Good lord, these last couple weeks have hypersensitized people to race. I imagine that Glenn Greenwald thinks he's helping Barack Obama by finding obscure racism on a minor blog and making some leaps to pin it on a high-profile blogger so it might start to matter, but I don't think it helps Barack Obama. Greenwald doesn't seem to mind if he's unfair to Reynolds, but he's swinging wildly without thinking through whether it's even working for the benefit of Obama. I don't think it is. Forefronting race — which Obama's opponents did by making us listen to Jeremiah Wright — undercuts Obama's transcendent, unifying message.
This got me thinking about a smart essay Jonah Goldberg wrote back in 2000, rejecting the idea that Americans need to have an "honest dialogue" about race:
"Honest dialogue will not be easy at first. We will have to get past defensiveness and fear and political correctness and other barriers to honesty," warned president Clinton in 1997 launching his year-long conversation about pigment differences. "Emotions may be rubbed raw, but we must begin" (presumably this is just one of the many things Bill Clinton desires to have rubbed raw).Yeah, great... Bill Clinton. Who knew the form Bill Clinton's eagerness for rubbed-raw racial dialogue would take a decade later?
But guess what? Normal people everywhere tend not to discuss race, and I am not sure exactly why so many concerned liberals want to change that. After all, isn't the mantra to "get past our differences"? Well how are we going to do that if we are constantly harping on them... There are hundreds of black politicians who've made racial "conversations" their modus vivendi. There are many white politicians who've made their careers over their willingness to "discuss race frankly."...Think about it.
Meanwhile, Americans are dealing with racial tensions in an intelligent manner, which is to say ignoring them... [T]he average person realizes that if you want to get along with your fellow white or black man then you might want to discuss sports or the weather rather than longstanding racial grievances....
In America, most people have worked out a similar rule about racial conversations: Avoid them if you can, and keep them light and brief if you can't. Any honest conversation about race would have to include a vast number of things neither side wants to bring up. Of course, the assumption from people like Clinton — despite all his talk about moving past political correctness — is that white people need to hear how racist they are. Actually, that's not quite right. Clinton's assumption is that he is brave for telling race peddlers what they want to hear (and therefore deserves all the raw-rubbing he can get). But the assumption from his amen choir is that whites still need a good talking to. And many whites probably do. But no conversation can be one-way. At some point the view that most of the problems with the African-American community are cultural and cannot be remedied by more legislation will have to be aired. Are African-American leaders willing to listen to a full-venting of that perspective without screaming "racism" and storming out? I sincerely doubt it.
Anyway, to go back to the original topic, I'm not criticizing Reynolds for failing to see that the Happy-Easter thing he thought was nice was next to something that was completely nasty, but I think that if he had seen the racist post, he should not have linked to the nice Easter post. And this should highlight a larger problem with group blogging. I have seen a couple great solo blogs messed up by bringing in another blogger who did not carry on the first blogger's tone. Bloggers: Be careful who you blog with. Or be safe and blog alone.
Posts
219 comments:
1 – 200 of 219 Newer› Newest»I disagree that the Instapunk post is intended to be racist. I can see how it could be viewed that way by taking points out of context, but the author makes some good points.
I wish you would discuss those points, rather than dismiss them in their entirety because they seem racist.
I know! Bunch of hatin' people for a Sunday.
I think the Political Blogosphere needs a hug or something.
I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?
I love the favorite mantra of the left regarding anyone religious:
"They want to impose their values on the rest of us".
But it seems to me that it's always those on the left who want to do the one-sided educating and to enshrine their values into law:
1. Gun Control
2. Global Warming
3. Race "Relations"
As someone who lived in the South and Midwest in the 60's - and has been called a "nigger-lover" and "Jew-lover" because I didn't practice or espouse the same racist attitudes so many of my neighbors did - I don't feel that I need to be lectured to by the left about the state of race relations in America.
Jonah's right. Adults have figured it out already.
Thanks a lot for the reminder of our national racial dysfunction, Barack. You really screwed the pooch on this one.
"I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?"
The more appropriate way to phrase it is "Who are Glenn Greenwald?"
Yes, well, one of the things you forgot to mention--those of us who group blog with our adult children.
I've found that if I don't let them get in a few shots at their old man (or their employer) now and then, resentment and rage builds up and the next thing you know, a perfectly good dinner is ruined by someone storming off.
I have long advocated running racists out of the Republican Party. I have helped turn a few away. The problem is, where does one start? It's fairly pervasive. Plus, the so-called red states tend to vote for white people who will keep minorities in their place. What does one do then?
And that man-child Jonah Goldberg is wrong. The worst thing we could do is start listening to some out of date advice from a young man who clearly has glommed onto Republicanism without ever having actually worked in the private sector and made adequate amounts of money. Once Goldberg can show that he can hold his own working for a reputable firm somewhere, then I'll start to pay attention to him. Plenty of us inherit money--but what you do after that to build that wealth is important. He seems to be spending his on jeans with elastic waist bands.
"I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?"
Glen Greenwald is a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from his blog during the Censure hearings.
He used to live in Brazil and has many internet friends who will defend him and post on other people's blogs.
Any honest conversation about race would have to include a vast number of things neither side wants to bring up.
Honesty is essential. Forthcoming is overrated.
Norman, I've read some posts of yours on this blog that I thought were pretty loopy, but I have to say the last two paragraphs of your last post were spot-on. Racism is a problem in conservative circles, particularly in Red states (and before someone claims I'm Red state or Southern bashing, I'm a proud Texan, born and raised, so don't give me that nonsense), and while that does not mean that conservatism equals racism, an intellectually honest person has to face that unfortunate set of facts and not just scream out "Robert Byrd, Robert Byrd!" when such facts are pointed out. And if you have helped run out a few of those types from the GOP in your day, Norman, good on you.
Also, Jonah Goldberg is someone who just glommed onto GOP opinion journalism with no other life experience worth talking about, and he hasn't grown since. He might be good for a few Simpsons references, but Bill Buckley he ain't.
Roger said...
I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?
Typical far leftist who sees anyone to the right of Lenin as a racist and a hater.
“Normal people everywhere tend not to discuss race, and I am not sure exactly why so many concerned liberals want to change that.”
“Meanwhile, Americans are dealing with racial tensions in an intelligent manner, which is to say ignoring them... [T]he average person realizes that if you want to get along with your fellow white or black man then you might want to discuss sports or the weather rather than longstanding racial grievances....”
Exactly. The key words are intelligent and average people. Too many people have been indoctrinated- infected maybe a better word- with identity and personal politics that they cannot see the forest for the trees. Everything has to be a discussion on some “important” issue. We do not discuss race because for most of us normal people it is not important. We do not see black or white, we see people. People like us who want the same things. No more, no less. Just plain, ordinary, people. Americans.
Of course if we stop having all these discussions, the leftist haters will have nothing to blame all of their personal perceived problems on. They must have and need victims; of course the victims cannot be them.
My discussion on race; How about those Cubs?
From the "offending" blog post:
"We can have this conversation now -- should have this conversation now -- because African-Americans are on the verge of the greatest setback they've experienced since the election of Rutherford B. Hayes. You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone."
I don't think that the post on Instapunk was particularly racist either. HARSH. Oh, it was harsh.
But should we be honest?
I tend to agree with what you quoted from Jonah Goldberg... in fact I made this comment on QandO a few days ago...
"Pretending is how we get there, Scott. The *first* thing we need to do is pretend that everyone is equal. And then, when we’re doing that, we have to *behave* as if what we are pretending is true.
But if we aren’t allowed to pretend equality into being, to simply behave as if everyone is equal and live our daily lives with the expectation that people ought to be treated equally and to *expect* that everyone else is also participating in this consensus fiction. (Love that term... it says so much.) So we’re all on the same page *pretending* that what we want to be true is true.
And what happens then, is that when someone isn’t playing along, it stands out, and several hands reach out to slap that person up side the head and say, "Get with the program!"
What doesn’t work, is when there are a whole bunch of people who want to pretend the other direction. Who are invested in racism and the existence of racism. Who want to see it everywhere and interpret whatever happens in that racialist frame.
The reaction against Wright is proof that enough people, on a very basic level, understand that it doesn’t get BETTER to preach division and hostility. There is no healing in grievance. It just doesn’t work that way."
BUT... if we ARE going to talk about it, the post at Insta-Punk is what we have GOT to talk about.
Because this "black rage" idea, this "oh, we have to excuse the preaching of hostility and hatred because we have to excuse this old guy" the idea that black people CAN NOT be racist because they are not a member of the oppressor group which MUST AND UNAVOIDABLY remove ALL racism from the realm of behavior such that no matter how un-racist a white person is they are STILL a member of the oppressor group and there for ARE ALL RACIST, Ann Althouse, Glen Greenwald, EVERYONE who is white is part of that oppressor group.
If we're going to talk about this, this is what we need to talk about.
There is a limit to the self-flagellation that white people will do in the face of an utterly implacable judgment of racism based only on their color rather than on their beliefs or behavior.
Also, in the interests of intellectual consistency, and before someone points it out, yes, anti-white racism is a problem in some parts of the left in this country. The difference is, the people on the left who are like that are generally marginalized and don't count for much in numbers or political power, unlike their counterparts on some parts of the right. Being a minority in a minority will lead to that end result.
Had a Japanese friend. We drank beers and ran my chainsaw. (But not in that order.)
I never brought up what his father and uncles may or may not have done in in the 1930s and 1940s.
He never mentioned the U.S. Air Force.
We got along great.
Sometime between Martin Luther King and the point at which I became aware of the world, the "conversation" about race left the concept of color-blind humans and moved firmly on to unavoidable separation.
