A sarcastic question, by Freeman Hunt, in the comments
to last night's post, which was about
a Jeffrey Toobin piece in The New Yorker that savaged Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for not speaking during oral argument. "Thomas is simply not doing his job," Toobin wrote. I had highlighted the racial issue like this:
If the politics were reversed — and Thomas were liberal and Toobin conservative — I doubt if Toobin would have exposed himself to the risk of accusations of racism.
Freeman went on a much harsher attack, asking the question above, then, a few minutes later, posting this (with quote marks around what is her version of what Toobin seems to be saying):
"Why don't that lazy black man put on a show for me? You git to performin' now, ya hear!"
And this in The New Yorker!
And:
Somebody send Toobin a white suit, a cane, and a hankie.
If he doesn't have them already.
And (beginning with another paraphrase in quotes):
"A-leanin' back in a fancy chair like he's somethin'! You tell that boy to sit up straight and look them white men in they eyes."
Is that what his editor had to craft into what is now the piece we read here?
Here's the material from the actual Toobin piece, as published in The New Yorker, that provoked that paraphrase:
In his first years on the Court, Thomas would rock forward, whisper comments about the lawyers to his neighbors Breyer and Kennedy, and generally look like he was acknowledging where he was. These days, Thomas only reclines; his leather chair is pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every schoolteacher knows this look. It’s called "not paying attention."
Schoolteacher? The editor didn't even take the trouble to expunge every
tell.
Posts
275 comments:
1 – 200 of 275 Newer› Newest»Did it not occur to the editors that it could very well be that "These days, Thomas only reclines; his leather chair is pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every schoolteacher knows this look. It’s called "contemplating the history of slavery and 400 years of oppression?"
The comments at the New Yorker piece are equally disgusting. I was going to chime in, but those people are gone.
Where's Crack? Dance for me bitch, dance!
"When you was slaves, you sang like birds. Come on! Let's hear a good, old nigger work song!" - Lyle, in Blazing Saddles
Crack bait.
I followed the link and I concur that the segregationists of yesteryear used the term "boy" as a sign of disrespect.
Still.
When I read Crack's diatribes, when I see Juan Williams and various black celebrities and Congressmen assert that the only reason anyone dislikes Obama's policies in general and ObamaCare in particular is rampant racism, and the thought that crosses my mind is that Black adults really do think like children.
Phil 3:14 said...
Crack bait.
Althouse has gone the full Cracker.
I'm so glad Obama fixed America's race problems. What an excellent choice he turned out to be for all our troubles: the economy, healthcare, and our wildest dreams came true.
This is what happened when you voted for Obama. Shit, Toobin's just doing his job as another Democratic operative with a byline. His racisms don't count.
What'd you think was going to happen?
Very entertaining. Maybe the article really IS deeply racist and the author is a big fat racist!!!!
Anyway, I wonder why the author of the article or anyone else cares what Thomas or any of them do during these proceedings. Pretty much always obvious how they're going to vote anyway.
Toobin is a mediocre writer, a weak analyst, and a foul human being.
One can easily find and read Thomas's reasons for asking no questions. This is defamatory. And racist, in the classic sense.
Obama tried to get the FCC into newsrooms to police their content, just like any tinpot banana republic dictator.
Get it?
Toobin's is just doing his job as directed.
By Obama.
Pissing on Toobin's is like getting mad at a hotel clerk who won't let you smoke in the parking lot.
It's easier than laying blame correctly, and still makes you feel good. So hey, why not?
Until even that isn't allowed, may as well. Of course then you'll genuflect to Toobin or whoever replAces him.
As will I, if I want to keep my job.
Because that's what is required of us, when we vote for dictators.
You've sussed out Toobin's war on blacks.
It's not so much racist as stupid.
Derbyshire is racist for good reasons, that is, he could be talked out of it by arguing about the reasons. His evidence is due to the effect of liberals, which he only has to take into account, and fails to.
Toobin is more concerned with keeping blacks on his side, preventing a breakout against that same liberal effect.
So I think he's evil, but not necessarily racist.
He sees blacks might leave plainly enough.
Toobin must be a racist to pen that hit piece with a total disregard for the truth. He actually asserts that the Justices questioning lawyers IS the day in court that litigants are owed and Thomas is refusing to give them.
Saying that about an appellate level only by certiorari Court is total nonsense.
I see that whole article as a veiled threat to the liberal wing who think for themselves. You too can be slandered by the Ministry of Truth apparatchiks.
Toobin is the unofficial matriarch of a thriving community of intellectuals who enjoy wearing their hugely swollen heads inserted firmly in their own asses.
Accusing someone of staring at the ceiling is code for calling them a subhuman mongrel.
Toobin is obviously not aware that punishing black students out of proportion to all punishments is a federal crime. Or is meant to be one.
I was a witness in a civil suit with an 80+ yr old judge presiding. The plaintiff's presentation took about 3 hours and the judge appeared to be bored and sleeping during the testimony. (There was no jury.)
Then the plaintiff rested, and the defense asked for dismissal of the case. The judge then spent about 20 minutes giving a complete summary of the plaintiff's case.
so, appearances can be deceiving.
"Derbyshire is racist for good reasons, that is, he could be talked out of it by arguing about the reasons."
Derbyshire, for those who don; read him and know about him, is not racist. He is honest, which is almost as bad these days. His wife is Chinese and his kids that he was advising how to avoid being harmed by young black hoodlums are eurasian. Anyone who lives in a icy knows those rules informally but knows it is not allowed to publicly mention them.
I now read NRO less and have begun to read Taki's magazine instead. You might do the same and learn something.
"lives in a city…"
The eternal "Who's Racist?" discussion.
100 Billion Served!
Big Mike,
"When I read Crack's diatribes,...that the only reason anyone dislikes Obama's policies in general and ObamaCare in particular is rampant racism, and the thought that crosses my mind is that Black adults really do think like children."
Yesterday, here, I was being told whites deserved credit for freeing blacks from slavery. That's, of course, obviously impossible - logic (and nothing more) would tell you nobody works as hard to free a man as the man himself. But, somehow, whites still haven't figured that out.
But, now, I'm supposed to accept that you have a better reading on the Obama situation than we do?
Puh-leaze.
When whites begin to really question what they believe, then I'll accept they're not racists,...
Did I mention that UW – Madison supports, in fact leads, a program to have the government monitor the news media. Unless they watch FOX or listen to Limbaugh who would be able to tell if the government censor the news? How would the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR look and sound if Team Obama just took them over?
Derbyshire, for those who don; read him and know about him, is not racist. He is honest, which is almost as bad these days.
He's a dictionary racist, that is, believes there are genetic differences.
No ill will is involved, more disappointment.
My position, which he could probably be argued into, is that IQ hardly matters compared to chip on the shoulder and compared to cultural economic organization, for US blacks and African blacks respectively.
The organized crime and pay off political enemies in proportion to their access to violence government is stable and turns up all over the world.
The spectacular boost of open markets and property rights in producing stuff is a Western discovery, and it's continuously undiscovered by Marxism even today.
So anyway Derb is interpreting his data wrong, but is a classical racist.
How would the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR look and sound if Team Obama just took them over?
It would be just another normal day, since they long ago willingly surrendered their content to the Obama administration.
Said a woman named after a really tender steak:
"This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens,"
Orwell could not have said it better.
Brought to you by Team Obama and those good profs at UW - Madison.
Michael K,
"Derbyshire, for those who don; read him and know about him, is not racist."
Wow - a surgeon from my home state, who supports a racist, because the surgeon can't identify a racist unless it's a black one because (let's be "honest" like Derb) scapegoats are all whites are truly looking for - Wow.
How white supremacy works is so fucking wild,...
Toobin: Hold it! Hold it! What the hell is that shit?! I meant a song! A real song! Something like [singing] "Swing low, sweet chariot"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5WV-cELBB4
Thomas: Well, to tell the family secret, my grandmother was Dutch.
"Derbyshire is racist for good reasons, that is, he could be talked out of it by arguing about the reasons..."
No, John Derbyshire is racist because when he emigrated to the United States from the UK, he took with him that overbearing British sense of class consciousness that fosters snotty attitudes about people of perceived lower social status. His sophistication in rationalizing his bigotry is not unique. That's why we're discussing Jeffrey Toobin. Two peas in a pod.
"Moneyrunner said...
How would the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR look and sound if Team Obama just took them over?"
They would sound like the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and NPR.
Did I mention that Althouse works at UW – Madison? She calls bullshit on Krauthammer but on this bit of home grown fascism … crickets.
When whites begin to really question what they believe, then I'll accept they're not racists,...
The human race anxiously awaits Crack's acceptance of whites.
We vow to hold all business in abeyance until this matter of extreme importance is resolved.
Shouting Thomas: The human race anxiously awaits Crack's acceptance of whites.
Ouch!
Crack Emcee wrote:
Yesterday, here, I was being told whites deserved credit for freeing blacks from slavery. That's, of course, obviously impossible - logic (and nothing more) would tell you nobody works as hard to free a man as the man himself. But, somehow, whites still haven't figured that out.
Nope. Who wrote the laws to free the slaves? White folks. There were no blacks in govt prior to that. Slavery was a legal determination. Who changed those rules? White folks.
When MLK was arguing that they should do away with segregation and move to a color blind society who was he appealing to? White folks.
Were blacks demanding freedom? Absolutely. But it simply couldn't have been done absent white folks changing their minds and deciding to include rather than exclude.
Race is boring.
Scott said...
John Derbyshire is racist because when he emigrated to the United States from the UK, he took with him that overbearing British sense of class consciousness that fosters snotty attitudes about people of perceived lower social status.
This is close to the truth. It is more apparent in his case because he is a foreigner but his basic attitude is shared almost universally.
Scott wrote:
No, John Derbyshire is racist because when he emigrated to the United States from the UK, he took with him that overbearing British sense of class consciousness that fosters snotty attitudes about people of perceived lower social status.
That doesn't sound like racism so much as classism.
