The last 2 paragraphs of "The ‘Dilbert’ Cartoonist and the Durability of White-Flight Thinking" by Charles Blow (in the NYT).
१ मार्च, २०२३
"When California was drawing up its Constitution to join the Union, the state debated excluding Black people."
"The delegate who brought forth an exclusion resolution said that with migrating free Black people, the state could find itself 'flooded with a population of free Negroes,' which would be 'the greatest calamity that could befall California.' In that way, what [Scott] Adams said, while racist, was less outside the bounds of America’s troubled ideological canon and more in step with it on the question of having a functional, egalitarian, pluralistic society."
The last 2 paragraphs of "The ‘Dilbert’ Cartoonist and the Durability of White-Flight Thinking" by Charles Blow (in the NYT).
The last 2 paragraphs of "The ‘Dilbert’ Cartoonist and the Durability of White-Flight Thinking" by Charles Blow (in the NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
I believe we are reaching the FAFO stage of the Left's obsession with dividing Americans by race.
What Adams said wasn't racist.
You would have to really twist his words to make that connection.
He referenced a poll and then set up a straw man, as he usually does.
If you've ever spent time listening to him, you'd likely find that he is one of the least racist people you could run into...
Then there was bussing. That didn't work.
Reparations for people who were never slaves, paid by people who never had slaves in a state that never had slavery.
Sounds about right… /sarc
White people wanting to segregate themselves from Black people = evil racists.
Black people wanting to segregate themselves from White people = courageous anti-racists.
White people accusing Black people of behaving badly = evil racists.
Black people accusing White people of behaving badly = courageous anti-racists.
Four legs good, two legs better.
In a magical world where Scott Adams ran for and won the presidency, he would in fact be the least racist president we’ve ever had.
And on a long enough timeline do more to improve the condition of all Americans without regard to their race than the Democratic Party ever has. There in lies the problem.
I always rely on Charles Blow for my historical perspective.
If you want to see migration into California, enact the $5M reparation proposal. I know if I could get a $5M for showing the color of my skin, I'd ask where the line is forming.
Charles Blow: inveterate racist hate monger. He had to scrape the barrel to come up with that California statehood reference! And what did he do with it? "Connect the dots" with another random datapoint from almost 175 years later --a datapoint whose "true meaning" is very much contested. Blow seems to think that these two "facts" establish a universal truth, that the country has always been and always will be a seething cauldron of white supremacist thinking. He wants to hang the statehood statement around Scott Adams' neck, and he wants to beg the question of what Adams might have actually meant, by equating it to the ideas expressed in debate by someone WHOSE IDEAS WERE REJECTED AT THE TIME.
Pathetic. Whatever the NYT is paying Blow, it's too much.
See, California has always been democrat thinkers.
Blow is being Blow. He sees racism in a stone uncovered from the Mesozoic era.
Adams was not creating his comment out of whole cloth. He was reacting to years of accumulated racist garbage heaped on everybody from Black America in a way of a never ending payback for slavery. There can be no payback. So even as this is dragged out to show California started out racist, what about today, now and going forward?
Will reparations suddenly make things OK? Will that be enough to shut everybody up so we can get back to living? Will the Black community focus on moving forward with their new found millions? Will there suddenly be 2 parent families in the Black community again? Will we still need DEI and BLM? Will we still need quotas and hiring by skin color?
I suspect nothing will change. All of the same Government and Corporate approved racism, which has just recently been put in place, will stay in place for a generation or more. The reparations? Just a massive redistribution of dollars. Blow will continue to blow about racism for the rest of his career and no White person will ever been pure enough, whether born in 1849, 2023, or 2070.
It's an industry now. Large and providing. It's been fully installed and it ain't going anywhere.
