"... and he began collecting records of Malcolm’s speeches, which he could still recite from memory two decades later. 'I’ve been very partial to Malcolm X,' Thomas said, in 1987. 'There is a lot of good in what he says.' On the eve of his appointment to the Supreme Court, Thomas was still summoning Malcolm as a witness for the prosecution against the liberal establishment. 'I don’t see how the civil-rights people today can claim Malcolm X as one of their own,' he said. 'Where does he say black people should go begging the Labor Department for jobs? He was hell on integrationists. Where does he say you should sacrifice your institutions to be next to white people?'... At Yale [Law School], Thomas developed an understanding of racism that he would never shake. Whites—Southern and Northern, liberal and conservative, rural and urban—are racists.... The most that can be hoped for is that whites be honest about it. Honesty is demonstrated through crude statements of personal animus or intellectual suggestions of racial inequality. Dishonesty is demonstrated through denial of one’s racism and sympathetic extensions of help. Dishonesty lulls black people into a false sense of security, assuring them that they are safe when they are not."
From "Clarence Thomas’s Radical Vision of Race/Thomas has moved from black nationalism to the right. But his beliefs about racism, and our ability to solve it, remain the same" by Corey Robin (in The New Yorker)(drawn from Robin's new book "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas").
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
७७ टिप्पण्या:
Leftwing garbage
The people that call us White Supremacists want to have another "talk" about race?
Pass.
I 2nd the first opinion.
Corey robin, understanding clarence thomas, 'that'll be the day'
If whites are racist, then everybody and every race is racist. If everybody and every race is racist, then 'white' racism is and has been - powerful assertion incoming - the least racist of all races.
Travel and see.
Say a prayer for the government lawyer
Spare a thought for his back breaking work
Cuz he oppressed, y'all!
" Robin's new book "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas")."
I would suggest changing the title to "The Glorious Triumph of Clarence Thomas"
But that's just me.
ps The New Yorker is no damn good.
It Does make you wonder
What the world would have been like if Malcolm X HADN'T been assassinated by the Nation of Islam?
This summer I met a former law clerk for Justice Thomas. One of the interesting comments she made: if you want to know what's going on in the lives of the janitors, cooks, door guards at the Supreme Court, ask Thomas. He knows them by name and talks to them about their kids, spouses. By far the warmest and friendliest of all the justices, she said.
And of course married to a racist white women.
I bought copies of Thomas's book, "My Grandfather's Son. for my kids to read.
The trash that leftwingers write is of no interest.
Corey Robin is a dangerous left-wing nut. I can't imagine why anyone would waste her time reading what he says.
"Whites—Southern and Northern, liberal and conservative, rural and urban—are racists."
Does Robin Wright note that Justice Thomas is married to a white woman? An extremely good looking white woman and my former Creighton classmate Ginny Lamp Thomas.
She was an absolute knockout in school. Beauty queen looks. Nice too. Very political. Interested in theory. Smart too. And also owns all the land at Ginger Cove. Six figure houses on leased land. Her dad, Don, was a genius.
hawkeye
Justice Thomas gave a talk in Omaha years ago in support of his book. Big crowd. Large line to sign copies.
He was so, so nice to everyone.
For some reason he was sweating quite a bit and the hotel staff brought him a towel and water. The staff members were black. He thanked them profusely. It was genuine.
I wonder what the purpose of the piece is. What's to be gained? Is it to paint Thomas as a sort of reverse Oreo and make all the racist white people hate him and distrust black conservatives? Stoke those stupid fires some more? That's the only thing that occurs to me.
Of course, it's pretty sad that I go in assuming the author has an agenda intending harm to those in the right (or, as Jean Kerr once wrote about plays performed in the nude that she had to see with her theater critic husband, "[the plot] appears merely to be against the audience").
I won't read the article. Sounds like they're looking for a new angle of attack on Clarence Thomas.....I'd like to read something about the life and career of John Conyers. Maybe something about Maxine Waters' husband. There are a lot of interesting stories that haven't been told.
'
"Honesty is demonstrated through crude statements of personal animus or intellectual suggestions of racial inequality. Dishonesty is demonstrated through denial of one’s racism and sympathetic extensions of help."
