Can You Spot The Racist?
Pat Buchanan wrote an op-ed that pretty much confirms there is an invisble white pointed hood on his head.
What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure? Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.â€[..]
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
“White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to?” Just lectured to? I suppose lecturing is what we hear when we don’t want to listen. And what the hell does white America need to tell African Americans that THEY haven’t heard.
What the hell wisdom does Pat Buchanan have for our African Americans? Be like me?
March 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
There are racists everywhere.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Buchanon’s rant about a “cultural war” signified clearly his mindset, that the United States was a country designed for people like him, not people different than him. He wants a two way conversation? Well, exactly what d9es Pat want to lecture the black community about? Hey, there’s alot to be critical of in all groups who share certain commonalities, including race. However, people like Pat give credibility to Obama. His efforts to unite the country will create a stark contrast between the divisive rhetoric of racists such as Buchanon, Limbaugh, Coulter, etal.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Cliff
How on Earth can we ever have a conversation about race when those who participate have to walk on egg shells to not be called a racist? We supposedly have freedom of speech in this country but there are certain subjects that can end a career or destroy a reputation in an instant. People like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are free to spread their vitriol because they do not have the same kind of consequences for saying the things they do. I have said before that it is hard to find a openly racist person in the Republican party because it is political suicide, but Democrats are free to make racist statements and are defended or only mildly rebuked by the same people who would pounce on any Republican saying the same thing. Racism or at least to accusation of of racism has become a powerful political weapon and a way to amass power over people, and if you read my last comment it puts power and the pursuit of it into its proper perspective.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Own your inner racist / sexist / ist-ist… just try not to nourish it.
Own your inner good-guy…feed only the best food and nurture with every act.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The fact that Pat Buchanan is allowed to be on television everywhere, all the time, for decades is telling. The way I see it, he is like the lawyer that asks for a million dollars for an injury his client had, knowing that his client will end up with much less then that as a reward, but more then if the jury hadn’t been made to think a million is at least a plausible amount. Of course, Pat isn’t the only one out there making absolutely crazy claims about the American fascists enemies, (you and I.) They are literally everywhere. No matter what they say, they’re still there. This makes the passer-by observer think they must be experts, or have something to say, or they wouldn’t be on television all the time.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Ken:
I wish racist remarks were political suicide in the Republican party, Bennett and Hatch would have been gone a long time ago, but at least something has effected Buttars’s reputation. I hope it’s his general ability to reason, rather then just the racist thing though.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Pat is the paper bag you could not ever fight your way out of Larry.
He isn’t even stapled either.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Ken, When will you give up parroting the “talking points.” It worked for you guys for a little while, but its over.
Where is the logic in this statement?:
“We supposedly have freedom of speech in this country but there are certain subjects that can end a career or destroy a reputation in an instant”
Freedom of speech is about being able to say what you want without going to jail for it.
Do really want a country where you can not only say what you want, but also one in which other people should forgive racist idiots? Where is THAT in the constitution.
How many ways can I tell thee?
Freedom of speech also means freedom to make an ass of yourself…and stay out of jail. Nothing more, nothing less.
Here’s what I really think.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Millie:
We should be more like house cats and REFUSE to be forced into that bag or box.
Cliff:
That is a great website! “Pams House Blend …always steamin’” Funny stuff! What’s not so funny are those pictures of white people at the lynchings where they’re all standing there looking at the camera as if to say “here’s what’s in store for any of you other uppity negro’s out there.” At least they are somewhat less COWARDLY then the ones who put sheets over their faces. Pat Pukeanon doesn’t wear a sheet either, but he’s a lost cause. Get him OFF MY TEEVEE!
March 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.”
Ummm, hello? We hear “White America” 24/7 — it’s about ALL that we hear. “White America” owns everything, dominates everything. I don’t understand why the righties are trying to play the “I’m a minority and I’m avictim” card when clearly they are not.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
ohmygod, Buchanan is such a moron!
“Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.”
Okaaaaaay — I’d say all of the above, if any were completely true, would be the least, the VERY least, we could do after enslaving, torturing, raping, injuring and murdering generation after generation of people of African decent. We white people can’t even comprehend the psychological and karmic damage that the institution of slavery and racism has had.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Cliff is right on one particular point–freedom of speech is a LEGAL protection, not a cultural, economic, or interpersonal one. If someone is demonized for their speech, it was either because of a faux pas or because they deserved it.