Separate experiences rather than universal human life. You're the wrong color you can never understand what it's like to be a minority. A man could never understand being a woman. If you were a "good" person you accepted this division. If you were a "bad" person you pretended that people were people just like you.
"The difference is, the people on the left who are like that are generally marginalized and don't count for much in numbers or political power,.."
Oh, really.
And this is why we're being told that expecting the marginalization of someone like Wright who supposedly represents the unspoken but prevalent black anger of blacks is not reasonable?
Unless, you know, you're arguing that whites on the left marginalize blacks...
Shorter Ann
Reynolds didn't do anything wrong, Bill Clinton is a racist, Jonah Goldberg wrote an unrelated essay about this in 2000!
There is an old joke that demonstrates the "discussion on race".
JFK sent Justice Goldberg to Viet Nam to give him an honest, objective, situation report on the war. After much protest about the separation of powers and all that, Justice Goldberg went.
There was a stop over in Taiwan. He attended one of those massive all night banquets reserved for visiting dignitaries. After much food and drink he found himself in a conversation with Chiang Kai Shek. During a lull in the conversation, he hauls off and hits Shek on the jaw, decking him. Goldberg looks down and says “that’s for Pearl Harbor”.
Chiang Kai Shek starts to get up, shakes his head, rubs his jaw and says “I’m Chinese. The Japanese attacked pearl Harbor.” Goldberg looks down on him and says “Chinese, Japanese, it’s all the same to me.” He helps Shek up and they have a few more drinks.
During a lull in the conversation, Shek hauls off and hits Goldberg right on the jaw, decking him. “That’s for the Titanic.” Goldberg just laid there for a few minutes. He looks up and says “an ice berg sunk the Titanic. Shek looks down at him. “Ice berg, Goldberg, it’s all the same to me.”
Synova, do you really think a guy like Wright has power comparable to, say, Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms did in their day, which wasn't long ago? And believe me, the political progeny of Thurmond and Helms are still alive and kicking, as well as some even more unsavory characters.
Obama has had to distance himself from Wright's comments (to the best he can without making himself look like a guy who would throw his spiritual mentor under the bus), which shows that Wright-style rhetoric doesn't get you very far on the left, and is the province of an extreme and generally politically impotent section of society. Also, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that others are saying (if I'm reading you correctly) that it's unreasonable to marginalize the likes of Wright. Obama himself has had to do that, as best he can. And hey, I'm willing to be honest here, one reason that Wright hasn't gotten even more flak on this is because lots of Democrats don't want to do something that might be seen as undermining Obama, even if they think Wright is a buffoon (like I do, and I'm willing to say that). In case you haven't noticed, this is an election year, and sometimes people do things in such years they wouldn't do in others.
It is good to know when I come to Althouse, the Althouse posts are done by Althouse and not faux posters! ("fauxsters"?) Good for brand integrity and brand loyalty!
100% Pure Althouse. Accept no substitutes.
I wasn't taking you to task, Ann. I was just bringing it up. Quit lying.
Happy Easter, all!
Because this "black rage" idea, this "oh, we have to excuse the preaching of hostility and hatred because we have to excuse this old guy" the idea that black people CAN NOT be racist because they are not a member of the oppressor group which MUST AND UNAVOIDABLY remove ALL racism from the realm of behavior such that no matter how un-racist a white person is they are STILL a member of the oppressor group and there for ARE ALL RACIST, Ann Althouse, Glen Greenwald, EVERYONE who is white is part of that oppressor group.
If we're going to talk about this, this is what we need to talk about.
There is a limit to the self-flagellation that white people will do in the face of an utterly implacable judgment of racism based only on their color rather than on their beliefs or behavior.
Nice post, Synova.
I came to the thread with the notion of writing that it is impossible to discuss "racism" or matters like "sexism", "gay bigotry", etc. because our society has not agreed on what is - objectively - acts or beliefs of racism - as separate from subjective racism - where anything can be construed as racist based on a persons political beliefs, creed..
Worse, we entered a "pomo" period where it is claimed that there is no such thing as truth, only how individuals and "identity groups" perceive the truth onto themselves.
To have a useful debate or dialogue - there has to first be general agreement on the definition - what is, what is not, what is the gray area of conflict that is to be deliberated on to see if agreement can move part or most of the contentious portion into "was is, what is not" under the definition agreed to. In this case racism.
We-are-not-even-close. In fact, we probably had more consensus and agreement 40 years ago than today before academics and identity group power-seekers and opportunistic lawyers, preachers all muddled things up for their advantage.
Same with other matters like rape. Ask 100 people what rape is and is not, in 1963, in a dozen different situations, and you would have societal consensus by 90-95 of the hundred in each of the dozen cases as to what fits and does not fit what rape is. Nowadays, the breakdown (quite deliberate and programmatically induced, BTW) would mean that 30-35% of society would have a consensus, but 60% has lost their clarity and critical thinking on the matter because of new claims and standards that some believe, others don't, others have imposed on them but dissent from.
You can't have a dialogue with people that believe as Synova alluded to. You cannot discuss race openly if your beliefs cause ONE person, let alone 10 out of 100 - to object and claim racial hurt or grievance - and you face harsh negative consequences professionally, socially, career-wise for "Giving Offense". Especially if your punishment is based on just pure "offense" to another person's subjective beliefs on the matter.
And Obama, steeped in beliefs of "Oppressor Race" black liberation theology and who calls his grandmother a racist for fearing a black thug at a bus stop - is unlikely to be the Great Racial Redeemer that will lead us to America once again having a rough consensus of what is racist, what is not. As was the case not too long ago. And certainly, Obama will not be the Messiah in showing us what is best defined as objective evidence of sexism, and what is best left out of that as merely subjective agenda rooted in identity politics, religion, etc.
For now, the safest thing is to avoid debate - while seeking to marginalize the power and ability to punish others who have claimed proprietorship of the race and gender cards to wield against their foes...
It seems to me that, at a bare minimum and even before you get to honest, it's necessary to be fair-minded, to at least be willing to fight fair.
I think a lot of what is missing in the whatever-it-is we (in the general sense) are having is fair-mindedness, and a willingness to fight fair.
I think what Glenn Greenwald just did is an example of that. And before someone jumps in to say it: OF COURSE, there are examples on the other side. There is, so to speak, "plenty of lack" to go around. A surfeit even.
Just my two cents, FWIW.
"Synova, do you really think a guy like Wright has power comparable..."
Well, I hope not.
But what we've (not just liberals) been told here this last week is that black America is angry. Black America, as a whole, represented by any number of black churches, is hostile and angry.
I never thought so before. It doesn't (and what does it mean that I've self-censored the words "spade" and "jive" this morning?) *go with* my experience of black people which is that they are open and friendly to me.
But this last week I've been told that they're lying.
This last week I've been told that black people put on a friendly face with whites and then all go to black churches at which racial hostility toward whites is common fare.
"I have seen a couple great solo blogs messed up by bringing in another blogger who did not carry on the first blogger's tone. Bloggers: Be careful who you blog with. Or be safe and blog alone."
I'm guessing this means the wedding is off.
Poor titus's rare little heart has got to be breaking right about now. Or is he the last to know? Shouldn't someone send him an email? A text at least.
And this reft house is that, the which he built,
Lamented Jack! and here his malt he pil'd,
Cautious in vain! these rats, that squeak so wild,
...
we probably had more consensus and agreement 40 years ago than today
You know, I don't think I agree with that, on a day-to-day basis, in everyday life in many ways, at least in terms of the broad-brush way you're stating it, Cedarford. I agree that there are certainly some issues in the large-corporation milieu in particularly, and especially--in many cases--college campuses. But in so many other settings, not so much. Could we be mistaking the volume of those whose experience, or perceived experience, whichever, is otherwise with the universality of the situation?
"If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? ...It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?"
Or be safe and blog alone.
Simile and the world similes with you.
Metaphor and you metaphor alone.
I wasn't taking you to task, Ann. I was just bringing it up. Quit lying.
Doyle, does it ever occur to you that people can have legimate different perceptions, which sort of precludes the "quit lying" statement made?
I am on record, as you surely know, Doyle, of not despising your online persona or your commenting in toto here, as so many other here appear to do (which I can also understand). I think you can be, when you want to be, a positive rather then negative counterweight in discussions (it does seem you want to less often, though).
But when you pull this sort of thing, it only serves to make it that much harder not just to rush right by your comments, even those with good points. Is it so much more important just to make fun of and/or insult Althouse?
Well, I'm sure you don't give a rat's ass about my observation or opinion, but there it is, anyhow.
Now, carry on.
I think more black people (or, more insipidly, "black folks", if you prefer) need to have a conversation with each other about race. I suggest starting with how deeply pathetic the concern about "acting white" is and how much damage the fear of that has led to.
And, adding that one reasonably safe place to debate matters is on the Internet.
Because it is one arena where PC has less power. Though we have the Altermans that want that PC power brought there in the form of "Gatekeepers", such as himself.
For now, with anonymity or at least the plausible denial that you are speaking seprately from your work or professional capacity - it cannot cause a grade-lowering, denial of tenure, have you trundled out of work in disgrace as your co-workers learn you have a week of mandatory "diversity classes" to help you "get it" and avoid "offending anyone".
In fact, if we are to retake America from relativism and achieve valid definitions of what is and is not racism, sexism, anti-semitism, what is "rape", etc., we need to establish other Safe Grounds Outside the Internet.
Where people can get together and work out America's race, sex, and religious problems and dysfunctions free of oppressive silencing of opinion.