"If you say you are guilty then you are (and at least you're honest about it), but, claiming you're not guilty can only be taken evidence that you must be very, very guilty indeed."
Said someone who never read Kafka?
"Corey robin, understanding clarence thomas, 'that'll be the day'..."
I had to look up Corey Robin. What did you already know about him? I see he's *not* black. Wikipedia:
"Corey Robin (born 1967) is an American political theorist, journalist and professor[1] of political science at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written books on the role of fear in political life, tracing its presence from Aristotle through the war on terror, and on the nature of conservatism in the modern world, from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump. Most recently, he is the author of a revisionist study of Justice Clarence Thomas, which argues that the mainspring of Thomas's jurisprudence is a combination of black nationalism and black conservatism. Although he is on the left, Robin is unique among political theorists in focusing his attention on the darker arts of politics on the right: counterrevolution, political repression and intimidation, revanchism and reaction. He has brought these issues outside academic circles, writing frequently for mainstream outlets and venues. Raised in Chappaqua, New York,[2] Robin graduated from Princeton University and received his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1999.[3]... Robin is the author of the books Fear: The History of a Political Idea, which won the Best First Book in Political Theory Award from the American Political Science Association, and The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. Upon publication in 2011, The Reactionary Mind immediately generated tremendous controversy and discussion, including an extended back and forth in the letters page of The New York Review of Books[4] as well as an article on the controversy in The New York Times.[5] But with the ascent of Donald Trump, the book came to been as one of the most prescient analyses of modern American politics, leading The New Yorker, in a lengthy reconsideration of the book, to call it "the book that predicted Trump."... Robin has turned his attention to the case of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Often dismissed by the left, Thomas has become one of the more influential figures on the Court. Robin’s book, The Enigma of Clarence Thomas (2019), is the first to examine the black nationalist roots of Thomas’s jurisprudence and the first book from the left to take seriously Thomas's jurisprudence of the right. Although it has not yet been published, it has already garnered pre-publication plaudits from Kirkus Reviews (“a penetrating profile of the Supreme Court’s longest-serving justice”) and The Atlantic ("In his provocative new book, The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, Corey Robin...is deconstructing a sphinx, and his point carries the uncomfortable ring of truth.") While Robin devotes much of his scholarly research to the right, he also writes extensively for newspapers and magazines about a wide variety of issues of concern on the left. In 2018, he wrote a widely noticed essay in the New York Times on the meaning of socialism today, which examines how Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are remaking a 19th-century tradition for the twenty-first century. He has written widely about the politics of labor and the workplace, and the recovery of freedom for the left. He also writes about intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt,[12][13] Eric Hobsbawm,[14] Cass Sunstein,[15] and Ta-Nehisi Coates."
Thomas is only an enigma because the writer needs him to be.
"... it has already garnered pre-publication plaudits..."
That word...
“The people that call us White Supremacists want to have another "talk" about race?”
More significant than anyone seems to acknowledge at the moment. Where does the Prog appetite for bridge-burning leave us? However many people vote for Free Stuff every four years, I have to think that Prog goose-stepping itself has a marginal following at best. Something not generally felt because their cheerleaders hold the megaphones.
If I had to guess, Ginni Lamp Thomas could sell her Ginger Cove real estate and net $10 million.
No kids.
Although he is on the left, Robin is unique among political theorists in focusing his attention on the darker arts of politics on the right:
Yup unique among theorists on the left who think the right is evil.
"I wonder what the purpose of the piece is."
White Supremacy is the new Russian Collusion. The MSM has even admitted it.
pet the subhuman on the head like a good little feral dog and be on our way, unmolested"
Saying "Nice doggie" while you look for a stick.
"Although he is on the left, Robin is unique among political theorists in focusing his attention on the darker arts of politics on the right: counterrevolution, political repression and intimidation, revanchism and reaction."
"Unique." I laughed out loud!
I read the article. It's superficial and weak. It's mostly just assembles second-hand quotes from other Thomas books. In essence, Thomas dislikes northern white liberals and thinks they made racial relations and genuine black achievements worse.
