0 comment Monday, December 1, 2014 | admin
...the liberal world, at least.
Here is David Thompson on the Ron Rosenbaum Slate article praising white guilt. I've read a lot of commentary on the Slate piece, and this piece by Thompson is possibly the best. Read it all; it's to the point. But be warned of some annoying liberal posturing in the comments following.
David's piece is called Phantom Guilt, Revisited.
I like the phrase 'phantom guilt'. I like how Thompson seems to perceive the obvious falsity of the displays of guilt on the part of many of the liberal handwringers:
To publicly rend one�s garments over some vicarious, borrowed sin is not to affirm conscience or poignant human feeling, but to parody those things and to indulge in emotional pantomime and moral masturbation. Rather like this:
But was slavery not immoral? Was not the century of institutionalised racism and segregation that followed the end of slavery a perpetuation of "flawed values" that the nation should feel an enduring guilt over? Should we abolish the history and memory of slavery and racism just because they're no longer legally institutionalised?
Again, note the car crash of non sequitur. I�ll paraphrase for clarity:
Slavery was immoral. It was abolished. Therefore we must still feel guilt, or pretend to � all of us, indefinitely and forever. And those who don�t pretend to feel this way are abolishing history.
Assertions of this kind are, very often, for the benefit of a sympathetic audience and thus, ultimately, for the benefit of the performer. As I�ve argued before, saying, very loudly, "it�s all my fault" is only a notch and a half away from saying "it�s all about me."
I think there is a lot of truth in his observation that what liberals display is not real guilt, but a simulation thereof, a mimicry of guilt.
I've written a lot here about liberal guilt, but when we really think about it, liberals do not feel guilt because they presume that they are, by virtue of their superior liberal sensitivity, free of the guilt they try to induce among their less liberal racial brethren. They are, as I've said, like the Pharisee praying loudly to thank God that he is not like other men -- not a sinner. They are good at finding motes in others' eyes while ignoring the beam in their own eyes.
Guilt -- just as Leona Helmsley supposedly said about taxes -- is for the 'little people', one's inferiors.
Liberals see themselves as the moral aristocracy of the world; they pride themselves on their superior consciences, but somehow their consciences only find the sins of others.
As for that comment section, notice the liberal woman slapping down someone for saying that whites abolished slavery -- whites must not get credit for that; whites did NOT stop slavery, she says, only SOME whites did.
So unless all whites equally contributed to ending slavery, they deserve no credit. Yet oddly, all whites are made to carry the blame for what some did. And I don't mean slave-owners vs. virtuous abolitionists, or Southerners vs. saintly Northerners, or even rich, evil whites vs. poor, noble whites. I mean primarily today's whites being asked to pay, endlessly, for what whites (some, all, whoever) did hundreds of years ago.
At some point we will have to deal with the issue of slavery, over whether the slavery as practiced here in this country was the greatest ever human evil, comparable perhaps only to Hitler's crimes according to most people. This subject seems to be used as the ultimate weapon against us; we have no rejoinder except the rather liberal one of saying ''but...but we abolished it; don't we deserve praise for that?"
This guilt game will go on and on until we find some way to break this cycle, and that will not be easy.
Doing so will require a lot of re-thinking on our part, and a general determination to find some new way to look at the guilt-producing historic episodes that are being used against us so successfully. We can only say 'mea culpa' so many times.
Here is David Thompson on the Ron Rosenbaum Slate article praising white guilt. I've read a lot of commentary on the Slate piece, and this piece by Thompson is possibly the best. Read it all; it's to the point. But be warned of some annoying liberal posturing in the comments following.
David's piece is called Phantom Guilt, Revisited.
I like the phrase 'phantom guilt'. I like how Thompson seems to perceive the obvious falsity of the displays of guilt on the part of many of the liberal handwringers:
To publicly rend one�s garments over some vicarious, borrowed sin is not to affirm conscience or poignant human feeling, but to parody those things and to indulge in emotional pantomime and moral masturbation. Rather like this:
But was slavery not immoral? Was not the century of institutionalised racism and segregation that followed the end of slavery a perpetuation of "flawed values" that the nation should feel an enduring guilt over? Should we abolish the history and memory of slavery and racism just because they're no longer legally institutionalised?
Again, note the car crash of non sequitur. I�ll paraphrase for clarity:
Slavery was immoral. It was abolished. Therefore we must still feel guilt, or pretend to � all of us, indefinitely and forever. And those who don�t pretend to feel this way are abolishing history.
Assertions of this kind are, very often, for the benefit of a sympathetic audience and thus, ultimately, for the benefit of the performer. As I�ve argued before, saying, very loudly, "it�s all my fault" is only a notch and a half away from saying "it�s all about me."
I think there is a lot of truth in his observation that what liberals display is not real guilt, but a simulation thereof, a mimicry of guilt.
I've written a lot here about liberal guilt, but when we really think about it, liberals do not feel guilt because they presume that they are, by virtue of their superior liberal sensitivity, free of the guilt they try to induce among their less liberal racial brethren. They are, as I've said, like the Pharisee praying loudly to thank God that he is not like other men -- not a sinner. They are good at finding motes in others' eyes while ignoring the beam in their own eyes.
Guilt -- just as Leona Helmsley supposedly said about taxes -- is for the 'little people', one's inferiors.
Liberals see themselves as the moral aristocracy of the world; they pride themselves on their superior consciences, but somehow their consciences only find the sins of others.
As for that comment section, notice the liberal woman slapping down someone for saying that whites abolished slavery -- whites must not get credit for that; whites did NOT stop slavery, she says, only SOME whites did.
So unless all whites equally contributed to ending slavery, they deserve no credit. Yet oddly, all whites are made to carry the blame for what some did. And I don't mean slave-owners vs. virtuous abolitionists, or Southerners vs. saintly Northerners, or even rich, evil whites vs. poor, noble whites. I mean primarily today's whites being asked to pay, endlessly, for what whites (some, all, whoever) did hundreds of years ago.
At some point we will have to deal with the issue of slavery, over whether the slavery as practiced here in this country was the greatest ever human evil, comparable perhaps only to Hitler's crimes according to most people. This subject seems to be used as the ultimate weapon against us; we have no rejoinder except the rather liberal one of saying ''but...but we abolished it; don't we deserve praise for that?"
This guilt game will go on and on until we find some way to break this cycle, and that will not be easy.
Doing so will require a lot of re-thinking on our part, and a general determination to find some new way to look at the guilt-producing historic episodes that are being used against us so successfully. We can only say 'mea culpa' so many times.
Labels: American History, Hypocrisy, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Racial Guilt, White Guilt
0 comment Saturday, October 25, 2014 | admin
''...McWhorter suggests we're in a transitional phase in the way people feel about race as a national obsession. In the short run, "I suspect that where we are going is whites feeling ever more that it's time we blacks get over it, while an ever shrinking population of blacks continue hoping that whites will change their tune and 'wake up,' " he says. But this too shall (eventually) pass. "In about 50 years," he adds, "we will be so hybrid a nation that any idea of black-white relations as a major problem in need of address will seem archaic."
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.
Labels: Advertising, Anti White Racism, Elections, Presidential Candidates, Propaganda, Racial Division, Racial Guilt
0 comment Wednesday, September 10, 2014 | admin
On this blog, we return every so often to the discussion of culture vs. race, or nature vs. nurture, if you like.
Over at TakiMag, there is a piece by John Derbyshire in which he addresses this issue.
Derbyshire discusses how some, who, although believing that human beings evolved in Africa 50,000 years ago, then stopped evolving suddenly after dispersing throughout the world, in groups widely separated from one another.
That does seem quite a contradiction for those who believe in evolution. How does one rationalize or explain away this sudden stop in what is supposed to be an ongoing process? How can it be that the races of human beings, despite the great variations in appearance, are still somehow exactly the same in all the ways that matter?
He discusses how the idea of the 'psychic unity of mankind' was developed by Adolph Bastian and then later by Franz Boas, who is one of the most influential figures in anthropology and sociology. So much of the 'thinking', if it can be called that, of liberal egalitarians is based on Franz Boas' theories.
This idea of the "psychic unity of mankind" is a sort of blank slate principle. It says that all human beings everywhere have the same physiological nature, most especially the same brains, and that all observed differences, both group and individual, are the result of "culture" acting on this infinitely plastic substratum�writing words on this "blank slate."
"Blank slate" is in fact sometimes used as an identifier for this point of view�this belief in the psychic unity of mankind. It is also sometimes called a "Boasian" viewpoint in honor of Franz Boas�poor Bastian seems to have been forgotten.
[...]
Those of you who like to trace things back through the history of philosophy will recognize culturism as an extreme form of existentialism. In philosophical jargon your essence is what you are, as it might be put on a police WANTED poster: white male, 190 lbs, married two children, etc. Your existence is that you are�the fact of your being in the world. The old philosophical conundrum is: Which comes first, essence or existence? Do you come into the world with preset atrributes�the essentialist position? Or do you come in as a blank slate, and have to get some attributes for yourself, as the mid-20th-century Existentialists argued, or have them imposed on you by your social conditions, modes of production, and so on, as classical Marxism argued? ''
I had never thought of this culturalist 'blank slate' theory as being existentialist, but it is that. And as Derbyshire notes, our offical dogma in this society is 'an extreme existentialist one.' It's usually expressed as the utopian notion that we can all, or each of us as individuals, do anything and be anything we wish to be. And if we fail to do so, it's because of some environmental cause; opportunity has been cruelly denied us, holding us back from achieving our dreams.
