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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219If you use the N word in referring to those black folks without mentioning David Dukes and Timothy McVeigh and Christie Osborne
That's not an honest parallel. Simpson, Barry, Jefferon, Farrakhan, and Jefferson enjoy widespread support from the black community. That's what makes them worthy of note. It isn't that they are bad people who happen to be black. It is that they are bad people whose badness is excused by most black people, because they are black. There are isolated pockets in the United States where whites would react that way -- where a white man could murder a black couple and have his "not guilty" verdict celebrated -- but at the national level it just doesn't happen. It is a sign of something pathological in black America. That's what "Old Punk" was, in his ham-fisted and racially insensitive way, getting at.
but he is much too nerdy to have such a hot wife.
Well I agree but its mainly due to my superior techniques at....
Oh you mean Reynolds.....
Everyone agrees that calling blacks niggers is racist.
Not quite true. Many people consider White people calling Blacks nigger to be racist, but Black people can do it all they want and it supposedly has no meaning or effect.
You wouldn't get it, it's a Black thing cracker.......
Blogger downtownlad said, don't link in a passive aggressive way
ROFLMAO! That's the most ridiculous and funniest thing I've read in at least a week! Thanks!
Please post more stuff we can laugh at!
While I cannot concur that Glen Reynolds is a racist
And I cannot concur that Barack Obama is a racist just because of his association with Wright.
Synova, sorry if I misunderstood that post. It didn't make sense to me as written but I see now it was a complete Fen post. I thought you were summing the conversation.
Fen, you called the piece balanced and said the nig talk was balanced by positive talk. I'll call that a defense, you call it to-mah-to.
Good one, Trooper York.
Contrary to Reynolds' implication, he was not "savaged" by Greenwald in that post. In fact, in the original post, Reynolds was mentioned once. To provide insight into Instapunk's status in the blogosphere. That's it.
"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."
When did someone lie about that? And you followed it with a sentence that IS a lie? Have you EVER made a post that wasn't dishonest?
AlphaLib: Synova, Hoosier, Fen, Revenant
Hey! I didn't say it was okay to use the N-word, either. Why did AlphaLib leave me out?
AlphaLib: The only reason their names was on that list of "ni**ers" is because they are black. (emphasis changed)
You do know the difference between "necessary," and "sufficient," right? Because that's logic 101. You fail.
Fen: That wasn't outrage, it was exasperation, and it wasn't faux.
And it seems to me that the pearl necklaces making their appearance in this thread didn't emanate from me.
These accusations of racism are a smokescreen. Supporters of Obama [like Alpha] use them to avoid explaining why they support a racist for president.
Trooper, you Racist pig! Speaking for all nerds with hot wives, I repudiate your callous portrayal of us as being incapable of attracting mates of outstanding pulchritude.
Speaking for nerds everywhere I must say: Are we not men?
Trey
Rev, your point is sound, but mine was a mistake, not a dishonest act. I accept your point as a clarification, but please accept my post as an honest, though I now agree flawed, attempt to find a suitable parallel.
Trey
"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."
So... if you *do* mention David Duke and these others then you can post using the N-word without being racist?
Just trying to figure out the rules, here.
Hey, Trooper!
What happened to that Arnold kid? I remember he was...slightly irregular?
And I was saddened to hear poor Rosalee died of cancer. She was too young.
Synova wrote: "
So... if you *do* mention David Duke and these others then you can post using the N-word without being racist?"
Yes. Of course! If you take the word out of a racially segregated usage and apply it across race you have defacto used it without being racist.
That is quite elementary my dear Synova.
Trey
Rev, I have considered your point further, and now must disagree. The paralellism between the people described is sound, they are more or less tolerated by the cultures to whom they try to appeal.
Their message is the same, the reception varies by group.
What do you think?
Trey
I'm missing something. This whole thread is about a "racist rant" that the blogger refuses to name or to link to. Meanwhile, she linked to an Instapundit page, which also does not link to it. It would seem to me that if you don't want people to read something, and you don't want to be guilty of intellectual cowardice, you don't mention it in the first place.
Arnold changed his name and moved to Hollywood to write for the movies. I think he married Michelle Pfeiffer or Donna Dixon or Victoria Principal or someone like that. That's the ultimate nerd marrying up story.
It was a shame about Rosalee. Just goes to show you that you have to be careful about what you put in your body if you don't want it to come back to haunt you later.
Post a Comment