Robin is looking for an angle to slot Thomas' complicated legal philosophy into the race agenda of the left. Thomas opposes their agenda but not their estimation of racism. He does hold the specific views described in the article.
That leftists desire to claim Thomas as their own is an interesting cultural moment. Why now? What do they intend to accomplish? Drive a wedge between conservatives on the court? Differentiate him from Kavanaugh?
By emphasizing Thomas' idiosyncratic but hard earned racial stance, Robin is trying to make trouble. But he underestimates the collegiality of the Supreme Court. They're so cosseted they can afford to radically get along. And as always, Robin underestimates conservatives. He assumes he can alienate them from Thomas by reducing him to a racial enigma.
To think that way, you have to start by assuming conservatism is narrow-minded and reactionary.
And that is really the Great Tragedy of the 20th Century. African Americans went from finally securing their civil rights to becoming enslaved AGAIN, to the Democrats AGAIN, this time to the Welfare State and their race hustlers. Planned Parenthood formed for the sole purpose of exterminating black babies. And of those born, the out-of-wedlock birth rate amoung African-Americans rose from 33% to 75%.
Broken families, no father influence in the home, 3rd generation Welfare Dependency.
All so that Democrats could enslave the Inner Cities to vote them back into power.
Trust Fund Robin Looks at a Black Man
Thomas is a reality based thinker. So he is dangerous to both sides best narratives. As for "supremacy", the majority group rules, but since 1788, the minorities have always had a Bill of Rights containing a Second amendment to keep their life bearable.
What whites know that we need to fear is elimination of the Bill of Rights at the same time whites go into the minority.That is an instant Tyranny.
""Unique." I laughed out loud!"
I know. I puzzled over that too.
I find the word “enigma” used in reference to a black person to be offensive. Why use that word unless you are trying to make a subtle point? It’s not a mere dog whistle. It is a klaxon of racism.
I find the word “enigma” used in reference to a black person to be offensive. Why use that word unless you are trying to make a subtle point? It’s not a mere dog whistle. It is a klaxon of racism.
e·nig·ma
a person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand.
Be careful, if you the audacity to claim you understand "a black person", you will probably be accused of another flavor of racism:
"You haven't walked in my shoes. You have no idea what it's like to be a black man. Please take your White Bread Patronizing Condescension and blah blah blah. What? Why are you smiling? Do you think I'm funny? I'm here to amuse you?"
See. This is why we don't have The Talk. It's a minefield with no way out, it's a trap. And the reason is this: The Talk is not meant to cure racism, it's meant to weaponize and gain position by inducing shame and guilt.
"The only winning move is to not play"
Robin's unique CV:
Ph.D., Yale University, distinction, 1999
A.B., Princeton University, high honors, 1989
Oxford University, Jesus College, 1987-88
I'd love to see a debate between Robin and, say, Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter or Ann Althouse. Beat down. The Yalie wouldn't know what hit him.
Aw, my honest discussion of how racial stereotypes are formed was deleted as too much for little Althouse to handle.
This is why it will persist. You are only burying it where it will fester.
Those other white people are the racists, and if any informed, educated, and accomplished black people think white people like me are just differently-abled racists, well that’s . . . an enigma.
So we have at least one clear thinker on the court, and he never gets respect from The Left because they refuse to acknowledge Black conservatives. He is subject to all kinds of smears, death wishes, and allusions to him being dumb, many based on his habit of asking few questions because as he has said he relies mostly on the text submitted (how original!), from the mediaswine who slobber over every Progressive no matter how lame (cough Sotomayor cough). Why?
Racism. The NYT is racist. Greenhouse is racist. No doubt this author is racist too, but they couch it in criticism of his work. But if he was Progressive and came to that space through the same life experience he would be celebrated. Racists.
That is a remarkable article. Do others disagree with the statements there?
For fascinating balance versus the present hit piece on Clarence Thomas, let's see (a “gist” excerpt I've prepared of) historian Walter Russell Mead's powerful piece (from nearly a decade back: 2011) on Clarence Thomas as the Frodo Baggins of the right — picturing Thomas as metaphorically trudging to the brink, tossing the key (the controlling ring) to America's liberal “Blue Empire” into the lava lake destined for obliteration (or perhaps I should say: o-blue-teration!).