Obviously, as we've discussed here before, if we believe, as the doctrinaire blank-slate egalitarians do, that everybody is equal in potential, then we have to find some explanation for why certain groups fail to achieve on an equal level. If we refuse dogmatically to accept that because races are intrinsically different, each group has differing abilities, then we have to resort to blaming any disparities on 'racism'. Of course, the all-encompassing belief in racism accepts as a given that White people are being gratuitously malicious towards nonwhites, thwarting their every effort to achieve. This is unfair to minorities in that it gives them a false diagnosis of the problem, rendering a realistic solution nearly impossible, but even more, it is unfair to Whites who are labeled as born 'racists' who are guilty whether they acknowledge it or not. It is slanderous; it amounts to calling Whites an innately evil group of people, and the only people capable of what is now considered (by our liberal society) the worst of all human evils -- ''racism.''
Our educational bureaucracy and our politically correct politicians who set policy are invested in egalitarian belief, and so they are forced to keep re-enacting this absurd play in which certain racial/ethnic groups fall short in academic achievement, followed by the ritualistic response that 'racism' is keeping these groups from ''closing the achievement gap.'' The vast sums of money our governments spend on trying to equalize the races is never enough to close the persistent gap, and no amount of money can ever be enough, apparently. Yet this charade goes on and on, with no end in sight. Worse, the 'achievement gap' issue is further complicated by the introduction of yet other ethnic/racial groups who also fail to compete academically as egalitarian dogmas imply they should. So now we have not only the black/White 'achievement gap' to fret about, but also the Hispanic/White gap. And on it goes.
The egalitarian is forced to resort to the belief that 'culture' causes all significant differences among the races, and that if we just 'assimilate' everyone to our ways, they will be just the same as we are, and will eventually achieve at equivalent levels. If not, it's because we have not done enough to bridge the cultural divide. Or it's because Whites are so incorrigibly 'racist.'
So this stubborn belief in egalitarianism of course entails more spending of money, and renewed efforts to indoctrinate teachers and citizens in the belief that we are all really equal, but for culture, and culture can be taught or shared. More propaganda is generated in an attempt to 'correct' the attitudes of 'racist' Whites, and more 'hate speech' laws are passed to curtail the evil of 'racism.'
According to the blank-slate believers, inequality has nothing whatsoever to do with race or genetics. It has only to do with 'culture', and culture apparently grows out of the ground, or falls out of the sky like rain; it does not grow out of the soul and mind of a particular people or race.
It is not just the extreme left egalitarians who believe this; just visit any mainstream 'conservative' forum and you will find many staunch Republicans protesting that ''Bill Cosby is right; blacks just have to learn how to succeed in majority culture and give up the ghetto culture.''
Thomas Sowell wrote that black social pathologies were caused by their exposure to 'redneck culture' in the South. Again, a 'conservative' variation on the old evil Whitey explanation for everything.
Many 'conservatives' believe that Hispanics ''will assimilate just like everybody else, if you give them a generation or two. After all, the [insert favorite European ethnic group name here] assimilated." They say the same about even more exotic peoples such as Somalis or Hmongs. The belief is that they will all become as American as apple pie, given enough time and exposure to our 'culture.'
For an illustration of how the debate on culture vs. genetics goes, just read the discussion on this blog thread regarding the Walmart trampling death. The 'r-word' flies, and denials likewise follow. This kind of back-and-forth is never-ending.
Stating a belief in innate racial differences, especially where behavior is concerned, draws accusations of 'racism' just about every time.
So most "conservatives" fall back on the idea of culture as being the determinant, although nobody ever answers the question of how culture develops. There is an implicit belief that culture just happens, or that it's comparable to a suit of clothes that we can put on or take off at will.
Everybody is equally capable, apparently, of adopting any culture. How certain ethnicities and races come to have distinct cultures, that are unique to them alone, is never discussed, much less explained.
Derbyshire alludes to the reaction James Watson experienced when he stated a simple belief in IQ differences among the races.
But since the feared results of believing such differences exist are considered undesirable by liberals and egalitarians, the idea of differences must be banished from polite discussion. Any heretic who expresses such a belief must be dealt with by ostracism, job loss, re-education, or whatever means, in order that the forbidden idea not be spread.
But until or unless we can honestly acknowledge the simple and self-evident fact that we are not blank slates and not all ''the same under the skin", this pattern will persist. The endless laments about 'achievement gaps' and 'the failure of our schools' and our 'failure to integrate and assimilate' everyone, and the endless accusations of racism in all its various forms, all will continue, and the frictions attendant on these accusations will increase.
If you read the comments at TakiMag following Derbyshire's article, you will notice that one rather angry liberal commenter shows that he is fearful of the results which might follow an acceptance of innate racial differences. He mentions 'eugenics', for example. I don't know whether the commenter eventually will resort to the old reductio ad Hitlerum, but I would not be surprised.
Why do people, or liberals, I should say, fiercely resist the idea of innate differences? Is it because of their dogmatic belief that we all have a right to self-create and self-define? Or are they really fearful that some kind of totalitarian policies would be implicit in the idea of differences?
Many of the people who express these kinds of fears are members of minority groups (sometimes ethnic Whites) who feel themselves to be endangered by an acknowledgement of ethnic and racial differences. Some of these people identify strongly with nonwhites, and have a knee-jerk resistance to any ideas which they deem potentially ''racist".
I am not surprised that the leftists and liberals cling fiercely to their egalitarian, blank slate belief system. Reality never intersects with their perceptions. But I am perpetually frustrated that many who are somewhat more to the right, who pride themselves on being 'realistic', insist on mouthing the same platitudes as the left-liberals. How do we get past this?
Over at TakiMag, there is a piece by John Derbyshire in which he addresses this issue.
Derbyshire discusses how some, who, although believing that human beings evolved in Africa 50,000 years ago, then stopped evolving suddenly after dispersing throughout the world, in groups widely separated from one another.
That does seem quite a contradiction for those who believe in evolution. How does one rationalize or explain away this sudden stop in what is supposed to be an ongoing process? How can it be that the races of human beings, despite the great variations in appearance, are still somehow exactly the same in all the ways that matter?
He discusses how the idea of the 'psychic unity of mankind' was developed by Adolph Bastian and then later by Franz Boas, who is one of the most influential figures in anthropology and sociology. So much of the 'thinking', if it can be called that, of liberal egalitarians is based on Franz Boas' theories.
This idea of the "psychic unity of mankind" is a sort of blank slate principle. It says that all human beings everywhere have the same physiological nature, most especially the same brains, and that all observed differences, both group and individual, are the result of "culture" acting on this infinitely plastic substratum�writing words on this "blank slate."
"Blank slate" is in fact sometimes used as an identifier for this point of view�this belief in the psychic unity of mankind. It is also sometimes called a "Boasian" viewpoint in honor of Franz Boas�poor Bastian seems to have been forgotten.
[...]
Those of you who like to trace things back through the history of philosophy will recognize culturism as an extreme form of existentialism. In philosophical jargon your essence is what you are, as it might be put on a police WANTED poster: white male, 190 lbs, married two children, etc. Your existence is that you are�the fact of your being in the world. The old philosophical conundrum is: Which comes first, essence or existence? Do you come into the world with preset atrributes�the essentialist position? Or do you come in as a blank slate, and have to get some attributes for yourself, as the mid-20th-century Existentialists argued, or have them imposed on you by your social conditions, modes of production, and so on, as classical Marxism argued? ''
I had never thought of this culturalist 'blank slate' theory as being existentialist, but it is that. And as Derbyshire notes, our offical dogma in this society is 'an extreme existentialist one.' It's usually expressed as the utopian notion that we can all, or each of us as individuals, do anything and be anything we wish to be. And if we fail to do so, it's because of some environmental cause; opportunity has been cruelly denied us, holding us back from achieving our dreams.
Obviously, as we've discussed here before, if we believe, as the doctrinaire blank-slate egalitarians do, that everybody is equal in potential, then we have to find some explanation for why certain groups fail to achieve on an equal level. If we refuse dogmatically to accept that because races are intrinsically different, each group has differing abilities, then we have to resort to blaming any disparities on 'racism'. Of course, the all-encompassing belief in racism accepts as a given that White people are being gratuitously malicious towards nonwhites, thwarting their every effort to achieve. This is unfair to minorities in that it gives them a false diagnosis of the problem, rendering a realistic solution nearly impossible, but even more, it is unfair to Whites who are labeled as born 'racists' who are guilty whether they acknowledge it or not. It is slanderous; it amounts to calling Whites an innately evil group of people, and the only people capable of what is now considered (by our liberal society) the worst of all human evils -- ''racism.''