What are the gray areas of honest difference that exist outside an extremist fringe that DOES need considerable debate and forging of consensus. Or, at least a working compromise to embrace or reject some or all of the controversial matter into societally accepted working definitions "Yes, in this circumstance it is racist...No, it is unreasonable to define 3 days later regret and self-disgust as construing you were raped..."
"Yes, it is racist to give blacks longer jail terms than Asians for the same crime. No, it is not racist for people to object to placing an all-minority, high-crime housing project in their nice, great schools neighborhood because the concern is rational based on the adverse impact of the housing project on the lives of others. So the real problem is the bad behaviors in the housing project population that need fixing, not fixing the attitude of neighbors to "embrace" the effects of those bad behaviors."
Universities might be a logical place for "Safe Ground", but they are now amongst the least open and receptive places for such debates.
C4 is spot on. We can't have an honest discussion about race because of PCBS.
Could we be mistaking the volume of those whose experience, or perceived experience, whichever, is otherwise with the universality of the situation?
That "with"should be "within"--and it probably would have been helpful had I italicized "universality" and added the words "in everyday" after "situation."
All remarks regarding race are complete nonsense. Similarly, all absolutes are entirely fallacious. <-- 100% of fact.
Wright's claim that Jesus was black, and I'm sure that plays well in his corner of the world, in fact I've seen pictures and little statues that support the idea, reminded me of a woman I worked with who insisted Cleopatra was black. The subject came up because I asked her to pose, she's beautiful and possesses (man, that word has a lot of S's) a remarkable profile, perfect for the art I was doing at the time. I didn't have the heart to dash it all by explaining the Ptolomy line being Greek. It ran counter to my objective. Rather, just skip it and let them have their wrongness. For Wright and for the woman I knew, as a practical matter, whatever works.
The entire race divide could be fixed in a day, by blacks.
Just let blacks take up a nationwide collection for poor whites.
That very day they'd discover the dignity that was felt was being withheld.
Whites weren't the ones withholding it.
Oh, can't, can't, can't, can't, can't. More CANT (no missing apostrophe there), I say.
Now that the discussion is moving along, your uncle Norman will now explain what's what--
You bet I'm right about eliminating racism from the Republican Party.
We are a brand. We give people something to vote FOR not something to vote AGAINST or as a last resort. We MUST eliminate racism from our party.
Why? Demographics.
Only a fool would look at how this country is changing and then alienate the entire minority population that identifies with the Hispanic culture. Mr. Texas mentions his home state--do you know that the Tejano vote is slipping away? Yes, and if you don't know who identifies themselves as a Tejano, you don't know squat about politics.
This bloodletting is long overdue. I can tolerate the God people, I can tolerate the people who are pro life, but I cannot countenance the racists. They drive our brand into the toilet. And if you have a shred of maturity, you'd all figure out that as we fix our brand, the liberals will continue throwing their own in the toilet.
We cannot win by waiting for them to self-destruct. We MUST win every election, every cycle, and we must not allow anyone to drive the brand into disrepute.
MC--
Then there's the one about the American who goes to Asia, meets an Asian guy, and asks, "What kind of -ese are you? Chinese, Japanese, or Javanese?
Asian guy says, "I dunno. What kind of -key are you? Donkey, monkey, or Yankee?"
Greenwald inspired me to make a sock puppet. I sewed the eye buttons on by hand, and the hair is made from yarn. I whip it out at restaurants when little kids are bouncing on the other side of the booth, which can be most annoying. I make the puppet demand a French fry, or a taco, then act like I'm the disciplinarian to the puppet. It has yet to calm down any kids, but it helps diffuse a potential scene. And it's fun. Their parents appreciate the kid-friendly distraction.
"Mr. Texas mentions his home state--do you know that the Tejano vote is slipping away? Yes, and if you don't know who identifies themselves as a Tejano, you don't know squat about politics."
Uh, yeah I know lots of people who identify as Tejano. Starting with my family, which settled here in Texas when it was a Spanish colony and have been here ever since. Though I prefer the term Hispanic or Latino, because Tejano makes a lot of people think of bad music with accordions and guys in overly flamboyant cowboy hats. But your point is correct on the demographic front, especially here in Texas.
One thing, however. You say you "tolerate" the God people and the pro-lifers. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they tolerate you, given their greater power in the GOP vs. cultural libertarians (which I am assuming you are)?
Chip,
Thats a lot of work to get a free french fry, I just steal 'em off other people's plates (when they're not looking)
I think that Reverend Wright is wrong not to notice that the north under Lincoln sacrificed 350,000 white lives to save the black folks from slavery.
I wonder why Michelle Obama isn't proud of that?
Slavery had been an accepted fact clear back to the Old Testament, and yet -- whites -- mostly abolitionists (Baptists!), finished it off.
It didn't end all the race hatred of course. It intensified it in fact in some ways since now the furniture was free to vote, and even run for president, but basically, I think that the picture isn't totally black and white in any or either direction, and preachers ought to try to give a better story instead of playing to the racism of their communities.
This is what Jesus himself did when he told the story of The Good Samaritan. To recap: the Samaritans were hated because they had simplified some of the Jewish laws. But Jesus found something nice that one of them had done, and he concentrated on that.
We should all be doing THAT on a Sunday. It might not fire up the fires of hellfire and damnation, but there is another side to Sunday which is about seeing the good in others, and singing uplifting songs of hope.
At any rate, that's the song that Cosby is singing, and I really think that's a good number, and truly is a healing thing.
Barack should get Cosby on his team, or even get him for vice president!
I like the InstaPundit blog. I like reading Reynolds' takes, and I also like how helpful the site is in finding other items elsewhere.
But are we really supposed to be so naive as to think that when InstaPundit just happens to link to a specific blog for a "nice Easter item" that he's not doing more than just linking to a nice Easter item? Nice Easter items can be found all over the place; it's Instapunk he wants to promote. InstaPundit is a very political blog with a political agenda behind a majority of its content. It's also a very powerful blog, and one of the purposes of the blog is to bring readership to other blogs that InstaPundit likes (which often means: blogs that serve his agenda).
When I see InstaPundit repeatedly linking to a smaller blog for things such as a nice Easter item, I generally take that as Instapundit wanting to ensure that that specific blog develops more readership in general. He wants you to stop by there and have a look around, maybe place it in your fave links. He's also giving the blog a pat on the back.
"smart essay Jonah Goldberg wrote"
An oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one.
But are we really supposed to be so naive as to think that when InstaPundit just happens to link to a specific blog for a "nice Easter item" that he's not doing more than just linking to a nice Easter item?
Nope. we're supposed to be looking for dark and sinister motives behind every action anyone ever takes....especially wingnuts and Christianists.
/sarcasm
"An oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one."
I notice you provide no examples to back up your statement. To difficult?
I think that Reverend Wright is wrong not to notice that the north under Lincoln sacrificed 350,000 white lives to save the black folks from slavery.
Is that why they fought however? My g-g-grandfather was in the Cavalry, and his diaries and letters suggest that he went to preserve the Union, and because his country asked him to, not to end slavery per se. Still, you can't deny that by fighting (and being crippled for life -- 40 more years of pain), he fought to end slavery.
When I see InstaPundit repeatedly linking to a smaller blog for things such as a nice Easter item, I generally take that as Instapundit wanting to ensure that that specific blog develops more readership in general. He wants you to stop by there and have a look around, maybe place it in your fave links. He's also giving the blog a pat on the back.
Especially when it's done over a course of several months, which is 20 years in blogging time.
Blogger Norman Rogers said "And that man-child Jonah Goldberg is wrong...Once Goldberg can show that he can hold his own working for a reputable firm somewhere, then I'll start to pay attention to him... He seems to be spending his on jeans with elastic waist bands."
When man-child Rogers can show he can make a point without an irrelevant personal remark more suited to junior high school, then I'll consider paying attention to him.
somefeller said...
One thing, however. You say you "tolerate" the God people and the
pro-lifers. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they tolerate you,
given their greater power in the GOP vs. cultural libertarians (which I
am assuming you are)?
somefeller: "Norman Rogers" is an obvious made-up character, meant to be a stalking horse and ultimately to mock the readership of this this and perhaps other blogs. He is from the same person or persons who brought you "Maxine Weiss" and "Luckyoldson." It may seem worthwhile to engage in dialog with this entity, but, in point of fact, "he" is not anything like a real person, but yet another attempt, over the long course of things, to mock the readership and troll the Althouse blog.
You are wasting perfectly good electrons engaging with this entity. And, believe me, from the quality of your comments, you have some good electrons to share.
Roaring' Norman has been around for awhile at other blogs, though his appearance here is more recent. For example, he's been at Drum's and Drezner's.
You know, there are all sorts of made-up characters, some of whom are worthwhile, and some of whom are toxic.
In the former category you've got "Sir Archy" and "blogging cockroach," obvious comic characters, but at least occasionally amusing and sometimes worthwhile ones.
Then you have "Trooper York," a real person who works at being very funny, and, frankly, often hilarious. He frequently slows down conversations that need to be slowed down, and provides much needed lubrication to the overall discussion.
There are also people like "tituswhateverhisnameistoday," who, while fairly grotesque, and who may ultimately have unclear motives, are at least amusing at the moment, if you have a taste for that sort of thing.
But reserved for one of the circles of Hell are the artificial toxic characters, such as "Norman Rogers," whose ultimate purpose is mockery.
Do not read and do not respond to this entity. It is indeed a troll.
If you want some background on trolls, check this out. Its content is a little dated, oriented as it is toward Usenet days, but you can still find surprising and perhaps valuable insight about dealing with the various strange things you might encounter in the blogosphere.
