Mutineers, we have our first brown Governor. 🙂 Join me, as I bold my favorite parts of the NYT article which declares this history-making outcome.
Bobby Jindal, a conservative Republican congressman from the New Orleans suburbs and the son of immigrants from India, was elected Louisiana’s governor Saturday, inheriting a state that was suffering well before Hurricane Katrina left lingering scars two years ago.
Mr. Jindal, 36, defeated three main challengers in an open primary, becoming this state’s first nonwhite governor since a Reconstruction-era figure briefly held the office 130 years ago.
With more than 90 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Jindal received 53 percent, above the 50 percent-plus-one threshold needed to avoid a runoff in November. He will be the nation’s first Indian-American governor when he takes office in January.
Have I popped champagne? Yes, I have. No, I don’t believe in teaching Intelligent Design, I certainly am not an advocate of getting rid of a woman’s right to choose and I still support hate crime legislation.
I can guzzle bubbly despite all that, because there’s something else stirring within me– recognition that someone who looks like me did something so significant, combined with an uncomplicated thrill over the fact that Bobby made history.
There are so many valid reactions to Jindal; I know about them because thanks to Amardeep’s post, we have hosted a lively discussion regarding his background, his policy positions and the greater implications of his politicking, for “the community”. Amardeep’s thoughts resonated with many of us who are conflicted about Louisiana’s new Governor. The good news is, there are no wrong reactions.
Each of us is allowed to feel how we do, so while some of you gnash your teeth, I’m happy for him and by extension, us. Better than that, the next time some little kid decides that they want to be in government when they grow up, their immigrant parents now have a visual, a template, a precedent to latch on to, much the same way my English minor was suddenly acceptable once Jhumpa won.
There is much to do, much which is owed to the great state of Louisiana and her people; this is just the beginning of that story and I idealistically hope that it has a happy ending. What Jindal can do (and really, whether he can do it) remains to be seen. But I don’t think it’s disrespectful or inappropriate to raise a glass to him tonight and wish him a sincere congratulations.
Doing so doesn’t mean we buy in to his positions lock stock, neither does it mean he’s like, the greatest thing EVAR. It just means that we are happy for someone who accomplished something extraordinary. Congratulating Bobby is something I humbly think we should do, because ideally we should each choose generosity of spirit over bitterness and rancor. Choosing the former and congratulating a winner doesn’t lessen us or diminish our passionate convictions, it just demonstrates our tolerance, equanimity and good faith that we will allow a person’s actions to speak before we do, negatively and presumptously.
i put the word in a different setting, as an analogy, in order to show the importance of harbingers. but i get your point in its original context. its a legit and conservative point of view, things don’t happen until they happen, but i like to read the signals. so for me hillary getting the nom would mean she has a legit shot at the oval office and wouild at least send a signal to other female candidates that next time around they could win, wheras for you “that means dick squat in telling whether she actually wins the election”
for me obama popularity means he’s getting close to the nom, though he probably won’t get it, and is a harbinger for other black candidiates but for you “Obama’s not getting close to the nom”
I get it, it’s all or nothing to you; “All these “harbingers” really amount to nothing.” “The executive branch is sealed off” until its not sealed, wheras i see evidence that the seal is breaking.
i’m not saying your view is illegitimate, your very clear as to what your view is. after all, the market does not always predict correctly.
I know Rob recommended Pal Zileri, but don’t you think Brooks Brothers would be more apposite for Bobby? Seems more patriotic (we’ll ignore its furrin owners) and I think it looks better on people who don’t have V-shaped torsos…that and how much more Southern can you get than a seersucker suit? I always associate those with BB. Besides, if it’s good enough for Roosevelt, JFK and Stephen Colbert, it’s good enough for our boy wonder, don’t you think?
In the latest Zogby poll, Hillary had negative rating amongst 50% of the Americans. That’s huge. That means she’s not electable unless there is a third party candidate. I am sure Billy Clinton has something to do with it, but to me she gives hypocrtitical, argumentative and irritating vibe that makes you sympathize for Bill and his cheating ways
in order to show the importance of harbingers.