Our educational bureaucracy and our politically correct politicians who set policy are invested in egalitarian belief, and so they are forced to keep re-enacting this absurd play in which certain racial/ethnic groups fall short in academic achievement, followed by the ritualistic response that 'racism' is keeping these groups from ''closing the achievement gap.'' The vast sums of money our governments spend on trying to equalize the races is never enough to close the persistent gap, and no amount of money can ever be enough, apparently. Yet this charade goes on and on, with no end in sight. Worse, the 'achievement gap' issue is further complicated by the introduction of yet other ethnic/racial groups who also fail to compete academically as egalitarian dogmas imply they should. So now we have not only the black/White 'achievement gap' to fret about, but also the Hispanic/White gap. And on it goes.
The egalitarian is forced to resort to the belief that 'culture' causes all significant differences among the races, and that if we just 'assimilate' everyone to our ways, they will be just the same as we are, and will eventually achieve at equivalent levels. If not, it's because we have not done enough to bridge the cultural divide. Or it's because Whites are so incorrigibly 'racist.'
So this stubborn belief in egalitarianism of course entails more spending of money, and renewed efforts to indoctrinate teachers and citizens in the belief that we are all really equal, but for culture, and culture can be taught or shared. More propaganda is generated in an attempt to 'correct' the attitudes of 'racist' Whites, and more 'hate speech' laws are passed to curtail the evil of 'racism.'
According to the blank-slate believers, inequality has nothing whatsoever to do with race or genetics. It has only to do with 'culture', and culture apparently grows out of the ground, or falls out of the sky like rain; it does not grow out of the soul and mind of a particular people or race.
It is not just the extreme left egalitarians who believe this; just visit any mainstream 'conservative' forum and you will find many staunch Republicans protesting that ''Bill Cosby is right; blacks just have to learn how to succeed in majority culture and give up the ghetto culture.''
Thomas Sowell wrote that black social pathologies were caused by their exposure to 'redneck culture' in the South. Again, a 'conservative' variation on the old evil Whitey explanation for everything.
Many 'conservatives' believe that Hispanics ''will assimilate just like everybody else, if you give them a generation or two. After all, the [insert favorite European ethnic group name here] assimilated." They say the same about even more exotic peoples such as Somalis or Hmongs. The belief is that they will all become as American as apple pie, given enough time and exposure to our 'culture.'
For an illustration of how the debate on culture vs. genetics goes, just read the discussion on this blog thread regarding the Walmart trampling death. The 'r-word' flies, and denials likewise follow. This kind of back-and-forth is never-ending.
Stating a belief in innate racial differences, especially where behavior is concerned, draws accusations of 'racism' just about every time.
So most "conservatives" fall back on the idea of culture as being the determinant, although nobody ever answers the question of how culture develops. There is an implicit belief that culture just happens, or that it's comparable to a suit of clothes that we can put on or take off at will.
Everybody is equally capable, apparently, of adopting any culture. How certain ethnicities and races come to have distinct cultures, that are unique to them alone, is never discussed, much less explained.
Derbyshire alludes to the reaction James Watson experienced when he stated a simple belief in IQ differences among the races.
But since the feared results of believing such differences exist are considered undesirable by liberals and egalitarians, the idea of differences must be banished from polite discussion. Any heretic who expresses such a belief must be dealt with by ostracism, job loss, re-education, or whatever means, in order that the forbidden idea not be spread.
But until or unless we can honestly acknowledge the simple and self-evident fact that we are not blank slates and not all ''the same under the skin", this pattern will persist. The endless laments about 'achievement gaps' and 'the failure of our schools' and our 'failure to integrate and assimilate' everyone, and the endless accusations of racism in all its various forms, all will continue, and the frictions attendant on these accusations will increase.
If you read the comments at TakiMag following Derbyshire's article, you will notice that one rather angry liberal commenter shows that he is fearful of the results which might follow an acceptance of innate racial differences. He mentions 'eugenics', for example. I don't know whether the commenter eventually will resort to the old reductio ad Hitlerum, but I would not be surprised.
Why do people, or liberals, I should say, fiercely resist the idea of innate differences? Is it because of their dogmatic belief that we all have a right to self-create and self-define? Or are they really fearful that some kind of totalitarian policies would be implicit in the idea of differences?
Many of the people who express these kinds of fears are members of minority groups (sometimes ethnic Whites) who feel themselves to be endangered by an acknowledgement of ethnic and racial differences. Some of these people identify strongly with nonwhites, and have a knee-jerk resistance to any ideas which they deem potentially ''racist".
I am not surprised that the leftists and liberals cling fiercely to their egalitarian, blank slate belief system. Reality never intersects with their perceptions. But I am perpetually frustrated that many who are somewhat more to the right, who pride themselves on being 'realistic', insist on mouthing the same platitudes as the left-liberals. How do we get past this?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Egalitarianism, Liberalism, Race Denial, Racial Guilt
0 comment Sunday, September 7, 2014 | admin
The excuses and rationalizations are all lined up, in case Obama is elected President.
Many naive White Americans think that an Obama presidency will put paid to complaints about 'racism' and discrimination. The usual way it is framed is that if Obama is elected, it will be because large numbers of Whites voted for him. He cannot be elected simply by the votes of nonwhites, even if every last one voted for him; White votes are necessary for anybody to win the Presidency, no matter what the renegade old media imply. So Obama's election would show that most Whites were willing to have a black President, and this, supposedly, would silence all the cries of 'racism' in this country.
Imagine that happening. The silence would be deafening. I can barely remember such a world.
But would that happen? Not if these representatives of the 'African-American community' are an accurate sample of blacks' thinking. Race-obsessed CNN asks Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans?
and various blacks answer:
...Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.''
At 'no cost to their own notions of skin privilege?' Tell me more about this skin privilege business. In my experience, the only 'skin privilege' goes with dark skin.
But let's hear the rest of the race-card playing:
Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.
Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.''
Ahh, systemic racism. I had actually forgotten that sub-category of racism; silly me. I recently listed off the various brands of 'racism', such as unconscious racism, subconscious racism, and 'institutional racism.' I learned these things back in the 70s from my militant black sociology teacher in college. It seems I need to be sent back for a refresher course in black victimology. So I'll let the all-knowing Ms Gillespie bring me up to speed on White Racism 101:
It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she said.
Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.''
Well, some say these 'intractable problems' (credit to Gillespie for at least admitting that they are intractable) are due to, ahem, differences between the races. But I have a feeling that's not the desired answer.
Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.
"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie said. "Just because [Obama] gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."
It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.
"People could say if Barack [Obama] can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault, and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie said.''
It's their fault? Imagine anyone saying that. Who would make such a scurrilous judgment? Racists, of course.
So no, it's obviously not going to happen that blacks will wake up the day after election day, should Obama be elected, and thank their lucky stars that America is no longer an evil racist nation where Whitey keeps the black man down. No, life will go on as before, and unless I miss my guess, the old tattered race card will be flourished with increasing frequency. The only difference will be that Obama himself will probably be leading the chorus of accusations, and encouraging more of the same.
Granted, we haven't had a President who unequivocally represents majority White America for decades now, but does anybody on the right seriously think that Obama would even feign impartiality or neutrality?
In this piece, the columnist mentions talk of 'civil unrest' in the event of an Obama defeat in November.
... I�m not a conspiracy theorist or alarmist. But I do believe that current cultural and political conditions are such that a McCain "victory" in November could create, at the very least, some significant tension in our society, if not outright civil unrest. Much of my concern has to do with a rather skewed, subjective, and selfish view of the notion of "injustice" that Obama himself has propagated throughout his campaign.
Think about it. On both implicit and explicit levels, Obama�s rhetoric suggests that the annoyances, the risks, the hardships and insecurities of your existence are the result of various injustices done to you, and that he alone can correct those injustices. ''
In other words, if the idea is widely accepted among blacks that Obama's election is the only way for their myriad grievances to be addressed or corrected (an impossible task, in any case), then they will likely react with great bitterness should he be defeated.
And if he's elected, will the situation be any better? I think race relations can only be further polarized and inflamed with Obama in office.
But if this is the case, then the 'worse is better' theorists believe worsened race relations would galvanize Whites and cause a new solidarity to develop. I am not convinced that this would be the immediate effect.
But if Obama's defeat would lead to civil unrest, as some posit, could that not be sufficient to wake up our somnabulists? I think that would be a far less risky gamble than placing our bets on an Obama presidency as a strong dose of reality tonic for most Americans.
And it seems clear that the single most intractable thing is the insatiable demands of the perennial victims. It has truly become a way of life, this constant complaining and demanding, so that no objective change for the 'better' will ever be sufficient. And unfortunately, our adversaries' idea of 'better' is objectively worse for us.
Many naive White Americans think that an Obama presidency will put paid to complaints about 'racism' and discrimination. The usual way it is framed is that if Obama is elected, it will be because large numbers of Whites voted for him. He cannot be elected simply by the votes of nonwhites, even if every last one voted for him; White votes are necessary for anybody to win the Presidency, no matter what the renegade old media imply. So Obama's election would show that most Whites were willing to have a black President, and this, supposedly, would silence all the cries of 'racism' in this country.
