South Carolina: Too black to represent the rest of the country?

[StanH]

Of course, I don't believe that for a moment. But if I were to say (and presumably actually believe): "the rap on South Carolina: it doesn't represent the rest of the country - too black, too ___________, too ________", how would that be any more or less racist than Andrea Mitchell saying, "the rap on Iowa: it doesn't represent the rest of the country - too white, too evangelical, too rural", given how South Carolina is more black per capita than the rest of the nation?

The problem with liberals and racism is that often they perceive racism where it simply doesn't exist. Some have even gone so far as to basically accuse the moderators here of being dumb for not seeing racism here on PJ. The problem? The moderators don't see it because it quite often doesn't exist.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/02/andrea-mitchell-iowa-too-white-too-evangelical-too-rural#ixzz1iOwmewdZ

 

[Barbella]

OMG...."Too white"????????????

How do racists like her get away with saying crap like that???? Unbelievable.

 

[StanH]

I can't say I blame liberals for avoiding this one in droves. It's pretty indefensible. You'd think the really anti-, anti-racist liberals like Gekko, Bo, and Julie would have shown up to make a stand here.

Yeah right.

 

[kgswiger]

If what you were saying about SC were true, it wouldn't be racist. And the percentage that blacks make up of the SC population is around twice that of the nation.

Iowa has a far higher percentage of white people than does the nation as a whole. Also, it's far more rural than the coastal plains. Ergo, it's unlikely to be representative of the nation as a whole. You could make a good argument that it'll be indicative of the central states.

 

[Barbella]

Yes, it's pretty amazing that they haven't done so yet. Do you think that, for once, they're speechless, and unable to defend the indefensible? Could it be???

 

[Barbella]

Baloney. It would still be racist. There's no such thing as "too white", or "too black". Or at least there shouldn't be.

 

[kgswiger]

Baloney. It would still be racist. There's no such thing as "too white", or "too black". Or at least there shouldn't be.

There is if you're talking about being representative of the country as a whole. Just as there's such a thing as being too black, or too evangelical, or too secular. What's being described is the variation from the makeup of the nation as a whole.

 

[Huskyoverlord]

Baloney. It would still be racist. There's no such thing as "too white", or "too black". Or at least there shouldn't be.

wesley snipes is too black , lol

 

[Jen]

It is wrong for anyone to say that South Carolina is too black to represent the whole country.
And of course nobody thinks that.

But how many posts have you seen here today stating that Iowa is too white or too Christian evangelical to matter?
More than a few, I'm betting.

 

[Barbella]

Nope. The skin you're born in is irrelevant to your religion. Has nothing to do with it.

 

[kgswiger]

It is wrong for anyone to say that South Carolina is too black to represent the whole country.
And of course nobody thinks that.

I do. The percentage of blacks in SC is twice that of the nation as a whole. Ergo, it deviates from the national average too much to truly be representative. Of course, the same sort of problem is going to occur in almost every state. At best, a state can be considered to be representative of those states that are like them, demographically speaking.

And I don't believe the argument is that they're too white or too evangelical to matter, but that they're too white and too evangelical to be representative of states with a larger minority population, or a larger secular or non-evangelical Christian population.

 

[kgswiger]

Nope. The skin you're born in is irrelevant to your religion. Has nothing to do with it.

Nobody said it did.

 

[StanH]

KG, I have a feeling that if a media hack were to say such a thing, they'd be relentlessly attacked.

If what you were saying about SC were true, it wouldn't be racist. And the percentage that blacks make up of the SC population is around twice that of the nation.

Iowa has a far higher percentage of white people than does the nation as a whole. Also, it's far more rural than the coastal plains. Ergo, it's unlikely to be representative of the nation as a whole. You could make a good argument that it'll be indicative of the central states.

 

[bdtex]

If you were to say that about SC it wouldn't be true. What Mitchell said about Iowa is true. It is not a representative slice of the rest of the US. SC is actually closer to being a representative slice of the US than Iowa is.

 

[Spamature]

Of course, I don't believe that for a moment. But if I were to say (and presumably actually believe): "the rap on South Carolina: it doesn't represent the rest of the country - too black, too ___________, too ________", how would that be any more or less racist than Andrea Mitchell saying, "the rap on Iowa: it doesn't represent the rest of the country - too white, too evangelical, too rural", given how South Carolina is more black per capita than the rest of the nation?



The problem with liberals and racism is that often they perceive racism where it simply doesn't exist. Some have even gone so far as to basically accuse the moderators here of being dumb for not seeing racism here on PJ. The problem? The moderators don't see it because it quite often doesn't exist.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/02/andrea-mitchell-iowa-too-white-too-evangelical-too-rural#ixzz1iOwmewdZ

WTF ?

You're just getting weirder and weirder with this stuff.
Who said Andrea Mitchell who is married to Alan Greenspan (certainly no lib) speaks for liberals or that SC represent anything accept SC.

Whatever it is going on with you it sure is fun to watch and mock.

Keep it up

LOL!!

 

[StanH]

Nope. South Carolina is 27.9% black, more than twice the national average. By Andrea Mitchell's standard, it's too black to be representative of the US.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html

If you were to say that about SC it wouldn't be true. What Mitchell said about Iowa is true. It is not a representative slice of the rest of the US. SC is actually closer to being a representative slice of the US than Iowa is.

 

[kgswiger]

KG, I have a feeling that if a media hack were to say such a thing, they'd be relentlessly attacked.

Probably. Luckily, I don't have to keep any corporate sponsors happy.

Good discussion.

Time to head home through the snow.

 

[StanH]

Drive safe!

Probably. Luckily, I don't have to keep any corporate sponsors happy.

Good discussion.

Time to head home through the snow.

 

[middleview]

Iowa, with 2.9% African-American population compared with 13% nationally, is probably not representative of the country, but is a good fit for the RNC.

 

[StanH]

Who said anything about Andrea Mitchell speaking for other liberals? And why is who she's married to relevant?

I take it from your reply you won't be adding any substance to this debate.

WTF ?

You're just getting weirder and weirder with this stuff.
Who said Andrea Mitchell who is married to Alan Greenspan (certainly no lib) speaks for liberals or that SC represent anything accept SC.

Whatever it is going on with you it sure is fun to watch and mock.

Keep it up

LOL!!