A setting in which harbingers take on an entirely different meaning, having a mathemtical framework and a quantifiable degree of certainty/uncertainty behind it.
its a legit and conservative point of view, things don’t happen until they happen
Yes, but because I believe it in one context (the executive branch of the US), doesn’t automatically mean I believe it in all contexts (financial instruments) to even suggest so is disingenuous. Because market predictors have some kind of mathemetical framework & analytics behind it, a comparison between the two is ludicrous, unless you were being facetious all along.
I get it, it’s all or nothing to you; “All these “harbingers” really amount to nothing.” “The executive branch is sealed off” until its not sealed, wheras i see evidence that the seal is breaking.
In the case of the executive branch, yes, it’s all or nothing in the sense, I won’t believe the seal is “breaking” until it’s actually broken. Race & gender (Race moreso) in this country has always played a part even in the lowest electable office, the presidency is iconic, GW is not fit to be president, but to many he is fit to be “presidential” See the difference? Like I said, it’s the golden chalice. Howard Dean from 4 years ago (not 50 or 100 or 2000 or whenever you think the last time white male superiority in the US was practiced), ably demonstrated it.
Not sure what a “negative rating” is but the question was “Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?“
Clinton (D) 50%
Kucinich (D) 49%
Gravel (D) 47%
Paul (R) 47%
Brownback (R) 47%
Tancredo (R) 46%
McCain (R) 45%
Hunter (R) 44%
Giuliani (R) 43%
Romney (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 42%
Thompson (R) 41%
Dodd (D) 41%
Biden (D) 40%
Obama (D) 37%
Huckabee (R) 35%
Richardson (D) 34%
Not sure 4%
Interesting how the top half are those who generally get the least media attention except for Hillary.
this is certainly true of arbitrage, quant trading, and to a lesser degree economic forcasting; but much less so of stockpicking or start-ups, which rely more on stories, intuition even. as warren buffet says, and the vast majority of vc’s will tell you, the single most important thing about an investment is who the management is. they invest in people. thus, they are investments that are not easily reduced to numbers, not unlike politics, though numbers are involved, not unlike politics again.
I think the only time this discussion can continue is on Nov 5, 2008.
i’ve been participating in this conversation under the assumption that jindal was in fact pandering to white racism, especially re his comments on the jena 6. now there has been a debunking of the story. I don’t think the jena 6 supporters have replyed yet, but here are some bullet points:
–There has never been a “whites-only” tree at Jena High School –The student who asked if he could sit under the tree said it as a joke at an assembly –nooses where aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. –the da never threatened black students rather he “threatened” white girls who were on their cell phone
Manju(#558), read the following link by Friends of Justice, Alan Bean. I talked to him personally a few weeks ago and found him to be a very straightforward guy. He is white, by the way, with no racial agenda that I know of.
He debunks some points and clarified or provides more context to others made by franklin.
Fair enough–politicians, like trial lawyers in jury cases, should always “dress down” a bit. 😉
hari
If I recall, Rafiq Zakaria was to the left of even Nehru. Of course, at the time, Nehru’s economic policies (which were not nearly as bad as critics today will have one believe) were quite Centrist.
Granting his greatness, Nehru’s legacy is far more corrosive as the excerpt below from an online book indicates. It goes way beyond development policies.
+++++++++++
India has by now wasted six decades in poverty, squalor, and untold misery; and, at least in my view, hundreds of millions of lives have been lost from preventable disease, ignorance, and shoddy infrastructure (eg. due to traffic accidents, people falling into uncovered drains, insufficient places to walk and to exercise, and so on). Most people living today will also live far less than they could have, had Nehru adopted freedom as his goal. These unfortunate things could have been easily rectified (and can be easily rectified even now) in less than a decade of pure, ie. undiluted, and unadulterated, capitalism. But Nehru chose socialism instead, and therefore did not focus his energy on building the institutions of governance that are crucial for protecting our freedoms.
As Nehru was the single most powerful source of socialism in India since the 1930s, particularly with his emotionally charged glorification of its alleged successes, and his relentless implementation of its principles as our Prime Minister, we must necessarily ‘credit’ him with being the Messiah of Indian Socialism. We ignore his influence on India’s policies and current state of affairs only at our peril.
In this book, I have interpreted Nehru as having influenced an entire epoch, one that is still under way. Nehru is the most appropriate symbol for a number of things that have happened in India under socialist design since independence. It is, therefore, not only convenient, but entirely logical, to look at the entire period since independence till today as being Nehruvian. For his legacy definitely did not end with his death. From all accounts, some of which I touch upon later, Nehruvian socialism flourishes today, the so-called weak-knead Indian liberalisation notwithstanding.
Wherever Nehru himself did not create socialist policies, his successors stepped in, and in fact made his policies much ‘sharper’. They must therefore be classified as Nehru’s god-children. They include his daughter and grandchildren, his political contemporaries (except for the Swatantra Party), and his political successors like BJP, Congress (I), or communists of various shades; all Nehruvians. Not one Indian Prime Minister in the past six decades has stepped out of Nehru’s long shadow.
Today we can hear the strong echoes of Nehru’s voice in the conversations and actions of these godchildren of Nehru. They talk of self-sufficiency, of the mixed economy (whatever that mixture means ), and ‘liberalisation with a human face’ (what did that ever mean?). No one is heard talking of freedom. No one except Rajaji and Masani, and possibly a few others ever spoke of freedom in our Parliament. Freedom was lost in the wilderness well before independence, and no one went out in its search even after the British left India. I have never read or heard any of our leaders tell us that their policies are designed to preserve solely our freedoms. That sums up the entire problem that India faces. Nehru’s control over our minds has been complete. He distracted us completely into second order issues such as economic development, and we have never cared after that to look at the first order issue—of freedom. +++++++++
The current revision of the book is at
http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/
He abandoned as much of his Indianness as possible to succeed. The message his success conveys is, yes even an indian can make it big in politics…. as long as he is wiling to de-indianize himself.
Color of skin being an impediment is usually a euphemism for your racial background being an impediment. In Jindal’s case however, all we take away from it is that the color of your skin is LITERALLY not an impediment.
As a former resident of N’awlins, I am glad this dude is the Gov, simply because Louisiana is run by such corrupt people that they would give some Indian states a run for their money. That said, I do not agree with his politics and his total change to get elected. If fair and lovely worked, I bet he would have bought a ton of it. Hopefully the corruption will keep him so busy that he will not be able to do any damage in the social arena. I also have a nagging feeling that all his social conservatism may have been a facade to get elected. I find to difficult to believe that a seemingly intelligent person, would have such a literal interpretation of religion.
Jindal Revolution
Is that Alfred on the t-shirt?
Vic You are totaly correct on Hindus and beef eating. The ban has no place in Hinduisim, and is probably a Bhuddist influence
Vic, Here is a link on beef eating Hindus. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/in12.html
Anna,
Why are you pretending that you are somehow the patient champion of the oppressed, inauthentic desi? This post follows many of your others, in which you champion the cause of the Christian desi who has white-washed his image, and demand everyone else accept him as well. No, marrying a brown girl does not change this in my view.
Oh come on. There’s no way Jindal could have gotten elected in Louisiana without kissing the collective ass (or at least attempting to) of a bunch of racist white people. I should know because I’m totally white-washed and spend most of my time trying to ingratiate myself with Young Republican college clubs. (I don’t really have a job).
If the Governor was everything he is, but still nominally Hindu, you’d be fine with him.
I’m not sure if hillside is saying this. but what I’d say is, if his policies & political beliefs were exactly the same, but his name was Srinivasa Venkatashastry Anandanpillai, who ardently performed Abhishekam every Sunday, chances are he wouldn’t be nearly as ‘electable’ whether he made those changes to his life for the purpose of electability is under question, but to deny the fact that it did enhance his electability is ignoring the truth.
It’s not a significant achievement becoming a governer. After all, George Bush is president.
Bobby was born and raised in Louisiana. He did not grow up around many desis. I have noticed this pattern with Hindu kids raised in small US towns without a sizable desi community. These kids do not get much support from their own community because it is too small to really count. So they look elsewhere for support and often that is the church, which welcomes them with open arms. Trips to India are few and far between and hardly influences them. Bobby is for all practical purposes a white American. He only looks brown. He is a genuine product of Louisiana society. He is not a fake. I am happy that America is evolving into a more tolerant society where a black man, a woman and a brown man are electable to the highest offices. That being said, I am a Democrat and I think Bobby Jindals policies suck like leeches.
