That's the title of an interesting essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic.
The idea is, roughly, that Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling are so crudely racist that we look at them, easily see that they are quite awful, deserving condemnation, and — this is the bad part — not at all like me and everyone I know. If those two are to be America's stereotypical "racists," it's going to get even harder to see the subtle, below-board, pervasive forms of racism that Coates and others have been urging us to perceive. We will self-indulgently feel smug that: 1. We've ostracized the racists, and 2. We are nothing like the racists.
If you're wondering what "Town" needs a "Better Class of Racist," I assume the town is Gotham, that is, that Coates means to evoke The Joker:
But it's this whole country Coates thinks needs a "better class of racist." He wants us to have to confront and mentally anguish over individuals who: 1. Are nice and normal enough that we identify with and cannot distance ourselves from, and 2. We're somehow compelled to perceive as racist.
I wonder what Coates would be willing to do to smoke out some high-class racists like that? And what would it take — especially after the harsh treatment of Bundy and Sterling — for Americans to respond to invitations to see nice-enough fellow citizens as racists?
२ मे, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९० टिप्पण्या:
The word "racist" is overused as a noun and underused as an adjective.
What this country needs is a better class of minority spokespeople. More Thomas Sowell, less Al Sharpton.
When Coates says "you could scarcely choose a more graceful method [of racism] than housing discrimination" he is closer in outlook to Cliven Bundy's observations on North Las Vegas than he realizes.
I agree with Tim. Also more Bill Cosby, less Spike Lee. More Clarence Thomas, less Sonia Sotomayor. More Shelby Steele, less Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Shouldn't we be looking for innovative ways to more broadly monetize racism so that more people, ordinary people, can participate in it profitably rather than just a few self-selected pundits and activists?
Racism so subtle you can't even perceive it. Looking for it so hard becomes indistinguishable from paranoia and a persecution complex.
It wasn't that long ago that this sort of blatant racism was accepted.
In other words, we need to redefine what it means to be a racist so I can push my political agenda upon you.
If offered the option of being a very good-looking black guy (instead of being the pasty skinned, basal cell carcinoma-ridden guy that I am) I'd take the deal in an instant, so maybe I'm the better class of racist we all need.
Nearly every white person is a racist in Coates's eyes. You'd have to prostrate yourself to satisfy him. He's asking for every white American to look in the mirror and hate the person they see. Even if that person is in the 99th percentile of tolerance.
In fact our country needs a better class of leftist demagogue than Coates.
Coates ridiculously claims this paragraph by Sowell can accurately be summarized as Sowell believing blacks were "better off as property...being whipped, worked, and raped".
The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
In fact Sowell was showing the power of the welfare state by noting it undermined an institution which had survived the horrors of slavery.
There's simply no reasonable interpretation you can make to reach Coates' conclusion. Coates gets a lot of love because he attacks the right people in the way the left loves. But in reality he's just another person whose hatred has been stoked beyond his ability to reason.
Racism is in the eye of the beholder and some beholders can see nothing else. Some of these folks should wonder why real Africans do so well in college.
I'd also like to bang a black chick someday, so maybe that gets me a few extra points.
When all the nails have been driven, put the hammer down. If you keep on pounding you're no longer building, you're demolishing.
" We will self-indulgently feel smug that: 1. We've ostracized the racists, and 2. We are nothing like the racists."
Isn't that the point of the gigantic outrage? Not that their conduct wasn't outrageous, but once again it gives everyone an opportunity to feel superior. And not just the left, who are usually the ones with the strongest need to feel superior. In this game everyone can play.
Is support of the status quo in urban education racist? Are those who oppose charter schools racist? Are white people the only racists? Is the voting rights act racist legislation because its impact excludes attention to black people of the north? Is gerrymandering Congressional districts to create safe black and white districts racist? Etc. Etc.
See how much we need people like Sterling and Bundy?