Still, we should come to the point where people can speak out about specific issues and have their views be appropriately quantified as only a PART of their whole self. I don’t think that Buchanan is particularly racist from what he’s saying. Certainly not KKK worthy.
Buchanan is, of course, pulling the “Silent Majority” card that every majority in the last 50 years has pulled whenever they wanted to say something unpopular and make themselves look like the underdog at the same time. It’s an inappropriate, cheap request for sympathy, and it’s incredibly lame. How “silent” is it to suppress black culture, to drive down black wages, to exclude black employees and executives, and to oppose even the most basic forms of affirmative action? This doesn’t just go for the white treatment of blacks, by the way. As actions speak louder than words, ours is no “silent” majority.
Still, one could argue that things are on an upswing. Minorities (including the figurative female minority, even though there are more women in the U.S. than men) are increasing their numbers in various fields at a substantial rate. As it is today, there is less advantage in being a white urban male of a particular income level than a black urban male of the same income level. Of course, as a percentage of their population, there are far more black urban males than white urban males, putting them at an individualistic statistical disadvantage. This isn’t necessarily because they’re black, however; it can be tied to their parents or grandparents being black, but the disadvantage today is for social class more often than race.
Culturally speaking, this can all be controverted. Within specific cultural contexts, minorities (or even whites, as a regional minority) can be oppressed by the individuals and groups within a region. As a general rule, however, social class means more than race. Consider, as one bit of evidence, the fact that a white person with resources equal to those of a black person has no affirmative action, no college fund, few if any scholarships, and no cultural exchange of shame for pity. There are almost no movies to support his inherent value as a human being, no exceptions made because of his skin color, no eyes watching to make sure that those with whom he interacts treat him according to a particular paradigm. The only advantage he has is the prejudice of white people, which is becoming rarer and rarer, and harder to exercise in areas where it exists.
As a matter of history, there have been efforts to return African Americans to their native lands since before the American Civil War, sometimes even with compensation for their work. I won’t regale you with the history of Liberia, but check it out if you want. Also as a matter of history, it has been the choice of African Americans to stay here when given the option. You may argue that they couldn’t survive outside of our technological culture after being socialized. That is likely true at least in part. But the bottom line is they stayed.
I believe it is right to apologize to the descendants of slaves. But we don’t have to do it over and over. We already have programs and laws to protect them from persecution. I, for one, have never been mean to a black person in my life. I have, unfortunately, only met a few of them, but I have enjoyed interacting with them every time. I have always held them in high regard, as I hold all humans, regardless of gender or skin-color.
But is it possible that the oppressed have become so used to the stigmatized view of themselves that they are now hypersensitive to that which might or might not be there? Before anyone jumps down my back about it, consider it in a different context: Mormons have gotten so used to being “persecuted,” and being TOLD that they are, that they have been for some time now labeling unbelievers as “anti-Mormons” even when they’re not. This kind of extremism is a common response to oppression. And if I’m racist because I’m a white American who doesn’t think it’s right to give everything I have to a black neighbor, then everyone who mentions Mormonism without doing so positively is an anti-Mormon, and should be ostracized and demonized for persecuting me.
Bottom-line: Everyone should be heard. Requesting a moment of silence so that the majority can be heard is not wrong, nor is it racist. We should be measuring the actual benefits of ideas and values, not their emotional appeal. Buchanan is not politically correct, but he’s not necessarily factually wrong, either. The excessive emotional response to what he says is expectable, but not helpful. We should try to evaluate what he says rather then responding with gut reactions.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“the fact that a white person with resources equal to those of a black person has no affirmative action, no college fund, few if any scholarships, and no cultural exchange of shame for pity. There are almost no movies to support his inherent value as a human being, no exceptions made because of his skin color, no eyes watching to make sure that those with whom he interacts treat him according to a particular paradigm. ”
I disagree with much of above
— affirmative action has been dropped in many places and is on it’s way out. The problem here is that it’s been shown that an employer, if not bound by affirmative action, will almost always hire one of his own race. Since there are more white employers than any other kind, there is a built in “affirmative action” just for whites.
