Dissing America, is Hollywood Wrong?

GardenGerty with Chris Rock's attitude I don't think he would be a god menter for any one.

I could agree with people, all people, all young people, needing more opportunity. I wonder if he would choose to mentor someone and give them that opportunity.

BUT people are taking him and other celebrities seriously, do you remember Obama saying to them....you (Hollywood) are the arbiter of where America is headed? http://times247.com/articles/obama-to-celebs-you-re-the-arbiter-of-where-this-country-goes

oh, I know just what you mean. But I figure, people that get their political news from "celebrities", were probably not going to get reliable info no matter where they got it.

The thought just occured to me, Ronald Regean began his political career as a Democrat, and was the one, eventually who brought the Soviets to their knees. And yet in his young days, he was a liberal in Hollywood while Joe McCarthey's hearings on communist infiltration investigation was going on. The Reese commission, wasn't it called that? The liberals made fun of and ridiculed and insulted McCarthey out of office. Smeared his name so bad it's still a bad word. Yet, in the 80's the Venona Papers revealed that there WAS extensive Soviet infiltration into just about every level of American insitutions, including government and the White Houes. Ol' Ronny, he must have known that very thing when standing up to the liberals who said his offending of the Soviets would start world war III. lol

Not hearing much from them about "tax the rich"...!

i find it strange too, that they mostly are the 1% (including Michael Moore) and yet support OWS.

No, we're not, are we? And have you noticed, we're hearing MORE about slavery days since we got a 'black' president than we did before he was elected, aren't we?

Many of the former slaves also started businesses, ran for elected office (mostly Republicans) and were moving up the economic ladder until the Government stepped in and passed laws discriminating against blacks. It should be noted that many businesses and organizations were integrating before the Civil Rights Act. Baseball was one of the best examples because people demanded it. To learn more I would suggest the book "A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror" by Larry Schweitart and Michael Allen.

former slaves voted exclusively Republican. Unless of course the KKK forced them to do otherwise. And laws forcing segragation were the courtesy of the Democrat party. There were blacks elected to Congress during the the era of the civil war and reconstruction, the Democrats would have none of that and invented the first KKK group to terroize them into either not voting or not running for office. One Democrat actually beat a fellow Congressman in the head on the floor of the Senate becuase he was black. During the 50-60s, Democrats fillibustered and voted agaisnt every move to give blacks civil rights and do away with segregation. You can find all this on the internet. the democrats are trying to back track on all this and say the parties somehow 'switched' ideologies lol. ONE Democrat during the civil rights era switched parties...Strom Thrumond, because he felt the Civil Rights Act included a provision that over stepped on property rights, forcing private clubs to admit people they did not want. I don't know if he was a racist, I never met him. But even IF he was, he was ONLY ONE and he came from the Democrats in the first place.

lol, I agree. As one responder put it, don't bite the hand that feeds you. America has been good to Mr. Rock. More so than many of us that still manage to get excited about the birth of our nation, who despite many wrongs within our selves, still managed to do the right thing.

I agree with you, and would add, it's pretty sad that he has to (by innuendo) keep the distrust and the hate between the races alive to get rich.

It is a highly emotional issue to discuss. I find it interesting that n other countries where slavery existed the social stigma is not as great for the former slave's descendents, the mistrust between the races is not as great either. England encouraged and enabled slavery, even of the white races within their colonies. Yet England does not seem to have inherited the segregation problem we had up until the 60s when it ended the practice. WHY? I'm still in the process of figuring this out. I have come across some great articles but since I'm not sure of the correctness of them, I will not share them. I do know for certain that fear and isolation was used during slavery to keep blacks (and whites for that matter) in line with the program. And that after Emmancipation they stepped it up a notch to prevent blacks from integrating. A lot of opinion is written as fact, but I'll tell you as person who has lived in both the north and the south, my opinion is that racism is MORE prevelent in the NORTH in our day and age. And that opinion was recently strengthened when I read that more and more blacks are moving southward to escape the violence of the northern cities.