Scott Adams Interview - It's Okay to Be White
Scott Adams is blazing the interwebs on fire with his "It's Okay to be white" poll rant. Hotep Jesus responded and then invited Scott to speak. Scott has obliged and here we are.
https://www.youtube.com/live/oeFA-n3SMRw?feature=share
Two hours long but interesting. The missing depth, understanding or even simple fact-gathering of Main Stream Media is on display.
Is this the new level of discourse. If anyone debates a viewpoint that loses, we should feel ashamed that someone even came up with the losing viewpoint? If so, when will the commies accept their shame?
Don't dress up primal, animal behaviors as Constitutional principles: "Birds of a feather flock together." This applies to every social animal species on the plant.
Humans find more in common with people who have shared interests and characteristics. This is not news. This is not unique to the USA. This is not unique to those with European ancestry. See the Asian-on-Asian violence across history. See Middle Eastern-on-Middle Eastern violence across history. See African-on-African violence throughout history.
Find a way to live with others or avoid them...under routinely vague, animalistic, organic rules...or expect a war and a genocide.
"the question of having a functional, egalitarian, pluralistic society"
It's still a question. Can society be "functional" when an identifiable minority within a minority cannot function adequately in it, can it be "egalitarian" when any policies applied equally will always create unequal outcomes for one minority, and can it be "pluralistic" when the majority does not want to be exposed to the perceived destructive habits of one minority?
Oregon's constitution did exclude Blacks.
Oregon's Constitution, created ten years after California's, excluded blacks from the state until 1924.
Move in, it's gentrification.
Move out, it's white flight.
Adopt cultural practices, it's appropriation.
Don't adopt cultural practices, it's exclusionary and evidence of white supremacy.
Make sure you don't notice any of the large, glaring statistical discrepancies (rates of violent crime, etc)--noticing is racist.
Live together, claim a shared culture? Sorry, you're diluting the minority share of the vote: "You're erasing us!"
Live apart? Sorry, you're practicing segregation and living a defacto apartheid: "You're keeping us out and keeping us down!"
It's all so tiresome.
YT: We Asked 100 Black Folx: What are White People Superior At?
It's racist to notice the disdain a large number of these people have towards white people--Scott's crime was noticing.
>"In that way, what [Scott] Adams said, while racist,"<
Scott Adams said nothing racist. He merely quoted a statistic on Blacks' inordinate hatred for Whites and then made a very logical conclusion - that Whites should stay away from Blacks. That is no more racist than had Adams quoted statistics on Blacks' greater propensity for hypertension and then said that Blacks should be taking more antihypertensives.
Charles Blow!!!
There aren't enough LOL's. There just aren't.
"I am so old that I remember when most racists were white." T Sowell.
Hoodlum Doodlum @ 11:14: excellent summary of the contradictions. Going to steal that.
I remember reading a long article celebrating some black guy who filed one of the first court cases against "covenants". He had been prevented from purchasing a house in a white neighborhood. So he courageously filed a lawsuit. Naturally, the idiot who wrote the article thought this was just great. But I was thinking, "So, this guy went to court to secure his right to live next door to white people. The very right he was determined to deny his new neighbors."
The provision did not go through. Today, black CA demographic 5%, less than half national average.
Instead we later got the Chinese Exclusion Act. Today, my SoCal city majority Asian. I moved here after decades in majority Latino LA neighborhood. Congressional district at one point had fewest citizens in country.
I grew up in then very white Protestant UK, self-conscious as Irish Catholic Yank.
The proof is in the pudding. Many black people, people of black, black color blocs in the modern model, embrace diversity [dogma], subscribe to Critical Racists' Theory (CRT), and wile away their lives enmeshed in DIEversity policies. They are not alone and it is a liberal condition in Progressive sects.
The first American slaves were white... people of pink. The first womb banks were in women of white... pink. Diversity [dogma] is a liberal... generational thing that starts with a bias, progresses as a prejudice, and is sustained with "benefits". Bennies for babies.
"When Scott Adams, the Donald Trump-revering". And there it is, the reason he was cancelled so quickly.