Chuck wrote: "I suggest starting with how deeply pathetic the concern about "acting white" is and how much damage the fear of that has led to."
Acting white, you mean like using standard English, or making good grades in High School, or getting and staying married, or waiting to have children when you can afford them?
These are choices that the poor eschew regardless of race. It is not acting white, it is acting in a manner that leads to economic and social success. I see your point, but I work with enough poor families to see the same exact attitudes in poor white folks as well.
Trey
I thought that Greenwald's strongest point -- which is brought up in update II -- is this idea that people are called upon to distance themselves from statements made by others in their minority group. I.e. Russert asking Obama and Powell to address statements made by Belafonte, though there isn't anything other than their skin color that links Obama or Powell to Belefonte.
Greenwald asks about the rules regarding such guilt by association. If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement by Hagee in similar fashion?
Inspector appears here infrequently and when he does, he claims so and so is a sock puppet or faker.
I find that very interesting Inspector or should I call you....
Heh.
Instapundit knew that post was there and that was the only reason he even linked. As if he really gave a shit about that lame Easter post. Yeah right. He wanted people to find that post underneath, which Reynolds does not even think is racist (same as others on this thread). Fine. But don't link in a passive aggressive way and then act all SHOCKED SHOCKED that someone called you out on it.
He frequently does the same with the most vile anti-gay posts. And when someone like Sullivan calls him out, Reynolds will claim that a link does not equal an endorsement. But we know where his true feelings lie.
Sure we do, because he doesn't favor gay marriage or have black relatives or anything like that. /sarcasm
So... what do you think of the (not) linked post, DTL?
Do you think we need to have a dialog about race, or should we maintain an overall accepting demeanor on the theory that acting something out will bring about the reality of it?
If you feel we need a dialog, are those having it allowed to actually have a dialog?
downtownlad said...
The same old same old eveyone hates gays except him. Everyone os homophobic. Everyone is a racist homophobe. The whole world hates gays. Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah.
This guy is a hater. He hates everyone including the guygal he looks at in the mirror every morning.
It is ironic that Obama's claim to magical racial healing powers has led to uncovering a heretofore hidden aspect of black America, a modern John Birch Society of black racists.
What Democrats need is a Bill Buckley to throw these folks out of the party as unacceptable to good people.
I'm with Goldberg. I don't want or need a goddamned 'conversation', which is simply another way of saying that I need a good talkin' to because, even if I never think racist thoughts or say racist things or do anything racist at all ever, I am a racist by virtue of my race.
I am shocked, actually surprised by the hatred these many Chicago churchgoers have for me. And it makes me feel further separated from them; alienated even. I get they idea they want me destroyed, for how else can their resentments be satisfied, except by being rid of me? No other atonement seems sufficient.
Anyway, I have been mulling over these events in the past few days, saddened and disgusted by it all. Yet I had a good Easter brunch with my daughter home from college, and her boyfriend with her, a nice and studious young man. He is black and my daughter thinks nothing of it because, among other things, my brother married a black woman, and she knows us.
So these recent revelations about this secret church-based animus has made me die a little, and I do not know what could undo it. Obama has told us he is drinking poison, and he sees nothing at all wrong with it, except for the pieces that are obviously unacceptable to white America, but those are out of context. Or something. In any event, it's my fault for being offended.
I now think we are in fact far worse off about race than I had thought possible a mere few weeks ago, but not for the reasons Obama suggests. And it makes me want to say to hell with any further efforts.
Linking to an Easter post is just linking to an Easter post. Greenwald and the rest of you leftwingnut nutroots should just get a brain.
Middle Class Guy, have you been channeling Carlos Mancia?
How about... "If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement" by his pastor... who is not Hagee.
Hm?
Still, if it were just this I think more people would actually be willing to give Obama a pass but it's not just this. It's this on top of Michelle not being proud of America, of being unable to find anything to be proud of America for (and her life looks pretty dang privileged to my "how can I ever afford the State U" perspective) and Barak's refusal to put his hand on his heart for the National Anthem.
That offended a lot of people. So now they're saying, well, this explains a lot.
And before The Speech when Obama was still either claiming he hadn't heard Wright's offensive statements or was excusing him because he was old and about to retire... well now he's on record as condemning Wright in strong and clear terms but his NEW pastor is already going on with more of the same while pretending that all us racists are upset about the social outreach of the church. How dare we criticize Wright for trying to help the community?
Is the new, not about to retire, pastor still his pastor?
Can we talk about race? Should we?
Or maybe we should talk about faith, doctrine and the Christian church?
"There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]
dtl, do you not realize that when you link to a post when you scroll down you don't see the next post. You'd have to click to the home page and then scroll down, and people rarely do that. It's not a practical way to point to the other post.
"So these recent revelations about this secret church-based animus has made me die a little, and I do not know what could undo it."
You can't take responsibility for other people. You can only take responsibility for yourself.
That's what I always tell my kids and I'm sure you already know that.
Can anything undo it?
Maybe knowing that your daughter's boyfriend obviously isn't among those, that maybe he's actually in the majority. Maybe we can have faith in people even when there doesn't seem to be a reason.
If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement by Hagee in similar fashion?
Because its not equivalent. Hagee is to McCain as the New Black Panthers are to Obama. Wright is on a different level because, unlike Hagee, he has been Obama's spiritual influence for the last 20 years.
Ask Hagee... I'll bet he'll insist that God loves the children of the whore of Babylon every bit as much as God loves the children of the Protestant reformation. I'll bet he'll insist that Jesus gave his blood to save them and would have died to save just one.
Another guy who says racist stuff hardly distinguishable from what Instapunk says:
Chris Rock On Racism
synova: You can't take responsibility for other people. You can only take responsibility for yourself.
What's your reason for quoting Cone in your 11:39 comment, if not to suggest that somehow, Obama has to answer for what Cone wrote?
Sure, I'll agree that Hagee-McCain is not a decent parallel for Wright-Obama, but I'm asking that there be some sort of generally applied principle in these things. Does McCain have to attend a church for 20 years, with the same pastor for those 20 years, for there to be equivalency?
Could you explain why Russert feels the need to ask Obama and Powell about ridiculous statements made by another black man?
While we have a government that continues to make really stupid decisions, like this, I really don't give a damn what Wright said, or what Glen Reynolds links to, or what is under or above something that Glen Reynolds links to.
Why quote Cone?
I don't think Obama should have to refute Cone... I think Wright should.
What strikes me most about the Cone quote, and the other quotes I've read from that book is that the "Christian" doctrine in them sucks.
Frankly, Jesus Christ lived in a time when his people were oppressed and many of them looked to the Messiah as a promise of worldly deliverance. So, you know, Jesus Christ directly addressed what the proper response was. There are scriptures that apply.
Nor is the notion of group identity compatible with New Testament Christian faith... even the Catholics are over that and the Protestant Reformation was fundamentally (ha!) about an affirmation of the sainthood of the believer, affirming an absolute individual spiritual authority and efficacy.
If we don't want to talk about race... maybe we should talk about Christian doctrine.
Peter, I agree. Freaking paper pushers.
I hope and trust that someone *will* intervene for those people.
There are benefits of solo blogging, and I continue to write a solo blog, but I've also found that being part of a team is a wonderful experience when it is clear that the divergence of viewpoints is in fact one of the strengths of the blog.
I've been part of the blogging team at Cold Hearted Truth for about a year now, and right now the main posters are myself and one other liberal, a couple fo hard core conservatives (including one with the label 'proud neo-con' which says it all,) the founder of the blog who is an independent leaning Republican (or maybe he's a Republican leaning independent), and our 'horse-race' specialist, 'Indy voter' who is officially an independent but does a great job handicapping polls and keeping us up to date on that aspect of politics. What I like is that we complement each other very well, and we are well aware of each others' viewpoints. I know that some of the other posters will put up posts I don't happen to agree with (no racist rants though-- the founder of the blog is a little picky about who he invites) but then they put them up under their name so it is clear whose opinion it is.
I've found both ways to be a stimulating way to blog.
Hey, Peter. Thanks for linking to that. I didn't get a chance to look at WaPo today. I also forwarded the link to Callimachus, who, as I think you know, as addressed this topic of Iraqi translators & etc. a number of times before.
Eli: I haven't seen that one (probably because it's not in your blogger profile--on account of, of course, it not being a blogspot blog). I've put it in feed and will check it out for a few days.
"I'm not criticizing Reynolds for failing to see that the Happy-Easter thing he thought was nice was next to something that was completely nasty, but I think that if he had seen the racist post, he should not have linked to the nice Easter post."
The point here doesn't jibe with what follows. If one blogger on a blog has a great post, it's not necessarily endorsing the views of another hate blogger below, HAVING LOOKED AT THE OFFENDING POST OR NOT.
Are your risking your Insty blog privileges here, or does your entry here just serve the goal of plausible deniability.
Interesting post, on any case.
American Power
"Norman" is a "Moby".
Eli, reader's right: You should put that in your profile.
M. Simon--thanks for posting that Chris Rock vid. I read part of the offending post on InstaPunk (and if punks can't be offensive, who can?) and knew it sounded familiar.
Is every one equal?
That durn Michael Jordan beat me out of a basketball career.
And that Einstein stole all my best ideas.
And I could manage GE as well as Jack Welch. Don't I deserve the big bucks too?
Just to get a little closer to home. I have read the Constitution. Why does that Althouse deserve a professorship and not me?
I have been robbed of my due I tell you. I blame it on American bigotry.
What we need is real equality - not the sham stuff we have now. This hidden bigotry has got to stop.
peter hoh,
Statute of limitations. If you are living according to your current precepts for at least 5 years your past should be forgiven.