Of Course, there will be no requirement for Crack to question what HE believes.
Especially when some white dude points out the flaws in his beliefs.
He is here to set us straight and we are required to shut up and listen and obey.
That's what "having a conversation about race" is all about. Whites are to shut up and obey and agree when (certain) blacks are talking. Because racism, h8ers.
Such flawless logic.
"nobody works as hard to free a man as the man himself."
For some reason, this reminded me of a scene from the movie Glory.
Crack Emcee wrote:
When whites begin to really question what they believe, then I'll accept they're not racists,...
When Crack begins to really question what he believes, then I'll accept that he's not racist. Or bonkers.
And note, I'm not even saying that because Crack is black. I wouldn't presume to make assumptions about him simply because of his skin tone.
A few (related) questions for The Crack Emcee:
Is there one white American person of some renown (i.e., someone the average Althouse reader would recognize) that you can say is truly not racist according to your criteria? Someone without any disclaimers, or 'is trying,' but actually free of racism?
@AReasonableMan: In the early 90s I worked on a systems integration project in Kuala Lumpur. Almost all of the expat bosses were from Britain, Australia, or New Zealand. And the Brits and Aussies, but surprisingly not the two New Zealand managers, regarded the local staff (in guarded moments of conversation) as gibbering monkeys. It was an eye opener.
@jr565: Racism is a kind of classism, so I would say we're both right.
Crack has to ask himself someday why he considers himself "Conservative" or "republican". becuase if he was honest about it, then he'd have a natural reaction against Obama's policies whether he was white, black or chinese.
And for the record, although I find Crack sort of disagreeable, I do agree with him almost all of the time when he talks about race.
Laslo wrote:
Someone without any disclaimers, or 'is trying,' but actually free of racism?
If Crack is saying every human being is a racist on some level, well then I suppose we should cop to it. i.e. racism is part of the human condition. That's a fair argument.
He appears to be saying though that racism is specific to the white condition as if whites have a unique trait other races don't possess.
Scott are you on the left or on the right?
Because Crack's argument is straight out of the lefty playbook. It's anti american identity politic agit prop. If you're on the left I'm sure you agree with it. If you're on the right then you probably have a different view. But then again, Crack is saying hes a conservative. Then why does he sound like Sharpton when it comes to race? Since you agree with him, do you similarly sound like Sharpton.
Secondly, are you white black or a different ethnicity? If white, when Crack says all whites are racist, are you copping to being one of those racist whites?
Crack: logic (and nothing more) would tell you nobody works as hard to free a man as the man himself.
Tell that to all the slaves who actually wandered back to their plantation after they were freed.
Hell Crack, tell it to all your people who have chosen to be enslaved to government cheese.
If blacks are held in contempt, its because they're like the stupid battered wife that keeps returning to her husband.
Is there just one token black commenter, in all of althouse kingdom...
Crack is our Rafiki.*
Hakuna matata, baby!
------
*(And yes, that character in The Lion King is a wise old monkey. So shoot me.)
My voting bloc is ethnic Catholic. We used to be a reliable part of the New Deal coalition. Nowadays we tend to vote more along class or idealogical lines than as a voting bloc. As you move through life, both your problems and solutions to those problems vary. You should be able to change your political party with more fluidity than you change your ethnicity or religion. Political loyalties shouldn't be that overwhelming......I don't know with absolute certainty which party best represents my interests, but I do know with absolute certainty that if I were not allowed to choose, my freedom would be curtailed. Conservatism is a human impulse. It transcends class, racial, and ethnic bonds. But black people who have such impulses must do everything in their power to mask or suppress them. It is easier to be gay in Saudi Arabia than to be a conservative black in America.
Some New Topics on Race
Does Milwaukee do the worst job of educating African-Americans as statistics say? Or does Wisconsin do the best job of letting African-Americans escape failing schools since 35,000 MPS kids are outside the MPS system in charters, private and suburban schools as another un-analyzed set of statistics says? Is this why the MPS statistics are so bad? Does this mean that success is failure by our current measures? If we took the kids with the top one third most-motivated parents out of any school system, how would the statistics for that system look? Can we converse about race in the schools if we don't know the answer to the question of why Milwaukee schools seem to be so terrible? Statistical artifact? Reality? If people can but a house anywhere then will the city seem more or less segregated? Will African-Americans be extremely scattered generally except for one area of heavy concentration so that by the numbers the city is segregated (not many African-Americans anywhere BECAUSE they are scattered and that shows up as segregation) but in reality people go where they want?
These are the questions I think about instead of circling the drain listening to tired old insults I heard fifty years ago for the first time. And they didn't help then either.
"nobody works as hard to free a man as the man himself."
THat's what conservatives say, so in that regard Crack is arguing conservatism. But does he believe that?
What does the average black person think about society? Are they believers in self determination or do they want society to give them stuff as a matter of course?
If a conservative said, society can help at the margins with programs, but at the end of the day you will rise or fall based on your own initative, wouldn't many lefties call that heartless racism?
"To be honest, are we sure? If you don't stress race then you could be any race. We know Crack's race because he's adamant about making it an issue. But some other commenters, I'm not so sure."
To follow up on that, I assume that all the lib posters here are white, gay or asexual and upper middle class and look like Pajama boy. Typical liberals.
But I'm sure if we looked at each person individually we'd see some nuance. Garage Mahal for example, might not wear pajamas.
"How white supremacy works is so fucking wild,…"
It's mostly in your head, crack, and that is why it's wild. I assume you are American born because the black students that I deal with are mostly from other countries and think American black kids are self destructive.
It's a shame.
logic (and nothing more) would tell you nobody works as hard to free a man as the man himself.
That is demonstrably false, especially in the case of the African Diaspora. As I put it rather succinctly to Crack on another thread:
News Flash: Your ancestors were enslaved because they allowed themselves to be enslaved. They couldn't hack it. They didn't keep up with the rest of the world, Sparky. Your ancestors were the weakest link, and everyone else figured that out real quick. In a world where slavery was the norm, what the fuck did your ancestors expect?
"If blacks are held in contempt, its because they're like the stupid battered wife that keeps returning to her husband."
Just so. Has there ever been a people so eagerly complicit in their own destruction? Over such a length of time? In exchange for so little?
I'm sure there are many other historical examples but in the last 50 years African-Americans have shown an absolutely lemming-like will to self-destruct.
"He's a dictionary racist, that is, believes there are genetic differences."
I that why he married a Chinese woman ?
Is racism only about blacks ?
Is it only about American blacks ?
Most American blacks' ancestors were sold into slavery by African blacks.
Were the ancestors who were sold into slavery those that lost battles and maybe that's why there is a lower mean IQ ?
People who are numerate understand means and medians and distribution. When I read "The Bell Curve" I was at Dartmouth. Others I knew asked me to loan them my copy when I finished it as they did not want to be seen buying a copy. It was like pornography. Still is to Crack and his friends.
Questions that will never be answered.
"We know Crack's race because he's adamant about making it an issue. But some other commenters, I'm not so sure."
I didn't know until yesterday. I didn't know Charles Payne was black until I saw him on TV. He said that he voted for Obama in 2008 because he was black and I think that was a perfectly reasonable explanation. My family were furious with me because I voted for Nixon in 1960.
@jr565: I got into it with Inga about who I am a few weeks ago, so if you find that post you can learn more about me. In a nutshell, I'm a gay white libertarian male whose looks fall into the general category of Dr. Phil.
As for racism: For whatever good or bad reasons, my partners over the past 30 or so years have been of other races. That experience has led me to believe that (a) ALL white people are racist, (b) most white people are not aware of it, (c) it is annoying to most minorities but especially to black people, (d) the people who traffick in race baiting perpetuate the problem and all have seats waiting for them at Satan's table in Hell, (e) white people should not feel ashamed with their racism -- just deal with it.
Racism is like having radon in your basement. It's a naturally occurring poison gas that can't be stopped, so you put in a little fan to vent it to the outdoors.
Name it, claim it, drop it. Work on having eye-level relationships with everybody. Push back at the race baiters. Live happy and guilt free.
If you think that your problems are the result of the predations of rich, white men, then the Democratic Party is your home. If you think your problems are the result of the predations of bureaucrats, criminals, and high taxes, then the Republicans offer a measure of solace.....If you think your problems are a result of your own poor choices, you have no place in the public sphere........Obesity is not caused by either junk food or food stamps, but it s the conceit of politicians to pretend that it is.
Cracker Emcee wrote:
Just so. Has there ever been a people so eagerly complicit in their own destruction? Over such a length of time? In exchange for so little?
Not sure if I'd characterize it the same way. BUT i did note an interesting statistic recently.
"According to the city Health Department, 2008 saw 89,469 abortions performed in New York City — seven for every 10 live births. Among black women, abortions out number live births by three to two."
And you can't argue that this is white folks doing this to black folks. They're doing it to themselves. I'm sure you'd get a lot of liberals applauding the idea (like, say, Inga). Sanger would be twirling her moustache right about now if she was stereotypical villain of silent movies. "All goes according to plan in the black extermination project. Bwahahaha!"
But if you look at what the true problems are that are destroying the black community it's not white racism. It's aborting kids. Not having a family structure in place to raise kids. not finishing school etc.
"My family were furious with me because I voted for Nixon in 1960."
You voted for Nixon because you're Quaker?
Scott wrote:
That experience has led me to believe that (a) ALL white people are racist, (b) most white people are not aware of it, (c) it is annoying to most minorities but especially to black people, (d) the people who traffick in race baiting perpetuate the problem and all have seats waiting for them at Satan's table in Hell, (e) white people should not feel ashamed with their racism -- just deal with it.
So all white people are racist. Including yourself? And yet you date "outside of your race". So are you one of the enlightened?
Also, you say that most white people are not aware of their racism, but that most minorities are. How are we determining what perception is true? Maybe the perception that most whites are racist is the false perception, and the reason that most minorities believe whites are racist is because they suffer from a belief that all whites are racist.
And how are you, the white guy determining this?