I totally agree with you on that. But as long as individuals are willing to keep literally buying into it, it'll keep happening. Although we can try to fight racism (going any which way, because yea, he's a racist) but I almost think that it's animal instinct, unfortunately. Because look at the older periods in history - one people fighting another for land or resources similar to what animals in the wild do.

I think he is talented to a certain degree, but he is not a very intelligent man when it comes to how things actually work. lol

I've heard of the book and heard the author interviewed. He has some valid points, I think, but I have another theory. I look back on my own life and remember how liberal I was in my 20s. I thought everything should be free, the government should take care of everyone, etc., etc. That thinking came from a total ignorance of how government, society and human nature worked. As I grew older and more enlightened, more educated and racked up more experience, I mellowed. When I had children I became a conservative. I think liberalism is a form of arrested development in people who find reality too overwhelming and prefer to live in a fantasy world. They don't have to make any effort to change things, don't have to try to better conditions for anyone and can blame their failures on all sorts of people and things just as most of us did when we were very young. All they have to do is depend on the gov't to do everything and use it as a scapegoat when things don't go the way they want. It's a wonderful, idealistic existence that relieves them of any sort of inner examination and justifies every act, good or bad. It's like never having to grow up.

I can agree that both of you have made your points. I've said the same thing dragon has said. And used my experience as a mother to make that very point. I also am liberal on some issues if you hold to the definition of the word 'liberal'. Just as AidaLily is. But and it's a big BUT, the LEFTIST progressive liberals have hijacked the good name of 'liberal'-the definition being; Liberal 1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2.(often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. The LEFTIST has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive. To state the case further, not even the definition of "progressive" or "liberal" identifies with the LEFTIST ideology. It's just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage. "Progressive" is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th century and became politicized in the late 1800s. The modern LEFT isn't progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs. Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations, such as churches and charities, for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era's trust-busting government regulators were akin to today's LEFTISTS. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn't their primary objective. The LEFTIST has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control. LEFTISTS promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. 'Forward' thinking isn't featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. "Bolshevik" is more descriptive than "progressive," for the LEFT shares the Bolshevik's socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering "progressive" an inappropriate description. Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. LEFTISTS then adopted "Liberal," a more inviting identifier, but one that also defies their agenda. I am just as guilty of misusing the terms myself, and it is important to really recognize that when speaking of this group. LEFTIST is not commonly used in discussing the dichotomy of our political system, where there are acceptable differences between citizens. I would even say, that many common folk who identify with the Democrats and liberal causes do not realize that their 'party' has been 'hijacked' by those LEFTISTS who seek to destroy capitalism and our Constitutional Republic. It may be a factor in the bitter disputes we witness. If I was a liberal in the true sense of the word, I'd be a bit upset if a conservative said I hated my country. In a dispute like that, neither side really sees the THIRD party there in the back ground working undercover so to speak, to sow discord and divide and conquer.

You may be right about their need for attention. I've noticed the celebrities who are conservative do not try to be 'politically correct' and don't seem as needy. Have you ever heard of the book written by a psychologist that outlines how liberalism has all the earmarks of a mental illness? lol http://rightvoices.com/2008/09/12/the-science-is-in-liberalism-is-a-form-of-mental-illness/ [i]“Modern liberalism’s irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche.” The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.[/i]