Imagine that happening. The silence would be deafening. I can barely remember such a world.
But would that happen? Not if these representatives of the 'African-American community' are an accurate sample of blacks' thinking. Race-obsessed CNN asks Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans?
and various blacks answer:
...Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.''
At 'no cost to their own notions of skin privilege?' Tell me more about this skin privilege business. In my experience, the only 'skin privilege' goes with dark skin.
But let's hear the rest of the race-card playing:
Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.
Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.''
Ahh, systemic racism. I had actually forgotten that sub-category of racism; silly me. I recently listed off the various brands of 'racism', such as unconscious racism, subconscious racism, and 'institutional racism.' I learned these things back in the 70s from my militant black sociology teacher in college. It seems I need to be sent back for a refresher course in black victimology. So I'll let the all-knowing Ms Gillespie bring me up to speed on White Racism 101:
It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she said.
Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.''
Well, some say these 'intractable problems' (credit to Gillespie for at least admitting that they are intractable) are due to, ahem, differences between the races. But I have a feeling that's not the desired answer.
Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.
"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie said. "Just because [Obama] gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."
It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.
"People could say if Barack [Obama] can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault, and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie said.''
It's their fault? Imagine anyone saying that. Who would make such a scurrilous judgment? Racists, of course.
So no, it's obviously not going to happen that blacks will wake up the day after election day, should Obama be elected, and thank their lucky stars that America is no longer an evil racist nation where Whitey keeps the black man down. No, life will go on as before, and unless I miss my guess, the old tattered race card will be flourished with increasing frequency. The only difference will be that Obama himself will probably be leading the chorus of accusations, and encouraging more of the same.
Granted, we haven't had a President who unequivocally represents majority White America for decades now, but does anybody on the right seriously think that Obama would even feign impartiality or neutrality?
In this piece, the columnist mentions talk of 'civil unrest' in the event of an Obama defeat in November.
... I�m not a conspiracy theorist or alarmist. But I do believe that current cultural and political conditions are such that a McCain "victory" in November could create, at the very least, some significant tension in our society, if not outright civil unrest. Much of my concern has to do with a rather skewed, subjective, and selfish view of the notion of "injustice" that Obama himself has propagated throughout his campaign.
Think about it. On both implicit and explicit levels, Obama�s rhetoric suggests that the annoyances, the risks, the hardships and insecurities of your existence are the result of various injustices done to you, and that he alone can correct those injustices. ''
In other words, if the idea is widely accepted among blacks that Obama's election is the only way for their myriad grievances to be addressed or corrected (an impossible task, in any case), then they will likely react with great bitterness should he be defeated.
And if he's elected, will the situation be any better? I think race relations can only be further polarized and inflamed with Obama in office.
But if this is the case, then the 'worse is better' theorists believe worsened race relations would galvanize Whites and cause a new solidarity to develop. I am not convinced that this would be the immediate effect.
But if Obama's defeat would lead to civil unrest, as some posit, could that not be sufficient to wake up our somnabulists? I think that would be a far less risky gamble than placing our bets on an Obama presidency as a strong dose of reality tonic for most Americans.
And it seems clear that the single most intractable thing is the insatiable demands of the perennial victims. It has truly become a way of life, this constant complaining and demanding, so that no objective change for the 'better' will ever be sufficient. And unfortunately, our adversaries' idea of 'better' is objectively worse for us.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Elections, Political Correctness, Politics, Racial Guilt
0 comment Monday, September 1, 2014 | admin
Once again, it's a liberal who speaks politically incorrect truths about racial matters. Nader is not on our side but even a broken clock is right twice a day: Nader: Obama trying to 'talk white'
Nader said he is not impressed with Obama and that he does not see him campaigning often enough in low-income, predominantly minority communities where there is a "shocking" amount of economic exploitation.
[...]
"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
In the Free Republic discussion of this article, a commenter asks:
'How should Obama talk? Should he sound like an African-American? That makes no sense. He's 50% white, and the rest is a mix of his Arab and Kenya heritage.''
Another Freeper offers:
Uhhh....Ralph. He is white. He�s as much white as he is black.''
Another says:
Why are liberals so hung-up on race?'
Yet another bizarrely insists:
Obama is MORE white than black. Arab bloodlines are not considered black bloodlines.''
Another says:
While BO's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. His father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab. (His father's birth certificate states he is Arab, not African Negro).
I'll leave it to you and others to sort this out as to legitimate sources, etc. One source is as good as the other. Pick your own pew. Since Obama is purportedly half-black and half-white, why does his "birth certificate" say "African". This is not 100% true.'
First, I've read the claims of his being mostly of 'Arab' ancestry on his paternal side. His father's appearance is 100 percent African as far as I can see; if there is any 'Arab' ancestry it must be so remote and so diluted as to be invisible. So I put no stock in that claim, although the Freepers seem willing to believe it because their only apparent objection to Obama is that he is a crypto-Moslem (and he may well be) who is partly Arab.
But the more baffling question for me is this: there seems to be a new (to me) definition of 'White.' Since so many on the 'right' are genuinely upset that Obama does not prefer his White ancestry, it appears that there is some newly-devised definition of White wherein anybody with half-White ancestry is 'White'. This was never the historic definition of White anywhere that I know of. So what is up with this new understanding of racial categories? Are conservatives finally surrendering to the 'race is a social construct' dogma? It could be interpreted that way. Or do conservatives think that when someone is half-and-half, one can pick a race? If so, the definition of White will be substantially changed.
This whole issue seems to be a curiously emotional one for many 'conservatives'. I've commented here before about how I've read so many rather hurt comments from Whites asking why Obama won't claim his White ancestry. They truly do seem genuinely wounded by this; they say things like 'he was raised by his White grandparents and grew up in White culture but he won't call himself White.'
Whence the hurt feelings here? I don't get it. I can see how the White relatives who raised him might feel hurt and rejected, but why should random White people be so emotionally invested in this?
I wonder if many people, 'conservatives' as well as liberals, truly crave acceptance by blacks and other minorities (but primarily blacks). Is this just one more manifestation of the White guilt Nader alludes to? Do we think that our Original Sin might be washed away by Obama's embrace of his White ancestry? Would that be the ultimate absolution White liberals (and 'conservatives') are yearning for?
If so, I would find that more understandable, though servile, and less troubling in a way than the idea that we are suddenly ready to re-define racial categories or to proclaim that race is, after all, a social construct, or whatever we decide it is.
Does a black man become White by 'talking White' as Nader says, or does reading ''lit fic novels'' make a black man White, as Steve Sailer implies here? I thought Sailer believed that race is real. Maybe I've misunderstood him all along.
...white Democrats haven't seemed to like black candidates much. They've looked down upon non-racialist pragmatic black politicians like former LA mayor Tom Bradley as Uncle Toms, yet also looked down upon racialist politicians popular with blacks like Rev. Jesse and Rev. Al as buffoons. So, Obama is the unexpected answer to their fantasies. A black candidate who has worked hard to establish a career for himself as a South Side racialist, but who is really a lit fic novel reading white man in a semi-black skin.''
Shades of 'Stuff White People Like.' Is being White a matter of having 'White' cultural preferences, like the caricatured, aracial 'Whites' of the SWPL blog? There are plenty of Whites who are not 'lit fic novel reading' types; where do they fit in?
There have always been a few blacks, regardless of whether they have White ancestry, who speak standard American English, have conservative ideas, or work in predominantly White professions or businesses. Are they then automatically Whites?
A prominent example would be Oprah. She 'talks white', so much so that she was on the receiving end of many jokes by some stand-up comics back in the early days of her career, before she became some kind of saint. She is culturally more White than black, it seems. She may claim some non-African ancestry, probably American Indian like 90 percent of blacks do. But does anybody say she is anything other than black?
To me, the old commonsense rule still applies. If someone looks black, they are black, even though they may have White genes. African genes are outwardly dominant. No one with one White parent and one black parent looks White. In the past anyone who suggested Obama might justifiably call himself White would be viewed askance, to put it mildly.
So what is going on with this silly-putty view of racial identity?
Somewhat pertinent is this post which discusses American blacks' ancestry:
Studies have repeatedly shown American blacks average ~20% European admixture, while white Americans show minimal if any non-European admixture. Gene flow was overwhelmingly one way.
It is no surprise that among American blacks "self-report of a high degree of African ancestry in a three-generation family tree did not accurately predict degree of African ancestry". The overwhelming majority of American blacks have "African" (black) parents and grandparents. No doubt most of Aframs' European genes entered the Afram gene pool more than 3 generation ago. Aframs without recent white ancestors may range from light-skinned to coal-black. We see no such variations in the phenotypes of white Americans.''
That first sentence I quoted disposes of one of the common myths or 'arguments' of the social construct devotees: the claim that 'many White Americans have African blood, so there is no true White American.'
I've heard that said or seen it claimed in many internet discussions.
But the racial myths and half-truths will go on as long as they serve the purpose of blurring all distinctions.
Nader said he is not impressed with Obama and that he does not see him campaigning often enough in low-income, predominantly minority communities where there is a "shocking" amount of economic exploitation.
[...]