– “There are almost no movies to support his inherent value as a human being” - Breaking news: most films are still made by white males. There are a growing number of films by women and minorities, but for most of filmmaking history most films celebrated the white male. If there’s been some success in niche markets, it’s only because there is money to be made there after decades of the same ol’- same ol’.
–”no college fund, few if any scholarships” well, yes and no - we have to look at historical privledge on this issue, although the class issue can change this over time. If my grandfather was born into a privledged home (at one point in history, the only people who were privleged were whites) he’d have been more likely to go to college and understand the value of a college education. He could have used that college education to get a high paying job — continuing the privlege– and then establishing college funds for his children, and so on and so forth down the line. If my forbears were dirt poor and scraping by to survive, they wouldn’t get the opportunity for college, nor the ability to pay for their children to attend. We do have grants for the poor nowdays, which does help to level the playing field somewhat.
–”no exceptions made because of his skin color, no eyes watching to make sure that those with whom he interacts treat him according to a particular paradigm.” You should feel lucky. You are less likely to get pulled over for a traffic citation, less likely to be followed around in a store “just in case you might steal something”. People treat you as normal.
When I was in college someone once asked, “Why aren’t there any White Male Studies classes?”, to which a wiser person than I replied that pretty much the whole of history and our culture IS White Male Studies. I agree that this is beginning to become less so in recent years, but it’s not helpful to pick on the few things we’ve put in place over the last 40 years in an attempt to balance things out.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
All good points, Jenni. I must make a few comments, however:
I was not aware that affirmative action was being dropped. I have only heard of a few cases where it has been challenged successfully, contrasted with an increasing number of programs and laws that add to the numbers of persons included in the affirmative action umbrella.
I’m not sure if your claim that employers choose their own race over others is true in modern times or not, but if it is, here’s one good reason why: 1 in 8 prospective employees, statistically speaking, will be black. This, in conjunction with the average financial and educational state of blacks in America, means that an employer will have far more white choices than black choices. This means blacks will be hired AT MOST 1/8th as often as whites. This is not racism. It is statistics.
Research has actually shown that, quite frequently, employers will consider the minorities and women above white male applicants, even when the white males are more qualified. In addition, individual employers have lost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to affirmative action cases when they have fired an underqualified, incompetent, or lazy employee who is part of a minority or who is a woman. Also, in college admission situations, research shows that, while diversity is beneficial overall, affirmative action harms the learning environment, excludes needy white students, and provides a “no work is necessary” safety net to wealthy minorities and women.
I worked for a Korean small business owner. He paid his Korean employees up to 35% more to start than he paid me, and his Hispanic employees up to 20% more than me (roughly calculated). I was the highest-paid white employee he had. When I was considering leaving, he started giving me raises every couple of months to keep me on–that was how much I was worth to him. Yet, even then, I was still being paid less after 2 1/2 years than Korean employees who had just been hired. I had little recourse, because no one cares about a young white male being underpaid. If I had been a minority or a woman, however, I could have taken the case to court and been awarded thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for discrimination. Don’t tell me that affirmative action is dying out.
What I said about movies stands. Minorities, whether based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, are disproportionately represented in movies and television today. Many people have only ever SEEN a minority on tv, and there in high numbers. On top of that, there are no movies that I am aware of that focus on the fact that a person is white as a reason for paying attention to his/her story–even though there are whole subsets of white America that are treated as minorities in the region in which they live. Conversely, at least one movie comes out every year that focuses on the qualities or subjugation of minorities–subjugation primarily of the past, not the present. I love movies like “Remember the Titans” and “Glory” because they highlight times and events in history that Americans should all be aware of. But when did you last see a movie that showed a man had value BECAUSE he was white? It doesn’t matter whether it is men or women, white or black, that are making movies. What the movies are ABOUT matters. Fortunately, most of these movies are about the unification of the races, rather than simply highlighting one of them, but there are exceptions.