They were not states any longer, they'd left the union, remember. Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus, which many say was unconstitutional. But then, no one had really thought through what would or should be done if such a thing as a civil war happened, had they? The 'parties' before the Revolution were basically the Whigs (anti loyalists-taken and used from the Whig party in England) and the Tories, Those against British intrusion and those loyal to the Crown. Then once the Constitutional convention gave the states the finished Constitution to ratify the colonists/Americans split into two camps, those for a strong Federal government known as Federalists, and those for the states having more say and the federal government having less, known as the Anti federalists. It is well worth the effort to read the public debate (Federalist Papers) which was published anonymously by several of the founders and other patrtiots in newspapers and pamphlets of the day. The Federalists compromised with the Anti Federalists by inserting the first ten amendments to the Constitution, assuring individual and states rights. As the infant United States settled in as a federal republic, new divisions began appearing within the cabinet of George Washington, America's famed general-turned-first-President. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, quickly began clashing with Thomas Jefferson, Washington's Secretary of State. Hamilton, pushed policies that promoted: a national Bank of the United States as a repository for the federal treasury (something the Dems did accomplish in our day),the assumption of state debts by the federal government as a way of tying the upper-class and the states to the new central government,a protective tariff to keep the infant industries of the United States on firm footing, an overwhelmingly strong federal government based on the strengthening power of the Constitution's elastic clause, British-American relations; as the former Motherland, Britain's relationship with the United States was paramount for Hamilton's dreams for the future. Jefferson, on the other hand, was an idealist. He dreamed of expanding suffrage to the working-class yeoman farmer, the backbone of Jefferson's view of the United States. He therefore supported such beliefs as:•the doctrine of nullification; the idea that the states had the right to nullify a federal statute within their own borders, the paying-off of the national debt to free "future generations from its yoke",an agrarian-based economy to avoid the "corruption" of industry, a weak central government under the 10th Amendment•strong French-American relations; France especially after the French Revolution, was the most important foreign ally of the United States because of its liberal government and hatred of the British. Proponents of Hamilton's philosophy (mostly the rich New England merchants) flocked to his banner and resurrected the name of the Federalists. Jefferson's followers (mostly the Southern plantation owners and lower classes) dubbed themselves the Democratic-Republicans (shortened to Republicans). The two factions refused to identify themselves as political parties, Jefferson and Hamilton always retained a healthy distrust of parties, seeing them as corrupt and divisive. However, by the time Washington left office the atmosphere in the capital mimicked the intensely partisan one seen today; the Democratic-Republicans had no qualms decrying Washington as a British-loving Federalist just as the Federalists were unafraid of hurling anti-French insults back at them. As you can plainly see, the political parties then were much different than those of today, even with the same issues basically. Jefferson was in favor of LESS FEDERAL POWER, so cannot rightly be joined under the banner of the current Democrat party.

I don't know where you got your info, but it is wrong. http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_II/unitedsta_ii.html http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_political_parties_start http://everything2.com/title/Evolution+of+American+political+parties+from+the+Revolution+to+the+Reconstruction

I have been studying a little. It appears thatAbraham Lincoln did not have the authority to do what he did. He cannot set troops into a state. So when they say the republican party is not Abraham Lincolns republican party, it is actually a good thing. From what I can figure out, the democrat party in the early times is more align with the current republican. Their positions appear to have actually in the late 1800's early 1900's.

http://theblacksphere.net/ http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation/page/full/ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291610/fairness-fraud-thomas-sowell Take a look at what blacks are saying crossbones...maybe it will help you understand what I am talking about. Blacks do not benefit by our pity and some of them, a growing majority are sick of it. It demeans them, it makes them morally dependent on the white race to make it all ok for them. Shelby Steele: It is time for blacks to begin the shift from a wartime to a peacetime identity, from fighting for opportunity to the seizing of it.” From this point on, the race's advancement will come from the efforts of its individuals.” The promised land guarantees nothing. It is only an opportunity, not a deliverance.” “A great achievement of modern liberalism -- and a primary reason for its surviving decades past the credibility of its ideas -- is that it captured black resentment as an exclusive source of power. It even gave this resentment a Democratic Party affiliation. (Anti-war sentiment is the other great source of liberal power, but it is not the steady provider that black and minority resentment has been).” When you pity someone, it does them no good and actually diminishes their self esteem.

I get what you are saying crossbones, and normally I'd agree and say get over yourself to those who took offense. BUT not now. You see, I can see that he is, at the expense of American unity, reminding everyone that in our beginnings we were deeply divided but NOT making clear we got OVER IT. I dated a black man when I lived in Gary IN. We were walking the shore of Lake Michigan one day enjoying the beauty of the dunes, I said 'I wish I had been born 400 years ago when this was wild beauty with no city around it to spoil the view.' He said, not me! and laughed. It took me a moment to ascertain why, and what he had meant by that. I apologized, said 'I am sorry.' and his reply? 'YOU need not be sorry, you didn't live then and own slaves.' So, here's the point, JUST WHAT is the point of bringing up such a thing? It is to laugh at the horror of it, thereby easing our conscience, or is it to instill GUILT in people who had NOTHING to do with it?