So if Obama had taken his kids out of the spew factory 5 years ago he gets a pass.
The fact that he passed up on Easter Services this year hardly counts.
Synova, do you really think a guy like Wright has power comparable to, say, Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms did in their day, which wasn't long ago?
Depends on who is listening to him.
I'm glad Obama didn't throw his racist minister under the bus. It shows he is an honorable man.
The fact that Obama listed to this spew for twenty years shows that very likely he is an honorable closet racist.
I mean really - honorable racist are hard to find. We need more of them in government and Obama will lead the way.
Does any body know of a more despised minority than racists?
Why isn't there an Equal Opportunity Program for them?
blake,
Honored to be of service.
If you follow the link from Instapundit, all you see is the Easter post. In order to see the "racist" post (which isn't any more racist than a typical Chris Rock routine) you need to go to the blog directly rather than following the link.
So yeah, bashing Reynolds for linking to Instapunk is all sorts of stupid. But hey, its Greenwald -- what do you expect?
yes, anti-white racism is a problem in some parts of the left in this country. The difference is, the people on the left who are like that are generally marginalized and don't count for much in numbers or political power, unlike their counterparts on some parts of the right
But the vast majority of left-wingers enthusiastically support both racial discrimination against white people and the formal classification of people by race for purposes of allotting benefits. You just tell yourselves that isn't the same thing as being racist. In reality, of course, it is a textbook example of racism. It is exactly what the color quotas of the Jim Crow era did; only the races are different.
I realize that Ann. But if you like a certain blog entry, you are often likely to go back to the home page and read more. At least that's what I do. And Glenn was reading the entire blog, which is how he found the post he linked to. The funny thing is that most on the right don't even consider that blog post to be racist - it's expressing what they really think. They really do think Obama is a nigger, and now they've successfully convinced most of America that this is indeed the case. The Democratic Party should just accept the fact that most Americans will never vote for a black President and nominate Hillary. Sure Obama might surprise us - but I doubt it.
I also continue to gain respect for the Republicans every day. At least in terms of politics. They managed to take Kerry's greatest strength - his heroic war bio - and then lie and use it against him, despite the fact that George W. Bush was a draft dodger. Now they're doing the same with Obama - take his greatest strength (a racial unifier) and then convince Americans that Obama is a racist. And McCain will manage to do that by using racist stereotypes against Obama.
Amazing
Amazing
Whats amazing is being able to live in a parallel universe where what you said is actually true.
At some point the view that most of the problems with the African-American community are cultural and cannot be remedied by more legislation will have to be aired.
That view is either racist or simply ignorant.
Most of the persistent problems in the African-American community can be traced to wealth. Blacks that descend from plantation slavery, as a group, are poor because of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and because the liberal attempts to remedy those problems only exacerbated them (the Great Society), where they were not half-assed (desegregation) or interrupted by actual racism (Andrew Jackson). The comparative success of whites, as a group, cannot be attributed to culture, but rather to affirmative action for whites regarding land and education (Homesteading Act, GI Bill, racially restrictive covenants, white-only unions and guilds for lucrative professions).
What "culture" has to do with anything is rather hard to understand as anything but a put-down, as it suggests blacks fail because of innate weaknesses. That's like crippling someone and claiming it's his own fault he can't run.
Perhaps people have a right to their opinions, but they don't have a right to their own facts, even if those facts relate to the history of this country.
It is exactly what the color quotas of the Jim Crow era did; only the races are different.
And let's not disturb any of those ill-gotten gains. That would be immoral.
"Mine eyes have seen the glory...
"As he died to make men holy let us die (in the original) to make men free...
So yeah it had nothing to do with slavery.
Howe (correct sp) about that.
What "culture" has to do with anything is rather hard to understand as anything but a put-down...
Actually it's quite simple. But let's have Thomas Sowell, the economist David Mamet recently described as "our greatest contemporary philosopher", and also a black man, explain:
"We have seen how cultural handicaps have followed Eastern Europeans as they immigrated overseas, leading to lower levels of income than among immigrants from Western Europe who settled in the same places, whether North America or Australia. If Africans had immigrated voluntarily to the Western Hemisphere, instead of in bondage, is there any reason to believe that their earnings would have achieved an equality that the Slavic immigrants failed to achieve?
..
Perhaps the strongest case against the predominance of discrimination as an explanation of economic disparities would be a comparison of blacks in Haiti with blacks in the United States. Since Haiti became independent two centuries ago, Haitian blacks should be the most prosperous blacks in the hemisphere and American blacks the poorest, if discrimination is the overwhelming factor, but in fact the direct opposite is the case. It is Haitians who are the poorest and American blacks who are the most prosperous in the hemisphere-- and in the world.
...The fact that discrimination deserves moral condemnation does not automatically make it causally crucial. Whether it is or is not in a given time and place is an empirical question, not a foregone conclusion. A confusion of morality with causation may be politically convenient but that does not make the two things one."
It is Haitians who are the poorest and American blacks who are the most prosperous in the hemisphere-- and in the world.
Sowell here is correct that Haiti is poorer than the United States. But he omits that Haitian-Americans are more prosperous than American blacks. He omits this fact because it destroys his simplistic argument about culture and reveals a much more complex pehnomenon that involves racial status in social dynamics, including the law and history, that cannot be reduced to culture, as if all black people are intrinsically spearchuckers.
as if all black people are
My God, but you are offensive sometimes.
Sowell here is correct that Haiti is poorer than the United States. But he omits...
Then you misunderstand his point. And culture is not genetic, you numbskull. He never ever uses the phrase "all blacks" to describe anything.
You are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous, did not read Sowell's speech at the link, or you are trolling. Or all three.
Norman Rogers & somefeller,
Your ad hominem attacks on Jonah Goldberg way up in this thread are so egregiously beside the point that I couldn't wait to scroll to the bottom of the thread to call you on it.
Goldberg's comments, as quoted by Althouse, are cogent and well articulated. If you have some relevant, substantive objection to what was quoted, that might be interesting.
What you did post does not serve that purpose. The thread is about race relations. It is not about the Republican Party, Jonah Goldberg's background, or what kind of jeans he wears.
Norman Rogers appears to be a Moby. Hell, maybe he is Moby.
Sorry Dude, ain't gonna buy your new album.
downtownlad said...
They managed to take Kerry's greatest strength - his heroic war bio
And what about the lies he told under oath to the Senate when he came home? John Kerry’s greatest strength is his money, his wife’s money, his ego and his ability to distort the truth.
downtownlad said...
Now they're doing the same with Obama - take his greatest strength (a racial unifier) and then convince Americans that Obama is a racist. And McCain will manage to do that by using racist stereotypes against Obama.
You mean just like the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is doing?
Another great Instapunk post: Stairs!
I find it amusing that we're supposed to have an "Open and frank" dialog on race, when its impossible for anyone to give an frank opinion without being labeled "racist".
Outside of the "N" word, what was so toxic, hateful, and racist about the post? Yes, some of it was stupid and offensive. Certainly, the use of the "N" word was unnecessary as was the silly grumpy old man routine about young blacks with their loud music and long shorts.
But the overall point is valid. Many whites under 50 are tired of the constant black whining and demands for special favors and money. We're tired of hearing about slavery (dead for 140 years) and Segregation (dead for 40 years). And its not just whites. None of my Asian friends wants to hear about this stuff.
None of my Asian friends wants to hear about this stuff.
None of my honorary white friends want to hear about their privileged status, either.
The Left tends to be misunderstood. Leftist/communist/socialist/liberal-progressive/Democratic doctrine inherently requires the presence of an underclass. That underclass, in this country at this time, happens to be "Black" - a useful political category and not a race.
The underclass is useful only so long as it remains under the soft control of its Leftist masters. Ensuring its dependency on the dole is one means of effecting this. Denigrating personal responsibility, hard work and accumulation of wealth is another.
This isn't racism per se. It's something much nastier and more insidious. And it includes accusations of racism directed at the Right while quietly working to ensure the underclass remains the underclass through various high-sounding laws and policies.
So all the loudly-protesting Lefty boys and girls aren't racists, really. They are something worse, because their worldview will never tolerate true equality for all.
And culture is not genetic, you numbskull.
Then I'm not sure why you'd lump together groups on a genetic basis to analyze culture, or why you'd compare American blacks to Haitians without comparing American blacks to Haitian-Americans. It should be rather clear that "black culture" does not include all black people or only black people, and so "black culture" isn't black culture, as there is no such thing. It should further be clear that "culture" is just a word for collective behavior, and the collective that engages in the disfavored behavior encompases an ethnically diverse group of people. Sowell is just wrong. And so are you.
They are something worse, because their worldview will never tolerate true equality for all.
This is correct. But it is also my criticism of Sowell, by the way.
"They really do think Obama is a nigger"
Surely you have a poll to back that up? No? So it's safe to assume you're just making shit up.
"None of my honorary white friends want to hear about their privileged status, either."
I will ask yet again: where do I go to cash in on this "privileged status?" And I'm being dead serious. If I'm missing out on some advantage that I'm supposed to have, I'd like to rectify that immediately.
P. Rich,
I agree. The left doesn't care about blacks or poor people per se. Its all just a stick to beat the real enemy, the dreaded "bourgeoise". Its not that they love black folks, its that they hate White America.
If the blacks disappeared tomorrow, the lefties would be still jabbering about racism. And if we didn't have any minorities, it would be back to class warfare.
For example, no matter how pro-gay society becomes "DTL" will never stop whining about how AmeriKKKa "hates" gays.
