Chauncey DeVega

Chauncey DeVega
Chicago, Illinois, USA
September 11
A (Sometimes) Respectable Negro
Editor and Founder of the blog We Are Respectable Negroes He has been a guest on the BBC, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground. His essays have been featured by Salon, Alternet, the New York Daily News, and the Daily Kos. The NY Times, the Daily Beast, the Utne Reader, Washington Monthly, Slate, and the Week (among others) have featured his expert commentary and analysis on race, politics, and popular culture.

Chauncey DeVega's Links

Editor’s Pick
JANUARY 25, 2012 1:28PM

A Very Impersonal Thing: Ron Paul's Polite White Racism

Rate: 20 Flag

Over the last few days, I have watched this interview with Ron Paul several times. Something about his tone of voice just doesn't sit right with me, the detached indifference rubs me the wrong way.

It is easy to flatten history, in doing so to generate stories of evil men, barbarous and incomprehensible deeds, and frothing at the mouth villains. This is true when the history is personal and your people would have been the vanquished, the oppressed, the conquered, or the exiled. Ironically, the need to hold on to a fiction of two-dimensional monsters and evildoers is also true of those who are the present day descendants of the dominant, the winners, the exploiters, the "in-group," and the conquerors.

By painting "those people" into a box where only the most wicked were racist, prejudiced, genocidal, chauvinist or the like, a safe distance is created between the present and the past. Cartoon visions of history are very comforting for those on both sides of history's accounting sheet: nuance is a shared enemy for those seeking simple and validating stories.

For example, it is easy to imagine all white slave owners as rapine beasts who crawled into the beds of black women and girls, using them as their personal sex toys, where inevitably these same white men would either sell off their own mulatto sires for a profit, or throw them into the fields as "free" labor. Likewise, we can envision the babies of newly arrived African slaves being smashed on the ground, killed during the seasoning process that the human cargo of the slave ships endured upon arrival in the New World.

In black masculinity's shared collective memory there exist memories of wives and loved ones taken before our eyes, we being rendered powerless to intervene by the barrel of the gun or the edge of the blade, and where inevitably the lustful eyes of the white slave owner, his sons, and friends turn to us as objects to sate the wickedness of their reckless and violent libidos. This is a secret pain, one little discussed in the shared history of blacks and whites together in the Americas and elsewhere. And of course, every overseer was an evil debased man like Mr. Covey of Frederick Douglass' famed autobiography, a degenerate piece of poor white trash who, like many of his class, lived for nothing but the sadistic pleasures that came with "breaking" black slaves as he made them suffer under his whip, ax handle, cat of nine tales, scold's bridle, or branding iron.

But, what of the white slave owner who struggled to reconcile his "Christian faith" with the owning of human beings, and in a fit of guilt, convinced that he would go to hell because of his wickedness, freed his human property? How do we make sense of the white slave owner who manumitted the children of slaves on his plantation, or the feelings of loyalty and closeness that some slaves felt for their "white family?" 

Perhaps, most troubling for a two dimensional version of American (and Atlantic) slavery is thatplantations were run like factories. Of course, there were yeoman whites who owned one or two slaves, and lived in close intimacy with them, as privations were shared, and struggles (if not successes) were experienced in common across the colorline. But the plantations that occupy American memory, The Gone with the Wind version of history, were in reality, based on detached principles of labor efficiency. The owners of these business enterprises exchanged journals, notes, and theories about how to improve the yield of their crops. Therein, rubrics about the relationship between the ideal amount of punishment (the whip) and selective incentives in order to produce the maximum amount of productivity were divined and ciphered.

For the most profitable slave-owning whites, chattel slavery was a business. In many instances, it was a very impersonal one (where on some plantations the owner would never dispense punishment personally as it was a distasteful act and would make his slaves resent and fear him, while on other plantations it was only the head of the house who could wield the whip or the lash--overseers were not to be trusted to act judiciously or fairly). In all, African American bondsmen and bondswomen were entries on a ledger sheet; they were "workers" whose productivity had to be maximized by any means available.

There is an odd intimacy here. On one hand, slavery on the largest plantations was business and never personal. As a practical matter, slavery could never be anything but the latter.

It is not Ron Paul's piss poor understanding of the historical underpinnings of the Civil War and chattel slavery that is most disturbing. No, it is the idea that in his detached musings, I can hear in my ear the whisper of the assassin doing a hit, or a slave owner assessing the value of his latest purchase on the auction block, that this is "business, never personal," just before they pull the trigger or sign the check.

As we have seen in other moments throughout his campaign, there is an utter lack of human empathy (and sympathy) for black personhood in Paul's speech to his Redemptionist, white racist, Neo-Secessionist public that yearns for the states' rights narrative. This is the root of my disturbance.

Ron Paul's counter-factual about gradual or compensated manumission (where the freedom of blacks held in bondage was purchased as a means to end chattel slavery) is problematic on a number of levels. Primarily, it ignores the significant psychic wage that whites invested in the personal owning of black bodies, their attachment to a society that validated white superiority over people of color, and where even though a majority of whites did not have bloody hands from the direct business of chattel slavery, they could aspire to one day own slaves as a sign of upward mobility and success.

