, but I did not say Hitler was better, or that the KKK was better than a civil rights activist. Jackson and Sharpton have always tried to blame the whites for the poverty in the black community. I am working on stats to prove I am right, it may take me some time because I dont have alot of time to sit on a computer, but I'll have them.

By saying "Jesse Jackson is THE biggest racist there ever was," you are indeed ranking Jesse Jackson as worse than Hitler and the others mentioned. "The biggest" means bigger than all the rest. If that's not what you meant, then perhaps your statement should be rephrased.