Historical privilege exists for both whites and blacks. It is a matter of fact that, following the emancipation of the slaves after the Civil War, the economic classes in the South got broken down into categories similar to those today. As it is, many of the Southern states have an entire group of “white trash” who are below the average African-American in terms of both historical AND present privilege. These people receive little or no help from local or federal government, and face a double stigma: They ARE white, and they are the WORST of the whites. There is no nobility in their skin color, no pity for their state of existence, because, after all, they are descendents of white European empirialistic garbage, and they were not taken from their homeland and forced into their present state of being. An unkempt white person is, in our present society, worse off than an unkempt minority.
I know totally what you mean about being treated as “normal.” I don’t have to worry about getting pulled over as much, nor am I constantly a suspect of crimes I didn’t commit. For these reasons I sympathize with minorities. At the same time, no one tiptoes around my feelings, no one watches what they say because they fear that they might invoke some righteous wrath, and I can’t be lazy at work and then use my skin color or sex to sue my employer for firing me. I have no right to stand up in front of a crowd and bemoan my state, because everyone will just tell me to stop whining. Just an example of how discrimination goes two ways in America. I’m not saying that minorities are more lazy than the majority. In fact, in my experience, I have worked with more hard-working minorities than I have hard-working white males. But they have that safety net. I don’t. I really doubt that, in today’s society, the average employer will hire me over another person simply because I’m a white male.
The city of Bountiful, Utah, averages two reports a year from elderly persons who are complaining that a black person is walking through their neighborhood. This is ridiculous, and it is wrong. There is a lot of work to be done in equalizing the races in the minds of many Americans. But by and large, things are not as bad as Al Sharpton would like you to think. Things are a lot more equal than people would like to think. The book “Equality: A Man’s Claim” details some of the ways that laws and cultural tendencies are geared towards hurting men rather than benefiting women, and how the pendulum is swinging the opposite direction, far from middle. Within certain regions of the U.S., of course, there are severe problems with racial discrimination. It is ironic, however, that most minorities in these regions treat each other with more hatred and contempt than they are treated by the majority. It has been said, however, that the media and inner-city culture have been tampered with, to intentionally create inter-minority hatred, and I wouldn’t doubt it if this were true. It is also true that the Fortune 500 exclude minorities, but that’s because the Fortune 500 are American aristocracy; I have just about as much chance of joining ultra-rich society as a black person does, no matter how hard I work.
How sensitive we have become! How strong can racism truly be today, Jenni, when I would be more stigmatized in my culture for saying something harmless that can be CONSTRUED as being negative towards black people than for being black? The races are (more or less) equal; it is now the belief systems that are prejudiced against, even when it is only a flicker of racism that MIGHT exist within them. It is like the old Southern state laws: You couldn’t vote if you were 1/16th black, even if your skin was completely white. Nowadays, a person can represent a fraction of racism (or only the appearance of racism, without any actual existence of it) and he will be completely hated, berated, and excluded. The brows are turned so far down against us that they can no longer see why they are, or what they are turned against.
I think this is Buchanan’s point. I don’t like him much, but I must concede that he is right in one thing: White people are not allowed to assert themselves for any reason other than that they are human. Likewise, men are no longer male and human; they can only be human, for there is nothing noble about being male any more. Conversely, there is inherent nobility in being a woman or in being a minority, and even more in being both, regardless of one’s achievements. The difference between historical and cultural studies and minority and women’s studies is this: History and culture HAPPENED to white males, but it is not about the fact that they are white, except when talking about the errors of history and culture. Minority and women’s studies, on the other hand, are always about the fact that the people described were women and minorities–if good happened, it is ascribed to women and minorities, or to an individual person’s name only; if bad, it is ascribed to white men in general. History classes equate no glory to the fact that the founding fathers were white; if anything, it depracates them for their race and gender. Their improvements were never glorified; rather, they are viewed as improvements only in that they made white males LESS bad, with no attention to its existential progress in the context of the times and socializations those “old white males” were subject to. Let them eat cake, anyone?
Put simply, diversity classes glorify the minorities and women, putting them on a pedestal. While this was appropriate in a certain context, we today lack any mind for the context or its meaning. I would say that being open-minded is merely reorganizing our prejudices, for we are all prejudiced against something. In the same way, “diversity,” while it may have value to wise individuals, has become for the average person nothing more than a way to redefine against which group our prejudices are constructed.