Ron Paul's musings about the civil war as an avoidable conflict, save for the desire of the North to impose its will on the poor South--and thus violating states' rights--is also ahistorical. We do not need to hypothesize about why such proposals as compensated manumission did not come to pass on a wide scale in the United States. It is not a mystery or puzzle. There is a rich historical record which details the many failings of such a scheme, and slave owners' rejections of it in the name of perpetual white supremacy.

In all, Ron Paul's desire to frame the Civil War as a tragedy for the South at the hands of a villainous North, a federal force that only wanted to take away the liberties of white people, is an ideal-typical example of libertarianism's failings on matters of race and justice. Ron Paul does not seem to identify slavery--the owning of black people by white people in perpetuity--as a de facto state of war and tyranny. If libertarians were to find a historic freedom struggle to claim as their own, one would think that abolition, accomplished by any means necessary, would be at the top of their list.

Second, Paul places his principle of "non-interference" over the rights of African Americans (and others) to be treated as full and equal citizens. Whites have the freedom to discriminate against, violate, and terrorize black people. The latter's liberty and freedom are secondary to those of the former. By virtue of that most basic standard, Ron Paul is a polite white supremacist who enables and supports a herrenvolk Apartheid America in theory, if not fully in practice.

The detached manner in which Ron Paul valorizes the Confederacy as "the victim" of federal tyranny, is to my eyes at least, one of the most frightening faces of contemporary, "color blind" white supremacy. Here, black people are secondary to his principles; slaves do not really enter into the calculus because as a privileged white man he cannot imagine himself as existing in such a state of existential duress and oppression.

In keeping with the universal "I" of whiteness, the "normal," the race-neutral "we," the African American held in bondage is secondary to Ron Paul's higher order principles. "We the people," and "the states' rights" apparently do not include the will of African Americans to not be held as human property. Ron Paul's whiteness is blinding, deafening, and utterly transparent in this regard. It is ugly. I dare say that there is something evil about it.

I thought long about that last statement of moral and existential judgement. I own it. I believe it.

Just as the plantation owner entered profits and losses, births and deaths, crops and yields, in his ledger, we can all take comfort in the fact that Ron Paul's particular version of white racism is "business, and never personal." That makes it okay, doesn't it?

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
When I see that Colt- 45 Malt Beer . . .

I remember Yankee Stadium long ago.

Fans in Oriole uniform got beer baths.
I thank You. Inter/Net. Amy Goodman:
And it's proper to cuss. If a big `wretch.

Buy Kerry Laurman a golf fish guppy pet.

Name the fish ` crawdad, catfish, a carp.
'Hop-a-long' down trail as flop-prick creep!
You write well on this taboo subject.
My musings.
I am from the mountains of north Georgia. I grew up listening to undisguised rasism. I also recently lived in the state of North Carolina. Both were hotbeds of white supremism. Think of nearly every bumper sticker with Ron Paul on it.
I think you are so right.
Brilliant piece. After WWII, Germany made a somewhat half-hearted and not altogether successful attempt at de-nazification. But there were people who took it very seriously and continue to do so today. South Africa is still going through the difficult process of expunging the stain of apartheid from their society.

To imagine that we could remove the stain of white supremacy and slavery by passing laws without an intense painful national self-examination is ludicrous. We prolong this process by pretending that we have somehow achieved a "post-racial society."

To a lot of white people, Ron Paul comes across as a kindly country doctor with a few eccentric ideas. He's not a heavy breather like Darth Vader and he doesn't project the guttersnipe arrogance of Newt Gingrich. His form "kinder, gentler" white supremacy plays well on TV.

He has no chance of winning the presidency, but what if if his ideas about politics and economics were a little less eccentric? Closer to mainstream white America?

What then?
A very thoughtful post.

Not being from the south, not even being an American (tho we Canadians have some race stuff of our own, of course), I view Ron Paul from a, haha, non-personal perspective. However, what I think about his ideas of strict non-interference and 'libertarianism' is that it removes government protection for individuals and groups from all kinds of bullying and nastiness and exploitation.

Further, I've read that he and some of his close associates have ties to the fundies who want to establish localized organization of society, a situation that would be far from 'freedom'.
Speaking of race.., your every article is written about it.. ( thus, who is obsessed with it ?..)

The Civil war was not fought over slavery ( this is revisionist history taught in public school ). it was fought in regards to States rights, thus Dr. Paul is correct.

Every race, creed, color, etc.., has been enslaved by someone else in history. Racism has likely existed since people recognized the differences between them. there will always be some who hold onto this.

However, seeing it everywhere and in everything is just as bad.

if you truly understood civil liberty.., then you would know that it means that everyone is treated exactly the same ( a libertarian principle ). I wonder where your articles are about the blacks in Africa who sold their own kind into slavery ? Selective memory indeed.

Why not. I will waste the digital ink. Paul is not a historian, moreover he borrows from worst neo-confederate tripe to win over low information types. Let's take his premise for one second, that the was was over "States' Rights," the states' rights to do what? To decide if human beings can be owned by other human beings as property. Funny, for a libertarian how personal tyranny for one group of people is okay, but outlawing slavery--an inconvenience for white people--is not. Your team has to work much harder. I like my racists honest. They are much more fun.

Second quick point, read the articles of Secession from the CSA states, they state plainly and clearly they are leaving the Union to protect slavery and because they cannot accept a society where whites and blacks are equal. Their words not mine.