Mead's perspective is that Thomas (together with what might be called “Thomism”) has had a huge real impact thus far already — e.g., in the realm of the 2nd Amendment — but beyond that, his major influence (potentially, enormously) may lie in a possible future Supreme Court (whose time, perhaps, is soon).
In his piece Walter Russell Mead dissects (liberal!) Jeffrey Toobin’s earlier (as Mead put it) “gripping, must-read profile of Clarence and Virginia Thomas in the New Yorker.”
Mead writes: [quoting…]
Toobin argues that the only Black man in public life that liberals could safely mock and despise may be on the point of bringing the Blue Empire down.
In fact, Toobin suggests, Clarence Thomas may be the Frodo Baggins of the right; his lonely and obscure struggle has led him to the point from which he may be able to overthrow the entire edifice of the modern progressive state.
Writes Toobin: [sub-quoting…]
In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
[/unQuote] [still quoting Mead…]
This is one of the most startling reappraisals to appear in The New Yorker for many years. It is hard to think of other revisions as radical as the declownification of Clarence Thomas […]. There are few articles of faith as firmly fixed in the liberal canon as the belief that Clarence Thomas is, to put it as bluntly as many liberals do, a dunce and a worm. […] Not only does the liberal mind perceive him as a disgusting lump of ungoverned sexual impulse; he is seen as an intellectual cipher. […]
At most liberals have long seen Thomas as the Sancho Panza to [the late] Justice Antonin Scalia’s Don Quixote, Tonto to his Lone Ranger. No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way. Thomas is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas’ tracks.
If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work. […]
Back in Pundit High, they used to teach a fair amount about constitutional history in the US history course […]. The way we learned them, the Second and Tenth amendments were as dead as the three fifths clause: so dead that there was no point in asking why they died or what they were doing there. […]
{Continued on the next page: page 2}
The sources for the article seem unclear. It seems to be based mostly on ANOTHER New Yorker article that "profiled" Thomas. As such, I don't see any reason to care much about it. I also dispute that Thomas is "Right wing". This is just MSM bullshit. When is Ginsberg or the 3 other Democrat Judges labeled "Left wing". Its all part of the narrative trying to fool people into thinking the Liberal/Left is "Normal" and "Centrist" when its not.
{Continued from previous page; page 2}
Continuing with Walter Russell Mead: [quoting…]
Those were the operating assumptions my generation took with us to college and beyond; they are still the conventional wisdom among most American intellectuals and journalists today.
What we didn’t know, and what the world at large didn’t know until very recently, was that the New Deal constitution was not as permanent or unalterable as it looked. Intellectually its foundations were shaky, and after two decades of a Clarence Thomas-led assault, the constitutional doctrines that permitted the rise of the powerful federal government could be close to collapse.
In the case of the Second Amendment, the collapse has already come. Back in my Pundit High days, anyone who dared to suggest that the Bill of Rights gave individuals the right to bear arms would have been laughed out of the class as an ignorant yahoo. These days, that is the accepted view of the US Supreme Court and most of the legal profession. The resurrection of the Second Amendment proves that the “dead letter” clauses of the Constitution can come back to life — and suggests that Clarence Thomas understands how this can be done. […]
The real problem will come if Thomas can figure out how to get the Tenth Amendment back into constitutional thought in a serious way. The Second Amendment was a constitutional landmine for the left; the Tenth is a nuclear bomb. […]
As Toobin tells the story, the revival of the Second Amendment was the first great triumph of the new approach. Thomas and others assembled a mountain of evidence that convinced increasing numbers of legal scholars that the Second Amendment must be read as conferring an individual right to bear arms — not merely a generic endorsement of the right of each state to maintain a militia. More, this right was intended as political: to check the power of the state to overawe and crush the people. As a result, the once seemingly unstoppable movement toward gun control has gone into reverse gear.