Has Crack recovered sufficiently from his rash to come accept the bait Althouse is laying out?
Race is such a divisive issue it would be better if they (races) did not exist. But they do. What is the next best solution? A multi-racial society in which many races have a similar percentage of the population? Well, that was roughly the situation in the former Yugoslavia, and also in many African states (if you count different tribes (genetic populations) as different races, which they are in a way and to a certain extent. No, that is obviously not the best solution either.
Maybe the best solution is a lot of mono-racial societies that learn how to live together? Well, Europe has moved in that direction in the last hundred years, though we tend to overlook that fact, and so far it is working pretty good. The breakup of the Soviet Union is another step in that direction, not unlike the breakup of the old Austro-Hungarian population.
But here in the West our governing elites have decided (in the aftermath of WWII and, I suppose, the Holocaust) that racial diversity is a blessing and that a multi-racial, multi-cultural society is the best of all worlds. Maybe it's time to elect a new elite?
We are moving inexorably towardes a racially stratified oligarchic society here in the US -- one that can be cynically manipulated by stirring up "hate storms." That way the (multi-racial) majority cannot possibly see what it's common interests are. The oligarchs rule!
Is there no better solution for the United States? How about a completely thought voluntarily self-segregated society at the provincial level and neighborhood level (which is what we see happening anyway everywhere the federal government does not intervene)?
Well, that would at best be half of a solution, which is no solution at all. It comes back to those pesky elites -- you know, the ones that control all public discourse in this country ( boy have they been in action lately!)
Here's my solution: affirmative action for all at Harvard and Yale and all the other colleges and universities in America. Every liberal arts educational institution above the high school level must have stundent body that is representative of the full racial, ethnic, AND GEOGRAPHIC diversity of the nation as a whole.
Of course our current elites will howl. So? Replace them!
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I'd also like to bang a black chick someday, so maybe that gets me a few extra points.
It does, Eric. Not that you need any more points.
Economics to explain people like Mr. Coates: The PC brigade has been highly successful in creating new social taboos, but their success is their very problem. Moral superiority is a prime example of a positional good, because we cannot all be morally superior to each other. Once you have successfully exorcised a word or an opinion, how do you differentiate yourself from others now? You need new things to be outraged about, new ways of asserting your imagined moral superiority.
You can do that by insisting that the no real progress has been made, that your issue is as real as ever, and just manifests itself in more subtle ways. Many people may imitate your rhetoric, but they do not really mean it, they are faking it, they are poseurs. You can also hugely inflate the definition of an existing offense. Or you can move on to discover new things to label ‘offensive’, new victim groups, new patterns of dominance and oppression.
Quote from Kristian Niemietz at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
I think that Coates problem is that Bundy and Sterling remind people what real racism is and so reduce the value of the BS racism he's been selling for years.
In the case of sterling, while I'm sure he is a racist it's odd how his racism manifests. First off he dates a black woman. The extent of his diatribe against blacks is that he doesn't want her associating with other blacks at his stadium and involve him. But he's ok if she does it on her time.
But he goes out of his way to hire blacks for his team. He thinks that white players are overpaid.
Then he points out how blacks or black Jews are mistreated by Jews, to which his girl friend asks him if it's ok if he treats them badly along the same lines. And he then says he loves everybody.
His bigotry is all over the place, and not even coherent. I'm wondering if he's going senile.
Sterling and Bundy are problematic for the race demagogues. These two individuals made their statements, and while there was some very limited discussion about taping private statemenst (Sterling) or context (Bundy), pretty much everyone condemned the racists statements and the two individuals suffered the consequences (more so for Sterling, but Bundy has certainly lost a lot of supporters). Why did that happen in an unredeemably racist country where the 60% who disapprove of the President's actions are acting solely from racial animus?
Well that and what laws are people empowered to break in the process of "smoking" them out?