Finally, States's Rights as a claim of causality does not jive with the historical record as the South liked federal power when it served them, Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Acts, but was quite upset when it did not.

Up your game.
I take it that "Groups" are Real, and analogous to Individuals, in that they have a range of characteristics, some intense , unique, and long-standing. Sort of a Buddhist thing, and well as "scientific". It follows that , like good Confucians, many people's interest are focussed on "their" group, and have much less interest in others. It is also historically accurate that a great many Americans down through the centuries , have had little contact with "minorities". It is also true, as I know from my own families Quakerism, that many were opposed to Slavery , etc. so it is somewhat warped to blame them all for not "doing something about it", when they were relativelly powerless. Ron Paul's background is German immigrants to Texas, I believe, so it is unlikely that they were great supporters of Slavery, though I'm guessing. I suppose we whites are "guilty" in the same way as the Captain of the Ship, or rather, the crew. But we really need to get past all this.
That video of Ron Paul was disturbing on many levels.

For one, Paul's history is completely off. He makes it sound like Lincoln declared war on the South.

In fact, years before the Emancipation Proclamation, "Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state to recapture federal property, which led to declarations of secession by four more slave states" (wiki)

In other words, the South was the aggressor. They wanted a Civil War. Blaming it on Lincoln as the aggressor is historically inaccurate.

Also, you're right that it's a complete fail for someone who says they care about civil liberties to put states' right above the right to liberty itself.

That means that the state is more important to Ron Paul than the person is.

Not good.

Thirdly, it made my skin crawl when he said that slaves should have been bought out of slavery. The problem with buying slaves out of slavery is that it essentially buys the argument that slaves were property. As much as the civil war took a huge cost--at least it was an honest cost, in the end. "Reparations" like Haiti paid--are a further evil that's hard for anyone who isn't completely blinded by racism to admit. Anyway, it's clear that Southern states, in declaring war, and in attacking the north, chose to fight in blood.

I agree with what you're saying, in other words, about the emotion free racism in Ron Paul's arguments. Without racist assumptions his arguments wouldn't have any weight at all....

Historically it's deeply off. I can't support Ron Paul's record on civil liberties when he's not even on the right side of history when it comes to either the civil war or civil rights.

Civil liberties for white peoples' wallets is what "libertarianism" boils down to, for many.
And it turns out that I'm not a pacificist. I feel more proud that the U.S. fought a civil war that resulted in emancipation than I would have been proud if all the slave owners had been paid for the loss of their "property."

There's a moral principle (the right to liberty for all people) involved that was worth fighting for.

"States' rights," otherwise, can be boiled down to just another expression for fascism at the local level. What would libertarians do if Sharia law, that they are so frightened of, passed at the state level?

They want federal protections in some cases (the ban on gay marriage, for example). They pick and choose. That Ron Paul would go to "states rights" on the issue of slavery (or even civil rights and desegregation) is ugly.
I read today that President Tyler, a slave owner and the traitor who is not celebrated by the USA due to his seditious support of the Confederacy, still is survived by a grandson–of our 10th president, John Tyler, a grandson- that is how close all this is, that is how far we've come and have to go. At my age as a kid I was in school down south and a 100 year old man came to meet the students and answer questions. He had been a slave at birth. I shook his hand and never have felt another that had been through so much, and I've seen it all ...

Get over it, indeed- Americans are the worst cowards on racial facts. Prefering the glossy wonder bread of lies CONSENSUS HISTORY so conveniently provides them.

Ron Paul and his ilk are jokers. They, the biggest beneficiaries, hide behind the protection of the Social Contract while throwing rocks at it to keep it from others. Traitors and seditious in the vein and long tradition of dear President Tyler and his Barbadan Tory and Cavalier role models.

Imua (Onward)
Alright, alright: You just keep right on supporting President Obama, okay Mr. DeVega? You know, the leader who, despite his campaign promises, has done none of the things within his power to reverse the federal government's CURRENT utterly racist policies. At present, the powers that be use the war on drugs and the war on terror as a pretext to strip Blacks and Arabs of their rights. They throw them into cages or murder them for profit. Obama has proven his willingness to uphold and intensify this oppression and exploitation, while the other Republican candidates have promised to continue and expand it. Whatever his flaws and dubious historical revisionist musings, Ron Paul is the only candidate unequivocally advocating an end to the prison-industrial and military-industrial complexes that disproportionately target racial minorities. Relative to these modern-day problems, the American Civil War and its relation to slavery is just not an important issue. Neither is the Civil Rights Act. Can't you see that you're straining gnats and swallowing camels, Mr. DeVega? What is your alternative?

And another thing: don't conflate libertarians and libertarianism in general with Ron Paul. He does not speak for all libertarians. He speaks only for himself. You exude the lazy mental habits of a racist when you make these kinds of prejudicial generalizations. Libertarians were instrumental in fighting for the abolitionist cause. Just consider Lysander Spooner and the Liberty Party. I see that race is your idee fixe. That makes for a narrow worldview, but you're entitled to that. Just don't dogmatically assume that Washington D.C. or the Democratic Party establishment is on the right side of the issues that are the most salient for racial minorities. And don't give me this nonsense about state' rights advocacy being pro-slavery "neo-secessionism." Remember: states began abolishing slavery (not to mention child labor) long before the federal government did. Remember: states are trying to end the onerous, federal prohibition of drugs that has placed far more young Black men in prison and ruined more inner-city communities than anything.