But basically what Scott said was when you are living among a bunch of people that hate you, it is best to move. I would have expanded it to be blue-America, but he focused on black people. Statistically the correct conclusion.
Help me out here in CA: Are we racist for considering that idea or for rejecting it? Blow's point eludes me.
The whole thing about Reparations is that it is outrageously unconstitutional. If it got up to the Supreme Court, Thomas would probably insist on writing the opinion, and use it to nuke race based preferences from orbit. It might get one vote, from the newest Justice, who seems even slower than the supposedly Wise LatinX, and who also seems to have skipped law school. Yes, you remember the 14th Amdt Equal Protection Clause? And yet, CA, and now NY, are moving right along, racing to write massive checks against their state coffers, that are already dry. What’s going on here?
My theory is that the Dems in charge know that Reparations aren’t going to fly, either legally, or fiscally. First, I think that it is to divide us, and to push us further away from a race blind society that we were progressing towards before Obama was elected President. They have discovered that playing one race off against others is good politics. Except that this time, they really are, I think, playing with fire, since, if it passes in CA, they will be requiring the rapidly growing Hispanic demographic to pay for lazy Blacks to stay at home, sitting on their fat asses, watching TV on their big screen TVs all day, drinking Champaign, etc, while the Hispanics bust their butts paying for it. It will stoke racial tensions like little else could. My theory here is that those Dem leaders are cynically buying Black loyalty, promising them something that they never could deliver, and, will never cost them anything because of that. And the bulk of the Dem Black electorate seems more than willing to accept this promise, built on nothing more than smoke and mirrors, in trade for their loyalty. Doesn’t say much for public education, as provided in these Dem strongholds.
Adams point was that everyone practices white flight. That's why we have defacto Segregated housing and schools in our major cities. Very few white people want to live in majority black neighborhoods or send their white kids to majority black schools.
You can give excuses. You can blame it on "poverty" or "education" or whatever. But facts are facts and all the liberal/left rhetoric doesn't trump liberal/left behavior.
Nobody loves black folks more than Mitt Romney and Chuck Schumer. Do they live in majority black neighborhoods? Did they send their kids to majority black schools? LOL! And the same is true of the Leftwing Jewish members of the WaPo and NYT Op-ed page.
And just because you have a black kid like David French. Or you have a black neighbor doesn't address the problem. Its not individual blacks. Its large numbers of blacks - and a high percentage of the neighborhood or school.
That was his point. Adams said the "quiet part, out loud". And that's why he's being destroyed. Personally, I don't know what Adams is trying to accomplish but maybe there's an act III.
Who were these hords of free blacks threatening to invade California in 1850? A decade before the Civil War, a decade and half prior to Emanciaption.
In 1850 there were less than 1000 free blacks in California.
Just yesterday there was a video making the rounds of a black guy shooting a white homeless guy in the head in broad daylight in St. Louis. This follows a video a few days ago a black "youth" beating the shit out of a white female teacher aide. Which followed a couple recent vids of black youths beating the shit out of white kids on school buses.
And likely today or tomorrow there will be another video of a black being violent against a white and everyone will tsk tsk and look the other way.
Blow and his ilk don't have a problem with Scott Adams - they have a problem in that people can see exactly what is going on for themselves and are drawing the logical conclusions.
Maybe the tangential Angela Davis angle in this story will pique Althouse's interest? After all, Angela is the head of our UC system's top school, after a life of pushing socialism and radical politics, and now finds herself with a complicated personal history that is impossible rectify with any workable reparations scheme. Her story alone disproves the whole concept of group guilt when only the currently living get to decide who's who within the various groups the current fads recognize (racial, gender, COO, historically affected, etc.).
Why is "colored person" racist, but "person of color" not?
If what Adams said is racist, then what are we to make of the demand by black students at universities for black dorms, black building for socializing, black events, and black graduations?