This is the best thing I've read all week. "Nevada Ranch Militias Turn Against Each Other Over Drone-Attack Theory"
I agree with Ann's point. The purpose of all this is to keep folks cowering, hunched over and...above all....quiet. Don't make eye contact; identify yourself as Reek, if asked; and leave the field of play to them.
I know that many dispute the left-right paradigm. I see nothing else that comes close to explaining virtually every ugliness we endure.
- Krumhorn
Coates is aiming at the right audience in the readership of The Atlantic: upper middle class liberals in gateway cities. The problem, as he seems to finally see, is that those readers will never, ever, look inward on this topic. And why should they? What on earth are white southerners for if not to be the object of Coates' and his readers' scorn?
Garage:
You should read more, dude. Quite a lot going on in the world. You are a few laps behind.
The Atlantic needs a better class of writer. Desperately so, since McMegan left.
...it's going to get even harder to see the subtle, below-board, pervasive forms of racism that Coates and others have been urging us to perceive.
But we have to keep trying, because high-quality Two Minute Hate targets don't appear predictably enough
to provide a steady-enough stream of column material and shakedown opportunities for race hustlers - no matter how diligent the MSM sniff'n'denounce squads.
And guys like "Dex"(see comments)...
...a lot of people are sympathetic to both Sterling and Bundy. More importantly, they are scared. Terrified, in fact, because they know that they have racist conversations and tell (and laugh heartily at) racist jokes. The idea that they or anyone else be held accountable for exercising their freedom of speech is wholly unacceptable. They recite freedom of speech protestations but are really just begging for freedom from consequences.
...might have to get a real job or something if the informer gigs dry up.
Lyndon Johnson got along very well with the civil rights leaders of his day. They all commended the frank, respectful way he treated them. None of them considered him a racist. The blacks who worked for him had a different opinion of his racial sensitivity. He was just awful in his treatment of them.....LBJ knew how to curry favor with power brokers and, in an economy of effort, how to be blunt and overbearing with underlings,......I think Stirling is cut in the same mode as LBJ. I think he can be quite capable of relating to blacks in a friendly, egalitarian way when it suits his interests and quite capable of treating them like crap if that advances his interest. His guiding principle is not racial superiority but self interest.
Bundy is a different kind of racist. He probably really does believe in the superiority of the white race, but my guess is that he treats underlings a lot better than Sterling. Bundy apparently has liberal views on Hispanics and immigration. Those are the minorities he works with. I think that if had a record of mistreating them we would have heard about it by now. His racial comments were more ignorant than malicious. I disapprove of his views, but he's probably a more moral and decent man than many of those who criticize him.
Ann Althouse said...
"And what would it take — especially after the harsh treatment of Bundy and Sterling — for Americans to respond to invitations to see nice-enough fellow citizens as racists? "
I dunno, maybe responding incorrectly to an "ugly" real video clip?
And we will then be identifying femto-aggressions (which are micro-micro; 10 to the -12th power), and will be properly horrified by them and tell them to "Get. A. Life.", whcih is, of course, a macro agression (and sometimes referred to as "fatherly advice".
I confess that I had guessed that Coates' essay would "define racism down," (I suppose some would say that makes me a racist) but the specific issues he raises (mass incarceration and housing discrimination) are important enough to merit the term.
I like Meade's comment that "racist" is an overused noun and an underused adjective. For instance, I think it's fair to call the wide differences in the old penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine "racist." But it doesn't follow that everyone (black, white, R, or D) who voted for those laws (many with genuine (if morally panicked) concern for the lives of people hurt by crack) is a "racist."
I stopped reading Coates back when he railed against the racism by African immigrants against American blacks.
im waiting for this guy to lose his job
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/02/video-third-ranking-house-democrat-wont-condemn-calling-clarence-thomas-an-uncle-tom/
jr565 said...
"In the case of sterling, while I'm sure he is a racist it's odd how his racism manifests."
Excellent point.