Ron Paul's position is that slavery was unconstitutional and therefore had to be abolished at the national level one way or another. He simply avers, however naively, that it could have been abolished without a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That's hardly a convincing basis for accusing him of "polite white racism." Can we grow up and start judging men by the content of their character now?
I am in total agreement with you here save for this: "they were "workers" whose productivity had to be maximized by any means available".

I'm afraid your are more kind to slave-owners than the facts warrant. Both the law and the practice in the South treated slaves far more like "livestock" than "workers". For instance, one statue held that a slave-owner who killed a slave while "disciplining" him could not be charged with any crime.

I suspect that dehumanizing aspect enabled the most morally bankrupt of whites to further rationalize their heinous crimes. And if that wasn't sufficient, well, there was always the Bible and the curse of Ham.

This "livestocking" of humans "justified" slavery not only for the subject slave, but for his or her offspring for perpetuity. Or so it was hoped. That slavery should be visited upon the utterly innocent and the unborn makes it all the more a heinous crime. And this from the ancestors of those who now claim personhood for -- claim to be the protectors of -- a fertilized human egg, including the fertilized eggs of black women. Woe unto you, you nest of vipers!!

I for one am sick to death of hearing apologists like Paul excuse the inexcusable. But I can't say his defense of the indefensible surprises me -- listen to his even more soulless son pontificate about how shop-owners should be free to refuse to service to darkies or anyone else their disgusting little hearts desire.

Forgive me for running so long here, but this is one of my hot-buttons, since I live in a part of this country where racism is still very much alive. The truth is this is a damned long way from a post-racial society, and the absurd Birther and Muslim charges against Barack Obama are all the proof anyone should need of that -- not that proof holds any sway with the willfully blind on the Rabid Right.

Let me conclude with a ray of hope, slim tho it may be. For all his personal failures when it came to slavery, Jefferson at least had the decency to recognize that it was "execrable commerce", as he put it in his original version of the Declaration. I tried long and hard to understand how such a brilliant man could rationalize his behavior, and this is the best I could come up with:


Indulge my pen, Good Sir, I pray
For speaking fills my mouth with clay
A man of parts in disarray
But once a god – or say they say

Yes, once a god – with lower “g”
The author of Our Liberty
But fallen now in history
For having failed to set slaves free

Or else for that on which fools dwell
Concerning love – how gossip sells!
No gentleman would kiss and tell
May gossips die and rot in Hell!

Forgive me this intemperate plea
But that has been my curse, you see
A man of Reason – nth degree
Yet Passion made a slave of me

Ill-chosen world, I must admit
And yet, that is the heart of it
For master must himself submit
To that which he would sooner quit

Well, I claim my sins; I’ll not deny
Nor Reason ever answer “why”?
But Phoenix rose, and so will I
To shine again in starry sky

For I have learned this much, my Friend
That marble statues are not men
Though Good and Evil both portend
‘Tis Good that triumphs in the end
Chauncey, a nigger will always be a nigger. You can throw around your college thesaurus language all you want but white supremacy remains a fact. Look at the incarceration rate of the Negro population. Case closed. Fact is Ron Paul uses the word nigger all the time in private conversation I bet. So do millions of upstanding Amerikans. My father's cousin in Detroit, still in the 80s, and his nice charity-foundation wife, always complained about the nigger problem. None of the commenters on here want to own up to that fact. They're scared of the nigger word. I think we understand each other....wink
Actually, had it not been for the hotheads in South Carolina, the South might have gotten their way. On March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, President Buchanan signed this proposed amendment to the 13th Amendment:

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

That was nothing less than the legalization of slavery in the constitution. Lincoln himself was willing to go to any length, including accepting that amendment, to prevent war.

But alas, defenders of southern "gentility" were determined "there will be blood". And so it was, and nothing Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann or any of the trolls showing up here with there state's rights nonsense can change the sad, horrific facts of history.
Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul is racist?
There is no better turning point than having Obama president - even for just 4 years. We might not feel it today or 10 years from now - but it's historic, momentous & consequential.
The Ron Paul's will come & go; and their bias diluted over time. R
"It is not Ron Paul's piss poor understanding of the historical underpinnings of the Civil War"

Well as most people know RP has studied economics and that's what his talk was about.

First, Dr. Paul states he has a lot of respect for abolitionist Lysander Spooner. How many racists do you know who would say that?

The talk on the video was about Hamilton/Lincoln monetary policies and the affect it had on the South. He says today it's being taught that Slavery was the main issue for the Civil War was fought.
That's not the case. Though it became one of the reasons. He points out 11 other countries were able to abolish slavery without going to war.

RP is consistent with his views today on the banking system, Feds, and anti-war.

Calling him a racist and saying he doesn't have an understanding of US history shows your ignorance.
There is so much ignorance and misinformation about libertarianism in these comments. People here seem to think that libertarians favor a federal ban on gay marriage (false), support Jim Crow laws (false), dread "Sharia law" (false), and believe that state governments need not conform to the Constitution (false). You people are conflating neoconservatism (apostates from the so-called leftwing) with libertarianism. Straw men, straw men, straw men...
Chauncey - It is amazing how much air time you get here to promote your racism crap. Grow up and get a freaking life.
YOU are the racist freak I know.