Deb for some you are right. It is about guilt. That conversation you had with your old boyfriend sounded to me like perfect legitimate answer to your question. You have to look at from their point of view. Many people of different ethnicity's still gets treated like crap to this day. Just go on You Tube and you can see it all over the place. I think You Tube has been cleaning it up a bit but just the mean things people say about other people who are not the same as them. It is just like anything, some people can let things roll off their back easier than others, and some people are not going to let things go until they feel like people appreciate them for them and not the color of their skin.

I think that he was probably trying to be funny, but chose to take the low road rather than the high road to that end. Yes, I'm sure to some that is funny. He is not only reminding folks that America was a slave holding nation, but by mentioning that along with the statement that he's sure the slaves enjoyed the fireworks...he is implying that we still are- a nation that condones slavery.

You're right, we do not have the freedom we used to have. But it has nothing to do with racism. And I am reminded of Muhammed Ali's words; “Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn't matter which color does the hating. It's just plain wrong.” and Martin Luther King's words; "only love can conquer hate." Both men understoond and preached that bitterness and hatred brought ALL people down and twisted their souls as MEN. I think if MLK had lived, the black community would have learned from him that to hate whites was counter productive. We've shown that as a nation, as a people we are ready to accept that truth that all men are indeed, created equal. There may be individuals here and there that harbor racism, but as a naiton we've moved past that. Using guilt to make the white man 'pay' is only hurting the black man, holding him down in a quagmire of bitterness and ultimately used against the black man to keep him dependent. He says, you owe me, the white man says, here let me make that up to you...and the cycle of dependency begins all over again, with the white man now feeling morally superior for 'doing right by the negro'. Christ taught, repent, and be forgiven. The white man has repented in general. To continue to use guilt to manipulate is not only wrong, it is counter productive and gives young black people the idea that something is owed to them just for being black, how do you succeed truly when your failures are other people's fault? I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Price Acceptance Speech

As for your statement that the Emmancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the North; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation [i]The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War using his war powers. It was not a law passed by Congress. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states then in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at that time. The Proclamation immediately freed 50,000 slaves, with nearly all the rest (of the 3.1 million) freed as Union armies advanced. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens.[1] On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. None returned, and the order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect except in locations where the Union had already mostly regained control. The Proclamation made abolition a central goal of the war (in addition to reunion), outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[2][/i] Slavery was made illegal everywhere in the U.S. by the Thirteenth Amendment, which took effect in December 1865. Of course, only those slaves in the North could take advantage of it as those in the south were pretty much still under the control of the southern slave holders. As for the kkk, history shows that it began AFTER the war and during reconstruction era and Lincoln was killed April 15, 1865 and the offical end of the Civil war was May 9, 1865. So how he could have stopped it? The original Ku Klux Klan was created in an 1865 meeting in a law office by six Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee. http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/files/page.php?p=21 There were of course, probably other groups operating as vigilante types before this, but you have to remember that the Federal Government did not, under the Constitution, have the power that we are accustomed to seeing in our modern age- where the Constitution is ignored. States actually had more power than the Federal Government to deal with those types of things. So, again, you are incorrect in your statements and assumptions. As for me being jealous of Chris Rock, or the implication that this CAME from jealousy is quite judgmental of you. You've never met me, let alone know of- or have proof that I am a jealous person. Or for that matter, I could be, and the other posters here could be-just as rich as Chris Rock for all you know. and your assuming to know the intentions and motivations of people you don't know is just another tactic of the left to silence any whom they disagree with. Calling them nasty names and assuming they'll back off of what they are saying. I don't fall for it. I'm not jealous of Chris Rock's success, in fact we've all pretty much agreed that we are PROUD of the fact in America, he CAN succeed. Lastly, you are the one who has posted innuendo and falsehoods as far as I can tell by actually researching these issues you bring up. And it is not that Chris Rock was innacurate in what he said, I wasn't making that assumption, it is that he is continuing the hate. Slavery is over. Time to MOVE ON.