The startling possibility now beginning to dawn on some observers is that these same methods applied to the Tenth Amendment would lead to a much more far reaching revision to constitutional doctrine. […]
Unleashing the Tenth Amendment would move the constitutional status quo back towards the early 1930s when the “Nine Old Men” struck down one New Deal law after another. For Toobin and most New Yorker readers, it is hard to imagine an idea that more radically and totally runs against everything they believe. […]
It’s hard to argue with Toobin that Thomas has moved the ball down field in his quest for a new era of constitutional jurisprudence. […] Jeffrey Toobin is announcing to the liberal world that Clarence Thomas has morphed from a comic figure of fun to a determined super-villain who might reverse seventy years of liberal dominance of the federal bench and turn the clock back to 1930 if not 1789.
The fantasy is still far fetched, and it is notoriously hard for political movements to get and hold power long enough to shift the balance on the Supreme Court, but that Thomas has accomplished as much as he has shows how far the country has drifted from the old days when liberals were confident that the Supreme Court would find new ways to fit its judicial philosophy to the demands of the blue social model.
[/unQuote]
Mead elsewhere goes on to suggest: [quoting…]
With a couple more allies on the Supreme Court* Justice Thomas could get pretty close to the lava pits of Mount Doom. [!]
[/unQuote
Thus: Walter Russell Mead.
____
(*Such as Justice Neil Gorsuch is perhaps now proving to be.)
(The foregoing provides the gist of Walter Russell Mead's piece, in my humble opinion, but please do read the whole thing.)
He also writes about intellectuals such as Eric Hobsbawm,[14] Cass Sunstein,[15] and Ta-Nehisi Coates.
In other words, a dead communist, a left-wing fool, and a black left-wing dunce.
Quit cutting and pasting huge blocks of text! Just link.
“I would suggest changing the title to "The Glorious Triumph of Clarence Thomas"”
I think that it was a strategic mistake for the left to have attacked Justice Thomas with the fabrications of Anita Hill. They might have garnered some sympathy from him when the Court engaged in questions of race. Instead, because, I think, of his High Tech Lynching at his confirmation, he writes most eloquently and forcefully, when he writes on that subject. And a half century, a century, from now, his words calling progressive style racism the racism that it is, will be the ones remembered and quoted.
Racism is just another manifestation of the human condition of tribalism. Animals and other anthropoids do this too.
Before there were other races to be encountered...mainly because humans lived in a narrow geographic world sense....there were the "others" in strange tribes or groups. Those that were NOT of your own group. Until you know who and what those "others" are, they are classified as dangerous or even as enemies. Just as when you are walking down a dark street, the stranger that you may meet is automatically viewed as suspicious. (Or should be if you want to live)
The OTHER. Eventually the group of who YOU are gets larger because you(humans) can travel more, communicate more, trade and find value in other humans. You grow beyond a tribe into a state or group of tribes. The the "others" are the state nearby that is not YOU.
When humans encountered "others" who were not just OTHER but also looked strange, there was no question that these new "others" were definitely dangerous and maybe not even human. Neanderthals vs Cro Magnons.
It is the human condition. To "otherize" the "others" . Black people do it. White people do it...it is happening now every day in the US. Asians, Japanese, Chinese do it. Everyone is racist. You can be racist against people who look just like you too because they have a different religion or eat weird food or something.
Racism just is. What you do with it and how you express it, that is the problem.
Honesty [about racism] is demonstrated through crude statements of personal animus or intellectual suggestions of racial inequality.
He's right, it's racism; it also seems to be science. The averages for IQ are not a small difference. There's a division that ought to be in the statement - the intellectual racism people might be worrying how to make society work nevertheless rather than having any animus about it. Quite the opposite of animus.
Teaching good character above all, as in old fashioned white-acting schools, would do a nice job.
The problem is not that somebody's smarter than you - when is that not true - but that you consider yourself a moral inferior.
Tribalism happens when the blacks are crazy acting menaces, e.g. the TV news blacks. I grew up around blacks that acted white and I felt no tribalism at all. It's culture habits, not skin color.
Malcom X was on the 'right', not the 'left'. I understand what Clarence Thomas was talking about. People with dignity don't clamor for handouts.