"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
In the Free Republic discussion of this article, a commenter asks:
'How should Obama talk? Should he sound like an African-American? That makes no sense. He's 50% white, and the rest is a mix of his Arab and Kenya heritage.''
Another Freeper offers:
Uhhh....Ralph. He is white. He�s as much white as he is black.''
Another says:
Why are liberals so hung-up on race?'
Yet another bizarrely insists:
Obama is MORE white than black. Arab bloodlines are not considered black bloodlines.''
Another says:
While BO's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. His father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab. (His father's birth certificate states he is Arab, not African Negro).
I'll leave it to you and others to sort this out as to legitimate sources, etc. One source is as good as the other. Pick your own pew. Since Obama is purportedly half-black and half-white, why does his "birth certificate" say "African". This is not 100% true.'
First, I've read the claims of his being mostly of 'Arab' ancestry on his paternal side. His father's appearance is 100 percent African as far as I can see; if there is any 'Arab' ancestry it must be so remote and so diluted as to be invisible. So I put no stock in that claim, although the Freepers seem willing to believe it because their only apparent objection to Obama is that he is a crypto-Moslem (and he may well be) who is partly Arab.
But the more baffling question for me is this: there seems to be a new (to me) definition of 'White.' Since so many on the 'right' are genuinely upset that Obama does not prefer his White ancestry, it appears that there is some newly-devised definition of White wherein anybody with half-White ancestry is 'White'. This was never the historic definition of White anywhere that I know of. So what is up with this new understanding of racial categories? Are conservatives finally surrendering to the 'race is a social construct' dogma? It could be interpreted that way. Or do conservatives think that when someone is half-and-half, one can pick a race? If so, the definition of White will be substantially changed.
This whole issue seems to be a curiously emotional one for many 'conservatives'. I've commented here before about how I've read so many rather hurt comments from Whites asking why Obama won't claim his White ancestry. They truly do seem genuinely wounded by this; they say things like 'he was raised by his White grandparents and grew up in White culture but he won't call himself White.'
Whence the hurt feelings here? I don't get it. I can see how the White relatives who raised him might feel hurt and rejected, but why should random White people be so emotionally invested in this?
I wonder if many people, 'conservatives' as well as liberals, truly crave acceptance by blacks and other minorities (but primarily blacks). Is this just one more manifestation of the White guilt Nader alludes to? Do we think that our Original Sin might be washed away by Obama's embrace of his White ancestry? Would that be the ultimate absolution White liberals (and 'conservatives') are yearning for?
If so, I would find that more understandable, though servile, and less troubling in a way than the idea that we are suddenly ready to re-define racial categories or to proclaim that race is, after all, a social construct, or whatever we decide it is.
Does a black man become White by 'talking White' as Nader says, or does reading ''lit fic novels'' make a black man White, as Steve Sailer implies here? I thought Sailer believed that race is real. Maybe I've misunderstood him all along.
...white Democrats haven't seemed to like black candidates much. They've looked down upon non-racialist pragmatic black politicians like former LA mayor Tom Bradley as Uncle Toms, yet also looked down upon racialist politicians popular with blacks like Rev. Jesse and Rev. Al as buffoons. So, Obama is the unexpected answer to their fantasies. A black candidate who has worked hard to establish a career for himself as a South Side racialist, but who is really a lit fic novel reading white man in a semi-black skin.''
Shades of 'Stuff White People Like.' Is being White a matter of having 'White' cultural preferences, like the caricatured, aracial 'Whites' of the SWPL blog? There are plenty of Whites who are not 'lit fic novel reading' types; where do they fit in?
There have always been a few blacks, regardless of whether they have White ancestry, who speak standard American English, have conservative ideas, or work in predominantly White professions or businesses. Are they then automatically Whites?
A prominent example would be Oprah. She 'talks white', so much so that she was on the receiving end of many jokes by some stand-up comics back in the early days of her career, before she became some kind of saint. She is culturally more White than black, it seems. She may claim some non-African ancestry, probably American Indian like 90 percent of blacks do. But does anybody say she is anything other than black?
To me, the old commonsense rule still applies. If someone looks black, they are black, even though they may have White genes. African genes are outwardly dominant. No one with one White parent and one black parent looks White. In the past anyone who suggested Obama might justifiably call himself White would be viewed askance, to put it mildly.
So what is going on with this silly-putty view of racial identity?
Somewhat pertinent is this post which discusses American blacks' ancestry:
Studies have repeatedly shown American blacks average ~20% European admixture, while white Americans show minimal if any non-European admixture. Gene flow was overwhelmingly one way.
It is no surprise that among American blacks "self-report of a high degree of African ancestry in a three-generation family tree did not accurately predict degree of African ancestry". The overwhelming majority of American blacks have "African" (black) parents and grandparents. No doubt most of Aframs' European genes entered the Afram gene pool more than 3 generation ago. Aframs without recent white ancestors may range from light-skinned to coal-black. We see no such variations in the phenotypes of white Americans.''
That first sentence I quoted disposes of one of the common myths or 'arguments' of the social construct devotees: the claim that 'many White Americans have African blood, so there is no true White American.'
I've heard that said or seen it claimed in many internet discussions.
But the racial myths and half-truths will go on as long as they serve the purpose of blurring all distinctions.
Labels: Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates, Race Denial, Racial Guilt
0 comment Saturday, August 16, 2014 | admin
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Association, Leftism, Leftist Hypocrisy, Political Correctness, Racial Division, Racial Guilt
0 comment Thursday, July 24, 2014 | admin
It seems the liberals have belatedly discovered that race does matter.
On a recent thread here, the subject of interracial adoptions came up, and coincidentally, foreign, interracial adoptions are in the spotlight. And as usual, whitey is the guilty party in any problems associated with this practice:
Halted foreign adoptions leave would-be parents in limbo
...Guatemala announced this month that it would conduct a case-by-case review of every pending foreign adoption case. That put on hold the adoption plans of about 2,000 American families.
The crackdown comes amid reports that some in Guatemala coerce mothers to relinquish their children for adoption -- or steal the children outright and present them as orphans.
Similar accusations have arisen in Vietnam.
After the United States accused adoption agencies there of corruption and baby-selling, Vietnam said in April that it would no longer allow adoptions to the United States.
"My husband and I were absolutely devastated," Teresinski said. "Adoptive parents have put a lot of emotional energy and a lot of financial resources in the process."
Vietnam's decision affects several hundred families.
Families in the United States adopted 4,728 children from Guatemala and 828 from Vietnam last year.
The halt in adoptions from those two nations unfolds against the backdrop of a dramatic rise in international adoptions in the United States.
The number of foreign-born children adopted by U.S. families more than tripled from 1990 to 2004, when it reached a high of 22,884, though the figure has declined slightly each year since.
In 2007, the U.S. granted visas to 19,613 children so they could join an adoptive family in the United States, according to U.S. State Department figures. About 70 percent of those children came from four countries: China, Guatemala, Russia and Ethiopia.''
I live in a (to date) non-diverse small town. Foreign adoptions, mostly from the countries mentioned above, seem to be quite the trend among the conspicuously altruistic. Adopting a child from a Third World country is the thing to do in certain sets, and the more exotic, the better.
It seems there is little consideration given to the question of how the children will adapt, or fit in, and how they will identify among a group of people unlike themselves.
And then there's the matter of how the demographics of a small town will be affected by growing numbers of people of different races. Will there be conflicts as they reach adulthood, or will the kumbaya spirit prevail? Given our trend these days toward ethnic splintering, the presence of many adoptees of various races will only contribute to the confusion and the division.
This news story has to do with the question: Do whites need training before parenting black children?
NEW YORK (AP) -- Several leading child welfare groups Tuesday urged an overhaul of federal laws dealing with transracial adoption, arguing that black children in foster care are ill-served by a "colorblind" approach meant to encourage their adoption by white families.
[...]
Of the black children adopted out of foster care, about 20 percent are adopted by white families. The Donaldson report said current federal law, by stressing color blindness, deters child welfare agencies from assessing families' readiness to adopt transracially or preparing them for the distinctive challenges they might face.
"There is a higher rate of problems in minority foster children adopted transracially than in-race," said the report. "All children deserve to be raised in families that respect their cultural heritage."
For once, I actually agree with the 'experts' in the article, although I suspect my reasons are different. It is not that inept, clueless Whitey is too innately racist and insensitive to properly 'respect the cultural heritage' of any black or other non-white children they adopt or foster. It's simply that people are not interchangeable, and babies and children probably fare best with people like themselves, ideally.
Children in cross-racial adoptions tend to have identity issues, and those who are biracial have further problems, as witness this adoptee's account.
Because I felt that I did not belong to any group, my confidence eroded. I was ashamed and embarrassed when people discussed race or when they wanted to know about my family. I was confused because I did not understand my biracial background and did not have the support of my natural parents to help me understand my heritage. Instead of believing in myself, my abilities and my intelligence, as I had in high school, I became withdrawn. I did not readily participate in class or take part in extra-curricular activities because of my insecurity and confusion about my racial identity. Although I learned that we simply do not live in a "color blind" world, I felt that I had no one to turn to in order to help me understand what it meant to be an African-American man in our society.''