That strikes me an awful lot like someone who says "Blacks can't be racist because racism requires a power balance and blacks are always on the bottom end of that power balance." Bullshit.
Do you have mind reading powers?
Scott wrote:
(e) white people should not feel ashamed with their racism -- just deal with it.
If they shouldnt feel ashamed of their racism, then why should they have to deal with it. If they have to deal with it, then they should feel ashamed for not dealing with it, and not even recognizing it.
Is this sin, a white man's sin?
Explain then the genocide of the Tsutsi's in Rwanda by the Hutu's. Both black tribes. Oh, so blacks can be racist/classist to? Even to other members of their own race?
@Michael K: Yeah, I don't question the motives of black people who voted for Obama. It's the national figurehead thing. He is in fact the first (marginally) black president. It's too bad he sucks, but we'll survive him. I'm hopeful that when the country elects the next black president, she will be more representative of the virtues of the community that produced her.
Scott wrote:
He is in fact the first (marginally) black president. It's too bad he sucks, but we'll survive him. I'm hopeful that when the country elects the next black president, she will be more representative of the virtues of the community that produced her.
And if said black were mainstream but stressed conservative values, I think most conservatives would vote for him. Its not the skin color but the values. Obama has expressed lefty values since he ran, and has governed from the left. If instead his name was Jimmy Carter and he was as white as the snow, he'd be met with the exact same resistance. Is that true for every single conservative who lives in this country? I couldn't say that. My guess is there are some who wont vote for a black person no matter what.
There are also some who wont vote for a Mormon no matter what (ahem, Crack)But are those outliers or the norm?
"If they shouldnt feel ashamed of their racism, then why should they have to deal with it."
Because as any therapist will tell you, shame is a really unproductive motivator for change. Shaming presumed racists may keep Jesse Jackson's business entities awash in cash, but at the end of the day, it does little else.
You can't beat people into enlightenment.
"And if said black were mainstream but stressed conservative values, I think most conservatives would vote for him. Its not the skin color but the values. Obama has expressed lefty values since he ran, and has governed from the left."
I think that if Obama was clear about what his agenda was, and if his race wasn't a factor, and if the media wasn't dysfunctional, he wouldn't have been elected. But Obama flat-out lied about his agenda; he is black and played the symbolism to the max; and the press covered his ass without apology.
So once again America found itself fucked without even a kiss. But we will survive.
Of course there are people who will or won't vote for people because of their race, religion, haircut, whatever.
(If I were redesigning government, I would repeal the 17th Amendment; and have the president elected by the House of Representatives from a slate of candidates proposed by the Senate.)
Reading this thread is what it must be like to spend time with Michael Dunn. So many questions he had no answer for, like Michael K at 12:10 PM:
"Is racism only about blacks ?
Is it only about American blacks ?"
Gee, Mike, how much do you really know about slavery? How much American history are you familiar with? If your answer is a lot, then why are you asking these questions? Why don't you know the answers? I know the answers.
What's - obviously - missing from your education of this country to explain why you would ask such easily answerable questions?
WTF is up about racism and American blacks?
Scott,
Why not have the slate of candidates proposed by the governors. For that matter, why not just have the governors elect the President.
Listen: You have to realize that if Toobin had been writing when Scalia went on the court, he would have been writing articles faulting Scalia for being too vocal, and he would have gleefully reported comments such as Justice Blackmun's remark, spoken sotto voce to Justice Brennan, IIRC: "Does he even know that the rest of us are here?"
Lookit, Jeff Toobin isn't an idiot; he knows perfectly well that the court never used to be this vocal, that the hot bench is a historic abberation, and that Justice Thomas is only slightly more vocal on the bench than was Justice Marshall. He's just a venal fuck, perfectly happy to slander the court and beclown himself to attack the most-hated justice of the day. Thomas doesn't talk? Scalia talks? Doesn't matter. Forget the cudgel that he's using; it's "any stick to beat a dog." He doesn't care what it is, and neither should we.
He isn't a racist, he's just a partisan tool.
Historical aberration, excuse me.
Thomas gets more criticism than his white conservative colleagues. Obama gets more criticism than his white liberal colleagues.
Just because someone doesn't agree with someone's position doesn't mean that the zest they have in criticizing doesn't have a racial component. Bill Clinton golfed a lot, too, but Obama gets ripped more for it.
That strikes me an awful lot like someone who says "Blacks can't be racist because racism requires a power balance and blacks are always on the bottom end of that power balance."
I'm sure you would like it to be that way, but it's not. Of course people of other races have racist perspectives. And I don't think that it helps them to feel guilty about it either.
To take the position that "they have to deal with their problem before I deal with mine" is laughable. Who the fuck are you?
Personally, I'll deal with my white person issues, and whether or not you deal with your other race person issues is your business. It's a free society. You want to talk, fine, let's do it. And if you try to shame me, I'll push back.
@mccullough: I'm sort of okay with having the governors choose the president, but I think having the House of Representatives involved would give it more legitimacy.
"Gee, Mike, how much do you really know about slavery? "
Why don't you give us a lesson ? I would really like to know what an angry black man/woman thinks is the history.
What I know is limited. I know African tribes sold losers, in several meanings of the term, to Arab traders or to white slavers at Goree in what is now Senegal.
The slave ships went to Europe and the West Indies, where the blacks don't seem to have the hang ups that American blacks do. Of course, they came to South Carolina and New Orleans where they were sold, sometimes to free blacks of which there were quite a few around New Orleans.
In 1860 to 1865 500,000 white men and 100,000 blacks died in a war to free the slaves. The Republican Party was founded in 1856 from the old Whig Party on the matter of abolition.
The Democrats were able to resume much of the suppression of black rights after Reconstruction. This lasted until the 1950s when air conditioning brought many northern whites to the south and the Democrats gradually lost their hold on the politics.
Some of them even switched parties but not many.
How's that ?
"Bill Clinton golfed a lot, too, but Obama gets ripped more for it."
Clinton was president in peacetime. He didn't know the pressure that was building or he ignored it, like the African Embassy bombings.
Bush quit playing golf because he thought it unseemly in war.
"The Democrats were able to resume much of the suppression of black rights after Reconstruction. This lasted until the 1950s when air conditioning brought many northern whites to the south and the Democrats gradually lost their hold on the politics."
Wow. A James Burke insight!
Not white, but not black either.
I guess I understand where Scott is coming from, but a lot of "perceived racism" is how you personally take what someone says.
I'm reminded of a blog post on white privilege where a white woman was married to a black man and was out with her interracial child somewhere in a very white area of town. She started talking with a woman who was playing with the baby and then asked, "Is she adopted?" The wife answered, "No, my husband is from Morocco." She said the woman showed a split second of negative emotion and then said "Oh, I see." The writer attributed it to racism. I don't know what was in the other woman's heart, but I'd say it was just as likely that it was Morocco (either because Morocco sounds so remote or because of the large Muslim population). So what to do?
I've experienced this kind of "perceived racism" myself. I told the story in Church one time about our gang banger neighbor named Pedro who wound up finding God and turning his life around in prison. It came with the message along the lines of "Jesus can save anybody, even the most unlikely." After the story, many in the congregation came up to me and told me how much they appreciated the story, but many of them kept kind of giggling when they said the name Pedro. We live in a very white area. I began to get a little offended and irritated. I finally said something to my spouse who is white. He said, "Relax. They're probably just thinking about Napoleon Dynamite." Were they? I'll never know, but once I understood there might be a million different reasons why people were behaving that way instead of racism, it wasn't a big deal anymore.
@Birches: Yeah, what you said. :)
@mccullough, I tend to think that the de facto reform of Presidential elections, was one of the more positive developments. (If not, Blacker teaches that it can be called back.) What is perhaps unique in Our Federalism is the founders' genius that Americans "would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." (That's Justice Kennedy in the Term Limits case, the citation to whch I don't have to hand.) The United States is not a federation of states; it is a unique animal. Although we usually would deny that we have a national government for fear of being misunderstood, it is true in a certain sense that we have a national government (although one that exercises only powers delegated to it by the states) insofar as unlike the polity it replaced, it relates to and acts upon the citizen directly. The national government is a creature of the people acting through the Constitution--the too-common locution that the states created the federal government is misleading, because it was the people of the states, one by one, who created the federal government by taking from their states certain tranches of power and creating of them a new government that they would interact with. The election of the President by the nation as a whole was rightly rejected in favor of a state-by-state model. But the choice of the state's vote was made indirect largely because of practical considerations that have today evaporated, and those considerations having lapsed, it seems to me that one can make a strong argument that the current system fosters an understanding of the proper relationship of the citizen to their state governments and to the "General Government," as it used to be called. Leaving election of the President to the Governors would, it seems to me, distort that understanding; the impression would be that the federal government is a subject of the states. (That is, perhaps, a risk of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, but in that case the risk is worthwhile.)
I realize that this argument is at risk of easy misundersting (for example, it must not be forgotten that the people, in creating the federal government, rightly subjected it to not only the control of the people in their state-by-state individual expressions, through the House, but also to the control of the people in their state-by-state collective expressions, the state governments, through the Senate), but it seemed worth broaching it.
Slavery? Slavery? What does that have to do with Toobin and his racist views?
Toobin believes, with some justification, that part of an appellate judge's responsibility, once oral argument is granted, is to be engaged in that oral argument. Thomas, unlike all the other justices, chooses not to be engaged, and thus is not meeting the entirety of his responsibility.
Maybe the court could hear all its arguments on the papers, but it doesn't. And Toobin doesn't even hint he believes it's laziness that keeps Thomas from piping up. It doesn't matter the reason. Thomas violates a standard practice of probing counsel, and his reasons for not doing so are unpersuasive.
That criticism is not racism, or if it is, racism captures emanations and penumbras few can keep up with.
I actually think Thomas has boxed himself in; since he has not been engaged in the past, he can hardly start now without acknowledging his past reticence was misguided.
Michael K,
"How's that ?"