HoodlumDoodlum,
I have long wondered about "gentrification" vs. "white flight." White people are bad when they move in, and also bad when they move out. If they stay exactly where they now are, no doubt they are also bad. Perhaps the neighborhood they are currently living in would have become more Black had they moved?
Short vid linked by Achilles yesterday.
Comments are also interesting
Black Man from the Hood responds to Scott Adams
There is a lot of racism in California (speaking as a 6th generation Southern Californian), but most of it is not divided in the same way that the national conversations framed by the South understand it.
California has a very mixed history coming from at least 3 major directions (the Russians didn't make a big lasting impact though they had some settlements). The Spanish/Mexican's were extremely racists about Native Americans. The Spanish were thus also extremely racist against dark-skinned folks of all kind. The Asian immigrants from our west were and are likewise racist against dark skinned folks. Those from the eastern US tended to reflect their regional attitudes.
In my experiences (and I know this isn't universal) the only openly racist things I've heard about Black people come from Hispanics and Asians.
LA neighborhoods tend to reflect this reality and tension.
Team Adams. Blow is a terrible writer, with deeply-held racist ideas and complete falsehoods that are platformed for him by the Times.
Falsehoods. Funny.
"he newest Justice, who seems even slower than the supposedly Wise LatinX, and who also seems to have skipped law school."
No, she didn't skip law school. She just had a different "lived experience" there than you did. For one thing, she's not all that bright to begin with. Most none-too-bright people who try to enter intellectually demanding fields find out fairly quickly that they are in over their heads. But everyone she encountered in law school was at pains to assure her that she was doing great work, really first-rate. And she wasn't smart enough to realize it was a lie.
Why is "colored person" racist, but "person of color" not?
Colored refers to a low-information attribute used to identify an individual or in lieu in groups. "of color" refers to a color bloc under diversity [dogma], which is socially progressive in certain sects, and normalized by Choice and force in the general population.
My state (iowa) had laws prohibiting free blacks as well
I have to remind myself about that when i think how terrific my great great grandfather was for signing up to fight. Still, at least i'm not from Missouri
People give pollsters the answers they think they are expected to give, either by the pollsters or by a group they belong to or admire or aspire to belong to. People polled also may lash out at stupid questions.
If white people were asked, "Is black beautiful?" a majority might say yes, but if you understood the stupidity of the poll and said no, would that make you a racist? Would it mean that you hated black people?
You can kind of see a Scott Adams strategy emerging when you read people like Charles Blow.
Scott Adams: Half of blacks hate whites. If they're going to hate you, keep a distance. Charles Blow: Scott Adams, like all whites through all time, is a hateful racist whom I hate and despise. California's attempt at exclusion is an example of what hateful, white Scott Adams hatefully, whitely stands for. How dare hateful Scott say, he wouldn't want me hating on him, personally for his skin color, on a daily basis? FU, whitey, Charles Blow.
But still maybe we should think about the fact that half the blacks don't hate us, such a group does exist, the glass is half full. Maybe more, I would say. So how do we determine to whom we are speaking?
10:54
Temujin
Wow. Powerful and true.
Owen said...
Pathetic. Whatever the NYT is paying Blow, it's too much.
Depends on what they are paying him for.
Their goal is to divide us by race.
I think their money is well spent.
I was 12 in 1961 and went with my dad (born 1913 in Washington, raised in Ohio) to look at houses to buy/rent in La Jolla CA (which changed a lot over the years). I remember a RE agent saying to my dad, "La Jolla's a great place. There aren't any Jews, Blacks, or flies." I knew I wasn't racist then and I was shocked to hear someone say that. I had never encountered that before in Ohio. So yes, many Californians were certainly racist about Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians then and probably still are today.
Five years later, I asked a black classmate to be my date for the Junior Prom. She accepted. When my dad found out who I was going to be my date for the prom, he blew his stack and demanded that I cancel my date. I had no choice but to do so, being 17 at the time. I was deeply embarrassed when I called her. And I was totally devastated to find my father to be a racist. I never forgave him for that.
