by Lord Anthony – guest author
According to Wikipedia (see below) the original cracker-states were Georgia and Florida but West Virginia with its 95% white majority and substandard levels of education surely fits the profile.
Is it surprising WV has handily supported HRC in this irrelevant primary, typical Wal-Mart shoppers supporting a typical Wal-Mart director?
Last Friday’s New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats.
Fair enough, it’s their vote in West Virginia. We’ve pulled some boners in Canada too, like re-electing Brian Mulroney. But it is objectionable that exit-poll reporting tells of "concerns about the economy and Iraq".
Nonsense. What dominated the voting of West Virginians was race, and race only. It is wrong when electoral reporting is put through the politically-correct wringer to make voters look like something they aren’t.
It is puzzling to Canadians that racism in USA is still such a frontline political reality. The nasty rhetoric can only accelerate as Clinton is booted from the nomination-race and McCain is called upon by his team to put Barack Obama in what they consider his place in modern American society.
"….The popular folk etymology is based on slave foremen using bullwhips to discipline African and African American slaves, and the sound the whip being described as ‘cracking the whip’. The foremen who cracked these whips were thus known as ‘crackers’. [1][2][3]
According to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "cracker" is a term of contempt for the "stupid" or "mean whites," particularly of Georgia and Florida.
However, the term "white cracker" is not always used self-referentially and remains a racist term to many in the region……"
Mrs. Clinton’s desperate bid for power must have some underlying agenda about which we are presently ignorant. Her invocation of race against Obama has been despicable and merely underlines her gargantuan appetite for control of the levers of government.
There are issues around certain decisions by her husband that have not yet come to light but which surely will before too long.
One of those concerns the secrecy surrounding the exploitation by the U.S. leadership of billions of dollars in gold, silver, jewels and paintings looted by the Japanese before and during WW2. Every U.S. President since Truman has been complicit in this despicable strategy. Bill Clinton was no exception. Hillary’s job, like that of the Bush family is to maintain that shroud in place. The American establishment does not trust Obama to continue the Japanese “loot” coverup. Since Mrs. Clinton is an integral part of that establishment now, she will use whatever tactics against Obama that might help her to succeed.
However – I take issue with you on the reference to Brian Mulroney’s re-election as being a “boner”, pulled by Canadians.
Whatever one might think of Mr. Mulroney as an individual – he did after all – dabble around with some pretty unsavoury characters following his retirement from politics…it’s my own opinion that he was a good Prime Minister.
He worked hard for Canadian unity, he bolstered our single-payer health care system and he maintained a foreign policy quite independent of the Americans. He did not, for example, give in to their draconian ways with respect to Cuba and Nicaragua. I believe too, that he would have rejected any pressure for Canada to participate in the Iraq war. Further, I believe that Mulroney would not have played footsie with Bush on Afghanistan a la Stephen Harper.
The one weakness in his policies was acquiesence to the U.S. on NAFTA and WTO. But in that respect, he was no different from all our other leaders.
(Great post though).
The Japanese loot angle sounds tailor made for a new movie. ‘National Treasure: The Skull and Bones Boys’. They could get Dan Brown to write the screenplay.
Jon Stewart did a great send-up of the racist yokels in WV last night. And really, all he had to do was play back what the cretins said. A bumper crop of intelligence that place ain’t.
I am surprised you have a soft spot for that loathsome little egomaniac.
My recollection is he committed Canada to Desert Storm during a fishing-trip with old Bush without consulting our parliament. Perhaps he was excited with visions of himself as Commander-in-chief of Canada.
On that day he single-handedly wrecked our Canadian blue-helmet peacekeeping tradition.
On a related note and in context with the clip below, why does USA get away with giving B-movie titles to their endless murderous rampages?
Watch me-too Harper for this psychopathy.
“…..Mulroney’s majority government supported Reagan’s military operations, and Bush the First’s invasion of Iraq.
During the Reagan regime, the Mulroney government either engaged in or did not strongly oppose Reagan’s military operations, and during the Bush the First Regime, Mulroney joined in the US-led war.
In 1983, when leader of the opposition, Mulroney met with President Ronald Reagan, and at that time supposedly supported the invasion of Grenada, Operation Urgent Fury, on October 25.
In the mid 1980s, the Mulroney’s government did not come out strongly in opposition to the US-supported Contra invasion of Nicaragua.
Throughout the 1980s the Reagan Regime was destabilizing El Salvador; Reagan viewed the support for the Military government in El Salvador as a means of preventing the spread of Communism. Reagan was concerned about the left uniting to form the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion or FMLN). Mulroney may or may not have known or did not want to know or did not know if he knew… about the years of US intervention in El Salvador.
In 1991, the Mulroney government supported the 1991 US-led invasion of Iraq, Operation Desert Storm, and failed to oppose the US use of Depleted Uranium which has contributed to serious long-standing health and environmental problems.
In 1993, the Mulroney government supported the US-led Operation Deliverance, in Somalia….”
So I think your speculation that he wouldn’t have sucked up to USA yet again for a bit-part in Shock and Awe is pretty far out…
I concede your last point as possible, LA, but notice that you don’t disagree with my main thrust. By no means do I think Mulroney was a perfect Prime Minister – he wasn’t.
I never agreed with The Gulf War, but it was backed by The United Nations. On the other points you make, I’d think it would be pretty difficult for Canada to stop the U.S. from undertaking the kind of military actions they did in Grenada and Panama…and while Mulroney did not protest against them, he did not propose taking part.
All I’m saying really is that while he may have been weak when it came to criticizing the U.S., he never gave in totally.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but – as you know – I dislike generalisations.
On the other hand, I like the way your mind works.
Well I don’t know if Barack Obama will have trouble because of his race but we have bigotry in Canada too. I left Kincardine because some people were mean to me because they thought I was gay witch I’m not. One thing you have too remember if google Nazi and America your likely going to find racist Americans. My second point, George Bush never had more than 50% of the vote.
Good points roger. Please read my review of Bill Moyers’ book about Democracy in America.