Well, like I said, you've got some HUGE unexplained holes in you story. And unfortunately, even while trying to sound like a normal person, your racism shines through to taint the whole thing. But, since you "would really like to know what an angry black man/woman thinks is the history" I'll carry on with you:
"What I know is limited. I know African tribes sold losers, in several meanings of the term, to Arab traders or to white slavers at Goree in what is now Senegal."
Wrong. Slavery was an institution and people fell into it in all sorts of ways - you didn't have to "lose" at anything.
"The slave ships went to Europe and the West Indies, where the blacks don't seem to have the hang ups that American blacks do."
Your racist asides are the best, because that's where your ignorance is revealed - what special thing happened in the West Indies, Michael? Don't just say blacks are different from there, I've been asking you, what in history reveals why?
And why do we blacks , here, have what you call "hang ups" Michael? Are you going to just say that publicly - in the most malicious manner you can muster - without a firm understanding of why? What happened to blacks in America that didn't happen in Africa or the West Indies?
"Of course, they came to South Carolina and New Orleans where they were sold, sometimes to free blacks of which there were quite a few around New Orleans."
Another attempt to shine the light elsewhere - blacks owned slaves, the Irish were slaves, anything - but look at what the whites of this country did to people. Do you know what they did, Mike?
"In 1860 to 1865 500,000 white men and 100,000 blacks died in a war to free the slaves. The Republican Party was founded in 1856 from the old Whig Party on the matter of abolition."
Wow - this is the first thing you've written that I can't quibble with.
"The Democrats were able to resume much of the suppression of black rights after Reconstruction."
Fine, except you left out "after Reconstruction" was only about a decade after the Civil War. So, roughly 10 to 12 years after the war whites love to brag about, blacks were almost back to where they started. Thanks, guys.
So, here they are again:
What happened in the West Indies to make them different than blacks here?
What did America do to blacks to give us "hang-ups"?
How long "after Reconstruction" was it before "the Democrats were able to resume much of the suppression of black rights" after the Civil War whites love to brag so much about?
And, if "the Democrats were able to resume much of the suppression of black rights" after the Civil War whites love to brag so much about, what was the point of the war?
Put another way, why was MLK necessary if whites think they should be thanked for dying in 1865?
Bill, your argument is self-negating. Either Toobin is saying that Thomas is shirking a responsibility (which more than hints at laziness) or he isn't.
And where is it written that a judge has an obligation to voice opinions or tweak counsel during arguments. The lawyers are supposed to do the arguing as I understand it, and the judge is supposed to judging.
In a previous thread a commenter pointed out that some years ago Toobin wrote a piece that, while not approving of Thomas' philosophy, did credit Thomas with being the major force for libertarian-leaning conservative thought on the court. (The sheer volume of Thomas' concurring opinions, both in the majority and minority, is impressive and has been very influential in the lower courts.)
So what's changed? I think Freeman is much more correct than even she realizes; Toobin really can't go after the Black man who is currently bitterly disappointing him, so he goes after a Black man who is on the approved "off the reservation" list. Because Toobin and those like him can't afford to be honest with themselves without doing major damage to some foundational beliefs which even in the best light aren't very pretty.
"foundational beliefs"
Hey, Mark O, we're getting to:
Slavery? Slavery? What does that have to do with Toobin and his racist views?
Criticism of Black President = Racism
Criticism of Black Supreme Court Justice = The New Yorker
Just Alynskying them to their own rules.
Wrong. Slavery was an institution and people fell into it in all sorts of ways - you didn't have to "lose" at anything.
So, the winners just sold themselves? Really?
Or are you arguing that evil whites went around Africa and just grabbed people and ran?
Another attempt to shine the light elsewhere - blacks owned slaves, the Irish were slaves, anything - but look at what the whites of this country did to people. Do you know what they did, Mike?
Translation: Slavery wasn't the problem.
Whites being involved was the problem.
Crack is cool with blacks owning slaves (which is probably best since they STILL do so in Africa now)
What happened in the West Indies to make them different than blacks here?
The grievance industry isn't nearly as developed there.
Scott wrote:
Because as any therapist will tell you, shame is a really unproductive motivator for change. Shaming presumed racists may keep Jesse Jackson's business entities awash in cash, but at the end of the day, it does little else.
How do you know that those whites you are demonizing haven't already dealt with it? What conclusion are they supposed to draw when you say they should deal with it? And how do you know they haven't done so already? And why assume that is the right conclusion?
Do no other groups have to change their ways of thinking?
Another attempt to shine the light elsewhere - blacks owned slaves, the Irish were slaves, anything - but look at what the whites of this country did to people. Do you know what they did, Mike?"
The point is that slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. And so white people did stuff to slaves, but so did non white people. Why try to minimize slavery to a white thing only? The light can be shined elsewhere because slavery existed everywhere.
African tribes had no problem selling their enemies into slavery. And to this day there is still slavery going on in the Sudan and it doesn't involve white people.
If blacks did more than whites to free themselves, why did black slaves flock to the white Union Army encampments? Shouldn't they have just taken their freedom and maintained it? Instead they went to the people they knew had the strength to maintain that freedom against Southern attempts to take it away - the lily-white Union Army.
Who was more influential in ending slavery, Frederick Douglass or John Brown? Or Thaddeus Stevens? Or Abraham Lincoln? Who fought more battles, killed more Confederates, and died more? White Union soldiers or black ones?
The very idea that we have to divide this up and give or deny credit to one racial group or the other is just another expression of the racism Crack displays to get a rise.
Birches wrote:
I've experienced this kind of "perceived racism" myself.
Thats' the problem. The word "perceived" and why I have an issue with what Scott is saying. No one can look into someone's mind and say they are or are not racist. So they go on perceptions. But perceptions are sometimes wrong. They assume things to be racist that aren't, or there is a question about racism. Or, worse, they assume that they are the sole determiners of racism and so if you do not agree with their assessment, it must be racism on your part.
Since when did they become so omnipotent.
If Al sharpton sees race in everything it doesn't mean he's right, any more than if David Duke sees race in everything. You are allowed to disagree with peoples perceptions.
I can recall years of violent and virulent racism, in the South and Northeast. Underlying it all was the belief that the black race was inherently inferior. "Childlike." "Lazy." "Disrespectful." "Lacking necessary intelligence." "Dependent."
Almost all of those ugly characterizations are insinuated in Toobin's piece. Insinuation is the particular choice of the coward because it permits him to deny what is otherwise obvious.
All evidence from his life suggests Toobin is a coward.
Bill said...
"Toobin believes, with some justification, that part of an appellate judge's responsibility, once oral argument is granted, is to be engaged in that oral argument. Thomas, unlike all the other justices, chooses not to be engaged, and thus is not meeting the entirety of his responsibility."
I dispute the premise that a Justice is not "engaged" if he does not actively ask questions. Attentive listening is participating, and this failure to the left of "thus" leaves adrift everything to its right.
Crack:
"When whites begin to really question what they believe, then I'll accept they're not racists,..."
I accept the challenge:
Do I really believe in individual identity over group identity? Hmmm...
Questioning...
Questioning...
Ok, then. So am I accepted as not racist?
Scott wrote:
For whatever good or bad reasons, my partners over the past 30 or so years have been of other races. That experience has led me to believe that (a) ALL white people are racist, (b) most white people are not aware of it, (c) it is annoying to most minorities but especially to black people, (d) the people who traffick in race baiting perpetuate the problem and all have seats waiting for them at Satan's table in Hell, (e) white people should not feel ashamed with their racism -- just deal with it.
That appear to be your lovers perceptions. How do we know they have valid perceptions? Are they based on their own bigotry? You take it as a given, but why? Since when do they get to have perceptions that are not even questioned.
Maybe they haven't met enough people to make that determination. Maybe they are transferring their feelings based on their observation of a few white people they had bad interactions with to ALL white people. Maybe the white people they know are not aware of it. Or maybe they disagree that they are not aware of it. Maybe they think that your lovers are not aware of their own biases. Even if it is annoying to most minorities, why must that be a flaw that must be corrected by white people and not the people who hold those views?
For example a woman goes to a muslim country and doesn't wear a burkha. The muslim men are incensed that she's walking around with her face visible. Granted, they have that custom and perhaps its wise, so as to not cause a war, to cover women's faces up while visiting those countries. But since when does their reluctance to see womens flesh somehow mean we are wrong to not hide womens faces.
I mean really Scott. That's like non Mexican saying ALL Mexicans are lazy.YOu wouldn't put up with it if a white guy said it about a Mexican, why then are you letting your lovers get away with being racists?
rhhardin said...
It's not so much racist as stupid.
Yesterday you said that Justice Thomas was the whitest person on the court.
Racist of stupid?
I vote both.
What happened in the West Indies to make them different than blacks here?
The grievance industry isn't nearly as developed there.
Wrong. Anybody else wanna take a shot at some history?
BTW, Mark O, when it comes to the question "What did America do to blacks to give us "hang-ups"?" you're putting it together:
"I can recall years of violent and virulent racism, in the South and Northeast. Underlying it all was the belief that the black race was inherently inferior. "Childlike." "Lazy." "Disrespectful." "Lacking necessary intelligence." "Dependent."
Almost all of those ugly characterizations are insinuated in Toobin's piece. Insinuation is the particular choice of the coward because it permits him to deny what is otherwise obvious."
But there was more than that - keep going - you're on the right track,...
"When whites begin to really question what they believe, then I'll accept they're not racists,..."
Well what do whites believe? Do whites segregation or integration? Which ones are the racists? Both? Despite holding polar oppposite views?And should the person who believes in integration have to question his views on integration or be branded a racist?
The underlying premise is that all whites are the same and believe in segregation. Which is ludicrous.
Do all blacks believe in MLKs dream? Or do some believe in Malcolm X's dream? Of those two, which need to question their assumptions?
I'm not playing with you jr.
Sorry, you've already blown it.