Luke Lea said...
"Is there no better solution for the United States? How about a completely thought voluntarily self-segregated society at the provincial level and neighborhood level (which is what we see happening anyway everywhere the federal government does not intervene)?"
The left is trying to whip up racial hatred but segregation of any kind is unnecessary. For example, we have black neighbors who are members of well educated intact families and they fit in just fine. The problem with blacks in our country isn't that all blacks are failing but that there is a huge underclass of blacks who have fallen for the leftie agenda including embracing single parenthood with multiple baby daddies and blaming other people for their own failings.
@BobR -
Abject nonsense - the relative penalties were in response to drug related murders
Coates thinks white landowner is obligated to rent out to anyone regardless of ability to pay or not trash the residence.
A better class of racist? Look at what we have already - tall, lean, mellifluous baritone, perfectly creased pant leg....
What Gotham needs is a better class of hypocrite.
garage: "This is the best thing I've read all week."
Considering your intellectual and logical limitations, that is very easy to believe.
Very easy.
Thanks for stopping by.
We have Crack. What class is he?
It's so hard to keep track these days.
Why am I supposed to care what Coates thinks about anything?
Never seen a reason before.
Luke Lea suggests;Here's my solution: affirmative action for all at Harvard and Yale and all the other colleges and universities in America. Every liberal arts educational institution above the high school level must have stundent body that is representative of the full racial, ethnic, AND GEOGRAPHIC diversity of the nation as a whole.
Actually, geographic diversity is something already factored into admissions at elite universities. For example, Yale could fill its freshman class with qualified applicants from East Coast private schools, but it doesn't because that would doom it as a national (really, international) university that spreads its alumni reach, and thus, alumni influence, broadly. So your suggestion has already been baked in the cake.
Considering your intellectual and logical limitations, that is very easy to believe
You're right. Intra-fighting between bumbling Teabagger militia types is probably a waste of time. Still funny though.
like Robert Byrd?
This is the best thing I've read all week. "Nevada Ranch Militias Turn Against Each Other Over Drone-Attack Theory"
The Revolution eats its own. Or at least Cletus does when he's hungry.
Coates does not recognize racism in his midst. We need a better class of civil rights activist.
Of course the real problem (which I'm guessing the people who write these kind of articles and the people who unthinkingly read and agree with them don't see as a problem but a solution, or at least something they get off on) is statism, not racism. Other than the coercive form of racist (e.g., the KKK, violent skinheads, etc.), racism itself is relatively harmless. The racist "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Statism does both. In fact. statism kills.
Of course the real problem (which I'm guessing the people who write these kind of articles and the people who unthinkingly read and agree with them don't see as a problem but a solution, or at least something they get off on) is statism, not racism. Other than the coercive form of racist (e.g., the KKK, violent skinheads, etc.), racism itself is relatively harmless. The racist "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Statism does both. In fact. statism kills.
Clearly, the Atlantic could use a better class of intellectual.
Coates jumped the shark in this last essay in the Atlantic, attacking those of his own race that do not conform to his ideas of continuous black oppression being the root of all evil. The man is fixated with the idea that all of the evils of the black race have been imposed on his community by the white community and moreover, there is no hope that it will ever end.
I have never seen a logical suggestion in his writing on a solution to this situation. Since he believes its all about how people form ideas, I must conclude that he would favor a North Korean level of political indoctrination be used to end the stain of what he sees as injustice. Of course the whole edifice of his paranoia falls apart when you look at the situation in Africa, where the tribal hatreds dwarf any remark by Sterling or Bundy.
Let's be blunt, Slavery was nasty but the only place in the world it is still common is in Coates' homeland. And the reason it became such a huge industry after the discovery of America was that strong tribes in Africa sold away the weaker for their land. Blame runs in both directions.
Tribalism isn't going to go away, so there will always be suspicion of "the other". But we are light years away from where race relations were 40 years ago.