Tribalism happens when the blacks are crazy acting menaces, e.g. the TV news blacks.
Amen, rhhardin! TV, in particular, CBS, has spawned more racism than the KKK.
I've been asking for 3 years and never getting an answer.
HOW is pdjt racist? Can someone give me 2-3 actuap examples?
John Henry
The problem is not that somebody's smarter than you - when is that not true
Exactly. By age two it was clear I wasn't the second coming of Gauss but I've never had the urge to kill myself on that account. Find something you can do and work at it.
New York Times... New Yorker... Today's equivalency of "Classics Illustrated" as reference material. Aim High.
Please stay on topic. The topic is not the moderation policy. The policy is mainly to stick to the topic, by the way. If this were post about comment moderation, that would be the topic. Please don't be part of the problem.
I don't know how you can put up such large block of texts, but it's a much more illuminating piece, from walter Russell mead,
it's hard to pigeon hole Malcolm, but he probably would be on some end of the right spectrum, more small business focused than social justice, as much as booker t's philosophy may have migrated over the century mark, but Thomas doesn't evince cultural separatism in fact he seeks refuge in the traditions of the west,
This interested me, that Thomas believes "the only hope for black people lies within themselves, not as individuals but as a separate community with separate institutions, apart from white people."
This is one of the big, big ironies of segregation: That by forcing African-Americans into communities, they were able to build a mirror of white America. They had their own doctors, hospitals, nightclubs, grocery stores, newspapers, colleges, etc.
There were black leaders who emphasized education and good behavior.
Believe me, I'm simplifying this to an nth degree. This is not a defense of segregation. But from reading "Wheelin' on Beale," I learned about WDIA in Memphis. It was a failing station, last in its market (think WKRP), until the white owners decided to cater to black radio listeners.
They hire a popular black high school teacher Nat D. Williams to be the face of the station (he was an amazing, energetic man). The programming was aimed at black listeners. Black DJs, too (although the engineers and staff were white).
At its height, the station was the most popular, broadcasting over 500 miles from Memphis.
The station began its decline with desegregation, which allowed black shoppers to take their money elsewhere. Cue the collapse.
You can talk to Althouse any which way you want. A little mercy for the other reader/posters would be nice.
'well that escalated quickly' corey robin, basically recycles the 'authoritarian personality' tropes of the Frankfurt school, notably teodor adorno, which hofstadler popularized, he doesn't admit any legitimate anti left opposition, in his thinking,
Quit cutting and pasting huge blocks of text! Just link.
I did link to the original articles. (And suggested they be read.) However, there is no good link to my excerpted text — and the original is much longer and full of material pertinent to the 2011 timeframe. Thus: my excerpt.
The funny thing is this- if I had to sit down and figure out which publicly well known African-American in my lifetime suffered the most actual racial animus from whites in general, it would be Martin Luther King and Clarence Thomas, and King died when I was two years old. Of course, liberals and progressives will say they treated Thomas the way they did for reasons having nothing to do with race, and I can't tell you for sure whether they really believe this, or they are just willing to tell lies about it.
I bet Thomas liked Friends, too.
I'm with fen. If you are going to block anyone it should be Chuck (who you already called a dick and asked not to post) Inga/frank and Squeamish (though I've not seen her much of late)
Not Fen. Seems petty to me.
John Henry
The very phrase "White Supremacist" is racist. I hesitate to say this because it so obvious and probably it's already been discussed over and over here. But if so I missed it because I'm only here sometimes.
But what I have seen that has puzzled me is people using that phrase as if it refers to KKK members. Please don't be naive. It will soon enough twist to mean basically everyone here.
If you think the United States is something to be proud about, or if you think English majors should study Shakespeare, or if you think Thomas Jefferson is a great man, or worst of all if you think the United States is a better country than Nigeria and the difference has a lot to do with the cultures then that makes you a White Supremacist, or if it not now, it will very soon.
Some people get caught up in using a phrase like that, not because they are racist, or at least not because they are racist in the way I'm criticizing this, but because the phrase is in use and because we naturally pick up and try to make use of the language around us.