Most of the persistent problems in the African-American community can be traced to wealth. Blacks that descend from plantation slavery, as a group, are poor because of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow
Just out of curiosity, at what point does blaming one's poor position in society start becoming an individual responsibility rather than due to an institution that had been abolished around the mid-19th century?
The fact that Obama is where he is today is not due to his being black but due to getting an education and not dropping out of school or knocking up his girlfriend at age 16 or deciding he'd rather be a gangbanger than a lawyer.
Stay in school, don't do drugs, don't be a mommy or daddy at 16 and if you can manage all that, you're 90% of the way to success. If you can't manage even that, then you're a loser cause that's about as easy as it gets.
None of my honorary white friends want to hear about their privileged status, either
Mort, I'm white like Wonder Bread and guess what, my privileged white status didn't get me out of taking out thousands of dollars in student loans to go to college. My privileged white status didn't land me a cushy office job when I got out of school and worked for five years at US Steel doing furnance maintenance for $10/per hour. I didn't whine that it wasn't fair that I had to take a shit job when I spent four years getting a college degree.
Its the 21st century Mort and black people in this country have as much opportunity as anyone else. It does take work, effort and sacrifice but it can be done.
"What's your reason for quoting Cone in your 11:39 comment, if not to suggest that somehow, Obama has to answer for what Cone wrote?"
Why would you care what David Cone had to say about anything? I mean I know he had a thing for black guys ever since Doc Gooden gang banged his girlfriend and it was all over the Daily News, but that's old news man. Let it go.
and worked for five years at US Steel doing furnance maintenance for $10/per hour. I didn't whine that it wasn't fair that I had to take a shit job when I spent four years getting a college degree.
Wow. That is so much worse than slavery.
I will ask yet again: where do I go to cash in on this "privileged status?"
Are you an honorary white person?
Wow. That is so much worse than slavery.
Actually it wasn't. Then again, no black people living today suffered under slavery either.
Care to comment on the actual substance of the post or would that require some actual critical thinking on your part and you're simply not up to the task.
"the collective [culture] that engages in the disfavored behavior encompases an ethnically diverse group of people
No. There are ethnically diverse peoples who share the same inability to rise out of poverty, precisely because of shared cultural traits. Some are black, others Eastern European, still others certain white subcultures. Poverty is largely cultural.
It is you who misreads Sowell as saing "all blacks", a mistake you persist in for your own reasons.
It's really quite simple, Ann. Glenn Reynolds sent web traffic, a commodity you clearly and openly value in your own demands to have links, to someone who was clearly racist.
Because the post is right below one to which Reynolds linked, Glenn Reynolds was clearly supporting a racist. Rather than admit the embarrassing mistake you and Reynolds attack Greenwald.
Let's look at some of the comments that escaped Reynolds' notice:
"On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it?"
"Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers."
"black people will know what I mean when I demand they concede that the following people are niggers:
- Jeremiah Wright
- O.J. Simpson
- Marion Barry
- Alan Iverson
- William Jefferson
- Louis Farrakhan"
But no criticism for Reynolds, he who showers traffic upon Althouse. Ann won't bite the hand that sends that traffic, even when her co-benefactors are open racists.
Because the post is right below one to which Reynolds linked, Glenn Reynolds was clearly supporting a racist.
Project much?
Of course, David Cone would have no trouble with the Met's now a days since Omar Minaya has gotten rid of all the black guys.
There are ethnically diverse peoples who share the same inability to rise out of poverty, precisely because of shared cultural traits.
This means either:
1. What you insist on calling "culture" is just "inability to rise out of poverty".
2. There are ethnically diverse peoples who share the same culture, which would seem to contradict the sense in which you use the term culture.
Either way, your defintion of culture does not work.
Care to comment on the actual substance of the post or would that require some actual critical thinking on your part
What substance? I just saw a white guy whining about how he had to pay to go to college. I'm not a socialist, and I don't think college should be free. So boo-fucking-hoo.
What substance? I just saw a white guy whining about how he had to pay to go to college. I'm not a socialist, and I don't think college should be free. So boo-fucking-hoo.
Oh dear. Ok I'll type slow for you.
See you seem to think that white folk are all privileged and by virture of our race are just handed stuff. I was merely trying to set the record straight with you that I actually had to endure some financial hardships to get a college education.
But according to you it would appear black people in America can't escape poverty because they're still slaves.
Of course your average racist Met fan like Doyle won't comment on dumping a guy with a lot of potential like Lastings Milledge just because he made a rap record and was demonstrative on the field. It's part of a long series of humiliations the Mets put on the black man, from the Cleon Jones press conference, to the treatment of Darryl and Doc to the dumping of Kevin Mitchell. It's tough being a black man on the Metropolitan's plantation.
See you seem to think that white folk are all privileged and by virture of our race are just handed stuff.
I never said that. And I think you're supposed to pay for college, so I'm not sure why you think that entitles you to whine.
black people in America can't escape poverty because they're still slaves
Spoken like a Marxist!
The guy I really feel sorry for is Willie Randolph. I mean he has to take the rap for the Met's failures as a figurehead. He is the means that they use to deflect criticism of the wicked wicked ways of Omar and Freddie Coupon. But just wait, if they get off to a slow start, the whispering campaign will start. They will be smart enough not to say that he lacks the "necessities" or the "skill sets" but you will know it when they throw him under the bus. (If there is any room there, cause I think Obama's grandmother is already taking up a lot of space)
And I think you're supposed to pay for college, so I'm not sure why you think that entitles you to whine.
See we agree. I think you're supposed to pay for college too. I'm not certain why you think I was whining about it.
I also think you're supposed to stay in high school get good grades and graduate, not get pregnant, not do drugs and not join a gang. I'm not sure why a failure to do those simple things entitles you to blame it all on the 140 year defunct institution of slavery.
Spoken like a Marxist!
Which one? Grouchy, Harpo or Chico?
I also think you're supposed to stay in high school get good grades and graduate, not get pregnant, not do drugs and not join a gang.
I'm not sure why you think only black people do these things or why you think all black people do these things.
I'm not certain why you think I was whining about it.
Because you were whining about it, and complaining about it as a white guy, as if only white guys have to pay for college. You aren't entitled to college, even if you are a white guy. Certainly not on black taxpayer dollars.
"I didn't whine that it wasn't fair that I had to take a shit job when I spent four years getting a college degree."
Mort: Wow. That is so much worse than slavery
Very stupid response Mort. You have no idea what his background is. His ancestors may have been indentured servants, share-croppers, or almost exterminated [Trail of Tears].
Everyone has been victimized in some form or fashion, most in ways that equal or exceed the sin of slavery. Quit whining and get over it.
I'm not sure why you think only black people do these things or why you think all black people do these things.
I don't. See you think that the reason for black poverty is the legacy of slavery. Well maybe in say 1898 yes, in 2008 no.
Because you were whining about it, and complaining about it as a white guy,
Well evidently you have a reading comprehension problem. I suppose if I had said my privileged white status didn't get me out of taking out thousands of dollars in student loans to go to college and I didn't like it cause it wasn't fair and I had to pay it all back WITH INTEREST!!!!! while Tyrone Washington went to college for free cause he was a better basketball player and I was stuck with loans because no one offered a chess scholarship..... Then you could say it was whining.
But I think you just like being disingenuous.
His ancestors may have been indentured servants, share-croppers, or almost exterminated [Trail of Tears].
Nothing that bad. Just typical Poles who defied the dumb sterotype by being smart enough to get out of Poland before Hitler and Stalin used it as a punching bag.
and I didn't like it cause it wasn't fair and I had to pay it all back WITH INTEREST!!!!! while Tyrone Washington went to college for free cause he was a better basketball player and I was stuck with loans because no one offered a chess scholarship..... Then you could say it was whining.
Tyrone Washington. LOL.
Classic.
Okay, perhaps that is whining and you are not. But there are a whole lot of people who rant thusly.
See you think that the reason for black poverty is the legacy of slavery.
No. Whichever one of my posts above should make clear I think it is a combination of things, most importantly affirmative action for whites and meddlesome white liberals with their harmful social programs.
okay, Mort, so why don't you be clear?
What form does "white privilege" take for Hoosier Daddy or for my father or my brother?
I don't want any generalized "group" privilege either... I want to know what form privilege takes for MY father and MY brother.
If my father had chosen a high powered career that would have pleased his mother-in-law would he NOT have had to ignore his family's needs? Would he not have had to work "twice as hard"? Would he not have had to have a driven personality? Would he not have had to wear the right clothes, socialize with the right people, and have a trim wife who could throw a dinner party?
If my brother had desired to attend an Ivy League school, which he's smart enough to do by all means, would he not have had to work twice as hard? Would he not have had to be "better" than everyone else? Would he not have had to be at least twice as good and work twice as hard as *everyone* in order to get scholarships and entrance to a place dominated by legacy admissions and family money? Would he not have had to learn a different set of social rules in order to interact with a different social class?
How is that any different than say... Michelle Obama?
Other than not having the right to whine about having to work twice as hard and be twice as good, I mean.
Tyrone Washington. LOL.
Classic.
I actually went to school with a guy named Tyrone Washington but he played football. I don't think he got a scholarship though.
Ha! This is exactly what I was talking about!
You ignoramouses have played into the hands of liberals by trying to answer their race baiting with more race baiting.
The smart people would just ignore them and talk economics, policy, and security.
Every time Obama talks about race, you as conservatives come back with, well, what does that mean for people who want jobs? And stop thinking it has to be a slice of the electorate that you have to address because--ugh! You should talk to the American people and not specifically speak to a minority. It makes my brain hurt to say this, but you don't engage in playing identity politics with people who have the upper hand because they come from the side of the tracks where all the bad stuff happened.