I think that you might take the past too personal while I fully understand it was hard for you to be detached from it. However, instead of being emotional, please take a moment to look at the data here:

1. The population of slaves: An estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. By the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in the United States had grown to four million.[12]By the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in the United States had grown to 4,000,000.

2. The death toll in the Civil War: At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

I was really curious how you would interpret this data. Wouldn't it be better from the humanitarian perspective if not from "impersonal" manumission that the problem were resolved by an economic way instead of blood?

You said that "There is a rich historical record which details the many failings of such a scheme, and slave owners' rejections of it in the name of perpetual white supremacy." I think that these failings just proved that such a scheme was proposed cheaply and the proposed ones did not really wanted to pay anything for what they proposed; instead, they just wanted to resolve issues by robbery.
However, as a result, while they intended to be cheap, they paid more. Just think it over, to use all cost for the civil to trade for slaves, I don't any one who has brain would not do it.

It is hard to be detached. But if you take it too personal, it is also hard to be analytic or reasonable.

Libertarianism is the only way to overcome racism. Depending on political coercion, we will get illusory correctness.

I am not the white. I am minority, too. But I like Ron Paul's message, which might not sit right with us at the beginning, but is worth thinking it over. Ron Paul's message is the first public voice disconcerted with any political propaganda that have been used for brainwash for too long.
Thank you, Chauncey, for your discerning and thoughtful postings. Although the North "won" the Civil War, racism is the only plausible reason why the South has won the propaganda war ever since. In 1860-61 the secessionist leaders openly said their crusade was about protecting the future of slavery & white supremacy. Only later did they invent the "states right" excuse. As you point out, the Fugitive Slave Law shows that they were all in favor of maximizing the power of the federal government over state and local governments when it suited their interests. Lincoln also crafted a detailed plan for gradual emancipation (extending to 1890-1900) that included full monetary compensation for slaveholders from funds raised by sale of federal lands in the western territory. He tried to sell it to Kentucky officials. It was the most gradual, reasonable, incremental, pacific plan imaginable. They threw it back in his face. Only the extension of slavery forever throughout the USA would've appeased the Slave Power--and they said so at the time. Only later did they revise their story. [R]
Thank you for writing so honestly and eloquently about a topic that is dear to my heart. As an African American who feels passionately about equality and equal access, I have spent many a day engaged in dialogue with whites and Blacks about the dynamics of white privilege and black inferiority. The whites, believing consciously or subconsciously, that white skin automatically confers access to benefits that they don’t have to earn, and the Blacks, consciously or subconsciously, accepting the premise that the whites are right.

How else do you explain the intransigence of whites to honestly reflect on their circumstance and partake in a discussion that questions the veracity of the ideal that being white sets the standard for all that is right in the world? Why is it that as white people go, so goes the rest of us? When they are flush, good times can be had by some, but certainly not all. When they are down, or feeling that their preferred status is being threatened, everything and everyone else is down too.

For example, the current discussion about income inequality is nothing new. Blacks and other minorities have lived this reality well, forever. But it is only gaining traction as a legitimate topic now because white people, the so-called backbone of middle class, are suddenly experiencing the pinch of what it means to face a less secure future, and they are not feeling it, at all.

Enter Dr. Ron Paul, talking out of both side of his mouth. Saying the things that white people need to hear right now. The call to arms that speaks to notions of liberty that they believe is being denied, and to a base instinct to isolate and separate into camps of those that believe in liberty against those who supposedly don’t; to those who believe in the power of individualism against those that believe in community. Those who believe in the power of the state over the power of the federal government, the former historically enabled the majority to subjugate the minority; and the latter protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

History does not mean anything to these people. Some, all or none may be racist. But the power associated with whiteness is real, and it will not be surrendered without a profound paradigm shift in the white, Black and other communities of color. It will not happen until white people confront the reality that they have access to benefits, and are conferred with privilege simply by virtue of their birth. It has nothing at all to do with merit, because merit is something that must be demonstrated to be earned.

Conversely, Blacks and other minorities must find a way to rid ourselves of a self-hatred that swallows our pride and relegates us to accept second-class citizenship in a country that was built on the backs of our ancestors. We must confront our own issues of inferiority and begin to pursue a greater destiny because the paradigm shift referenced above may never take place. A fulfilled and prosperous life will never be achieved if it is predicated on what others think, feel or believe, and that is true regardless of race or ethnicity. In other words, even though racism is at the root of many of our problems in society, it is not responsible for all that ails us as a people.

Finally, as long as we live on this earth and see others as different or less deserving, when we continue to believe that some life is better than other life, so long as we think that white is pure and black is evil, and as long as white people will fight to retain the privilege for themselves and their children, and we sit by and accept the premise that they deserve it more than we do, there is no use talking about bridging the racial divide.
Dear Sir,

While I appreciate your obviously well educated eloquence, I believe that you greatly misunderstand Dr. Paul.

I have been following Dr. Paul for many years and can say, without a doubt, I have never heard a racist thing come out of the mans mouth.

Additionally, what is race? Is race real, or is it merely a arbitrary classification of people, in which, though we are all identical, someone decided to break the human race down into "groups" that are divisive by nature? It is my belief that we are all one race, and that black, white, latino are all arbitrary classifications that do nothing to bring us together, but only to divide.