But the people that introduced this phrase, the people that willfully make this part of our vocabulary, they are all racists. And not in some mild sense, because there are different levels of racism, but in the sense that they are like a very member of the KKK.
And for some reason, and I just don't get it, this ugly, racist spirit is so extremely common in the media and academia. And it's a puzzle to me how it works, because if you meet these people, many of them are not that bad. There are in fact so many good things about them.
But at the same time they are just constantly hating the majority of the people of this country. And they do it so casually.
Otoh, it is your blog so run it as you see fit
John Henry
This makes me see Thomas in a different light.
If true, Justice Thomas is to be commended for rising to the highest court in the land without joining or condoning the likes of Black Lives Matter. No whiner he!
Although the second to the last place I would look for understanding any of his views is the New Yorker (last place is a tie between the NYT and WaPo).
Thomas is an admirable jurist, particularly if he thinks all whites are racist.
Racism isn't a binary value (you are racist or you aren't racist), it's a spectrum (unlike sex). There are varying degrees of racism. Some racism is tolerable (avoiding specific neighborhoods at night because of crime), and some is not (targeting individuals for persecution because of their race).
But this runs both ways. Oppressed groups have their own bigotries. And they should be held to account for this just as much.
Althouse: Thank you for pasting Wikipedia’s description of the silo in which Robin lives and works. It confirms suspicions.
I looked at a speech by Robin and that linked article. But I found them impossible to get into because he immediately makes inferences which are totally incorrect. For instance, in the New Yorker article he states, "On the Court, Thomas continues to believe—and to argue, in opinion after opinion—that race matters; that racism is a constant, ineradicable feature of American life; and that the only hope for black people lies within themselves, not as individuals but as a separate community with separate institutions, apart from white people." While I agree that race and racism are fundamental to human nature I find ridiculous the claim that Thomas is a black separatist. Beyond absurd. In the speech at the Einstein Forum on the "Reactionary Mind" Robin began by inferring that the "Alt Right" was a powerful and organized political movement (responsible for Trump's election) which has now dissipated due to the opposition of Antifa. Seriously, I couldn't listen to that.
Good read, "Autobiography of Malcom X"
@ mandrewa
You might be a white supremacist if you cut your lawn and find a pickup truck.
From a recent profile of John Bolton in the New Yorker:
During law school, he lived in a dorm room one floor up from Clarence Thomas, the future Supreme Court Justice. One day, Thomas lost his wallet, and Bolton found it and turned it in to the school’s front office. “I had heard of John, mostly in a pejorative sense—that he was a right-wing conservative guy,” Thomas told me. “I tended to be left-wing and radical. I was wearing bib overalls and combat boots to class.” There was no money in the wallet—“I didn’t have any money to put in it,” Thomas said—but he was nevertheless grateful. He walked upstairs to thank Bolton. “We struck up a real friendship,” Thomas said. “I was tired of paternalism. John isn’t like that. He didn’t assume that I had to have a particular set of views. With John, you’re an equal.” When Bolton’s parents came to visit, he would invite Thomas upstairs. Years later, as Thomas began turning toward libertarianism, he asked Bolton for some reading recommendations. He soon received a box of articles and books, including works by Milton Friedman and a treatise on regulatory distortions in the New York taxicab market. “It was a sort of intellectual care package,” Thomas said.
" I also dispute that Thomas is "Right wing". This is just MSM bullshit. When is Ginsberg or the 3 other Democrat Judges labeled "Left wing". Its all part of the narrative trying to fool people into thinking the Liberal/Left is "Normal" and "Centrist" when its not."
Excellent points!
If the description of Thomas views are correct ( a big if), he’s expressing what millions of us have expressed: we prefer southern whites’ upfront expressions of racism to northern whites’ lies about their lack of racist attitudes.
It is a tragedy really. If Thomas had just been born 30 years later, he could have done something productive with his life. Like write for The Root and talk about Barbeque Becky all day.
" The resurrection of the Second Amendment proves that the “dead letter” clauses of the Constitution can come back to life"
Awesome.
Now let's do the Commerce Clause.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा