I have had a number of arguments with my Southern friends as to whether the North is actually more racist. They claim that in the South, people will at least be honest enough to tell you they do not like you for whatever reason, as opposed to in the North where people talk about equality but, do not actually practice it (the prevalence of racially stratified inner-city ghettoes is one popular example). They then have some vague argument about the larger percentage of institutional racism in the North. It is claim they cannot prove in any tangible way, but need to make in order to justify why outward racism is actually a good thing. Ultimately, I feel I win on the “hey, we are not the ones who had the slaves and were willing to start a new country to keep them”-argument.
Then there’s this darling story I found earlier this month about James L. Hart, the winner of the GOP nomination for a congressional seat in Tennessee. Mr. Hart beat the odds to win over 80% of the primary vote as a write-in candidate. Mr. Hart also happens to be a known racist, and a believer in eugenics.
Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping ``less favored races'' from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that ``poverty genes'' threaten to turn the United States into ``one big Detroit.''
Well, this article seems to support both sides of the debate, now doesn’t it? This is an extremely racist story from the South, but at the same time, James L. Hart is most definitely a straight shooter, who does not backstab you with his racism.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=684&e=1&u=/ap/eugenics_candidate
DAVID DUKE IN 2008!! Who’s with me?
Comments