West Indian slavery was harsher than American slavery. Not only were the slaves worked by their owners but they were generally expected to provide for themselves (food, clothing, shelter) in the hours they weren’t working for their owners. The American approach, on the other hand, was to provide the slaves with clothing, food and shelter and to make them not just submissive, but dependent. The dependency was extended by denying the slaves any education (eventually encoded into law by many slave states). The hope was that by keeping them ignorant they would be less likely to rebel or escape. Of course some slaves were able to surreptitiously educate themselves and there were a few slave owners who ignored the law. But, unfortunately, the South was, for the most part, successful. Relatively few slaves escaped to freedom. For all the decades the Underground Railroad worked to free slaves, the best estimates put the total at about 200,000. That’s a lot of people in absolute numbers, but still very few when compared to the tens of millions of slaves living in America between 1619 and 1865. The difference in approach between West Indian slavery and American slavery might explain some of the difference in attitude and economic mobility you sometimes still see today. Because the West Indians were forced to provide for themselves they became very self-reliant. This also helps explain the success of the Haitian Slave Revolt in 1804.
The interesting thing about this is that it really has less to do with race, but rather with what slavery does to people. The Irish faced a somewhat similar situation during the centuries of English occupation. They were tied to the land by law and were also very restricted in receiving any education. And their history as immigrants in America is second only to African-Americans in terms of the persistence of poverty. In other words there are some factors common to both Irish-Americans and African-Americans that might explain their respective histories in this country. To be clear, there was a significant difference in degree between the African-American experience and the Irish-American experience. But the similarity of the kind of oppression led to some of the same problems.
Crack, whatever. Going forward I wont take any bait you throw out.
From this thread:
the thought that crosses my mind is that Black adults really do think like children.
Who wrote the laws to free the slaves? White folks. There were no blacks in govt prior to that. Slavery was a legal determination. Who changed those rules? White folks.
When MLK was arguing that they should do away with segregation and move to a color blind society who was he appealing to? White folks. [which conclusively tells you the rules change 100 years before was not put into effect]
He is here to set us straight and we are required to shut up and listen and obey.
That's what "having a conversation about race" is all about. Whites are to shut up and obey and agree when (certain) blacks are talking. Because racism, h8ers.
News Flash: Your ancestors were enslaved because they allowed themselves to be enslaved. They couldn't hack it. They didn't keep up with the rest of the world, Sparky. Your ancestors were the weakest link, and everyone else figured that out real quick. In a world where slavery was the norm, what the fuck did your ancestors expect?
Has there ever been a people so eagerly complicit in their own destruction? Over such a length of time? In exchange for so little?
I'm sure there are many other historical examples but in the last 50 years African-Americans have shown an absolutely lemming-like will to self-destruct.
tell that to all the slaves who actually wandered back to their plantation after they were freed.
Hell Crack, tell it to all your people who have chosen to be enslaved to government cheese.
If blacks are held in contempt, its because they're like the stupid battered wife that keeps returning to her husband.
NOT ONE WORD FROM JEFFREY TOOBIN ABOUT RUTH BADER GINSBURG FALLING ASLEEP. ON THE BENCH DURING SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS. As well as during a State of the Union Address. Now I wouldn't make a big deal about it. If I were an Associate Justice, I might not go to the SOTU. And oral arguments in the Supreme Court are overrated.
But for Toobin to bitch about Justice Thomas, and then praise Ginsburg by name without mentioning her falling asleep (ACTUALLY falling asleep, while he bashes Thomas for what he thinks is a figurative sleep) is just journalistic treachery.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35058/
There is a commonplace word for Jeffrey Toobin. I hardly every use the word. But it is the perfect word. That word is douchebag.
Back to what Toobin said Freeman hunt responded with "Why don't that lazy black man put on a show for me? You git to performin' now, ya hear!"
But is that what Toobin is arguing? Not sure if you want to make it into a racist thing. Is the non black person putting on a show for Toobin when he argues in front of the court? And if not, why then is there an implication that if he expects the black guy to do the same thing as the white guy that he's suddenly asking him to do a show for him in a racial manner?
The issue is, is what Thomas is doing something that has been done before in the court by other justices, or is his not addresssing the court a new thing that only he has gotten away with.
As an analogy, suppose instead of the Supreme Court the Court was a band. And everyone got on stage and sang except for Thomas. If someone asked "Why isn't Thomas singing?" Would the immediate response be "Why don't that lazy black man put on a show for me? You git to performin' now, ya hear!"
Is it wrong to expect a performance from a performer on the stage and is there a different standard when it comes to blacks and whites?
I'm a big fan of Thomas, but perhaps Toobin has a point.
Then again, I dont know the history of the court that well.Maybe the silent judge used to be the norm. And so Thomas is just carrying out THAT tradition. TOobin seems to think that all the justices should be speaking though.
Additional comment: American slavery was quite deadly, with millions dying aboard ship and millions more dying from a combination of abuse and neglect once they arrived. My previous point was that this horror was even worse in the West Indies.
"why was MLK necessary if whites..."
This is the key issue and what America should be notably ashamed about. Slavery was slavery, wrong, tragic, all that. It ended in 1865. Slavery lost. Blacks were freed. The Constitution made them citizens.
Where America became more like communist Eastern Europe was in how free didn't mean free. Where were the boundaries, what was the freedom.
In places like East Germany, the Spasi operated behind the scenes in most cases. They didn't directly attack dissidents, they had a policy of demoralizing them by subtly destroying their lives, essentially playing with perception of luck. Lose a job, lost relationships, things just not falling into place, basically a whole lot of little things that doesn't stir up a fight but just makes a person feel like nothing ever works out.
That's what Jim Crow laws did. That's the evil of it. It denied the Constitution in practice as much or more than Obama is doing, by just ignoring it. And it was allowed, for 100 years it was allowed, so that my generation was the first generation to be born after racism was institutionalized. Of course people older than 45 or so interpret the world through the lens of racism. That's what every city in the country did.
I don't think every white person is racist, even still. I think white people are people and people in general will use whatever excuse they can to gain an advantage. Skin color is a handy way of restricting competition. It's an American caste system. And caste systems are hard to overcome even when the laws are in place, just ask how the Dalits in India are treated. The Left believes in the caste element too, they just want to see themselves as paternal, more like the supposedly civilized Brits did in their colonies.
Meanwhile, the best example of overcoming systemic racism is the Chinese and Japanese in California. 100+ years of racism, still present in part, but by not being defined by it, by taking full charge of opportunities, they've bypassed racist influences by creating their own futures.
That's what white people did in coming to America. Immigrants almost always come out of tyranny and oppression. They took advantage of the opportunities that are present is the way forward, even as it is still human tendency to oppress those similarly competing.
But again, what if for generations opportunities presented themselves but dissolved based on fundamentally unjust laws? One starts being suspicious about the opportunities. Not everyone, but those who have such suspicion pass it on to the majority. The narrative and identity persists. And people continue to take advantage of it.
What happened in the West Indies to make them different than blacks here?
The dominant White culture left, and there was no one to loot with a racial spoils system.
When whites begin to really question what they believe, then I'll accept they're not racists,...
Why just Whites?
Tell you what Crack..why don't you go first?
David, look at all those commenter imitations of racists. What the ding dong heck? Who knew there were so many fellow textual impersonators around here?
Dave said...
West Indian slavery was harsher than American slavery.
Yes, but that's not the answer we're looking for. Something happened, specifically in the West Indies, to make them different.
"The dominant White culture left, and there was no one to loot with a racial spoils system."
Oh no, you're not a racist. And you're definitely not a student of history,...
Patrick O wrote:
That's what Jim Crow laws did. That's the evil of it. It denied the Constitution in practice as much or more than Obama is doing, by just ignoring it. And it was allowed, for 100 years it was allowed, so that my generation was the first generation to be born after racism was institutionalized. Of course people older than 45 or so interpret the world through the lens of racism. That's what every city in the country did.
But we don't have Jim Crowe anymore. Right now we have a country where the commander in chief is black. Can you imagine telling someone living under Jim Crow that in less than half a century a black guy would be running the whole joint?
And those other minorities who aren't white, are still managing to succeed despite that. Meaning, if you put your nose to the grindstone you can succeed.
And the best way to do away with a caste system is to not have a caste system. But that cuts both ways. Those who were formally singled out under the caste system would no longer be singled out. For both the good and the bad.
mccullough said...
Just because someone doesn't agree with someone's position doesn't mean that the zest they have in criticizing doesn't have a racial component. Bill Clinton golfed a lot, too, but Obama gets ripped more for it.
Golfing was never an issue until the left made it so for GWB. The heightened criticism for Obama is because of the double standard. It would be better if the right made this clear by pointing out the left's refusal to criticize Obama proves their criticism of Bush was venal partisan opportunism. But that imperfection doesn't make the effort to hold Obama to the standard the left created racist.
There are tremendous details and evolutions in thought and politics. Those who reduce it to simple comparisons are overwhelmingly wrong.
jr565 said...
Patrick O wrote:
"Of course people older than 45 or so interpret the world through the lens of racism. That's what every city in the country did."
I'm older than 45.
"But we don't have Jim Crowe anymore."
No, now we have Jane, his nicer, subtler sister.
"Right now we have a country where the commander in chief is black. Can you imagine telling someone living under Jim Crow that in less than half a century a black guy would be running the whole joint?"
"A Negro could be President in 40 years. There is no question about it. In the next 40 years, a Negro can achieve the same position that my brother has."
"And those other minorities who aren't white, are still managing to succeed despite that. Meaning, if you put your nose to the grindstone you can succeed."
Those others don't face the same barriers blacks have and do, starting with living with their captors who hold all inherited wealth.
Freeman Hunt said...
David, look at all those commenter imitations of racists. What the ding dong heck? Who knew there were so many fellow textual impersonators around here?
Yet you fail to recognize any commenters expressing reasoned opposition to Crack -- here and elsewhere.
Do you buy Crack's shtick?
"Yet you fail to recognize any commenters expressing reasoned opposition to Crack -- here and elsewhere."
Examples of "reasoned opposition"? Links? Here and elsewhere.