This webpage gives a history of transracial adoptions in America. Interestingly, blacks have been opposed in many cases to whites adopting blacks:
The debate about transracial adoption changed course in 1972, when the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a statement that took "a vehement stand against the placements of black children in white homes for any reason," calling transracial adoption "unnatural," "artificial," "unnecessary," and proof that African-Americans continued to be assigned to "chattel status." The organization was so committed to the position that black children�s healthy development depended on having black parents that its President, Cenie J. Williams, argued that temporary foster and even institutional placements were preferable to adoption by white families. This opposition slowed black-white adoptions to a trickle. In 1973, the Child Welfare League of America adoption standards, which had been revised in 1968 to make them slightly friendlier to transracial adoption, were rewritten to clarify that same-race placements were always better. The child welfare establishment never supported transracial adoptions.
A number of new agencies, staffed almost entirely by African Americans, such as Homes for Black Children in Detroit and Harlem-Dowling Children�s Service in New York, renewed the effort that had started in the late 1940s and 1950s to find black homes for black children. In spite of successful efforts to boost the numbers of black adoptive families, objections to whites adopting African-American children were never translated into law. Minority group rights to children were legally enforceable only in the case of Native American children, and only after the 1978 passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Since 1972, the numbers of black-white adoptions have declined, but this may have as much to do with stubborn private preferences and prejudices among white adopters as with organized opposition or public policies that created new barriers to transracial placements.''
This piece depicts the popular celebrity trend of adopting Third World children as just another manifestation of -- as usual, racism. And colonialism.
The white Madonna's burden
In the May issue of Vanity Fair, there was a telling exchange between its cover star Madonna �- resplendent in leotard and black knee�length boots �- and her interviewer, Rich Cohen.
They were talking about David Banda, the child adopted by Madonna in Malawi in 2006. Understandably, Madonna is gushing about her adopted son and everything that he "represents". And what is that, exactly? Cohen explains: baby David is a "living totem of life as it was lived before machines".
In other words, he�s a simple, wide�eyed, primitive being who helps to remind Madonna about what is really important in life as she jets from one photo�shoot and session recording to another. Cohen compares David to Pocahontas, "the beautiful Indian girl found in wild America", and says that for "bringing this boy into her house and giving him everything", Madonna has got "something in return": a child who symbolises a wilder, more earthy, gritty way of life, who comes from a time "before machines".
[...]
Madonna does not only want her own little black baby to remind her of the simplicity of life -� she also seems keen to save the whole of Africa. As one British commentator put it, she is treating the entire continent as "a little orphan that needs adopting".
[...]
There is something creepily colonialist in Madonna�s attitude to Africa. First we had the White Man�s Burden -� now we have the White Madonna�s Burden. More and more celebrities are treating Africa as a wide-eyed child that needs a Hollywood hug -� or as a wicked devil that needs a Hollywood hammering.
[...]
There is something Kiplingesque in this celebrity swarming of Africa. Kipling branded colonial subjects on the dark continent as "half�devil and half�child" �- and today that old poisonous prejudice finds expression in the celebrity view of Africa as a child that must be adopted (Malawi) or as a devil that must be punished (Sudan). Africans once resisted the armies of colonialism; now they should consider resisting the armies of celebrities, camera crews, make-up artists and hairstylists who are seeking to turn Africa into a stage for celebrity expressions of cheap moral bombast.''
It's incredible but predictable that the liberals and leftists cannot or will not see the condescension and paternalism in their racial do-gooding, their conspicuous trans-racial altruism.
Madonna is in all respects a quintessential liberal, as are the other 'diversity'-obsessed celebrities like Angelina Jolie, Bono, Bob Geldof, and all the rest. In no way are they connected to Kipling or colonialism or 'racism', unless you are honest enough to call the liberal racial meddling pro-minority racism of a sort, which it could be seen to be.
Implicit in their constant bleating about poor Darfur or the downtrodden wretched of the earth, who are forever in need of our help, is the idea that these people are indeed perpetual children, who have not reached an adult stage of development. Adulthood is characterized by independence and self-sufficiency.
Kipling's terminology which the writer sanctimoniously calls 'that old poisonous prejudice' simply expressed, with no sentimentality and cloying condescension, what most liberals actually, deep down, think about the Third World peoples.
Clearly, liberal westerners, whites, believe that the other races are incapable of taking care of themselves, hence they are in need of constant infusions of money and other aid from us in order to survive. And if we decline to intervene and make things all right for these benighted people, we are guilty of racism, genocide, or whatever term of opprobrium they deem useful to instill guilt.
If liberals, for a moment, believed the Third Worlders to be our equals, they would surely be content to leave them to their own devices -- wouldn't they? Obviously they view non-whites as children in need of a handout, not a hand up, in need of our supervision and assistance in everything.
Instead of admitting this upfront, they ascribe this attitude to the realists, who will say openly that the races are not equal in capacity for self-sufficiency. We all agree on that; it's just that those of us who say it frankly are condemned as 'racists' or 'bigots' or 'colonialists.' Well, if we must be permanently involved in the affairs of the Third World, why not just re-institute colonial rule?
And as for the attitudes of Madonna and her celebrity friends being 'Kiplingesque', that's an undeserved compliment, not an insult, as the writer intends it to be. If only Madonna and the other Hollywood do-gooding dilettantes were Kiplingesque. If only our leaders were Kiplingesque. Kipling was a man with good sense about people and their differences, a quality we seem to have lost beyond recovery in our day.
...This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf --
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
On a recent thread here, the subject of interracial adoptions came up, and coincidentally, foreign, interracial adoptions are in the spotlight. And as usual, whitey is the guilty party in any problems associated with this practice:
Halted foreign adoptions leave would-be parents in limbo
...Guatemala announced this month that it would conduct a case-by-case review of every pending foreign adoption case. That put on hold the adoption plans of about 2,000 American families.
The crackdown comes amid reports that some in Guatemala coerce mothers to relinquish their children for adoption -- or steal the children outright and present them as orphans.
Similar accusations have arisen in Vietnam.
After the United States accused adoption agencies there of corruption and baby-selling, Vietnam said in April that it would no longer allow adoptions to the United States.
"My husband and I were absolutely devastated," Teresinski said. "Adoptive parents have put a lot of emotional energy and a lot of financial resources in the process."
Vietnam's decision affects several hundred families.
Families in the United States adopted 4,728 children from Guatemala and 828 from Vietnam last year.
The halt in adoptions from those two nations unfolds against the backdrop of a dramatic rise in international adoptions in the United States.
The number of foreign-born children adopted by U.S. families more than tripled from 1990 to 2004, when it reached a high of 22,884, though the figure has declined slightly each year since.
In 2007, the U.S. granted visas to 19,613 children so they could join an adoptive family in the United States, according to U.S. State Department figures. About 70 percent of those children came from four countries: China, Guatemala, Russia and Ethiopia.''
I live in a (to date) non-diverse small town. Foreign adoptions, mostly from the countries mentioned above, seem to be quite the trend among the conspicuously altruistic. Adopting a child from a Third World country is the thing to do in certain sets, and the more exotic, the better.
It seems there is little consideration given to the question of how the children will adapt, or fit in, and how they will identify among a group of people unlike themselves.
And then there's the matter of how the demographics of a small town will be affected by growing numbers of people of different races. Will there be conflicts as they reach adulthood, or will the kumbaya spirit prevail? Given our trend these days toward ethnic splintering, the presence of many adoptees of various races will only contribute to the confusion and the division.
This news story has to do with the question: Do whites need training before parenting black children?
NEW YORK (AP) -- Several leading child welfare groups Tuesday urged an overhaul of federal laws dealing with transracial adoption, arguing that black children in foster care are ill-served by a "colorblind" approach meant to encourage their adoption by white families.
[...]
Of the black children adopted out of foster care, about 20 percent are adopted by white families. The Donaldson report said current federal law, by stressing color blindness, deters child welfare agencies from assessing families' readiness to adopt transracially or preparing them for the distinctive challenges they might face.
"There is a higher rate of problems in minority foster children adopted transracially than in-race," said the report. "All children deserve to be raised in families that respect their cultural heritage."
For once, I actually agree with the 'experts' in the article, although I suspect my reasons are different. It is not that inept, clueless Whitey is too innately racist and insensitive to properly 'respect the cultural heritage' of any black or other non-white children they adopt or foster. It's simply that people are not interchangeable, and babies and children probably fare best with people like themselves, ideally.
Children in cross-racial adoptions tend to have identity issues, and those who are biracial have further problems, as witness this adoptee's account.
Because I felt that I did not belong to any group, my confidence eroded. I was ashamed and embarrassed when people discussed race or when they wanted to know about my family. I was confused because I did not understand my biracial background and did not have the support of my natural parents to help me understand my heritage. Instead of believing in myself, my abilities and my intelligence, as I had in high school, I became withdrawn. I did not readily participate in class or take part in extra-curricular activities because of my insecurity and confusion about my racial identity. Although I learned that we simply do not live in a "color blind" world, I felt that I had no one to turn to in order to help me understand what it meant to be an African-American man in our society.''
