harmonicminer

Two days ago, I posted a piece on the similarity in views and style between Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia and Bill Cosby.  Maybe the AP has reporters who read my blog, since they’ve now finally gotten around to reporting that Philly mayor chides black parents over teen mobs

 

The painful images and graphic stories of repeated violent assaults and vandalism by mobs of black teenagers had gotten to be too much for Mayor Michael Nutter.

As an elected official and a “proud black man” in the nation’s fifth-largest city, Nutter felt he had to go a step beyond ordering a law enforcement crackdown.

So he channeled the spirit of another straight-talking Philadelphian: Bill Cosby. Nutter took to the pulpit at his church last weekend and gave an impassioned, old-fashioned talking-to directed at the swarms of teens who have been using social networks to arrange violent sprees downtown, injuring victims and damaging property. Moreover, he called out parents for not doing a better job raising their children.

Exit question:  would a white mayor who said the things reported here and on my blog be called a racist?

Recently in Connecticut a man brutally murdered 8 co-workers and then himself at a beer distributorship where he worked.  The killing spree began just after the killer had been confronted with video tape evidence that he had been stealing from his place of employment and then fired.  Figuring prominently in the story is the fact the killer was black and most of the employees at the business are white.  The former girlfriend of the killer claims he was pushed to insanity by suffering repeated racial harassment at work.

Is it possible this man was indeed subjected to racial harassment? Of course. Is it possible such harassment pushed him over the edge? I suppose so. Though it is interesting that the racism angle has been explored and there seems to be no evidence save the accusation of the former girlfriend. Is it possible the answer lies elsewhere?

If we are to believe people like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Malik Shabazz, and others, African-Americans are subjected to systemic racism each and every day.  The accusation has become so commonplace and so often misplaced as to have almost no meaning any more.  But that does not keep the accusation from being made.  We’re bombarded daily with a steady dose of race-consciousness.  Many African Americans are told that racism is still a huge problem in America and that success in life is virtually impossible for that very reason.

So what happened in the mind of this African American man who was caught stealing from his white employer and confronted with specific video evidence? Did he believe stealing was OK because it made up for the harassment he was supposedly enduring?  Did he believe he was owed something or that he was just engaged in a little payback?  Personal reparations, so to speak?  Or was he stealing for monetary gain?  No matter what the real reason the accusation of racism does indeed hang over this case, thanks to his taped 911 conversation with police and the girlfriend’s comments.

We’ll probably never know what brought this man to do something so evil.  But could his insanity have possibly been caused by a kind of racial cognitive dissonance?  A lack of being unable to resolve the contradiction between the guilt of being caught doing something he knew was wrong, with the deeply ingrained belief that somehow it’s not really his fault simply because he had a white boss and predominantly white co-workers.

I wonder if Jesse, Al, Louis or Malik ever allow the thought to pass through their mind that they may have had a hand in this tragedy.

Please also read Dennis Prager’s article on the same subject.

Who is a racist?

Is it someone who has a low opinion or expectation of members of another race, on average?  Is it someone who thinks there are differences of any significance between the races?  Is it someone who views others through the lens of their race more than their personal characteristics?

I hate dictionary definitions of socially loaded terms, but here’s one definition:

“Racist” at Dictionary.com

1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

So, according to definition one, if you think black people are, on average, likely to be better basketball players, boxers, or sprinters than white people, that means you’re a racist.

If you notice that Asians, on average, have higher IQ’s than whites, blacks, or anyone else (except maybe Ashkenazi Jews), and seem to perform in line with that potential when they immigrate to a country where they don’t even speak the language, and in the next generation are doctors and lawyers, that means you’re a racist.

There are many examples of this sort.  This part of “definition 1″ is clearly ridiculous.  Are you a racist if you make the medical observation that blacks are more prone to sickle-cell anemia, or that Ashkenazi Jews seem to produce an inordinate percentage of very smart people?

What’s especially interesting in this discussion of the relative abilities of the various racial groups is this: those who cling most fiercely to the dogma of exactly the same potential equality of all the races are those who mock Intelligent Design, and insist that Darwinism is the explanation for every characteristic of every life-form.  These ideas are mutually contradictory.  If there are different races (a matter that some deny), they are biologically distinct.  They split long ago (at least 20,000 years back, probably twice that) in the human family tree.  How can a biological argument be made that they are now identical in all capabilities?  Surely natural selection has done its work, and people descended from different climates and environmental challenges will have arrived at different biological destinations (which means different physical and intellectual capabilities, among other things, especially if you’re a believer in the materialist theory of mind).  If you’re a Darwinist, you can’t avoid this conclusion.