White people will NEVER get to complain about anything in this country. To do so is to look pathetic. Pick your chin up off your chest and be proud to be an American and you will ALWAYS win a debate with a liberal.
Think I'm kidding? Think I'm joking? Fine. But I did not invest over forty years of my life working to make Republicans palpable to the American people just to go out like this. Too much is at stake.
STOP thinking you can engage liberals on race matters. One cannot play that game on their court. So what do you do? You take your head out of your ass and start telling people that conservatism is not dead, we let the free markets decide who gets what, and we offer more freedom and opportunity because we don't reward failure.
I have watched my party reward failure, and it sickens me. Failure should be punished and shunned. Success is all that matters. Find a way to make success the key to everything you do and stop talking about race. It makes you look stupid. Talk about how rewarding success can make everybody have a better life and you can win with that.
Really, you sad sacks--a black man got something you didn't get? Oh, too bad. Did it derail your life and is that why you're now a failure? Oh, poor baby.
A real man would have shrugged it off and gone back into the battle twice as hard to win. A real man deals with adversity and gets back up off the mat. A real man congratulates the fellow who won but secretly plans to win the next time by playing twice as hard.
A Republican cannot--will not--win in a debate with them on race.
Other than not having the right to whine about having to work twice as hard and be twice as good, I mean.
Well, you must have the right, because your last post was a whinefest.
Ha! This is exactly what I was talking about! You ignoramouses have played into the hands of liberals by trying to answer their race baiting with more race baiting.
Please don't tell me that mentioning the name of a person I went to high school with is race baiting.
Please don't tell me that mentioning the name of a person I went to high school with is race baiting.
I didn't get that, either.
Norman says:
You ignoramouses have played into the hands of liberals by trying to answer their race baiting with more race baiting.
Hey, Norman. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck there's a high probability these people are actually racist.
I don't think all conservatives are racist, maybe most though.
Here are more racist posts from Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. "Instapundit:"
Link
Glenn Reynolds = Racist.
Ann Althouse = Fan and enabler of a racist. She reflexively defends the racist and attacks his critics. Maybe he'll send more web traffic her way.
palpable: "Capable of being handled, touched, or felt"
Well, if you've been doing THAT for 40 years, Roarin' Normy, King Moby of the Beast, I don't know quite what to say. What profession have you been claiming again?
Not that "palatable" (appetizing, tasty, savory all refer to tastes or aromas pleasing to the palate and in some cases to the olfactory nerves) doesn't spark some amusing imagery as well, mind you.
But I think you just like being disingenuous.
Nah, you're just saying that because he always is. :)
Well, Mort, I'm confused.
Because what you seem to be saying is that anyone is supposed to expect to have to do what they, in fact, would have to do to succeed.
And you didn't even attempt to explain where white privilege comes in to it for anyone. How hard can that be, Mort? You've been telling us that whites need to accept that they are privileged and, well, explaining what it takes to get ahead is *whining*... so...
Simple thing to do, or it should be for you... explain how white privilege applies to the individuals; Hoosier Daddy, and my Father and brother.
AlphaLiberal, calling people racist doesn't make it so.
But it's good to see that any *discussion* of racism or how people genuinely react is enough to get labeled a racist.
I'm all for just pretending racism out of existence... we all just keep our mouths shut and a smile on our faces and call it good but I'm told that white people NEED to hear how they're all privileged and stuff. That this is REALLY IMPORTANT.
But it seems we're not supposed to disagree or *converse* or explain our points of view or how we feel about any of it... we're just supposed to accept the judgment of our betters and shut the f*ck up.
So "moral high ground" is standing around making lofty statements about how racist everyone is.
Yay for you.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck there's a high probability these people are actually racist.
I thought it would make a high probability that we were ducks.
Or are you saying ducks are racist?
Reynolds, as far as I can tell, and Ann as well, made the mistake of taking the automatic moral high ground and condemning the "completely nasty" post because it had the "N" word in it (or because they didn't actually read it at all?)
AL, you tell me...
N-word aside (because it's more acceptable to say cunt in this world) what do these people have in common?
- Jeremiah Wright
(agitator of racial hostility)
- O.J. Simpson
(physically abusive and murderer)
- Marion Barry
(Druggie and scoff-law)
- Alan Iverson
(the only one I don't recognize)
- William Jefferson
(cold-cash)
- Louis Farrakhan"
(how does one describe him?)
Wright is defended and O.J. is cheered, Barry is reelected, Jefferson is still in office and, well, Farrakhan is almost the exception because some people will condemn him, even if he is getting an award from Wright.
Did you READ the terribly offensive horrible no-good very-bad post?
Did you?
I went to high school with a guy named Freddy Washington who was great ballplayer but washed out of St. Johns. So he eventually opened a strip club called the "Boom Boom Room." But he lost his shirt. Now it's Club Kahula. Small world.
The time has come for our national conversation on race. Everyone ready? Here we go:
People who discriminate against others on the basis of their race should stop doing that. It isn't smart, it isn't helpful, and it isn't right.
This concludes our national conversation on race. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
Why are you all arguing with AlphaLiberal? You know he never discusses anything honestly. Just ignore him. It isn't like there's any danger of him being taken seriously.
Synova,
What about your mother?
Alan Iverson
(the only one I don't recognize)
Alan Iverson is an exceptional and exceptionally well-known basketball player. Perhaps you dislike the persons on the list, but there's no reason to hurl racist epithets. You can simply condemn their behavior without perpetuating racism. Unless, of course, you think calling a black person a nigger is your privilege as a white man.
Perhaps you dislike the persons on the list, but there's no reason to hurl racist epithets. You can simply condemn their behavior without perpetuating racism.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless, of course, you think calling a black person a nigger is your privilege as a white man.
Or he thinks white men should enjoy the same n-world privileges that black men do. :)
Or he thinks white men should enjoy the same n-world privileges that black men do.
On principle, no doubt.
Ugh.
You guys are working hard to do what Obama's speech and much of the official pundit class could not, at least with regards to me.
Good job!
To leave no doubt: That was sarcastic, and not a compliment.
Synova, I read about 1/2 of it. The post was long and life was short.
The other thing those people have in common is that they are black. I suspect that's why they were included in a list of "niggers" from your conservative friend.
Please, defend that some more.
Oops. Life is short. Sorry, I'm not dead yet!
"What about your mother?"
My mother and I, by virtue of our vaginas, are officially members of an oppressed class.
I will assume that you are not able to describe any artifact of "white privilege" because it doesn't exist for individuals but only exists as some nebulous abstract.
Now out of all of us, Epstein is the most successful. He became a lawyer and then a judge. And it looks like he is going to get appointed to the New York State Court of Appeals. The first puerto-rican jew to be so named and the most famous one this side of Jerry Rivers. Only in America. Take that you dirty racists.
In other words, AL, you got the vapours and didn't bother to read past what gave you enough fuel for your outrageous moral superiority.
The horrible terrible no-good very-bad post used the N-word pretty much exactly the same way as Chris Rock was using it in that You-Tube clip.
Probably Chris Rock shouldn't do it either.
In the spirit of criticizing without using offensive language, what those people listed have in common isn't their race, it's the fact that they are piss-poor role models and examples and ought to be ostracized... and *aren't*.
And if someone reacts to young men who see "gangster" as a fashion statement as if they were gangsters... well that's what a "typical white person" does?
I know you're right, Rev, and AL isn't going to discuss this in an honest way, Mort either for that matter. There is only one "right" answer and any suggestion that we ought to have a conversation about race is at heart a lie.
I like yours and fully concur.
"People who discriminate against others on the basis of their race should stop doing that. It isn't smart, it isn't helpful, and it isn't right."
"This concludes our national conversation on race. There's nothing more that needs to be said."
AlphaLiberal: Here are more racist posts from Glenn Reynolds
Calling the right to bear arms a civil right is racist?
Geez. I can't believe I wasted 3 paragraphs on you in the Clinton thread...
"In the spirit of criticizing without using offensive language, what those people listed have in common isn't their race, it's the fact that they are piss-poor role models and examples and ought to be ostracized... and *aren't*."
So there are no white people who are "...are piss-poor role models and examples and ought to be ostracized... and *aren't*."
This is a real dumb line of reasoning, that the reason a list of black people are called n****rs isn't because they're black. It's because they're bad role models.
But no white people who are bad role models could be found.
If you can't see the racism there, maybe you need to check yourself.
fen, sometimes I wonder if you're not entirely honest.
The post didn't refer to the 2nd Amendment. It referred to a "habitual redefining of the term civil rights."
And, I agree, it's the weakest example. The others are better examples.
The horrible terrible no-good very-bad post used the N-word pretty much exactly the same way as Chris Rock was using it in that You-Tube clip.
Also note that those who are so offended by it routinely use its sister-slur "redneck" when referring to whites.
[Ann], I wish you would discuss those points, rather than dismiss them in their entirety because they seem racist.
I retract that request. You are wise to avoid any conversation about race. The perpetually indignant will accuse you of racism and have you fired.
Alpha: The post didn't refer to the 2nd Amendment. It referred to a "habitual redefining of the term civil rights."
The post Glenn linked to:
"It ain't a done deal until signed by the Governor, of course, but the Georgia House is hard at work invigorating the 2nd Amendment:
Blue Texan [at your link] believes that calling that "another civil rights victory" is racist.
fen, sometimes I wonder if you're not entirely honest.
Alpha, your entire link is intellectually dishonest. By your own standard that you apply to me, that makes you a "liar"...
[...]