Racism is pernicious and sometimes discovered accidentally. I wish I knew how to erase it completely and forever.
And so many white people (women a great % of them) in the general public, in the MSM and in government are going out of their way to acquiesce and even support this craziness. Any pushback or even simple commentary is declared hate speech and racist. That alone, will not save them when the coming race war happens.
I know a LOT of young people, again mostly women, that embraced ghetto culture. It's pathetic, and in the end, you've got many soi bois flashing gang signs and LOTS of baby mamas with multiple baby daddies and their "mudshark" kids. Those poor kids. I have seen many white grandmothers pushing their mixed race grandchildren through Walmart and hardly any, if ever, black grandmothers doing that.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
typingtalker said...
Scott Adams Interview - It's Okay to Be White
Scott Adams is blazing the interwebs on fire with his "It's Okay to be white" poll rant. Hotep Jesus responded and then invited Scott to speak. Scott has obliged and here we are.
https://www.youtube.com/live/oeFA-n3SMRw?feature=share
Two hours long but interesting. The missing depth, understanding or even simple fact-gathering of Main Stream Media is on display.
This is such a good interview.
But Ann constantly chooses to start conversations off with shitheads like Charles Blow.
Ann would prefer to give money, support and attention to the NYT's rather than someone like Hotep Jesus who produces honest intelligent content.
FullMoon said...
Short vid linked by Achilles yesterday.
Comments are also interesting
Black Man from the Hood responds to Scott Adams
There are a lot of great discussions and videos out there.
But here we are supporting Charles Blow and the shitheads at the NYT's with their dishonest and purposely divisive bullshit.
All because Ann wants to be one of the Beautiful People.
I read the article. Okay, Blacks have legitimate historical grievances against whites, but is that the whole story in its entirety?...I grew up in a housing project. I didn't get seriously hurt, but I got assaulted twice. My brother got beat up during a mugging. He also wasn't seriously injured, but there were facial injuries, and he looked a mess. My father was found with a fractured skull. He may have slipped and fell. He was a heavy drinker. Or maybe he got hit over the head by white people. He was found, though, with a fractured skull and no wallet and you don't have to be an absolute racist to make certain assumptions......The propensity of young Black men to commit violent crimes is not some kind of racist fantasy. It happens, and no sane person wants to live in a low income Black neighborhood--including, I would bet, Charles Blow....It would have been nice if Blow had given a courteous head nod to something other than his own historical grievances, some of which are historically distant. If he can be pissed off about some century old ordinance, can an old white woman who got mugged yesterday clutch her purse a little tighter when she sees a Black man walking in her direction?
It is objectively true that blacks are very racist against whites and asians, using the definition of animus not the power relation defn. Most hate crimes against asians are by blacks. But to state this fact is "racist". Clown world.
The end-game of race-baiting can be seen in South Africa. The whites running the country gave in to people who hate them and now the country is going down the toilet. It is becoming like Haiti. Public services are almost gone. Power grid is about to fail.
In Rwanda, ethnic hatred, stirred up by gov radio, led to 1 million deaths.
We really really do not want to go down that road, but we are.
Blogger William said...
I read the article. Okay, Blacks have legitimate historical grievances against whites, but is that the whole story in its entirety?...
...
I would say slaves have legitimate grievances against their captors and slaveowners. The next generation certainly could have grievances too. But like in California - people who were never slaves are demanding money from people who were never slaveowners in a state that never allowed slavery.
Is there real, pervasive systemic racism in this country? No. Descendants of slaves - African Americans - as a population lag in a lot of things. But Africans who come to this country seem to do just as well as anyone else. It is not one's blackness that holds one back. I think it is a culture that celebrates the wrong things.
In 1850 there were less than 1000 free blacks in California.
======
how many chinese In 1850's in California.
The height of Gold Rush immigration came in 1852. Over 67,000 people came to California that year, with 20,000 from China.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा