0 comment Monday, September 15, 2014 | admin
On his blog, Nicholas Stix discusses 'Racial Dialogue in America', linking to a " 'Racist Rant' That Almost Everyone is Condemning", a piece written by a blogger calling himself Old Punk. The post is here.
I think it's a viscerally honest piece, although the author, honest as he basically is, resorts to the usual disclaimers and makes a painstaking effort to say good things about admirable black figures (the usual: Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, et al) in an effort to avoid being labeled an all-out 'racist.' But his disclaimers, sadly, did not insulate him from the race-baiters of both liberal and ''conservative'' persuasion.
The very volume of the response and the vehemence of the comments shows just how incendiary the whole race issue is these days; is this in itself not absolute proof that Obama has actually polarized this country even further, and set white against white as well as black against white, and white (some) against black? So much for the 'uniter' and the 'transcender'. He is a divider par excellence.
The race issue seems to be more radioactive than ever these days, mostly due to Obama, his 'mentor' Reverend Wright, and the Obama groupies, who are out in force all over the Internet acting as vigilantes for political correctness.
I notice, too, that Steve Sailer, who has been covering the Obama saga more than any other mainstream blogger, has drawn persistent nagging criticism from several anonymous commenters who accuse him of a vendetta against Obama, and of carrying out a 'hit' on Obama. This person, or these several people, are wearisome; I peg them as Obama supporters out policing the blogosphere for their hero, or as whining liberals of either party who see themselves as defenders of PC virtue. If they don't like Sailer's writing about Obama, they should 'change the channel'.
The message is: writing about Obama carries a price; you will be visited by the Obama groupies or the canting liberals of both parties who feel that all this talk about race is just -- racist.
Stix has some good observations about the whole issue, although he is somewhat 'mainstream' for me. But here he says, accurately:
Obama doesn�t want dialogue on race, any more than black people do. Dialogue for them means lecturing, hectoring, and otherwise abusing whites, lying to our faces about race, the more egregious lie the better, and daring us to tell the truth, so they can curse us, assault us, and have us arrested or professionally destroy us. "Dialogue" for blacks and those who think they are blacks, is simply yet another occasion for the exercise of black racial power, you know, the kind they always insist they don�t have.
Go ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Barack Hussein Obama�s kind of honest racial dialogue. When Ferraro spoke a home truth about Obama�s racial advantage, he immediately demanded she be fired as a Clinton campaign advisor, and she was.''
This is true; 'dialogue' really means monologues or harangues from the 'African-American community', in which we are made to sit like whipped schoolchildren and listen to the accusations and the abuse, and our only permitted response amounts to admitting our guilt and professing remorse. There IS no real dialogue, because, as Merriam-Webster defines dialogue, it involves two sides:
1: a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2 a: a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b: an exchange of ideas and opinions 'organized a series of dialogues on human rights' c: a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
There is no conversation; there is no 'exchange'; there is no movement toward a mutual resolution.
Unfortunately, I still see too many of the otherwise honest white people doing what Old Punk and Stix are doing: trying to prove their good faith by meeting blacks halfway, saying conciliatory, appeasing things. It's tempting to go into the patter about how some of one's best friends and favorite co-workers are black, or how one admires Sowell, Walter Williams, Tiger Woods, or other 'moderate' blacks. A bit of advice to those tempted to do this: it doesn't work. We see in the example of Old Punk's vitriolic commenters that it doesn't appease anyone. Why waste bandwidth or breath in a maneuver that always fails anyway?
Being defensive is a bad choice; if we dignify their accusations by treating them as legitimate, if we become defensive and self-justifying, this is only playing their game, and giving them further opening to attack, as we appear weak.
Around this time, inevitably someone says 'well, do you recommend we descend to their level, or that we go into attack mode?' Not necessarily. Each situation is somewhat different. I do think defensiveness is a bad choice which makes us more vulnerable. It shows that we care too much about their opinions and their name-calling. Once we stop caring so much, we are that much less vulnerable.
Another tack, which I see all too often on the 'conservative' side, is to point the finger back at the liberals and say 'but, but they're racist too! It isn't fair that they can be racist and get away with it."
We can see that tactic on display in the comment thread following this blog entry, which is about a discussion of 'racism' on the TV program ''The View".
''Only white people can be racist according to 'View� co-host Joy Behar. Also on the March 24 broadcast, both Behar and Whoopi Goldberg justified Barack Obama�s connection to Jeremiah Wright by pointing to Bush�s association with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their many controversial remarks. It could be a valid point if Falwell or Robertson were Bush�s pastor for 20 years. Neither of them ever were.
After Elisabeth Hasselbeck labeled Reverend Wright "racist," Whoopi Goldberg jumped in and alluded to the late Reverend Jerry Falwell�s suggestion that God allowed the September 11 attacks because of secular forces in America. Whoopi asked Elisabeth if she should leave the Republican party because of that. Elisabeth noted that Falwell is not her spiritual adviser. Joy Behar then claimed that Robertson and Falwell are "spiritual advisers" to the Republican party.