And what do you mean by "shtick" exactly?
here and elsewhere.
The plantations in the West Indies were generally much larger than in the American south with much largerslave populations than in the US where most slave owners had fewer than twenty. The agricultural holdings in the south were also spread further apart lessening the interaction of slaves from one holding to another. The attendant socialisation was greater in the WI. More importantly the WI slave had to grow his own food but also could sell surplus and thus develop both worth and capital skills. Landowners were absentee for the most part and the organization of slave work rules etc were left first to hired hands and then to the slaves themselves. There are theories about the tribal makeup of WI slaves versus those in the US and ideas about the relative dearth of females in the WI.
The WI imported ten times the slaves as the US. Survival rates in the WI were small and the birth rates low so there is not the generational enslavement that was in the US.
Oh no, you're not a racist. And you're definitely not a student of history,...
Once again ..fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Nothing gives you the right to judge me in this manner.
By the way..Freeman's quote just got posted on Instapundit.
"But we don't have Jim Crowe anymore."
East Germany doesn't have communism anymore, but there are very different atmosphere and personalities in the former east and former west. The goal was to demoralize people, and once achieved that sinks in deep. Even when there's not the institutional racism, any vestige of it or attitudes evokes the substance of the whole. On the right, the general attitude is "get over it." On the Left, the general attitude has been, "there, there, let us help you." The one dismisses the cultural demoralization, the other validates and perpetuates it.
Again, when the whole system of a country is rhetorically oriented one way and the experience of people until 50 years ago is another then there's a deep, deep hurt that isn't easily fixed. It took 100 years to build that hurt after Reconstruction. It might take that much time to show there's a different way.
That's precisely why African immigrants don't assume the same issues. They share the same skin color, thus presumably the same racism inasmuch as it exists, but have a much stronger sense that the possibilities and rewards are tangible. The West Indies might be similar, where slavery was definitely more brutal but when it ended, it ended. That's a huge difference.
It's why people in former east Germany tend to be very guarded and suspicious and dour. While in the West, in my experience, people are open and very friendly. If the goal is to destroy the soul, eventually it happens and it's not enough to simply change the laws. What can be done? Probably nothing but time. And encourage folks to take care of the opportunities that are available, empowering them to have meaning.
But that's the evil of Toobin here, his goal is to demoralize and diminish, just like Jim Crow did.
Michael said...
"The plantations in the West Indies were generally much larger than in the American south,…"
That's now two physical descriptions of slavery in the West Indies but nothing about why - how'd Michael K put it again, generous non-racist soul that he is? Oh yeah:
"The blacks don't seem to have the hang ups that American blacks do."
WHy is that? I'll give you a hint:
It wasn't the climate,...
I used to compete in scholar's bowl at a national level. The team from Durham North Carolina, was basically the Duke University high school team and it had not one but two teen jeopardy champions. But scariest guy on that team was the guy who played with his shoes off, reclined backwards in his chair, eyes closed, head thrown back so that he would have been staring at the ceiling. He was amazing. I guarantee you he was paying attention at a level most people couldn't even fathom.
Just last December a Toobin article appeared in the New Yorker titled on "Our Broken Constitution
Everyone agrees that government isn’t working. Are the founders to blame?
Not once in it did he use the word "liberty" to describe the central meaning of the founding document.
He did let Mark Levin use it, by citing the title of his most recent book, but only to jeer at him for holding a "pre-Civil War" position re the Constitution.
Yeah. Levin's got no use for the 123th, 14h and 15th Amendments, donchaknow...
"Freedom" According to Toobin, that's just another empty shibboleth, used by icky people like Ted Cruz..
Thus spake another "Democrat operative with a by-line", masquerading as a journalist.
Contrast and compare - non-racist correct answer:
"The West Indies might be similar, where slavery was definitely more brutal but when it ended, it ended. That's a huge difference."
That's right - blacks OVERTHREW slavery in Haiti - and started the process of slavery's dismantling everywhere.
Now - let's look at the wrong answer we got earlier, dripping with racism:
"The dominant White culture left, and there was no one to loot with a racial spoils system."
No - they didn't "leave" - they were kicked out. Ruthlessly. And they stole everything as they left.
Doesn't look the same, then, does it? Not "dominant" in THAT story, are you, jr? Blacks aren't working a "racial spoils system" then but whites are thieves of the highest order.
And turning such a story on it's head is also a theft, because everyone has a right to know the truth.
It's ours.
It should be noted that French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and English slave systems were each unique in the WI and further that sugar cultures differed from failed cotton enterprises. Maroons existed on most sugar islands with uplands and escaped slaves were quartered in numbers in some of those communities and left alone by the authorities.
Hati was unique in the success of its rebellion. Other islands had sporatic uprmisings but they were generally quelled with some slaves self liberating to the upland maroons.
Memo: Never get Freeman mad at me.
"Do you buy Crack's shtick?"
How is it a shtick? He says there is still a race problem in the country. He's right. He says the American political right needs to offer a better message than "I don't see color," and "All black problems are the fault of black people." He's right there too. He's prodding and prodding and prodding at people in usual Crack style to get people to wise up.
Nobody gets all wee-wee-ed up when he uses his wild style on New Age. Why so on race? People freak out and act like he slapped their mothers. Why?
I think we will hear a great deal about the massive slave population of Brazil in due course as the Olympics approach and the social problems of the country are laid bare.
Is courtroom participation a mandatory or elective requirement for a passing grade? If the former, then Thomas has earned his criticism. If the latter, then Toobin has earned his criticism.
@Crack/
Are you thinking of the successful Haitian slave revolt which resulted in the defeat of some 20,000 of Napoleon's best (white) troops by blacks?
Michael said...
I think we will hear a great deal about the massive slave population of Brazil in due course as the Olympics approach and the social problems of the country are laid bare.
Oh yeah. I've seen some already - riots, I think.
Hang on,...
I couldn't narrow my search enough to get what's going on with Slavery in Brazil, as related to the Olympics, but I did find this.
It'll explain the renewed attention there, as well,..
Nobody gets all wee-wee-ed up when he uses his wild style on New Age.
Crack was pretty tiresome when he turned his obsession with cults and such on Romney and devoted his every pixel during the last election here to making shit up about the man.
As for Crack's present shtick, I define it as writing false accusations here and elsewhere in the based on past grievances, and trying to provoke people. When he gets a desired response, he runs back to his godforsaken blog to crow about it. I'm a former reader there, so I know these things. You were an infrequent commenter there (as was I) so you must know that too (else I severely overestimated you). If you can't see that as shtick and prefer to see it as art, please at least acknowledge that it's transparent and stale.
Ah, the Meade/Crack blog pimping double team.
A form of reparations.
I think it was Martin Luthor King who once said, someday, I hope that a talentless failed rapper can get a tiny piece of the advertising pie through the generous assistance of a white lawnmower who is financially supported by his old white sugarmomma.
:::Starts a slow clap:::
Meade wrote Examples of "reasoned opposition"? Links? Here and elsewhere.
Revenant wrote the most recent ones that I recall in an exchange here at Althouse a few nights ago.
Really Meade, are you that lazy?
@Crack II/
I would suggest that what you see as white "structural"/"systemic"
undeserved "privilege" is the simple fact that this nation's sociocultural standards and political structure was established, in the main, by the majority white population. You are in the distinct minority. "When in Rome do as the Romans do"--or at least expect the Romans to do as the Romans do, ok? If you were to emigrate to Japan would the fact that all street signs and store fronts were (are) in Japanese be prove positive the Japanese were "racists?" Of course not. Such a state of affairs is simply the reflection that the majority race and the language it speaks sets the standards. It would be incumbent upon you to adjust to Japanese ways, not them to you..
chicken little,
"Crack was pretty tiresome when he turned his obsession with cults and such on Romney and devoted his every pixel during the last election here to making shit up about the man."
Chickie, I know I'm wasting my time, because you don't play fair, but you probably didn't notice I was very specific in my opposition to Romney and everything I said has turned out to be true.
Your first mistake was in asking me, an anti-cultist, to vote for anyone in a "church" deemed a cult by me. How you don't get that, I don't know.
Second, Romney's "church" has admitted it was as racist as I said it was and it's sorry, so I didn't lie there either.
Nutritional supplements - which Romney sells - have been found to be useless, just as I said, so the man you wanted for president WAS running a scam on the American people because (as I always said) if I know they're worthless, he HAS to know they're worthless.
Now, why have you made it your personal job to try and discredit me when you know I won't stand for it?
"discredit me when you know I won't stand for it?"
Crack discovers his inner Stompyfoot.
Back when Crack hated on the French, that was OK. I don't much like the French myself. But now, he seems to hate all white people, no matter what language they speak. That seems a little much. If he is being serious, I think he has a real emotional issue. I started to say a real problem, but problems can be solved. Issues go on forever.
"As for Crack's present shtick, I define it as writing false accusations here and elsewhere in the based on past grievances, and trying to provoke people."
Obviously, it's not a past grievance, or he wouldn't be articulating it. Nor is he "trying" to provoke people. He's being enormously successful at it.
Why do you suppose that is?
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
--Faulkner
"starting with living with their captors who hold all inherited wealth."
Aha ! Now we are getting to his complaint. All those white people and their money ! If all whites are holding inherited wealth, I want my share.
Crack, you might want to read the history of Barbados to learn why the USA was not as bad after the Civil War as Britain which abolished slavery in 1834.
African slaves worked on plantations owned by merchants of English and Scottish descent. It was these merchants who continued to dominate Barbados politics, even after emancipation, due to a high income restriction on voting. Only the upper 30 per cent had any voice in the democratic process. It was not until the 1930s that a movement for political rights was begun by the descendants of emancipated slaves, who started trade unions.
The US Civil Service had many black members until Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, segregated the Civil Service in 1912.