What are his policies?
What’s with the conservative Indian pundits and politicians?
Jindal, Zakaria, Ponnuru, D’Souza?
I can’t think of a mainstream liberal Indian except maybe the novelists.
Well, there are a lot of closet racists on the left. Jindals making them come out:
“When you see a person of color, you expect someone with similar values, views, beliefs…”
How about you quote the entire paragraph to see the context.
When you see a person of color, you expect someone with similar values, views, beliefs — someone in touch with the emerging new majority. With Jindal, you get someone who very deliberately and proudly downplays his race in order to seek his own individual path. That kind of independence under certain circumstances may be commendable. But only if you happen to agree with his ideas that range from free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America.
When did Newt Gingrich die and reincarnate?
This isn’t ‘closet racism”, or any kind of racism for that matter. It’s obvious he meant Jindals values, views and beliefs in an American political context, as he further states: ” free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America.” He’s not saying because he’s a person of color, he must do X,Y,Z. Even if he was, it isn’t tantamount to racism because those beliefs tend to disenfranchise people of color more so (with the exception of say the intelligent-design thing, those homeschooled Christian nuts in the midwest can disbelieve evolution all they want)
Since we have started to talk so much about race anyway, I need to put in my 2 cents. I am amazed at how racist Indians can be towards blacks. Indians think they are ‘white’ in America and often try to win the whites over with their anti-black comments. Sad thing is that it actually works. What is strange is that it is not unusual to see dark-skinned Indians doing the very same thing.Why do Indians seem to put down another race in order to show superiority. It is an embarrassing and shameful behavior that needs to stop.
i was glad to see the vast majority of commentatoers on Asianweek know a bigot when they read one. Its the classic “they all think alike” prejudice practiced by western educated leftists who view non-western cultures through their own ironically white-washed (not that there’s anything wrong with that, per se) dogma.
to these ideologues, conservative policies so obviously “disenfranchise people of color” that to advocate them must be an indication of the Uncle Tom syndrome. notice how these reactionaries pretend as it the debate is settled, completely oblivious to the suffering POC have endured under their policies and the liberation that has occurred under free-market ones. But more importantly, they are oblivious to the sheer diversity of opinion that exists within POC, as if we are not as fully human as whites.
polls have shown large % of black (and even brown) opposed to illegal immigration, a phenomena that disproportionately hurts blacks by keeping down working class wages. large % of blacks are anti-abortion, as black fetus are disproportionately victimized by abortions. This issue (black abortions, margaret sanger, etc) is one of the major dividing lines between black and white feminism.
only a bigot expects poc to have similar values, views, and beliefs.
Piyushnabu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
Actually there is a pretty decent sized community in New Orleans and Baton Rouge; as I’ve been here for a while however as the article says he went into Catholicism as a teen; but until then I’m sure he is nominally Hindu as is his wife. One of the major issues on his agenda is corruption and if he is able to resolve that, which is the #1 issue for La and has been for a while, you can look for him to serve a second term and then be on the VP ticket in 2016
(About that commentary from Anna) And on another note I can’t believe there are so many Liberals on this board from allowing the killing unborn children to this impaired grotesque idea of “choice”. It’s utterly ridiculous that this second+ generation of hypocrites that used to chastize their parents when they spoke of killing their girls in India and China by drowning them in milk are somehow reasoning that it’s acceptable to kill their unborn kids is acceptable, by tagging it as a “choice”. It’s merely semantics that you can say somenone can stuff your head in a vagina blow your brains out and call it partial birth killing to an adult is different then a child.
interesting… what about “choice” when pregnancy is a result of sexual assault
Jindal is a member of a party whose official foreign policy is in support of a brutal and CORRUPT IMPERIALIST war in a foreign nation that has killed upwards of 1 million “brown” people. This party also supports tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while cutting programs like S-CHIP that provide health care to children.
Jindal must understand what it is like to be on the wrong end of racism… or how Imperialism sucked the wealth and life out of a glorious nation like India… and being a family man who claims to be religious, I imagine Jindal having some sympathy for poor children…
So his involvement in GOP politics is obviously not in line with his background.