I stop reading people who start a sentence with "I stopped reading *X* when *X* said something I disagreed with and had a mangina hysterical hot flash".
You doods really need to get off of the soy... it's loaded with estrogen.
Tim,
"What this country needs is a better class of minority spokespeople. More Thomas Sowell, less Al Sharpton."
Let's listen to Thomas Sowell on poverty:
"The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life."
But let's also look at the history he refers to - From Wikipedia:
"The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping, execution and sexual abuse including rape were common."
Oooh - not a good start for describing a thriving family life. Let's keep going:
"Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding and/or imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but slaves were also sometimes abused to assert the dominance of their master or overseer. Pregnant women received the most horrendous lashings; slave masters came up with unique ways to lash them so that they could beat the mother without harming the baby. Slave masters would dig a hole big enough for the woman's stomach to lay in and proceed with the lashings."
This was a wonderful Black Brady Bunch before libs came along, I'm sure - waaaay worst than being on welfare, anyway.
"The mistreatment of slaves frequently included rape and the sexual abuse of women. Many slaves were killed as a result of resisting sexual attacks. Others sustained psychological and physical trauma. The sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in the patriarchal nature of contemporary Southern culture and its view of women of any race as property.[3] After 1662, when Virginia adopted the legal doctrine partus sequitur ventrem, sexual relations between white men and black women were regulated by classifying children of slave mothers as slaves regardless of their father's race or status. After a few generations, numerous slaves were mixed-race (mulatto) offspring of such unions, although white Southern society abhorred sexual relations between white women and black men as damaging to racial purity."
Uh, Tim, I wouldn't try and push that Sowell idea too much in the future. Good guy, but not exactly helping whites with the facts any longer, my man,...
garage mahal,
"This is the best thing I've read all week. "Nevada Ranch Militias Turn Against Each Other Over Drone-Attack Theory""
The best thing I read was someone questioning what would happen if a black "militia group" ever tried to take over a white town in America?
Positive FOX News coverage, I'm sure,...
The class of morons worries me.
jr565,
"In the case of sterling, while I'm sure he is a racist it's odd how his racism manifests. First off he dates a black woman."
Thomas Jefferson must really confuse you,...
Crunchy Frog,
"We have Crack. What class is he?
It's so hard to keep track these days."
The lowest of the low:
The kind who told you there were white racists, and white racism, as you all denied it and laughed. Listen to mccullough trivialize the problem of life-and-death in this country:
"Racism so subtle you can't even perceive it. Looking for it so hard becomes indistinguishable from paranoia and a persecution complex."
I'm not the kind of racist who focusses on Sterling's weak-assed words - which most whites would agree with - but on the black lives he destroyed, with his housing practices, which no whites complained about.
"Paranoia and a persecution complex"? Sterling's wife was going around, posing as a government agent to get race data on her tenants and mccullough actually has the balls to write that.
I'm the kind of racist to write this is a painfully racist country - still.
That's the kind of "racist" I am,...
Coates is straining so hard to find racists and racism that a hemorrhoid may prolapse.
The Crack Emcee said...
jr565,
"In the case of sterling, while I'm sure he is a racist it's odd how his racism manifests. First off he dates a black woman."
Thomas Jefferson must really confuse you,...
How confusing was it for Jefferson who was brought up in a world where black people were thought of as little more than animals, or property to be bought and sold, and then to fall in love with one of "them."
The black family, after institutional slavery, was essentially the same as the white family. Once the liberal welfare spigot opened, the meteoric rise of unmarried women with "fatherless" families arrived. Most of the social ills stem from broken families, lifetimes on welfare etc. The white family has followed this playbook but at a slightly slower pace. Moynihan had this pegged 50 years ago.
The Crack Emcee said...
But let's also look at the history he refers to...
You do realize that your link reinforces Sowell's point. As horrible as all that was, it did not destroy the social institution of marriage among blacks. Coates agrees with Sowell on this point.