In a letter to a black church official, Wilson wrote, "Should I become President of the United States they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing for everything by which I could assist in advancing their interests of the race." But after the election, Wilson changed his tune. He dismissed 15 out of 17 black supervisors who had been previously appointed to federal jobs
"There are no government positions for Negroes in the South. A Negro's place is in the corn field."
and replaced them with whites. He also refused to appoint black ambassadors to Haiti and Santa Domingo, posts traditionally awarded to African Americans. Two of Wilson's cabinet ministers, Postmaster General Albert Burelson and Treasury Secretary William McAdoo, both Southerners, issued orders segregating their departments.
I think you have some studying to do, Crack. One reason the blacks from West INdies countries are less hung up is because they have been the majority in those countries for a long time and ,if they fuck up, they can't blame it on Whitey.
How about that, Crack? Notice that there were black federal officers until 1912, did you Crack ?
My black students from Africa and West Indies feel sorry for American blacks. My Ethiopian dental hygienist told me about being insulted when she was in the market with her white husband. By a black woman.
Freeman Hunt wrote:
How is it a shtick? He says there is still a race problem in the country. He's right. He says the American political right needs to offer a better message than "I don't see color," and "All black problems are the fault of black people."
I wont respond to Crack, but to you since you are stating your opinion of what Crack's saying. Basically calling every white person a bigot isn't exactly arguing about the messaging of "I don't see color".
And the problems we face now in race relations are simply not the problems we faced when we were still dealing with Jim Crow. It's a different world. The idea that we'd have a black president during Jim Crow is ludicrous. So then to compare the world where the president could NEVER be black to the one where the president IS and then argue as if there is no change,sorry I'll have to shut down your microphone.
What better message do you want to heal racial relations than that you don't see color or more importantly that race isnt the qualifying factor in policies either positive or negative.
And as for the idea that all black problems are the fault of black folks.A lot of the problem of black folks are the fault of black folks. Just as a lot of the problems of white folks are the fault of white folks. If you preach self reliance as a virtue, as republicans do, then that is a lesson applied to all races. Thus,your problems are largely of your own making regardless of color. But similarly you are capable of your own solution.
Back in the 60's James Brown sang "I don't need nobody give me nothing. Open up the door. I'll get it myself"
I trust then that James was in fact capable of getting it himself if the door was opened. The door was opened.
Freeman Hunt said...
Nobody gets all wee-wee-ed up when he uses his wild style on New Age. Why so on race? People freak out and act like he slapped their mothers. Why?
It's hard to believe anyone would write this. He's getting it because he claims white skin uniquely passes guilt among those who share it.
virgil xenophon said...
@Crack II/
I would suggest that what you see as white "structural"/"systemic"
undeserved "privilege" is the simple fact that this nation's sociocultural standards and political structure was established, in the main, by the majority white population.
Ah, Virgil, if only it were so. There were times when there were more blacks in the United States than whites. No, this has always been a system maintained by whites through violence for money and power and nothing more. Come on, when even Thomas Jefferson was having racial nightmares but still bragging he was making 4% annually from slaves, the basis for it is pretty clear. Washington saw it and told him so. He didn't free his slaves until he died, but still.
"You are in the distinct minority. "When in Rome do as the Romans do"--or at least expect the Romans to do as the Romans do, ok?"
No can always do, Kemosabi. White culture is conflicted, and troubled by my presence, and they outnumber me 6 to 1. I can get in trouble for doing nothing. I can get in trouble for saying nothing. I can get in trouble for speaking. I can get in trouble for staying. I can get in trouble for walking away. And where am I going to go?
And Freeman Every single year we hear how we need to start funding education or engage in a war on poverty as if we haven't already done so. We spend a hell of a lot on education and even more so on poverty programs.
Why aren't kids learning? A lot of it is the schools. But lets be honest. A lot of it is cultural. The black kids that learn are the Uncle Tom's according to other blacks. NOT WHITES.
How do you become middle class in this country. You get married, you get an eduation and you get and hold a job.
Well, the black family is in tatters, so there goes that second income. And blacks are dropping out of school in record numbers, so there goes the education and the job.
How much of that is the fault of the individual? Is society forcing people to quit school? That;s a personal choice. Whatever your race, if you don't even finish high school the deck is stacked against you.
What does society owe you if you can't even finish high school?
WOW:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE RACISTS FROM LEM'S COMMENT HOME HAVE ARRIVED!!!! GIVE 'EMA BIG HAND!
I would just like to say that i am so honored, to have forced all these nice, benevolent non-racists, from their comment hole, just to come over here and give me a hard time like in the old days. It truly touches my heart.
You took me off your blogroll, so I figured we were done, but no - you need that pound of flesh, don't you?
God, you're such liars,...
"I can get in trouble for saying nothing. I can get in trouble for speaking. I can get in trouble for staying. I can get in trouble for walking away. And where am I going to go?"
Well, you could act white. Just kidding.
Your link made no sense. The employer was an idiot.
The behavior of American blacks begins to resemble the punks of London in the 70s. They wore weird clothes and weird hairdos to show everyone that they could not get a job. Then the punk style became fashionable.
Next I suppose lefty whites will start to use "black" names for their kids. You can't escape it, Crack. White people want blacks to like them. Except me, of course. I know that will never happen.
A lot of people have a problem when Crack starts his railing against religious fanaticism. It just must not doesn't bother you much, Freeman.
Wow, didn't realize that Meade gave Crack authority over who gets to view/post comments on Althouse's blog.
You guys must be really excited for poly-marriage to become the next pressing civil right, huh?
Crack, suggested reading. It might be good for you.
ken in sc said...
Back when Crack hated on the French, that was OK. I don't much like the French myself. But now, he seems to hate all white people, no matter what language they speak. That seems a little much.
Dude, I just did a post hating on the French today.
So is that really your argument? I can hate on the French but the racism here should get a pass?
Dude, I live here.
Why can't you guys stop fighting? That's an option.
You can't win. History's not going to change for you.
And nobody's out to get you anyway.
Freeman doesn't seem threatened. Ann and Meade don't either. I don't know how I can threaten you through the internet.
What do you really think is being asked of you but "Let's fix the country"? You know it's broke.
So white people did some shit. O.K.. We're aware of that. If you keep denying it we can't do anything but deal with your stupid denials. Which compounds the problem.
Does this make sense?
Where is Piers Morgan when you need him?
Michael K wrote:
"suggested reading. It might be good for you."
Michael, Are we sure that the article's writer is black?
Scott said...
As for racism: For whatever good or bad reasons, my partners over the past 30 or so years have been of other races. That experience has led me to believe that (a) ALL white people are racist, (b) most white people are not aware of it, (c) it is annoying to most minorities but especially to black people, (d) the people who traffick in race baiting perpetuate the problem and all have seats waiting for them at Satan's table in Hell, (e) white people should not feel ashamed with their racism -- just deal with it.
I have a friend from Chicago where inter-race marriages are not uncommon. He is a white guy married to a black woman. His perspective on racism is an interesting one, having experienced it second-hand. People like him have some of the more unbiased and perceptive views on this issue. I largely agree with everything you say here.
People have been sensitive to class/caste since time immemorial. With the breakdown of overt racial segregation race and class have become intermingled, with skin color becoming a convenient marker for different classes. To pretend that skin color does not affect ones assessment of another person is slightly nutty in my view and, in this limited respect, I largely agree with John Derbyshire.
AReasonableMan wrote:
"To pretend that skin color does not affect on ones assessment of another person "
Ok, so cop to it. You're talking about those OTHER people right? Those other non enlightened whites, unlike yourself? Or are you admitting that skin color does affect YOUR assessment of other people?
Michael K,
Your link made no sense. The employer was an idiot.
The link did make sense - don't do that - that's one way it's done. An idiot with power over another's livelihood, using race to exert punishment without recourse. I've seen it in all it's manifestations. We call it Jane Crow. Now that all the obvious Jim Crow legal barriers are down, the subtle, passive-aggressive ones go up. Nobody has to "be" a racist to exert the power everyone knows is there to exploit.
It's in the put-downs and everything else. Why any American would want to put down anyone they know this country raped for generations is outside of my comprehension. "You're poor, ha-ha!"
Really, that's what we're going to build a future on?
You took me off your blogroll, so I figured we were done, but no - you need that pound of flesh, don't you?
I didn't take you off anyone's blog roll, Crack. I don't have that authority (I do know why that occurred however). But that begs the question: why did Althouse take you off her blog roll a year or so ago? I figured it was embarrassment.
Crack: "An idiot with power over another's livelihood, using race to exert punishment without recourse."
Enough about Shirley Sherrod.
Can't we talk about white folks again?
jr565 said...
Ok, so cop to it. You're talking about those OTHER people right? Those other non enlightened whites, unlike yourself? Or are you admitting that skin color does affect YOUR assessment of other people?
I don't have any problem admitting that race, accent, appearance, vocabulary, class, dress sense, sexual orientation, education, sex, and any other human attribute that you can think of influence my opinions of other humans, sometimes unfairly. Following Pope Francis I begin with this basic fact: “I am a sinner”.
AReasonableMan wrote:
To pretend that skin color does not affect ones assessment of another person is slightly nutty in my view"
Since you're copping to racism, my guess is you're one of those racists who speak nicely of the other races, but deep down think they can't really cut it in the world and need the help of the nice white folks. As otherwise they'd be led astray by their savage nature?
Am I right? It's ok. Just cop to it.
chicken little,
I didn't take you off anyone's blog roll, Crack. I don't have that authority (I do know why that occurred however). But that begs the question: why did Althouse take you off her blog roll a year or so ago? I figured it was embarrassment.
No, she did it because I asked her to. In case you haven't noticed - which wouldn't be hard to do since you've done it yourself - I get accused of saying things for that all-important "traffic" the racists claim I hunger for, just as I do their money because I'm now a "race hustler" too, right?
Anyway, Ann took it down at my request, not out of embarrassment.
She can put it back if she wants, since you mentioned it.
I forgot about it,...
AReasonableMan wrote:
I don't have any problem admitting that race, accent, appearance, vocabulary, class, dress sense, sexual orientation, education, sex, and any other human attribute that you can think of influence my opinions of other humans, sometimes unfairly.