Shall I deny that slavery in the United States was by and large light skinned (white) people oppressing darker skinned people (blacks/African Americans take your pick)? No, this is a fact, a terrible travesty that, quite simply happened.

Times change, attitudes and outlooks change, and I would say that, today, despite insistence on continuing the divisive idea of separate races, at least a small percentage of Americans, and most supporters of Dr. Paul, view people as individuals without regard to the color of their skin.

To those, no matter the color of their skin, that hold on to the idea of separate races, and/or the superiority of themselves and others based on the color of someones skin, I would say "you are ignorant and confused".

I am not a black man. I am not a white man. I am not Latino, Oriental, Eskimo, Arabic, or Jewish. I am simply a man, no different than you, or anyone else. I want to provide my family with the best life I can. I want to help lift up those that I can, and help the less fortunate, not through Government programs, but through personal giving as Dr. Paul has done for those that were unable to afford his services when he was still a practicing OB/GYN.

Until we, as a society, rid ourselves of the idea of separate races, and view each other as individuals, then we, as a people will never have true equality.

Thank you for reading,

You are a slave today to the financial system and the debt they've placed on you. It will most likely either destroy your wealth or that of your children. I'm posting the link here of Minister Farrakhan is praising Ron Paul on YouTube. Minister Farrakhan understands what real slavery is... after watching his speech go back and watch the video that you are complaining about and watch this time focusing on what Ron Paul is saying and this time focusing on bankers and how they have manipulated the economy and caused wars. Then maybe... the light will go on for you... meanwhile Goldman Sachs will be supporting Obama, Romney, Newt... but not Ron Paul. Here's the link... if you dare.... watch it...
States' Rights was a slogan cooked up by the Confederacy when they were seeking military and financial aid from Britain and France, both of which had outlawed slavery and neither of which was likely to consider the continuation of slavery as a worthy cause.

Lincoln had no policy plans for reducing states' autonomy, other than ending slavery. In short, the argument that it was about States' Rights not slavery is bunk.
I learn from comments. Serious.

We can easily intend to offend.

Beer should Not be outlawed.
If one is goodhearted you nice.
If nasty - a beer increase nasty.`
If a Civil Doc chop off leg. OWS.
You No need a podiatrist. OHO.
You need one hippy babe. ASAP.
You' all be fun to have beer with.
I had a heavy hop porter that eve.
It's from a local brewery. Yippee!

Flying Dog's Wildman Farmhouse.
It's a `IPA Ale brewed with spices.
It's more potent than a Colt- 45.
Thanks for these history classes.
I've read ref:, slaves bought/sold.
I've viewed beautiful sad/art work.
I love the noble defiant depictions.
I recall a black onyx beautiful slave.
She's tied.
There's a hemp rope wrapped around.
Her youthful bosom is fully exposed.
The artist 'captured' nobility. Aura.

Her face was beautifully defiant.
It's on DC's Pennsylvania Avenue.
Museums are in lieu of slave yards.
Senators would bring moonshine.
Politicos would woo corrupt fools.
Same/same. Then. Go to a auction.
They go home with a Mandarin cook.
Politicos are stunted codger creeps.
They are really elderly hippie poops.
Stinky from head to pinky stinky feet.
Politicos wish for a long grey ponytail.
They're dead/ghost with puckered lips.
Thy . . .

Nothing is sacred
They (them) kill
They wake in hell

widower cursing
last month's credit card bill . . .
his wife's pedicure

I did read :`toritto & Jejune Podiatrist

deloresflores_d - Hits my inner chord
I espouse nonviolence. I know nature
I could rip-off creeps fake grins/ears
That's why (war) I say `Examin\Self
Politicos have tiny hole`lips spoofs
They act a role. What bah hypocrites
They act/pretend they are honorable
They are never satiated, hollow
Devouring . . . a principality . . .
Evil has taken dominion within
Today they will plunder/ruin
matching gold tongue studs
candidate prick eyebrow
and wear partner's panties
matching gold studs
her son's right eyebrow
his girlfriends tongue
I never know what to think.

Uncle Max and Aunt Rose?
I may not ask them Today.
They argue over the law.
(Folks get dark within)
Aunt Rose disliking
the Washington Monument
`too masculine'
This is not intended to offend.
Congratulation on a EP. Yea!

Some folks axe is stained
with blood of a thousand
We fall in (sad) behind him.
History - He'll lead to Dark.
He lead - We enter darkness.
He turn - Dark gaze upon us.

"Tentanda via est!"
It means -
The way must be tried.

It's too early for a beer.
Chauncey, keep up the message and call attention to Right Wing promoters of discrimination, out LOUD, for all to hear.

Think I messed up these links on my last comment, but Ron and Rand Paul are both enablers of "Red Neck" policy.

Seems the “South Will Rise Again” philosophy is in full swing, concealed within proposed policies designed to remove established civil rights legislation across the last half century.

But let's not overlook Perry and other supporters of the "Let's Secede" conversation, just another thinly veiled aspect of the "Neo-Confederate", "South Will Rise Again" movement.

Hidden beneath the "Independent" Ayn Rand philosophy that's gaining acceptance among Right Wing, concealing darker ambitions of renewed "Jim Crow" support and worse. One aspect of this is "Secession".

Secession is "Code" for ambitions of renewed Confederacy.

**AS POSTED ELSEWHERE** (With a touch of humor)

Perry has been a vocal supporter of Texas becoming “Independent”, as have several GOP talking heads in other localities.