Ah, the bait has been taken.
How is your rash, Crackie?
The best thing I read was someone questioning what would happen if a black "militia group" ever tried to take over a white town in America?
And did this:
- "poured lighter fluid around" news trucks,
- Issued "bomb threats" against Hotels where Federal employees were lodging,
- told hotel staff they would be "dragged out in the parking lot and shot"
- Bundy thugs asked Metro Police Sgt Jenkins if "he was ready to die"
Link.
Let's see if I understand Crack's theory. For Crack's argument to work you have to accept an unstated assumption that black people are not free moral agents themselves but simply respond to what white people do or have done even hundreds of years ago. Therefore since slavery often broke up black families 150 years ago black people today can not marry and have stable families today. The reason there are so many black woman today who have babies from multiple baby daddies is because their ability to form stable families has been removed by people who are long dead.
On the other hand, Crack believes white people have fully developed moral characters and are therefore fully responsible for everything they do. Not only that but white people from 150 years ago were so morally capable that they are to be judged by todays standards.
Interesting theory Crack.
The Crack Emcee said...
Uh, Tim, I wouldn't try and push that Sowell idea too much in the future. Good guy, but not exactly helping whites with the facts any longer, my man,...
It's pretty revealing Crack thinks the Sowell comments he highlights contradict or negate what anyone else has written. While those comments show Coates to be a demagogue they have no relationship to the post he highlights them in response to.
Dude needs to get PAID! Racists, you have to pick up your game. Mr. Coates needs his!
The best thing I read was someone questioning what would happen if a black "militia group" ever tried to take over a white town in America?
How about they start by taking over Black communities, and start enforcing the laws and decent standards of behavior?
Crack, you are prone to projecting. You need to respect individual dignity. You should not look to your narratives in order to explain your state. A non-selective history undermines your general condemnation of individuals based on their skin color, religion, gender, etc. Let go of your prejudices.
This is where the civil rights movement went wrong. They don't respect individual dignity, when it is expedient or profitable to denigrate it. This is why Democrats, in addition to devaluing human life through normalization of abortion/murder, are fundamentally corrupt. You will find no legitimate excuses to comfort yourself in their popular narratives.
Crack,
I didn't trivialize racism, I pointed out that if Coates looks for it everywhere all the time then he will look paranoid or become paranoid.
Also, black isn't the only minority in the US. Coates should start pleading his case with the Latinos and Asians. I'm sure they can relate to his comments.
I believe Crack is a troll and nothing proves it like quoting Wikipedia! on slavery. Why don't you quote Uncle Tom's Cabin? And you can take a crack (ha) at Justice Thomas while you're at it.
I would hardly call Sowell a spokesman for 'minority'. What he is, is a spokesman for sanity.
Ummmm, so yeah maybe spokesman for a minority after all...
I think we've found our better class of racist right here.
"The Revolution eats its own. Or at least Cletus does when he's hungry."
Except, this sort of racism is acceptable.
"Uh, Tim, I wouldn't try and push that Sowell idea too much in the future. Good guy, but not exactly helping whites with the facts any longer, my man,..."
I think you completely misunderstood Tim and Sowell. Neither were saying Slavery was a good thing.
The point, instead is, how bad, exactly, is welfare that the Black Family can survive slavery, but not welfare?
Pretty bad.
Does anyone take Coates seriously? His function is to ride point for the radical left, taking ridiculous positions in order to attract fire. Meanwhile, riding in column behind him, the DOJ goes around declaring that any business decision that might have an adverse impact on minorities is per se illegal discrimination notwithstanding the complete absence of invidious intent.
Crack: "Thomas Jefferson must really confuse you,.."
Thomas Jefferson dated a black gold-digger who wanted a slice of his millions and put him through the emotional ringer and audiotaped a conversation with him and then released that audiotape publicly which resulted in Jefferson being ordered to sell his assets?