This webpage gives a history of transracial adoptions in America. Interestingly, blacks have been opposed in many cases to whites adopting blacks:
The debate about transracial adoption changed course in 1972, when the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a statement that took "a vehement stand against the placements of black children in white homes for any reason," calling transracial adoption "unnatural," "artificial," "unnecessary," and proof that African-Americans continued to be assigned to "chattel status." The organization was so committed to the position that black children�s healthy development depended on having black parents that its President, Cenie J. Williams, argued that temporary foster and even institutional placements were preferable to adoption by white families. This opposition slowed black-white adoptions to a trickle. In 1973, the Child Welfare League of America adoption standards, which had been revised in 1968 to make them slightly friendlier to transracial adoption, were rewritten to clarify that same-race placements were always better. The child welfare establishment never supported transracial adoptions.
A number of new agencies, staffed almost entirely by African Americans, such as Homes for Black Children in Detroit and Harlem-Dowling Children�s Service in New York, renewed the effort that had started in the late 1940s and 1950s to find black homes for black children. In spite of successful efforts to boost the numbers of black adoptive families, objections to whites adopting African-American children were never translated into law. Minority group rights to children were legally enforceable only in the case of Native American children, and only after the 1978 passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Since 1972, the numbers of black-white adoptions have declined, but this may have as much to do with stubborn private preferences and prejudices among white adopters as with organized opposition or public policies that created new barriers to transracial placements.''
This piece depicts the popular celebrity trend of adopting Third World children as just another manifestation of -- as usual, racism. And colonialism.
The white Madonna's burden
In the May issue of Vanity Fair, there was a telling exchange between its cover star Madonna �- resplendent in leotard and black knee�length boots �- and her interviewer, Rich Cohen.
They were talking about David Banda, the child adopted by Madonna in Malawi in 2006. Understandably, Madonna is gushing about her adopted son and everything that he "represents". And what is that, exactly? Cohen explains: baby David is a "living totem of life as it was lived before machines".
In other words, he�s a simple, wide�eyed, primitive being who helps to remind Madonna about what is really important in life as she jets from one photo�shoot and session recording to another. Cohen compares David to Pocahontas, "the beautiful Indian girl found in wild America", and says that for "bringing this boy into her house and giving him everything", Madonna has got "something in return": a child who symbolises a wilder, more earthy, gritty way of life, who comes from a time "before machines".
[...]
Madonna does not only want her own little black baby to remind her of the simplicity of life -� she also seems keen to save the whole of Africa. As one British commentator put it, she is treating the entire continent as "a little orphan that needs adopting".
[...]
There is something creepily colonialist in Madonna�s attitude to Africa. First we had the White Man�s Burden -� now we have the White Madonna�s Burden. More and more celebrities are treating Africa as a wide-eyed child that needs a Hollywood hug -� or as a wicked devil that needs a Hollywood hammering.
[...]
There is something Kiplingesque in this celebrity swarming of Africa. Kipling branded colonial subjects on the dark continent as "half�devil and half�child" �- and today that old poisonous prejudice finds expression in the celebrity view of Africa as a child that must be adopted (Malawi) or as a devil that must be punished (Sudan). Africans once resisted the armies of colonialism; now they should consider resisting the armies of celebrities, camera crews, make-up artists and hairstylists who are seeking to turn Africa into a stage for celebrity expressions of cheap moral bombast.''
It's incredible but predictable that the liberals and leftists cannot or will not see the condescension and paternalism in their racial do-gooding, their conspicuous trans-racial altruism.
Madonna is in all respects a quintessential liberal, as are the other 'diversity'-obsessed celebrities like Angelina Jolie, Bono, Bob Geldof, and all the rest. In no way are they connected to Kipling or colonialism or 'racism', unless you are honest enough to call the liberal racial meddling pro-minority racism of a sort, which it could be seen to be.
Implicit in their constant bleating about poor Darfur or the downtrodden wretched of the earth, who are forever in need of our help, is the idea that these people are indeed perpetual children, who have not reached an adult stage of development. Adulthood is characterized by independence and self-sufficiency.
Kipling's terminology which the writer sanctimoniously calls 'that old poisonous prejudice' simply expressed, with no sentimentality and cloying condescension, what most liberals actually, deep down, think about the Third World peoples.
Clearly, liberal westerners, whites, believe that the other races are incapable of taking care of themselves, hence they are in need of constant infusions of money and other aid from us in order to survive. And if we decline to intervene and make things all right for these benighted people, we are guilty of racism, genocide, or whatever term of opprobrium they deem useful to instill guilt.
If liberals, for a moment, believed the Third Worlders to be our equals, they would surely be content to leave them to their own devices -- wouldn't they? Obviously they view non-whites as children in need of a handout, not a hand up, in need of our supervision and assistance in everything.
Instead of admitting this upfront, they ascribe this attitude to the realists, who will say openly that the races are not equal in capacity for self-sufficiency. We all agree on that; it's just that those of us who say it frankly are condemned as 'racists' or 'bigots' or 'colonialists.' Well, if we must be permanently involved in the affairs of the Third World, why not just re-institute colonial rule?
And as for the attitudes of Madonna and her celebrity friends being 'Kiplingesque', that's an undeserved compliment, not an insult, as the writer intends it to be. If only Madonna and the other Hollywood do-gooding dilettantes were Kiplingesque. If only our leaders were Kiplingesque. Kipling was a man with good sense about people and their differences, a quality we seem to have lost beyond recovery in our day.
...This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf --
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Labels: Ethnic Identity, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racial Guilt, Third World
0 comment Wednesday, July 23, 2014 | admin
Darrell Dow at the Dow Blog has a particularly fine post about 'Guilt, Atonement, and Foreign Policy.'
How has this desire for atonement driven American foreign policy? Through the systematic propagation of guilt, Americans have been indoctrinated with a belief that their history is little more than a series of power-grabs, a desolation of innocents. We are repeatedly assured that our history is simply an account of guilt toward Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Mexicans and ultimately the entire world.
The result of this defective history is a politics loaded down with guilt, in the face of which the populace assumes a posture of submissiveness. A foreign policy elite than is able to advance its interests by claiming a "humanitarian" justification for military adventurism, effectively placing guilt on one party in the midst of great complexity (e.g., Serbs vs. Bosnians, Russians vs. Georgians, etc.). Thus we are urged to atone for our sins by "saving" a "tyrannized" people from their "oppressors."
The other possibility is to heap the guilt upon ourselves and assume responsibility for every malady on all continents. All the guilt for the starving and oppressed of the world or the ruination and environmental degradation of the planet is thus placed squarely at our feet. Atonement in this scenario leads to foreign aid schemes and similar looting of taxpayers.
Good points. And so many of the Christians I know are heavily into guilt over poverty and want in the Third World, which they deal with by constantly fixating on the Third World in their charitable works, at the expense of charity nearer to home. But there isn't as much glory and applause and potential for patting oneself on the back with doing kindnesses to people right here at home.
But please read the rest of the post at Dow Blog.
How has this desire for atonement driven American foreign policy? Through the systematic propagation of guilt, Americans have been indoctrinated with a belief that their history is little more than a series of power-grabs, a desolation of innocents. We are repeatedly assured that our history is simply an account of guilt toward Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Mexicans and ultimately the entire world.
The result of this defective history is a politics loaded down with guilt, in the face of which the populace assumes a posture of submissiveness. A foreign policy elite than is able to advance its interests by claiming a "humanitarian" justification for military adventurism, effectively placing guilt on one party in the midst of great complexity (e.g., Serbs vs. Bosnians, Russians vs. Georgians, etc.). Thus we are urged to atone for our sins by "saving" a "tyrannized" people from their "oppressors."
The other possibility is to heap the guilt upon ourselves and assume responsibility for every malady on all continents. All the guilt for the starving and oppressed of the world or the ruination and environmental degradation of the planet is thus placed squarely at our feet. Atonement in this scenario leads to foreign aid schemes and similar looting of taxpayers.
Good points. And so many of the Christians I know are heavily into guilt over poverty and want in the Third World, which they deal with by constantly fixating on the Third World in their charitable works, at the expense of charity nearer to home. But there isn't as much glory and applause and potential for patting oneself on the back with doing kindnesses to people right here at home.
But please read the rest of the post at Dow Blog.
Labels: Democracy, Foreign Wars, Interventionism, Poverty, Racial Guilt
0 comment Saturday, June 14, 2014 | admin
I'm worried about some among our people.
It seems as though all this 'race as social construct' talk has had an effect on many people, to the point where they no longer seem to be able to think about race in a common-sense way. And this is true even of the people who post on race-realist sites. For example, this comment from a discussion about DNA testing for people seeking their African roots:
15 � Anonymous wrote at 11:31 PM on June 29:
Like obama all of these "african americans" have huge quantities of White blood flowing through their veins�''
I've seen this idea repeated many times on such sites. Now, it's true that on the Internet we don't know who is saying what; I am assuming the commenter is White, but it could be anyone posting that comment.
But let's assume he is White.
Where is this idea coming from, that all blacks have 'huge quantities of White blood'? First of all, do our eyes provide us with evidence of this? I don't see it.