Watch “Amos & Andrew.” It approaches several race-wealth dichotomies and behaviors. Not only is it funny, it’s informative.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I don’t have a problem with seeing the issues of minority groups of the past in films — we too easily forget our history and have a tendency to repeat it if we aren’t more conscious. Seeing a film like “Iron Jawed Angels” gave me a new perspective on how my rights were won, not to mention inspired me.
I have seen some of the prejudice you mention –
I could never understand why any group that’s had to fight so hard for equal rights would deny another group equal rights– when a minority group is homophobic or sexist, for example. As a woman (albeit a white woman with at least some lower middle-class privlege) I feel that working toward equality for all all - regardless of race, color, class, genitalia or sexual orientation — can only benefit other women like myself.
I do think I understand your issues regarding the pendulum swing . . .but I think that we need to give some credit to an overall human evolution. There are still some holdouts of bigotry, but I believe that most of us are growing past that. I don’t think that white males will ever have to suffer the wide-spread miseries of decades and centuries of other groups just for being white males.
This evolution is starting to become visible. For example, in the past 10 - 20 years I’ve seen a big shift in the relations of men and women that I’ve just found wonderful. We seem to be abandoning outdated gender roles and I think that can only benefit both men and women. This kind of thing gives me hope.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Hope–absolutely, Jenni. Things are much better than they have been. I just mean to say that we need not make life worse for one group in order to make life better for another, not when we have the resources (physically and mentally) that we as a nation possess. It is time that complaints were not only heard on both sides, as they have been, but also respected. The voices of the slaves were not heard or respected; the voices of the descendants of the slaves were heard but not respected; now the voices of black America are heard AND respected, while the descendants of their oppressors are heard but disrespected. If white America disagrees vocally with black America, black America owns all the cards.
Politically and economically, however, this is not the case. White America still owns the chips and the table. As unjust as it is, we still always win, however bitter that victory is. I want for everyone to win–for all things to be shared by all groups, as long as those groups behave in such a way that they earn the respect and support of their fellow man. Whites in the past stole support from the blacks who earned it. But things are fairly equal today, and we should keep it that way, lest the pendulum swing too far. It need not swing at all, if we but stop its motions.
Our country is built on dissatisfaction. We thrive on it, and rightly so. The colonists were better off than the average British citizen, yet they saw it could be better and made it so. We established a Constitution that allowed for changes, because we knew that there was no such thing as a perfect human political state. The works of Frederick Douglas and other ex-slave patriots laid the foundation of equality, and Martin Luther King Jr. cemented the path. We are almost to the end of that path. We will always be dissatisfied, for our standards are always reaching higher, and that is the way it should be. We should always listen to the complaints of any group, majority or minority, and evaluate the merits of those complaints. THAT is the American way, one of the few ways that I can truly be proud of this country.
I have hope for the future. I have always had great hope for mankind, no matter their origins or basic makeup. It feels good to have so many groups working together and approaching each other with love and respect. Lets keep our hope strong, and be willing to work towards making that hope a reality. Its good that men and women, black and white can play on the same team; and so is it to be on the same team as you, Jenni. :-)
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 30th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I can’t think of any less worthy concern than the supposed discrimination being suffered by the white American male.
Give me a break! People who have taken up that cause are either racist or damn selfish.
Joe Watts
March 31st, 2008 at 7:02 am
Thank you Joe Watts,
Another corrupt syllogism from our young priest. Any white man who seriously equates his treatment with racism watches too much Bill O’Reilly.
Dwight needs to find a level of arrogance more commensurate with his lack of education and experience in the world.
Dwight, the very definition of racism precludes YOU.
Maybe the Korean man just didn’t like you. Or maybe he was being vindictive for all the prejudiced he had experienced in Utah.
Even if he hung a sign that said, Whites Need Not Apply, it still wouldn’t be racism.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Cliff, Joe:
Since Cliff decided to use HIS definition of racism instead of the actual one (sort of like how he uses HIS definition of syllogism instead of the actual one), I figured I should post it to clarify the discussion a bit:
Racism -noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Let me get this straight: If I’m the most qualified person for a job, but I’m denied it because I’m white, that’s not racism? Why? Oh, it’s because white people DESERVE to be discriminated against. After all, they were racists once, so their descendants should be treated with racism. Hmmm…what about descendants of black African tribals who sold members of enemy tribes to European slavers? How should we treat them? Come to think of it, slavery has existed between racial groups and intraracial subgroups for all of time. Almost every group has behaved in racist ways at one time or another. I guess EVERYONE deserves to be treated in a racist fashion because of their ancestry.