Wow.
You're right.
There does seem to be some confusion here.
Try and see if you can tell whose....
According to the all knowing Wikipedia, the first slave owner in North America was Anthony Johnson, a free black from Angola. 1665
1655 AD
Marshall said ...In fact Sowell was showing the power of the welfare state by noting it undermined an institution which had survived the horrors of slavery.
Sowell's great! He's the only "public intellectual" whose books I thought were worth buying.
And what Bundy said wasn't too different from what Sowell has been saying for years, but Bundy's a "racist" because he's white; that distinction is racism, of course.
Is support of the status quo in urban education racist?
No.
Are those who oppose charter schools racist?
NO.
Are white people the only racists?
No.
Is the voting rights act racist legislation because its impact excludes attention to black people of the north?
No.
Is gerrymandering Congressional districts to create safe[?] black and white districts racist?
Yes.
I'm wondering if he's going senile.
His prostitute said that's why he wanted to be recorded.
"Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction."
mccullough said...
Also, black isn't the only minority in the US. Coates should start pleading his case with the Latinos and Asians. I'm sure they can relate to his comments.
A Coates of many colors could "unite against white."
You need to find some trusted soul in Honolulu, and another in Nova Scotia or PEI, to approve comments while you're sleeping.
Sterling says "I wish I had just paid her off."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/05/02/donald-sterling-comment-dujour-magazine-comment-v-stiviano/8629901/
The curse of the unpaid whore strikes again.
About this Ta-Nehisi Coats column.
It occurs to me that it contains cult like aspects to it. In that if you don't believe or if you doubt what Coats is saying that automatically makes you, in his belief system (cultish belief system) a racist. That's cult like thought.
When he says that people are "elegantly racist" what he is saying is that "elegant racists" found a way to reject his soul saving way of living. they are unconverted.. or something.
This could explain the fervor behind the anti Sterling/Bundy condemnations.
Sterling and Bundy confirm the tenets of the faith, that most of them, if not all of them, white people are lost (racist) and they need to do something - "this town needs a better class of racists" in order to be accepted into the kingdom of the saved people - ie non-racists people.
The strongest evidence of cultish thought is that if don't accept what Coates is putting forward you are a racist - ie lost.
Yea, I know you are moderating, but this had to be put forward... more "elegant" than the 'double speak' I put forward last night.
"It occurs to me that it contains cult like aspects to it"
Yeah, I got banned from the Atlantic comment by him for saying that a column he wrote on Haley Barbour was a "dogwhistle" to his supporters to call Barbour an out and out racist.
That seems some pretty gentle stuff to get you banned from a comment section.
Crack Emcee wrote:
Uh, Tim, I wouldn't try and push that Sowell idea too much in the future. Good guy, but not exactly helping whites with the facts any longer, my man,...
Sowell said that blacks SURVIVED slavery with families intact. not to take away any of what you say about what some slave owners did to their slaves (though not all slave owners were this vicious). Whatever happened the point was, after that, blacks still had an intact family structure. it was only in modern times around the time of the creation of the welfare state that the black family fractured.
Speaking of Sterling, another odd aspect of his racism is that he said that he didn't want HER to associate with black folks.
If you look at the picutres in the link below there are plenty of times when HE is associating with black people. And even sitting with her in public at his stadium.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/05/02/donald-sterling-comment-dujour-magazine-comment-v-stiviano/8629901/
So, I"m wondering if what he said was taken out of context. It sounds like a cuckolding situtation. Where he felt she was seeing these guys and he was jealous. Or thoutht that pictures of her with basketball stars in public woudl suggest that she was going out with these guys and cuckolding him in public. Or that she was being pictured with low class guys.
So, his argument was that he didn't want it getting back to him. If she wanted to screw them even, fine, but don't let it get back to him and make him look weak in public. Or soemthing to that effect.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा