Letters to the Editor

To shake racism label, GOP must find someone else to lead the party

GOP racism label stems from its leader

Desiree Zapata Miller says she’s upset that many of her Republican colleagues are being accused of racism. (Aug. 26 Opinion)

There’s a company in my hometown that believe it or not flies the Confederate flag above its building. If I work for that company, I would expect people to assume I feel the same way.

The Republican Party is led by someone who even before becoming president denied housing to minorities (something he learned from his father), called for the execution of young African Americans wrongly accused, and as president has called out men and women of color in Congress.

Republicans should have the courage to find someone else to lead their party or pay the price of assuming they all feel the same way their leader does.

Brian Siemering, Hickory

The soup of white supremacy

While I commend Desiree Zapata Miller for her defense of Republicans with respect to racism, she makes an all too common error in limiting the definition of white supremacy to those who engage in hateful rhetoric or acts of violence.

We are all swimming in the soup of white supremacy. Our social fabric is woven from two centuries of laws, policies and practices that have largely excluded African Americans from civil liberties and opportunities available to whites.

In her book, “White Fragility,” Robin DiAngelo describes the “sociology of dominance: an outcome of white people’s socialization into white supremacy and a means to protect, maintain, and reproduce white supremacy.”

May those of us who are white be open to widening the circle for full participation by all.

Barbara Devinney, Charlotte

Dems alienating many in the middle

Regarding “The governor stands with sheriffs against a misguided NC immigration bill” (Aug. 22 Editorial):

Steven P. Nesbit.JPG
Steven Nesbit

I was disappointed but not surprised to read the Observer’s ringing endorsement of Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill that would have required N.C. sheriffs to cooperate with ICE.

I remind you there is a fundamental understanding among most people in this country that, in this day and age, if you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.

If Democrats hew to the hard left on immigration, supporting measures such as abolition of ICE, decriminalization of illegal entry into the country, and sanctuary cities, they will alienate many people in the middle of the political spectrum and risk the outcome they say they abhor — the re-election of Donald Trump.

Steven P. Nesbit, Charlotte

Find a better way to vet candidates

The Aug. 25 article on nine current candidates running for city offices who have had serious trouble with the law was no surprise to me because the last election turned up the same kind of activity on many candidates.

Judy Hartley.jpg
Judy Hartley

If Charlotte aspires to become a model city attracting large corporations and valuable residents, how can we allow people with records like this to make decisions for us? Is there no vetting process for candidates before they get on a ticket?

This kind of leadership will never make Charlotte great. Where do we go from here?

Judy Hartley, Charlotte

Surplus? Not if taxes are invested wisely.

North Carolina doesn’t have surplus funds it needs to refund. It has unallocated money desperately needed to widen I-77, preserve rural hospitals, replace outdated voting machines, speed up hurricane relief, and buy classroom supplies.

When will the majority of legislators realize tax funds should be used as investments for N.C. communities to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline, prevent air and water pollution, and provide economic growth opportunities, including broadband, throughout the state?

Taxpayers want their tax payments invested wisely.

Lucille Howard, Charlotte

Electoral College turns off voters

It is past time that the Electoral College was eliminated and the voice of the people decided our presidents.

Otherwise, the voice of the people is being over-ridden by a few and is turning people off from voting and being involved in our governmental system.

This is completely opposite of government “for the people, by the people.” It is government by politicians, not the people.

Rachel Campbell, Charlotte

  Comments