But you think this is a white trait? Or does every person in the world share this infallibility? If it's everyone, why single out white people for holding said views?
Sorry "infallibility" Should have said "fallibility".
AReasonableMan agrees with this quote:
hat experience has led me to believe that (a) ALL white people are racist, (b) most white people are not aware of it, (c) it is annoying to most minorities but especially to black people, (d) the people who traffick in race baiting perpetuate the problem and all have seats waiting for them at Satan's table in Hell, (e) white people should not feel ashamed with their racism -- just deal with it.
But then goes on to argue as if all people are sinners. Well,THIS qoute was about non whites viewing WHITES as sinners, not about the human condition. So don't now change the argument to be about the human condition.
Those folks saying ALL whites are racists would similarly be human and therefor fallible and bigoted. And the fact that they are singling out one group to assign evil to only shows that. Pot meet kettle, as they say.
AReasonableMan wrote:
I don't have any problem admitting that race, accent, appearance, vocabulary, class, dress sense, sexual orientation, education, sex, and any other human attribute that you can think of influence my opinions of other humans, sometimes unfairly.
So, Trayvon Martin walking the street at night with a hoodie in a gated community when no onne knew who he was. Your reaction?
Or,rather than address Trayvon address the argument by Geraldo that hispanics and blacks shouldn't wear hoodies because of the potential for people assuming things about them. I guess you're agreeing with Geraldo?
jr565,
Why single out white people for holding said views?
Jr, you're in denial about what the culture does to you. White people did this - to you. You hold views contrary to reality - like RFK couldn't have predicted Obama - and then either ignore them or change the subject or go for some other hail mary pass of distraction but you, as a white male, will not admit you're wrong.
If you could, you wouldn't be asking "why us?"
That's why. Because you're determined to keep the pressure on everyone you grossly outnumber and never look at yourself and your own behavior when it comes to the long-term well-being of this country.
So white people did some shit. O.K.. We're aware of that. If you keep denying it we can't do anything but deal with your stupid denials.
Nobody is denying that White people did things wrong in the past. What we are denying is that White people today bear any responsibility for them.
I am also denying that the top three problems facing American Blacks today have anything to do with White racism.
So, Trayvon Martin walking the street at night with a hoodie in a gated community when no onne knew who he was. Your reaction?
Mine? Nothing.
But Trayvon wandering around the neighborhood in the rain? I'm suspicious, especcially if there has been a recent run of break-ins.
Gahrie,
Nobody is denying that White people did things wrong in the past.
When did this "past" happen to come to an "end" Gahrie?
I want to tell my black friends,...
And where am I going to go?
Liberia?
I don't think Toobin is racist. I think he is a "White Supremacist".
Four conservative SCOTUS judges and Toobin goes after the Black guy and calls him Lazy - because "he knows that look".
Wow.
Why is it okay for a black to come to America to enrich themselves but not a white after 1865? My answer is it is okay for everyone to come here and attempt to get rich (legally) and doing so doesn't make anyone racist, before or after 1865.
But if American treasure is from the blood and death of black slaves shouldn't those who abhor American slavery abhor the alien profiteers more than natives?
If whites are so ignorant to not even know they are racist, racism without intent or consideration, how can anyone blame them for their actions? I don't blame my dog when he acts up, because he is limited in his abilities. If whites are limited in recognizing their racism wouldn't the decent thing to do be excuse them as hopelessly inherently racist hence having chained will as opposed to free one?
When did this "past" happen to come to an "end" Gahrie?
Apparently it never will....
So is Milli Vanilli racist for coming to America to exploit the wealth and treasure that was earned from slave blood?
That seems more racist to me than a poor white who grew up here and hasn't made any money, hence exploiting the deaths of slaves like the rich have using privilege of some sort and racism if white.
I have a question. Why is it the Nigerians and Blacks from other countries are so much smarter, or better educated, than those in America? Every year it is noted in the news that the Black children are still not being brought up to the level of the White children. Actually, I think the further South you go it gets worse. Is it because they are locked in to welfare and see no point in getting an education. The parents aren't involved? I suppose no one wants to tackle this. I am sick and tired of the crime and the Blacks given a break because of their hard times.
Gahrie said...
When did this "past" happen to come to an "end" Gahrie?
Apparently it never will….
Nice dodge, but you brought it up:
When is this "past" you refer to and when did it "end"?
Over 45 so I must be a racist. I went to segregated schools because the law commanded it. Then to an integrated school because the law required it. When I was a high school senior we elected a black man class president. When I had a choice I went to a integrated school. I graduated college during the 200th anniversary of "All men are created equal". So I am a racist.
Speaking of not recognizing racism if you are guilty of it....I have a ton of bi-racial great grandchildren and I know their several mothers. This is the thing: I have told them they need to publish a book of words and phrases that OFFEND them, because we obviously don't know all of them. For instance, if I said "BOY, come here." That is normal for White people to say to their kids. A real bad one is to mention monkey. Whites always refer to their babies as little monkeys...and older ones when climbing and jumping around...THAT IS A DEFINITE NO NO. I think someone needs to tell them to pull up their adult panties and not be trying to blame their problems on the Whites. They are teaching their children how horrible Whites are after laying down with them to have babies. My daughter is covered up with grandchildren to keep, so we do have access to them a lot.
"When is this "past" you refer to and when did it "end"?"
Well, one way of seeing the end is pointing to ways in which the perpetually oppressed exercise power as oppressors. Obama is an example. There are myriad of others at all levels of society. Which isn't to say that there isn't lingering realities, but that nowadays there's black people in power who can exercise life changing authority.
Unwillingness to see any change is to conflate present frustrations with past systemic barriers. It's also to negate the fight that has been kept up by generations of blacks seeking more freedom. Those in previous generations did not leave the next generations in the same situation. They fought for something and their fight was not in vain.
That also doesn't mean the fight is over. It's not a, um, black or, um, white situation. Better put, it's not a choice between saying there's no racism or absolute no change in racism.
"For all the decades the Underground Railroad worked to free slaves, the best estimates put the total at about 200,000. That’s a lot of people in absolute numbers, but still very few when compared to the tens of millions of slaves living in America between 1619 and 1865."
The entire population of the United States in 1865 was 35.2 million. Blacks were concentrated in the southern states; percentage of blacks in northern states was negligable. I hate it when people lie with numbers so transparently. It is not possible for there to have been tens of millions of black slaves in the entire history of the United States.
On slave survival, pretty much only in the United States were slaves kept around for their entire natural life. In Sharialand there were far more blacks in slavery then the U.S. ever had. Saudi Arabia, Syrai, Iraq, Iran, have a black population approaching zero percent. Blacks were used and discarded. I remember explaining to one black guy that the harem guards did not voluntarily abstain from sex with the harem- they were castrated.
The slave trade was stopped almost singlehandedly by the British Navy. There were no black led fleets or even single ships aiding them.
As far as the Hutsis and Tutsis practicing mutual genocide? People in the United States for the most part have no distinct ethnic or tribal identity. We talk about where our ancestors came from, but do not identify those areas as our homelands. Much of the rest of the world is still tribal.
I remember a study done on personal identity done in the past, that probably still holds true. The average white person in the U.S. when asked to describe themselves, in ten words, husband(wife), father(mother), occupation, religion, and various other things. White or Caucasian almost never appears. For blacks, black is usually in the top 3. Whites, except for some fringe types, don't conciously consider white to be part of their identity.
In his critique of Justice Thomas, Toobin is doubtlessly channeling the Democrats' rich heritage of teaching the black man his proper place, as pioneered by Calhoun, Vardaman, Bilbo, et al.
Freeman, racist impersonators? No, they're for real.
Every argument this guy Crack makes comes down to one thing.
Give him your money. And until you do so, you're a racist.
No thanks.
Toobin wrote a lengthy profile of Clarence Thomas for the New Yorker in 2011, and although the overall tone was quite different from the current piece, he did say this:
"What makes Thomas’s silence even more peculiar is his behavior in the courtroom, especially in recent years. The Justices all sit in high-backed leather swivel chairs, and Thomas has set his so that he can recline so far that he appears almost to be lying down. He stares at the ceiling. He rubs his face. He does not appear to be listening. He closes his eyes and sometimes appears to be asleep. The over-all effect is rude, if not contemptuous."
That's not all that different from what he wrote in the current piece, is it? I guess the New Yorker figured it must have been okay then, so why not do it again.
None of us know a slave or a slave owner, and were getting to the point where none of us were around for Jim Crow.
Meanwhile we are at a point when blacks are the president of the Us. CEO'S, movie stars, business men and Supreme Court justices.
So why are we still having arguments as if Jim Crowe is alive and well?
We fought the war, and blacks and America as a whole won the war. All blacks should expect is for the door to open.
That was already done.
Now we have people who see opportunities and take them and people who seem to want society to heal
Their psyche. The former is a personal choice, the latter ain't going to happen. For anyone.
Crack Emcee wrote:
That's why. Because you're determined to keep the pressure on everyone you grossly outnumber and never look at yourself and your own behavior when it comes to the long-term well-being of this country.
what behavior am I supposed to atone for? You don't know the first thing about me except that
I have white skin.
And what pressure am I determined to keep on others I outnumber? I think you overestimate the power I wield.
As to looking to my own behavior, fine. But if you're a citizen like me, them look to your own behavior since you are responsible just as I am. You or
Black people don't get a pass on your sins simply because you're black.
"That's why. Because you're determined to keep the pressure on everyone you grossly outnumber and never look at yourself and your own behavior when it comes to the long-term well-being of this country."
Does that also apply to black majority countries ? Just wondering. Crack, you would have friends here if you would ever allow them.
"Yet you fail to recognize any commenters expressing reasoned opposition to Crack -- here and elsewhere.
Do you buy Crack's shtick?"
If freeman does then that means freeman like all other whites is racist. If that's the case then why even have conversations about race? Because whether you argue for or against racism you're still racist.
It would t matter what position you held, it's a racist one.
Post a Comment