Jindal betrays where he comes from, and does not stand up for who and what he is. The first generation son of hard working immigrants.
He and his family like the hard luck immigrant story, but obviously don’t like the lessons people USUALLY learn from adversity.
Peace, Justice, and Human Rights. That’s all any politician should ever stand for.
“What are his policies? What’s with the conservative Indian pundits and politicians? Jindal, Zakaria, Ponnuru, D’Souza? I can’t think of a mainstream liberal Indian except maybe the novelists.”
This from a guy [#574] who runs a blog, which is all Islamic …all the time.
Bhang Master – “Jindal is a member of a party whose official foreign policy is in support of a brutal and CORRUPT IMPERIALIST war in a foreign nation that has killed upwards of 1 million “brown” people.”
You might as well be describing the AMERICAN foreign policy for the last 60 years.
Check it out: Amardeep in WashPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/27/AR2007102701088.html
Maitri V-R, who commented often in this thread, seems to have made it in too! Congrats to both, to SM, and to WaPo for writing an article that probed their perspectives.
i agree with maitri on this:
“…said she also worries that when Indian Americans cheer for a candidate with whom they otherwise disagree merely because he shares their ethnicity, they are reinforcing the very color consciousness they want the rest of American society to reject.”
I don’t agree with the above statements in the WP posted by Abhi @ 584 :
Talking about your heritage is probably a way of talking/introducing yourself like most candidates do but whhats wrong with NOT expressing your ancestral connections when you claim to be an American. Is it because you are not white caucasian compels you to explain ? Is it because you are second-generation with desi parents makes you special ? And what does it say about abilites to govern when you express/not express your heritage ?
Also religion is a personal belief which he is entitled to in a democratic country and if he uses that to his advantage in a laissez-faire whats wrong ? As if in other walks of american life you are capitalist ? Apart from Piyush hardly sounding like a christian name most of the american would have mangled it anyways so why not change it something easier to pronounce ?
OOps I meant to say in 587,
As if in other walks of american life he is NOT a capitalist ?
And btw “Bobby” is a very common pet name even among Hindu Punjabis in India so in fact he has hardly changed his name to any christian sounding one as the Wpost article purports.
Okay, okay, differences between Clarence Thomas and Bobby Jindal duly noted… I honestl.y was not trying to make any “Uncle Tom” reference, but merely to point out the similarites in the “bring yourself up by your bootstraps” I’ve heard from each. Muralimannered made the point I was attempting to make far more eloquently than I did (thanks!).
This relevant article may be of interest (News tab is currently down for maintenance): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Sunday_Specials/All_That_Matters/SHASHI_ON_SUNDAY_Should_we_be_proud_of_Bobby_Jindal/articleshow/2495845.cms
goriwife, that was a good article. i agree that he belongs to the similar category as dinesh d’souza. but why blame him when so there are so many americans who share his views. just because his successful parents are from a poor country doesn’t mean that he has to become some kind of social crusader like most democrats/liberals are. why not lead a extravagant life like many rich white republican american capitalists lead and have similar views ? if you want to attack him on issues… yes that is accepted but why bring to the discussion table such superfluous personal issues like name etc. etc. i fail to understand what exactly all the different heritage and name issues has to say about his ability to govern ?
good point, brij. when we relegate extravagant lifestyles and capitalism to whites, is it any wonder india is poor?
and of course, by many metrics, indian-americans are wealthier than their white counterparts, so if we were to play the identity politics game, which i don’t (other than to comment on SM), wouldn’t we have to label say a capital gains tax cut for example as an authentic position beneficial to the community?
when people expressed shock at jindal being simultaneously desi and homophobic, i wondered if anyone has actually visited india. now i wonder if anyone has even met fellow indian-americans?
because some indian-americans insist that we donate money to his campaign and support him simply because he is brown! (someone commented upthread that s/he went to a jindal fundraiser where many of the indian-americans didn’t even know jindal’s platform!). that’s not to say that i’m not amazed at what he’s accomplished, but that doesn’t mean that i’m ‘proud’ of him either.
i don’t particularly like shashi tharoor, but i think you’re twisting his words here. brij was referring to indian-americans, and you’re extrapolating it to india. i don’t think tharoor ‘relegated’ wealth to whites in his article, nor do i think he would favor doing that on a worldwide basis and keeping india poor; i thought he was simply saying that he thinks that jindal doesn’t want to be particularly seen as indian or as a ‘person of color,’ so why be ‘proud’ of him (like indians are wont to do)?
only a bigot expects poc to have similar values, views, and beliefs.
