A Leadership of Cowards »
Posted By Wolfie2007 8 months ago in NewsAttorney General Eric Holder calls the U.S. “a nation of cowards” because we “do not talk enough about race.” I find this ironic, since the Justice Department seems embarrassed about a recent judgment in its favor by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. U.S. v. Ike Brown is a major Voting Rights Act case involving intentional race-based discrimination by local officials in Noxubee County, Miss.
Read Full Story at article.nationalreview.com »
214 Views Share Story 32 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 32 (view all)
-
50%
Wolfie20078 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Holder's Justice Department and the media must think this isn't worth talking about. You have to wonder why they aren't crowing about this big win in a voter discrimination suit in Mississippi. Oops, I see, the problem is the people discriminated against are white and who cares about the rights of white voters. Well, apparently the Justice Department, the White House and the media do not!
Reply-
-
75%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually Holder needs to do a lot more against racism.
Reply
Eric Holder and the Whitewashing of Racism
It was all too predictable that Attorney General Eric Holder would be attacked for his recent remarks about race in America. To suggest that the nation is still haunted by the specter of racism is unacceptable it seems, especially since, with the election of President Obama, we have ostensibly entered the "post-racial" era.
But in truth, the nation's chief law enforcement officer deserves criticism more for what he didn't say than for what he did. Specifically, Holder blamed personal cowardice for our racial divide, rather than institutionalized inequities, thereby minimizing his own Department's role in solving the problem; and he blamed everyone (and thus no one in particular) for being cowards, thereby letting white Americans--who have always been the ones least willing to engage the subject--off our uniquely large hook.
...The racial divide about which Holder spoke, particularly in terms of the neighborhoods where people live, is not the result of some abstract cowardice to engage one another. Rather, it is about the racist fears of whites, who decades ago began leaving neighborhoods when blacks began to move in... And in their fears, these whites were assisted by government policy, which subsidized their flight via FHA and VA loans that were all but off limits to people of color. This is how (and why) the suburbs came to be. From the 1940s to the early 60s, over $120 billion in home loans were made to whites, preferentially, thanks to these government efforts, while blacks and other persons of color were excluded from the same. Indeed, about half of all homes purchased by white families during this time were financed thanks to these low-interest loans, while folks of color remained locked in cities, their dwellings and businesses often knocked down to make way for the very interstates that would shuttle their white counterparts to the suburbs where only they could live. -
75%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We remain residentially divided today because of the legacy of those apartheid-like policies, as well as ongoing race-based housing discrimination: between 2 million and 3.7 million incidents per year according to private estimates. It is the AG's job to do something about that by enforcing the Fair Housing Act, not pleading for more dialogue....
Reply
.... Until we address our nation's long history of white supremacy, come to terms with the legacy of that history, and confront the reality of ongoing discrimination (even in the "Age of Obama"), whatever dialogue we engage around the subject will only further confuse us, and stifle our efforts to one day emerge from the thick and oppressive fog of racism. For however much audacity may be tethered to the concept of hope, let us be mindful that truth is more audacious still. May we find the courage, some day soon, to tell it.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/02/26/eric-hol... -
80%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's one case out of many. Here's a list of some more.
Reply
United States v. Osceola County (M.D. Fla 2005)
This suit challenged the at-large system for electing the county's Board of Commissioners under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Although Hispanics comprise more than one-third of the county's electorate, the county never elected a Hispanic candidate to the Board under the at-large system or to any county-wide office. The complaint, filed July 18, 2005, alleged that the existing electoral system operated to dilute Hispanic voting strength, and that Osceola County had adopted and maintained the at-large method of election with a discriminatory purpose. On June 26, 2006, the court issued a ruling from the bench granting the Department's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the scheduled 2006 county commission elections. On October 18, 2006, after a trial on the merits, the Court issued a memorandum opinion ruling that the at-large method of election violated Section 2. On December 8, 2006, the court entered its remedial order rejecting the county's proposal of a mixed system of five single-member districts and two at-large seats, and adopting the five single-member district map submitted by the United States and agreed to by the parties. The court ordered a special election in 2007 in two districts, including the majority Hispanic district, under the court-approved plan -
80%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
United States v. Berks County (E.D. Pa. 2003)
Reply
The United States alleged in its complaint that the county violated several sections of the Voting Rights Act. The facts showed that the county discriminated against Hispanic individuals, primarily Puerto Rican voters, through hostile treatment at the polls, failure to provide adequate language assistance, and by not permitting Hispanic voters to bring assistors of their choice into the polling place. These actions resulted in violations of Sections 2,
4(e), and 208 of the Voting Rights Act. The court granted a preliminary injunction on March 18, 2003, and permanent relief on August 20, 2003. Both decisions resulted in increased protection for Hispanic voters. Since the court entered its decision, the Department has monitored elections, utilizing federal observers pursuant to a provision of the order, to ensure compliance with the court's order. -
80%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
United States v. Euclid City School District Board of Education, OH, (N.D. Ohio 2008)
Reply
On December 2, 2008, the Department filed a complaint and stipulations against the Euclid City School District Board of Education in Ohio alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleges that the at-large system of electing members of the school board dilutes the voting strength of African American citizens due to racially polarized voting. -
80%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's so disingenuous about this is that this story singled out this one story to make a point that whites were being discriminated against. What's really ironic is the place they chose to make this point is in Mississippi! There's many cases of discrimination about hispanics and blacks that Republicans and conservatives refuse to want to talk about. If you want to see some of those cases, here's the link.
Reply
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/litigation/recent_...
They're all listed there including the one that is in the subject of this story.
-
-
-
80%
nostalgia8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie
Reply
Looks like they pulled the article
Is this the case you were referring to?
Court upholds ruling Noxubee Democratic Party chair violated rights of white voters
Federal judges have agreed that black Noxubee County Democrats led by Ike Brown are guilty of election fraud and discrimination to keep whites out of county government.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday affirmed a Mississippi federal judge’s 2007 decision banning Brown and the Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee from running party elections through 2011.
This is the first federal case in the country of blacks accused of violating whites’ voting rights.
http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=508 -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
50%
Wolfie20078 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOTE:
Reply
Sorry, they seemed to have pulled this article from national Review this morning. You can read what my article was about by following the link nostalgia posted above.
http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=508 -
-
KlarissaComment removed: Spam
-
KlarissaComment removed: Spam
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.