I suppose on average, American blacks are lighter in complexion than their cousins in Africa, but they don't appear to have ''huge quantities'' of White blood. Are people unconsciously buying the propaganda that there was a great deal of miscegenation in the slavery days? That idea is very important to the Left, because it further confuses racial categorization; they can repeat their triumphant line about how ''we're all mixed together anyway, there are no pure races!" And then they can start their litany of accusations, with lurid tales of slavemasters cruelly having their way with female slaves. I've read so many stories of people seeking their African roots, finding they have some modicum of European blood, which is explained as a result of 'rape' by a slaveowner. How do people jump to the automatic conclusion of rape in such cases? And must the White admixture, if any, date back to slavery days? Could it not have happened in later generations? I object to this automatic assumption that rape by White men is involved in any case of European DNA appearing in blacks.
But why this belief that American blacks have a great deal of White ancestry?
The always-ignorant 'Yahoo Answers' people echo the nonsense.
The 'best answer' as voted by readers says:
To know for sure they would all have to be tested. In addition many "white" Americans have black ancestry, because their ancestors were light skinned descendants of slaves and usually their owners and they married people of European ancestry until their past was forgotten or completely hidden even from themselves.
"One-third of white Americans, according to some tests, will possess between two and 20 per cent African genes. The majority of black Americans have some European ancestors.
Last year, Professor Peter Fine at Florida Atlantic University had an idea for an art class. He would gather a group of students to produce work around their idea of their racial identity. But as part of the class he asked them to take a DNA test that would break down their racial background. His bet was that most of the class - of whom the majority saw themselves as whites of European descent - had no real idea who they were.
He was right. Of 13 students, only one turned out to be completely European. The rest displayed a mixture of European, Native American, African and Asian genes. The one black student turned out to be 21 per cent white. Fine himself - who admits to looking like a corn-fed stereotype of a white Midwesterner - discovered he was a quarter Native American. 'I honestly think these tests could have a large effect on American consciousness of who we are. If Americans recognise themselves as a mixed group of people, that could really change things,� he said."
Ultimately all our ancestors originated in Africa, since we are all descended from "mitochondrial Eve," an African woman.''
Well, she gets maximum points for regurgitating the PC propaganda, anyway.
So we are almost all mixed, according to the official story.
I can fully understand why the good little leftists, like the person who posted that 'best answer', believe as they do, but I fail to understand why people who are supposed to be realists want to believe similar things.
Is there any reliable information on how much White admixture there is among black Americans, or vice-versa? It seems difficult to find on the Internet, and it would seem likely that without widespread (and reliable) DNA testing any information would be unreliable. Most people don't know their genealogy beyond their grandparents, or in rare cases, great-grandparents.
Until such solid information is widely available, which I don't foresee happening soon, all we can do is go by the evidence of our eyes as well as by what is actually known about our ancestries.
As far as our current president, for some reason this bizarre theory has caught on (propagated, for some strange reason, by Rush Limbaugh and others) that the president is less than 1/8 African or ''12 percent.'' Why, I wonder do people believe that, or why do they want to believe it?
Another often-heard idea from some on the 'realist' side is that ''the president chose to identify as black; he could have chosen White.'' I honestly think that remark, if made, say, 50 years ago, would have met with incredulity.
Maybe this man could have 'chosen', being somewhat ambiguous in appearance, but for most who have more than a little minority ancestry, there is no question of 'choosing' a White identity.
But for the ultimate illustration of racial confusion, this story is being discussed in various places, and on some of the comments sections, people are claiming that the children in question ''look just like Michael''. This, to me, is beyond bizarre. Have people lost all common sense? Is the multicult, colorblind propaganda rendering us just, well, blind? It seems so.
As far as I know, it's still a fact that a black parent cannot father a White child.
A generation or more ago, I think you would not have found many people who could believe such silliness. It's simply counter to common sense, and to the evidence of our eyes. Are more White people on the verge of becoming truly blind to race, or are they convinced of the liberal idea that we can 'choose' who we are, regardless of our genetics? It looks that way.
What's the opposite of a race-realist? A race-fantasist? A race-denier? A race agnostic?
Whatever we call it, it gives me the feeling that I've gone through the looking-glass.
It seems as though all this 'race as social construct' talk has had an effect on many people, to the point where they no longer seem to be able to think about race in a common-sense way. And this is true even of the people who post on race-realist sites. For example, this comment from a discussion about DNA testing for people seeking their African roots:
15 � Anonymous wrote at 11:31 PM on June 29:
Like obama all of these "african americans" have huge quantities of White blood flowing through their veins�''
I've seen this idea repeated many times on such sites. Now, it's true that on the Internet we don't know who is saying what; I am assuming the commenter is White, but it could be anyone posting that comment.
But let's assume he is White.
Where is this idea coming from, that all blacks have 'huge quantities of White blood'? First of all, do our eyes provide us with evidence of this? I don't see it.
I suppose on average, American blacks are lighter in complexion than their cousins in Africa, but they don't appear to have ''huge quantities'' of White blood. Are people unconsciously buying the propaganda that there was a great deal of miscegenation in the slavery days? That idea is very important to the Left, because it further confuses racial categorization; they can repeat their triumphant line about how ''we're all mixed together anyway, there are no pure races!" And then they can start their litany of accusations, with lurid tales of slavemasters cruelly having their way with female slaves. I've read so many stories of people seeking their African roots, finding they have some modicum of European blood, which is explained as a result of 'rape' by a slaveowner. How do people jump to the automatic conclusion of rape in such cases? And must the White admixture, if any, date back to slavery days? Could it not have happened in later generations? I object to this automatic assumption that rape by White men is involved in any case of European DNA appearing in blacks.
But why this belief that American blacks have a great deal of White ancestry?
The always-ignorant 'Yahoo Answers' people echo the nonsense.
The 'best answer' as voted by readers says:
To know for sure they would all have to be tested. In addition many "white" Americans have black ancestry, because their ancestors were light skinned descendants of slaves and usually their owners and they married people of European ancestry until their past was forgotten or completely hidden even from themselves.
"One-third of white Americans, according to some tests, will possess between two and 20 per cent African genes. The majority of black Americans have some European ancestors.
Last year, Professor Peter Fine at Florida Atlantic University had an idea for an art class. He would gather a group of students to produce work around their idea of their racial identity. But as part of the class he asked them to take a DNA test that would break down their racial background. His bet was that most of the class - of whom the majority saw themselves as whites of European descent - had no real idea who they were.
He was right. Of 13 students, only one turned out to be completely European. The rest displayed a mixture of European, Native American, African and Asian genes. The one black student turned out to be 21 per cent white. Fine himself - who admits to looking like a corn-fed stereotype of a white Midwesterner - discovered he was a quarter Native American. 'I honestly think these tests could have a large effect on American consciousness of who we are. If Americans recognise themselves as a mixed group of people, that could really change things,� he said."
Ultimately all our ancestors originated in Africa, since we are all descended from "mitochondrial Eve," an African woman.''
Well, she gets maximum points for regurgitating the PC propaganda, anyway.
So we are almost all mixed, according to the official story.
I can fully understand why the good little leftists, like the person who posted that 'best answer', believe as they do, but I fail to understand why people who are supposed to be realists want to believe similar things.
Is there any reliable information on how much White admixture there is among black Americans, or vice-versa? It seems difficult to find on the Internet, and it would seem likely that without widespread (and reliable) DNA testing any information would be unreliable. Most people don't know their genealogy beyond their grandparents, or in rare cases, great-grandparents.
Until such solid information is widely available, which I don't foresee happening soon, all we can do is go by the evidence of our eyes as well as by what is actually known about our ancestries.
As far as our current president, for some reason this bizarre theory has caught on (propagated, for some strange reason, by Rush Limbaugh and others) that the president is less than 1/8 African or ''12 percent.'' Why, I wonder do people believe that, or why do they want to believe it?
Another often-heard idea from some on the 'realist' side is that ''the president chose to identify as black; he could have chosen White.'' I honestly think that remark, if made, say, 50 years ago, would have met with incredulity.
Maybe this man could have 'chosen', being somewhat ambiguous in appearance, but for most who have more than a little minority ancestry, there is no question of 'choosing' a White identity.
But for the ultimate illustration of racial confusion, this story is being discussed in various places, and on some of the comments sections, people are claiming that the children in question ''look just like Michael''. This, to me, is beyond bizarre. Have people lost all common sense? Is the multicult, colorblind propaganda rendering us just, well, blind? It seems so.
As far as I know, it's still a fact that a black parent cannot father a White child.
A generation or more ago, I think you would not have found many people who could believe such silliness. It's simply counter to common sense, and to the evidence of our eyes. Are more White people on the verge of becoming truly blind to race, or are they convinced of the liberal idea that we can 'choose' who we are, regardless of our genetics? It looks that way.
What's the opposite of a race-realist? A race-fantasist? A race-denier? A race agnostic?
Whatever we call it, it gives me the feeling that I've gone through the looking-glass.
Labels: American History, Ancestry, Can History, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race Denial, Racial Guilt