If someone refuses to hire me BECAUSE I’m white, that is racist. If someone refuses to treat me with respect BECAUSE I’m white, that is racist. Bottom-line: Racism is racism, no matter your race. I didn’t enslave African Americans. I don’t treat them differently. If anything I want to make sure they’re helped to overcome the prejudices of the past that still linger today. But if they treat me poorly because I’m white, no matter their reasons, no matter their history, that is racism.
And Cliff, isn’t it an assumptive error to insist that treatment is derived from a specific source, even when you haven’t observed the particular instance? You don’t know that my boss wasn’t just a raving racist. He may have been, and you don’t know. I don’t know that he wasn’t treated poorly by white people. The only thing we DO know is that he treated me differently because of my race. That, by definition, is racist. And it’s not acceptable, no matter against whom it is directed, or why the behavior is exercised. If someone is beat by his father, does that excuse him beating his children when he is grown? I would think not.
What you two are saying is that because my skin is the same color as someone who acted racist in the past, I am now supposed to lie down and take whatever any other race throws at me. That is an incredibly racist attitude, and you’re calling ME racist. My race was not my choice, any more than an African American’s was his, and I DESERVE equal treatment just as much as they do. If I get extra benefits in one area because of my race, that is wrong. If I get extra detriments in another area because of my race, that is also wrong. I want equality so much more than you two do, and I want it for everyone. You just aren’t able to see past your own dogma, and would support a whole new subjugation in order to make up for the subjugations of the past.
Cliff–I never watch Bill O’Reilly. I can’t stand the guy, and he takes what I’m trying to point out WAY too far. I’m just saying that equality is EQUALITY, not a transference of disadvantage from one group to a new one.
You might try pointing out HOW what I say is syllogistic. I could call you a blithering idiot, but it does little good unless I point out how–like by pointing out your inability at providing unbiased definitions of broad principles, such as “racism.” Oh wait, I’ve already done that. Guess it proves you’re a blithering idiot.
Joe–Tell what you just told me to a white person living in a predominantly black region of America who is picked on, looked down on, denied employment, and even beaten because of his race. Tell that to a white store cashier who is shot even after he gave up the till just because the robber wanted to take revenge for something the cashier never did (and, in many cases, his ancestors didn’t do, either).
Slavery is gone. Discrimination still exists, but it is used against all sides, male and female, black and white, young and old. It is imprudent to use the events of the past as the model for a modern time when the social paradigm has changed. Actually observing what happens today, the mistreatment of both majorities and minorities, can inform us. Don’t ignore one person’s wounds because he is of a common skin color. That is just as bad as ignoring a person’s wounds because he is of an uncommon skin color.
Here’s a syllogism for you, Cliff: A) Treating a person differently because of their skin color is discriminatory. B) Dwight has white skin. C) Treating Dwight differently because he has white skin is discriminatory.
You guys could try having compassion for EVERYONE, instead of merely those groups who it is most culturally and politically expedient to have compassion for. Don’t reserve your contempt only for poor behavior in the majority. You might remember that there are underrepresented individuals in majorities as well as overrepresented individuals in minorities.
Utah “progressives” are funny. It’s like they stuck their head in their butts 10 years ago and haven’t taken them back out yet to check the progress of their own movement.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 31st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
White American males are among the most privileged class of people in the history of the world. Didn’t we just see the American government hand over $30 billion dollars to bail out a bunch of white American male bankers from bankruptcy?
If there are any blacks who have worked themselves into that privileged banking status then it is for certain that there are some whites who feel they’ve been discriminated against because they perceive that a black has ‘been given’ the position that should have been reserved for them.
I have no time for whining white males who blame their failures on perceived advantages of blacks.
The cause of the white American male is very low on the unjust totem pole. With all the problems there are in the world it would be truly unseemly to be engaged in protest marches on behalf of white American males.