"Two examples of civil rights found in the US but rarely (if ever) elsewhere are the right to bear arms (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) and the right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights
I guess Wiki is also guilty of "redefining" civil rights. Bad Racist Wiki! Bad!
Alpha: But no white people who are bad role models could be found.
Silly complaint. The author is explaining his view of black people, not white people. So why include them?
The balance you are looking for is provided: he also listed good black role models that impress him.
Wow!
The stupid burns like acid on the skin.
Palpable--evident and obvious to the American people as a viable alternative to liberalism.
Willfully stupid aside, every time you people play the race card, and those of you who are white and have this fetish for being able to type out the "n" word should just bring up an MS Word window and type it a few hundred times just to get it out of your system, you lose.
You lose, big time. The American voter won't accept you, beyond the 49-49 calculus that has us fighting to win the last 2 percent of the vote. Oh, sure. Use the "n" word. You're guaranteed 33% will vote for you. And you'll lose every election.
Idiots.
My mother and I, by virtue of our vaginas, are officially gatekeepers of one of the white male privileges.
I hadn't actually thought of that as one of them, but now that you mention it, I suppose that could be plausible given the bans on interracial marriage that lasted until the late Sixties.
I think that's about the limit, Mort.
Well, technically speaking, South Carolina didn't remove its interracial marriage ban from the books until 1998, and Alabama until 2000. (It might have been an oversight in later years, but it's hard not to believe it wasn't a symbolic "message" in earlier ones.) Don't know exactly when removal took place for the other 14 states that were still enforcing them at the time of the 1967 Supreme Court decision.
Just think! As late as 1967, 17 states (Maryland gave it up before the ruling) still banned interracial marriage. Absent the court ruling, I wonder how long it would have been before the states made the decision themselves?
You know Judy Borden also became very successful. She and her partner are both high up in the Clinton campaign and they have adopted three beautiful little chinese babies. Mazel Tov
Remember, "An open and honest discussion about ________" translates into "You need to just agree with us".
fen defends the use of the word n****r to portray black people:
Silly complaint. The author is explaining his view of black people, not white people. So why include them?
The author, linked to and promoted by Glenn Reynolds, is listing black people he considers to be n*****s.
Calling black people n*****s is racist. A simple concept, yet here are a bunch of conservatives arguing against the point. Yikes!
(And, agreed, it's dumb for Chris Rock or anyone else to use the term, regardless of skin color, IMNSHO. You want white people to stop using the term? Then stop using the term).
(And, fen, I don't have a strong opinion of the 2nd amendment as a civil right debate. Leave me out of it).
'Remember, "An open and honest discussion about ________" translates into "You need to just agree with us".'
This is a real false characterization of disagreements, with no basis in reality. But when people start calling blacks "ni**ers," you bet there will be objections and that speaker will be called racist.
I still believe what Glenn Greenwald did was unfair. I said that yesterday, and I stand by it today.
But I agree with the rest of your 4:53 comment, Alpha Liberal.
And, agreed, it's dumb for Chris Rock or anyone else to use the term, regardless of skin color,
So let me get this straight. It's dumb when Chris Rock or other black people say the N-word but racist when crackers say it.
Oh, that's BS, AL. Fen defended the *failure to include white piss-poor role models* because the balance was met by including admirable black role models.
But that's okay, no one expects you to argue honestly, specially as you're one of the very few that can actually stand to type the word out and put it in print.
Fen said it was "silly" to complain about a writer making a list of black people and referring to them as ni**ers.
IOW, making a list of black people you call ni**ers is okay. The only thing wrong would be to complain about the list or criticize the writer. That is wrong in the conservative mind!
You guys would rather make fools of yourselves than criticize a conservative. Mission Accomplished!
So let me get this straight. It's dumb when Chris Rock or other black people say the N-word but racist when crackers say it.
It's inherently racist to use the term ni**er no matter who uses it. OK? (Just kind of weird to call an African American racist that way... Kind of hard to criticize people over self-hate.)
No try to work up as much anger over racism as you do over liberals and blacks decrying racism.
Thanks, iam.
Here's the whole post. Point out to me where Fen said it was silly to complain about the N-word.
Alpha: But no white people who are bad role models could be found.
Fen: Silly complaint. The author is explaining his view of black people, not white people. So why include them?
Fen: The balance you are looking for is provided: he also listed good black role models that impress him.
Synova,Synova. You selectively omitted this comment from my original post:
"This is a real dumb line of reasoning, that the reason a list of black people are called n****rs isn't because they're black. It's because they're bad role models."
The only reason their names was on that list of "ni**ers" is because they are black.
Got it? Can I possibly make it any simpler for you? A post "What I think of black people," even without calling some ni**ers is racist*.
You're actually arguing calling black people ni**ers is not racist!!!
* - "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
It's dumb when Chris Rock or other black people say the N-word but racist when crackers say it.
I wouldn't use the word "crackers," but yes.
The fact is that the poster could have avoided a lot of this simply by choosing to use the phrase "piss-poor role models," or something like it. But the fact is: he didn't. Instead, he chose to employ an historically loaded word which was used for decades and decades and decades pejoratively to paint members of the black race as ALL bad actors, or at least potentially bad actors, not be trusted and to be viewed as inferior.
Synova, Hoosier, Fen, Revenant--you can dance around all day around and into next year if you want, but nothing, absolutely nothing is going to change that, the history of that word and the poster's deliberate choice to use it as against other options for making his point.
Talk about piss-poor. Not to mention blind.
What I think of black people," even without calling some ni**ers is racist*.
That, on the other hand, is broad and goes too far.
p.s. Synova, you were not truthful when you said this:
"Here's the whole post."
Because you, then, selectively omitted a key part of my original post in the sub-thread. You might want to step back from the keyboard and ask yourself. "Why am I lying to support and defend racist statements?"
Just a suggestion.
And now I have to go pick up the guys from the airport.
And maybe pick up something for a cocktail. God knows I could use a drink.
Hey, I'm not reading Fen's mind or anything but I figure if the "key" parts of your original post were quoted that the "key" parts weren't what was being responded to.
It's not that difficult. You can assume anything you like about what was *really* meant, but there is only what was actually quoted and actually responded to.
If the "key" parts *weren't* quoted.
I reposted Fen's entire post that you claimed had something to do with the N-word.
Did you check out the Chris Rock video? I don't think he's particularly funny but his audience seems to think he's saying something either funny or relevant.
Synova, Hoosier, Fen, Revenant--you can dance around all day around and into next year if you want, but nothing, absolutely nothing is going to change that, the history of that word and the poster's deliberate choice to use it as against other options for making his point.
I think it was a stupid word choice on "Old Punk"'s part because he should have known it would eliminate all possibility of anyone discussing his argument on its merits. But the notion that his use of the word automatically makes him a racist is just silly, for the reasons I noted earlier -- and of course the notion that linking to an unrelated post by a different person on the same blog as a person who called OJ Simpson a "n****r" makes Glenn Reynolds a racist sails well past "silly" and lands somewhere in the the Bizzaro World.
But I do stand by my earlier comments about black people using the word. Use of a racial slur isn't excused by membership in the race in question. For a black man to call another black man a "n****r" would be acceptable if and only if the word was recognized as having value other than as a racial slur, and I don't think we're there yet.
That's why I sneered at Morty's "white man's privilege" comment. Almost all of the uses of that racial slur are by members of the group *being* slurred. Having a cow on those rare occasions when a white guy uses it (assuming that "Old Punk" is white) is absurd. He's not the one training black kids to see members of their own race through the lens of bigotry.
I suppose some might say that the white guy's use of the term is worse because of past use by white racists. But that argument only makes sense if you believe in collective racial guilt -- which is, itself, a racist belief. That "Old Punk" shares similar levels of melanin will Bull Connor doesn't mean he should be judged as if he was Bull Connor.
It's inherently racist to use the term ni**er no matter who uses it. OK?
Ok.
I wouldn't use the word "crackers," but yes.
Well honkey is just so 1970s.
Synova, Hoosier, Fen, Revenant--you can dance around all day around and into next year if you want
I don't know about the others but I don't recall any posts where I was defending the use of the word.
I think AlphaLib is quite correct in calling the N word post racist because it was just referring to blacks. That to me is obvious on the face of the post.
While I cannot concur that Glen Reynolds is a racist, as that goes against my understanding of the man and his principles, I agree with AlphaLiberals statement about the post being racist.
If you use the N word in referring to those black folks without mentioning David Dukes and Timothy McVeigh and Christie Osborne (chained her MR child to the bed and starved him) and others of that ilk, you are posting a racist post.
That seems academic to me. AlphaLiberal and I part company after that, but we agree on that point, and we agree easily.
Trey
Alpha: fen defends the use of the word n****r to portray black people:
Thats a lie. I've never defended the use of "nigger" to portray blacks.
Alpha: Fen said it was "silly" to complain about a writer making a list of black people and referring to them as ni**ers.
Another lie, obvious to anyone who read my comment. I said it was silly to demand a list of white people as some kind of balance.
AlphaLiberal credibility: NONE
Synova, Hoosier, Fen, Revenant--you can dance around all day around and into next year if you want, but nothing, absolutely nothing is going to change that, the history of that word and the poster's deliberate choice to use it as against other options for making his point. Talk about piss-poor. Not to mention blind.
Blind? Dancing around? Everyone agrees that calling blacks niggers is racist.
So could you possibly get past your pearl clutching faux outrage and address some of the points the author made?
While I cannot concur that Glen Reynolds is a racist
Well considering I've seen some commenters saying Reynolds supports genocide so calling him a racist isn't much of a stretch.
I don't think he is racist, but he is much too nerdy to have such a hot wife.
Post a Comment