Behar then essentially stated it is impossible for those in the "oppressed minority" (African Americans) to be racist. This is according to her college sociology professor.''
Sounds like Ms Behar had the same leftist sociology prof as I had; the difference was, I saw through the rhetoric, even though I was a liberal then, but Ms Behar didn't and still hasn't.
Judging by the extensive quotes from the show transcripts, the women on the show were at their shrill liberal worst, while the token ''conservative'', Elisabeth Hasselbeck, does not acquit herself too well. Of course, with several strident leftist harpies against one lone woman, the odds are not in her favor.
But please read the 'conservative' comments below the piece for examples of 'what not to say' in discussions like this. For example:
''Incredibly stupid people over on the view.
I think it actually insults black (or brown, or whatever) people to say they aren't capable of something. It's like don't worry 'bout nothing, just stay on the plantation and "we'll" take care of you.
Minorities, and women want to be treated as equals. And I wholeheartedly think they should. But as equals, they also must bear responsibilities for their actions. To not hold Obama, or any other minority, or woman, responsible for their actions, is to say they are "just not ready yet" to be equal.
So, using liberal logic, Obama is just not ready yet, to leave the plantation, and become President. (of course, on this I agree)"
This line of argument always blames the problem on 'liberalism', which is partly true, but somewhat of an evasion, because the problem is also with black people -- which is not a permitted thought to have, so conservatives like to blame it all on a political ideology, implying that if more people like Thomas Sowell were raised up as role models, voila, no more race problem.
It also resorts to the tired old retort that liberals are ''the real racists'' whereas conservatives want to help minorities by teaching them responsibility. This is just blame-shifting among whites. It's just pointing the finger back at the accuser and not addressing the root issues -- ultimately because of political correctness.
Nevertheless, the comments show some glimmers of reality, and it seems to show, yet again, that this debate over race is heating up, and that the heat may also create some light. Whether this current state of things will continue and increase during the election -- and I am convinced that the race issue will never go away during Obama's candidacy -- it may be that we will sink back into the status quo. Or it may be that more people will reach their limit of all this race-baiting and haranguing, and that attitudes will change. But if we only get halfway there, stuck in these evasive 'conservative' ideas about the issue, that will not suffice.
Blaming all the problems on 'liberalism' or even worse, just on the Democrats, will not do. It's an evasion, and another bow to political correctness. Sometimes half-truths are worse than outright lies, and this is what we have to guard against now; we can't let our fellow Americans become content with the half-truths and evasions that are now being resorted to in these discussions. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will suffice.
However I recognize that the truth is too strong, sometimes, to be taken in anything but small doses.
I think it's a viscerally honest piece, although the author, honest as he basically is, resorts to the usual disclaimers and makes a painstaking effort to say good things about admirable black figures (the usual: Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, et al) in an effort to avoid being labeled an all-out 'racist.' But his disclaimers, sadly, did not insulate him from the race-baiters of both liberal and ''conservative'' persuasion.
The very volume of the response and the vehemence of the comments shows just how incendiary the whole race issue is these days; is this in itself not absolute proof that Obama has actually polarized this country even further, and set white against white as well as black against white, and white (some) against black? So much for the 'uniter' and the 'transcender'. He is a divider par excellence.
The race issue seems to be more radioactive than ever these days, mostly due to Obama, his 'mentor' Reverend Wright, and the Obama groupies, who are out in force all over the Internet acting as vigilantes for political correctness.
I notice, too, that Steve Sailer, who has been covering the Obama saga more than any other mainstream blogger, has drawn persistent nagging criticism from several anonymous commenters who accuse him of a vendetta against Obama, and of carrying out a 'hit' on Obama. This person, or these several people, are wearisome; I peg them as Obama supporters out policing the blogosphere for their hero, or as whining liberals of either party who see themselves as defenders of PC virtue. If they don't like Sailer's writing about Obama, they should 'change the channel'.
The message is: writing about Obama carries a price; you will be visited by the Obama groupies or the canting liberals of both parties who feel that all this talk about race is just -- racist.
Stix has some good observations about the whole issue, although he is somewhat 'mainstream' for me. But here he says, accurately:
Obama doesn�t want dialogue on race, any more than black people do. Dialogue for them means lecturing, hectoring, and otherwise abusing whites, lying to our faces about race, the more egregious lie the better, and daring us to tell the truth, so they can curse us, assault us, and have us arrested or professionally destroy us. "Dialogue" for blacks and those who think they are blacks, is simply yet another occasion for the exercise of black racial power, you know, the kind they always insist they don�t have.
Go ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Barack Hussein Obama�s kind of honest racial dialogue. When Ferraro spoke a home truth about Obama�s racial advantage, he immediately demanded she be fired as a Clinton campaign advisor, and she was.''
This is true; 'dialogue' really means monologues or harangues from the 'African-American community', in which we are made to sit like whipped schoolchildren and listen to the accusations and the abuse, and our only permitted response amounts to admitting our guilt and professing remorse. There IS no real dialogue, because, as Merriam-Webster defines dialogue, it involves two sides:
1: a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2 a: a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b: an exchange of ideas and opinions 'organized a series of dialogues on human rights' c: a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
There is no conversation; there is no 'exchange'; there is no movement toward a mutual resolution.
Unfortunately, I still see too many of the otherwise honest white people doing what Old Punk and Stix are doing: trying to prove their good faith by meeting blacks halfway, saying conciliatory, appeasing things. It's tempting to go into the patter about how some of one's best friends and favorite co-workers are black, or how one admires Sowell, Walter Williams, Tiger Woods, or other 'moderate' blacks. A bit of advice to those tempted to do this: it doesn't work. We see in the example of Old Punk's vitriolic commenters that it doesn't appease anyone. Why waste bandwidth or breath in a maneuver that always fails anyway?
Being defensive is a bad choice; if we dignify their accusations by treating them as legitimate, if we become defensive and self-justifying, this is only playing their game, and giving them further opening to attack, as we appear weak.
Around this time, inevitably someone says 'well, do you recommend we descend to their level, or that we go into attack mode?' Not necessarily. Each situation is somewhat different. I do think defensiveness is a bad choice which makes us more vulnerable. It shows that we care too much about their opinions and their name-calling. Once we stop caring so much, we are that much less vulnerable.
Another tack, which I see all too often on the 'conservative' side, is to point the finger back at the liberals and say 'but, but they're racist too! It isn't fair that they can be racist and get away with it."
We can see that tactic on display in the comment thread following this blog entry, which is about a discussion of 'racism' on the TV program ''The View".
''Only white people can be racist according to 'View� co-host Joy Behar. Also on the March 24 broadcast, both Behar and Whoopi Goldberg justified Barack Obama�s connection to Jeremiah Wright by pointing to Bush�s association with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their many controversial remarks. It could be a valid point if Falwell or Robertson were Bush�s pastor for 20 years. Neither of them ever were.
After Elisabeth Hasselbeck labeled Reverend Wright "racist," Whoopi Goldberg jumped in and alluded to the late Reverend Jerry Falwell�s suggestion that God allowed the September 11 attacks because of secular forces in America. Whoopi asked Elisabeth if she should leave the Republican party because of that. Elisabeth noted that Falwell is not her spiritual adviser. Joy Behar then claimed that Robertson and Falwell are "spiritual advisers" to the Republican party.
Behar then essentially stated it is impossible for those in the "oppressed minority" (African Americans) to be racist. This is according to her college sociology professor.''
Sounds like Ms Behar had the same leftist sociology prof as I had; the difference was, I saw through the rhetoric, even though I was a liberal then, but Ms Behar didn't and still hasn't.
Judging by the extensive quotes from the show transcripts, the women on the show were at their shrill liberal worst, while the token ''conservative'', Elisabeth Hasselbeck, does not acquit herself too well. Of course, with several strident leftist harpies against one lone woman, the odds are not in her favor.
But please read the 'conservative' comments below the piece for examples of 'what not to say' in discussions like this. For example:
''Incredibly stupid people over on the view.
I think it actually insults black (or brown, or whatever) people to say they aren't capable of something. It's like don't worry 'bout nothing, just stay on the plantation and "we'll" take care of you.
Minorities, and women want to be treated as equals. And I wholeheartedly think they should. But as equals, they also must bear responsibilities for their actions. To not hold Obama, or any other minority, or woman, responsible for their actions, is to say they are "just not ready yet" to be equal.
So, using liberal logic, Obama is just not ready yet, to leave the plantation, and become President. (of course, on this I agree)"
This line of argument always blames the problem on 'liberalism', which is partly true, but somewhat of an evasion, because the problem is also with black people -- which is not a permitted thought to have, so conservatives like to blame it all on a political ideology, implying that if more people like Thomas Sowell were raised up as role models, voila, no more race problem.
It also resorts to the tired old retort that liberals are ''the real racists'' whereas conservatives want to help minorities by teaching them responsibility. This is just blame-shifting among whites. It's just pointing the finger back at the accuser and not addressing the root issues -- ultimately because of political correctness.
Nevertheless, the comments show some glimmers of reality, and it seems to show, yet again, that this debate over race is heating up, and that the heat may also create some light. Whether this current state of things will continue and increase during the election -- and I am convinced that the race issue will never go away during Obama's candidacy -- it may be that we will sink back into the status quo. Or it may be that more people will reach their limit of all this race-baiting and haranguing, and that attitudes will change. But if we only get halfway there, stuck in these evasive 'conservative' ideas about the issue, that will not suffice.
Blaming all the problems on 'liberalism' or even worse, just on the Democrats, will not do. It's an evasion, and another bow to political correctness. Sometimes half-truths are worse than outright lies, and this is what we have to guard against now; we can't let our fellow Americans become content with the half-truths and evasions that are now being resorted to in these discussions. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will suffice.
However I recognize that the truth is too strong, sometimes, to be taken in anything but small doses.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Division, Liberalism, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Political Correctness