In fact, Sarah Palin has advocated for that, Publicly, and Rand Paul. Among other “Cracked Teapots”.

Not just stupid, REALLY stupid actually since they’d lose their Federal Tax Base by seceding. But they’ll continue to promote that stupidity for political purposes, to appease that Redneck segment of their “Voting Base”.

So let’s LET THEM SECEDE ;-)

We should let them secede and enforce those policies within their own little empire, completely without the services the rest of us willingly support with our taxes.

Let’s see the Ayn Rand “Cracked Teapot” crowd try to operate in the complete vacuum they’d like to burden the rest of us with, without a Federal Tax Base to support them.

Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Perry, Forrest Gump, they’re all famously clueless as well as being characters based on complete FICTION.

Only one of them is apparently foolish (and potentially damaging) enough to promote dissolving the last 50 years of Civil Rights Legislation, tho.

Why not. I will waste the digital ink. Paul is not a historian, moreover he borrows from worst neo-confederate tripe to win over low information types. Let's take his premise for one second, that the was was over "States' Rights," the states' rights to do what? To decide if human beings can be owned by other human beings as property. Funny, for a libertarian how personal tyranny for one group of people is okay, but outlawing slavery--an inconvenience for white people--is not. Your team has to work much harder. I like my racists honest. They are much more fun.

Second quick point, read the articles of Secession from the CSA states, they state plainly and clearly they are leaving the Union to protect slavery and because they cannot accept a society where whites and blacks are equal. Their words not mine.

Finally, States's Rights as a claim of causality does not jive with the historical record as the South liked federal power when it served them, Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Acts, but was quite upset when it did not.

Up your game.

******* I like how you avoided answering my questions and just continue to show your ignorance on the subject.

The war was fought because of secession. Had the southern states no seceded there would have been no war. Slavery was a secondary consideration ( while it was mentioned as a reason in the articles of some states, it was not mentioned by four of them ). The states CREATED the federal government and granted it LIMITED powers ( money, military, immigration and regulation of commerce between states ). They had every right to secede under 9 that selfsame ) constitution.

The north began the war to try and re-integrate the south back into the union. No secession.., no war.

Libertarians believe that all people should be treated the same, that all have civil liberties ( a difficult concept to grasp, i see ). You see everything through the prism of race, thus are as myopic as the racists themselves. How do you know that Dr. Paul has not studied history ? Are you a historian ? ( right.... )

Are you a Lincoln man..?

a quote :

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

— Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145–146.)

the great emancipator indeed. Believe what you will

you have no game....
"As we have seen in other moments throughout his campaign, there is an utter lack of human empathy (and sympathy) for black personhood..."


As usual you are a lying sack of shit -- Anyone who will bother to go to Youtube and actually view his speeches will see that.

What is your problem with Ron Paul?

...Never mind, I'm sure your answer will be stupid.
Yes, Lincoln held racist views, but he evolved -- too bad so many Americans haven't. Lincoln's views changed dramatically after meeting Frederick Douglass. That both men were largely self-educated savants opened his eyes -- too bad so many American's eyes -- and hearts and minds -- remained close a century and a half later.
This is so disturbing, his musings, which I missed, but trust that you are being accurate in reporting on this. Being from the South and being white, I hear a lot of this, of course, from fellow whites--certainly not all. the most disturbing thing is that Texas wants to alter its textbooks to reflect Paul's point of view....not his personally, but that perspective. It is duplicitous. But of course a shocking number of Southerners, both black and white, suffered great trauma during the war--even beyond the dead and wounded.
Look at it, feel it- the aura of the h8ter is everywhere!

Again, Americans are cowards on race- too weak or scared to admit the facts that led to the Nadir we're trying to crawl out of.

Look at all this hate, spewed by apparently University educated citizens, in some cases. Feel the hate of the South, due entirely to its birth by hate and persecution ... feel it- this is still America.

All cowards, hidden behind keyboards, suddenly little men full of big words- what is it like to be such a coward as to deny literally the existence of every piece of media created since the 17th Century?

What's that like, haters?
Hang in there, Chauncey. Ignore my fellow white brothers for they know only the parable of the splinter: It is the one where Jesus speaks of hypocrisy, wherein he speaks to the crowd about not judging, lest ye yourself be willing to be judged also. In this parable, he remarks that the one with the biggest hypocritical view is the one that says, "Here, brother, let me remove the splinter from your eye," while there is a beam in his.

White man has a lot to answer for in the transgressions of the past in this country. On the whole, my slower and less evolved brothers aside, I think White man has done a fair job of rapproachment on many issues. That is not to say, come, fellows, let us now rest on our accomplishments, we threw our less fortunate a bone or two, let's have a brew.

No, we have much further to go, much more to do. But now we must also be joined by our sisters and brothers, of all colors. It is our duty to -- as reasonable, thinking and feeling beings -- come to the position of being able to judge a person's character not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.

I posted a piece about Ron Paul just this day and it speaks to some degree, of Mr. Paul's seeming lapse of equanimity. Please check it out. Even you naysaying haters out there spewing your tripe against someone pointing out a glaring discrepancy in a potential candidate for President, and do this one thing for me: Read critically, instead of simply being critical.

There is something beneath the surface of Ron Paul. He masks it pretty well, but it's there. Looking long enough, carefully enough and inspecting the nuances, the dealings, the things he says and the things he does not refute and you may yet see an inkling of it.

I didn't take your point of view, Chauncey, but my end analysis is about the same on the whole, though on his bigotry. I don't like the word racism, racist or such simply because we are one race. The difference is while I recognize that scientific and moral fact, I use it as a lever to bring people together, not to drive them apart with aspersion cast as I have seen in some of these comments.

Some people are going to always point a finger and claim, "No, you do it, it's your problem, because you talk about it so much!"

Wow, I guess that means the people who speak and spew hatred of the gay in this country are really the problem, because they talk about it so much? I wonder what the KKK might have to say about this reverse mentality that those who speak out against something are the ones guilty of endorsing the attitude?

Food for thought.

Chauncey, you're so full of $#1T it ain't even funny! The little game you and the rest of the presstitutes play i.e. how many articles can we churn out with "Ron Paul" and "racism" in the title, is SO tired! Give it a rest already!! How about the fact that Planned Parenthood aborts almost as many black babies as are delivered? And the fact that Barry Soetoro and the rest of your so-called black leaders never say anything about it! I love how all you race baiting hypocrites ignore the real, in-your-face-racism (of the worst kind) and at the same time try and label Ron Paul, the only candidate that has any integrity or credibility (including Barry Obama) as a racist for (this time) giving an opinion?! Paul has said over and over that it would've been so much easier for the federal government to just buy the slaves and set them free than to have a war where hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS would eventually die? I ask you, which would've been easier?? And before you or one of your sycophant readers starts droning on about 20 year old newsletters that RP didn't write, Google: Reality Check James B. Powell
The Ron Paul National Anthem
" The little game you and the rest of the presstitutes play i.e. how many articles can we churn out with "Ron Paul" and "racism" in the title, is SO tired! Give it a rest already!!"

Not possible when Ron Paul keeps supplying the material to do so.
The State of Georgia is one of the hot beds if not the greatest hot bed of racism towards the minority in this country and most of that states politicians and those intertwined with them are the culprits. It is funny how the civil rights movement had roots in Georgia but the dirty lil secret is that nothing has changed that much. The state of Georgia still goes out of its way to facilitate and violate the civil rights of protected classes. Now that is some Jim Crow, good ole boy, confederate flag flying racism openly rearing its ugly head for all to see.
A very thoughtful post with an interesting mix of responses. I'm very concerned with the black people who are not concerned with his racist message preferring his anti-war, drop the fed, and flat tax message. Whenever I'm faced with these people I'm reminded of Harriet Tubman's quote, "I freed 1000 slaves I could have freed 1000 more if they knew they were slaves." As I'm writing this Chuck Todd just announced that Snoop Dogg has endorsed Ron Paul. Obviously his ability to get high is of greater concern than what State's Rights might actually come to mean under a Paul presidency. And in my mind a reason not to smoke dope because it is obvious that it fries your brain. Those who tell you to stop writing about race revel in the fact that there are black people who have bought into the idea that they have transcended race and that Paul's message is actually benign and inclusive. They have to believe that in order not to be seen as the frauds they really are. Do not stop, do not stop, do not stop.
u must be pleased with OS since the editors favor you without any friends, or much of an attempt to contribute elsewhere you have such a large readership.
After watching the clip you linked, I'm astounded that you feel comfortable making such emphatic, negative judgements from a position of self-assured superior morality. It amazes me that facts can be so twisted when one wants to view them in such a way as to agree with their predetermined viewpoint.

You attack Dr. Paul for "lacking sympathy"for black personhood. Frankly, the only thing that prevents you from seeing that sympathy is your own lack of open mind.

Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist with Libertarian principles. The result is a man who passionately defends our liberty, our rights and our freedom as individuals. Libertarians do not presume to group people based on certain characteristics. Being black doesn't mean that your views, opinions and interests are the same as those of every other black person; they might be fundamentally opposite. Therefore, the Liberarians, and Dr. Paul, will treat you as an individual, with your own individual rights, freedoms and remedies. When someone "terrorizes" "violates" or "discriminates against" you, you, as a black person, have exactly the same remedies as I, a white person, and any other U.S. citizens do.

It seems an awful lot as though your issue with Dr. Paul is that he does treat you as an equal, rather than singling you out because of any defining characteristic you may have.

I'm not saying racism isn't still a problem in our country; it is. But I am saying that you're ascribing that racism to the wrong guy for the wrong reasons. You're also willfully perverting history and facts to fit your own agenda.
It might be worth reading:
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

By Michelle Alexander, former attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Project.

The short summary is this: The drug war targets African Americans at extremely disproportionate rates despite the fact that drug use rates are about equal across ethnic lines. Once labeled a felon, it is *legal* to discriminate in employment, housing, public services, etc. The drug war is thus a backdoor method for legally enforcing racists' agenda.

Of all the candidates in the Republican and Democratic parties, guess which one opposes the drug war?

There is a lot a dislike about Ron Paul, and the racist comments in his newsletters is one of them. But which is worse, the person who never uttered a racist word, but pursues laws that cause actual racist harm; or the person who spoke odious words, but has relentlessly fought against laws with racial impact? The best of course, would be a person who is not racist in his heart or deeds -- but that option is not on the table unless you're willing to look at third parties.
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realise I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.