Joe Watts
April 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Dwight-Light,
That is the worse and most fallacious argument I’ve ever seen.
I al my years, I have never heard nor seen a white man make that argument and be taken seriously.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. And be careful whose word you do take.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Dwight, the very definition of racism precludes YOU. C’mon cliff that isn’t true, it shows in your writing that you hate white Dwight.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Please Glenn,
I don’t hate Dwight. What you’ve rightly detected however is my frustration with these insane right-wing arguments that are suddenly (last 4 years) being parroted by naive, sophomoric self-proclaimed experts.
Before Bush, not one ever tried to argue that affirmative action is racist, or Jefferson was a Christian therefore the Separation clause means the opposite.
Kids today are so over saturated with propaganda coming from the idiots that run the media, they don’t know the difference.
Its not my job to school these people. But I have earned the right to wave them off scornfully for putting self-interest above the integrity of getting educated before mouthing off about shit they know nothing about.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
This pithy statement is going to piss Dwight off, but I’ll bet he has a heck of a time giving a two and a half minute talk in Sunday school.
Paul Krugman is one of the smartest guys in American, and he keeps his articles short because he knows we’re in a hurry.
On the other hand, Bill Moyers is long winded, but his articles are always worth reading, however, he never repeats himself.
It’s a free country and blog however.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
That’s funny Cliff, you sound like Pat Buchanan!!
How have you earned the right? Not that you need earn it in this country. Free assembly means you can ignore anyone you choose.
Kids are indeed saturated with idiotic stuff, it knows all end of the political spectrum.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Joe–I don’t recall anyone asking for protest marches. Requesting equal treatment takes far less time than marching does, and places responsibility on individual humans instead of on institutions and governments.
Cliff–Wow. I must have done a great job if I wrote “the worse and most fallacious argument” [sic] you have ever seen. Thanks for the hyperbole.
I guess in all of MY years I must have more experience than you, because I HAVE seen a white man make that argument and be taken seriously. You don’t have to warn me not to take your word for it. If our discussions (if you can rightly call them that) have taught me anything, it’s to not take your word for anything.
You know, Cliff, just because something is new doesn’t mean that it’s false, nor does it mean that someone repeating it is “parroting” it. Equal rights was once a new concept, but that didn’t immediately make it false, nor its defenders naive. Either way, I’ve been discussing reverse discrimination in sex and race since I was in High School, before I even knew who Bill O’Reilly was. You say it’s only been the last 4 years? Well, that was more than 8 years ago when I was first discussing it, while Clinton was still in office. “Reverse discrimination” and “preferential treatment” have been being discussed and studied by politicos and social scientists for several decades now. It’s not a new concept, and has been being discussed since long before Bush was in office, and in more than one country.
I don’t think that this is a question of self-interest, so please don’t make it one, Cliff. I have never wanted to deny anyone protections because I wanted them for myself. I want equal protections for everyone. How many people must we treat in a racist manner, how badly, and for how long, before it can be called “racism?”
Larry–Actually, when I intentionally have a time or space limit, I do rather well. If we’re in a hurry, so much more to our detriment. I’m in a hurry, but I still take the time to read comments if I’m going to comment about them myself. You must know that repetition is a mode of emphasis. Information overload is used most commonly when the opposition is being bull-headed and just won’t even try to understand. Whatever the case, my comments are not articles, they are arguments. If I were limited, directed, or paid for my work, or if counterargument were not allowed, you would see a marked difference. As it is, I say what I feel is necessary to propel the aims of the discussion forward. Thank you for the critique. I’ll try to keep it in mind. Though, if my lengthiness really bothers you, I would recommend you not read my posts. After all, no one is forcing you to read them but yourself.
Here’s a thought: How would it be to have a DPCF: Disadvantaged Person College Fund? We already have it in certain forms, but we only address preexisting physical disadvantages. How nice it would be to provide aid to anyone who is significantly disadvantaged. Admittedly, most applicants would be minorities and women, and rightly so. But there would finally be support for the white southern hillbilly, and other people in specific circumstances. Such a program would spit in the face of prejudice in all of its forms.
Dwight Sheldon Adams