This is really a misuse of the word bigot. The word’s connotation really has to do with hatred and intolerance stemming from ignorance. While expecting a member of your ethnic background to agree with you in all domains, is not genuine or “nice” in a sense, it’s no where near bigoted.
And where this comes from, is not a place of ignorance (as it is with the legacy of white bigotry) It’s the same reason why most of us come here to post I’d imagine – and assumed shared experience, would you call that ‘bigotry’? Given the history of white racism (that yes, is more accepted and practiced by conservative policies) in this country, it’s not a far stretch to assume those shared experienes will tilt someone to agree with a certain policy over another.
There are instances where members of minority groups have denied or downlplayed these experiences for the purposes of earning favor with that said majority. This can’t be turned into some kind of innocent “there isn’t one POC experience” general statement.
It’s the same reason why most of us come here to post I’d imagine – and assumed shared experience, would you call that ‘bigotry’?
This should read,
It’s the same reason why most of us come here to post I’d imagine, an assumed shared experience, would you call that ‘bigotry’?
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
Prejudice: any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Emil Guillermo: “When you see a person of color, you expect someone with similar values, views, beliefs…”
i don’t asume a shared exerience. i come here to discuss issues related to india, etc. and if someone assumed b/c i’m indian that i share the same opinions as you, i’d be offended.
i understand some of you may not be outraged b/c emil is engaging in what is, w/i your worldview, a positive stereotype. but to me, the left-leaning characteristics he expects in poc are very negative.
to an al-qaeda member, saying i expect all muslims to be sympathetic to al-qaeda may not be that offensive, since al-qaeda clearly stands for the liberation of muslims from western imperialism, in his worldview. but to the rest of us, its bigotry.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
Exactly. where is the intolerance? and looking at Meriam-Webster:
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance [link]
Again, you quoted Emil’s single line without the entire paragraph to understand the full context. I already responded to your decontextualized quoting, (in #576).
Expressing a level of confusion is not tantamount to “hatred and intolerance”, especially when it’s limited to a strict political, governmental policy framework.
i don’t asume a shared exerience. i come here to discuss issues related to india, etc. and if someone assumed b/c i’m indian that i share the same opinions as you
Nice jump from “shared experience” to “opinions” I’m not talking opinions, opinions can vary. But you can check with those who started the blog, my guess is they did so because they felt a space didn’t exist for people of similar ethnic background to discuss topics relevant to our community. And why would this be beneficial, because it assumes we all have a certain level of shared experiences.
he’s intolerant of, and hates, right-lewaning poc, based on their color. whereas he would hate a right-leaning white person just b/c of their views. they are individuals. we are not.
i not only provided a link to the quote in its entire context, but i also added three dots so people would know there’s more to the sentance. The context doesn’t change the meaning, b/c even though he’s talkiing within the american context, as you assert, saying i expect american poc to have similar values, views, beliefs is still bigoted.
not according to emil.
The context doesn’t change the meaning, b/c even though he’s talkiing within the american context, as you assert,
Getting the truth out of you is like pulling teeth isn’t it: (from what I said in #576)
“It’s obvious he meant Jindal’s values, views and beliefs in an American political context, as he further states: ” free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America.”
He’s making very specific points about conservative policies in these specific arenas that would disenfranchise minorities, and have done so historically. (with the exception of the evolution bit) This is the second time I’ve written this, shall we go for a third?
he’s intolerant of, and hates, right-lewaning poc, based on their color. whereas he would hate a right-leaning white person just b/c of their views. they are individuals. we are not.
That’s a bit of a jump. I see nothing to indicate intolerance or hatred (rather you’re tossing those words on there for your own benefit) I see more confusion and irritation “you expect”, I’m not even defending his view, just saying you’re choice of words is improper.