But any Darwinist university faculty member who dares make this obvious point is likely to be looking for work very soon, in today’s politically correct environment.  Of course, non-Darwinist university faculty are likely to face different, uh, professional challenges, since not being a Darwinist is seen to be equal to belonging to the Flat Earth Society, which puts intelligent faculty who’d like to be intellectually honest in an impossible position.  They’re damned if they’re Darwinists, and damned if they aren’t.  Like Socrates, telling the truth to the young about this, from either a Darwinist or non-Darwinist perspective, is equivalent to drinking professional hemlock.

I do resonate with one part of “definition 1,” namely that you are a racist, for sure, if you think a particular race has a right to rule another.   A reasonable extension of that principle is that if you think a particular race should receive legally granted or publicly funded benefits that are not available to all, just because of their race, you’re probably also a racist, because any benefit you receive in such a structure was extracted from someone of another race, who is made to work for your benefit, probably against their will, by an exercise of state power.

What, you say that sounds like I’m saying that affirmative action, preferences, racial set-asides and the like are racist?  Deal with it.  That seems to be the clear implication of Definition #2 above, which is all about using state power to discriminate, to pick winners and losers, to force some people to serve others.

Does it make you a racist if you don’t like most people of a particular race?  I would say no, unless you think your dislike gives you the right to treat them unfairly or unjustly with the backing of legal authority or state power (not talking “social justice” here, either).  You are probably a troubled person, from my perspective, if you see race as more important than individual characteristics…  but you’re not a racist if you don’t think you have the right to do anything about it, and so you don’t.

Definition #3, “hatred or intolerance of another race,” really depends on what you think you have the moral right to do about it.  If you hate, but take no action to express it or act on it in some unjust way, the hate hurts you more than the object of your hatred.  If your intolerance expresses itself in enforced segregation on the object of your hatred, that’s certainly racism.  If your intolerance merely expresses itself in your moving to another neighborhood, that is your right, and causes no harm to anyone else.

Are you a racist if you say things about other races that make them uncomfortable?  If so, then every diversity-activist is a racist, because many whites are really, really weary of being lectured to about “white privilege,” especially when they feel that they’ve worked very hard for everything they have, and have suffered themselves.

Are you a racist if you harbor negative opinions (not necessarily active dislike or hatred, merely opinions based on observation) about an entire race?  If so, then Jeremiah Wright is surely a racist, as are most Black Panthers, not to mention the Nation of Islam, along with the KKK and the White Aryan Brotherhood, and many Asian cultures as well.  What if you do your best to make careful observations about average behavior of a particular racial group in a particular society, and then generalize about what you can expect from members of the racial group in question?  If that makes you a racist, then most of the NAACP is likely also racist.

Let’s refocus:  if you have certain opinions of, say, fat people as a group (even if you admit there are individual differences), does that make you a “fattist”?  Only if you think you have the right to do something to or demand something from another person, simply because they’re “fat.”

What about red-haired boys in American culture?  It seems to just be “hot” to be a red-haired girl, but the famous taunt, “I’d rather be dead than red on the head,” is something every red-haired boy hears a lot while growing up.  (It may be partly a remnant of anti-Irish bigotry of an earlier time in America, with red hair as a relatively common Irish characteristic.)  Red haired boys are often targeted for abuse just because of their red hair.  Take it from me.  There were several leading black male actors in TV and films before there were ANY red haired ones…  and there aren’t many now.  Red haired boys are often the victim of “hate speech” and even “hate crimes.”  Are you a “reddist” if you associate certain personality types with red hair?

You’re a “reddist” only if think that your opinion of red-haired people gives you license to abuse them at your whim.  (I knew some people like this, growing up as a red-haired boy.  There may be a reason why red-haired boys seem to grow up either timid or aggressive, but rarely in the middle.)  I’m sure red-haired Vikings were more socially acceptable in their cultural context… but then they were not a minority.

There are all kinds of personal characteristics that people have little or no control over, from the color of hair to a tendency to fat, from a tendency to smallness to a tendency to bigness (think Samoan!).  If you think any of them give you license to do something to or demand something from another person, just because of a characteristic of that nature (including skin color), you are certainly a bigot of some kind.

It is not racist to have a low opinion of a particular racial, ethnic or social group.  We are all entitled to our opinions, and we all have various experiences that shape them, as well as the inputs we get from reading, the media, etc.  If you let your opinion of a group cause you to miss the (far more important) characteristics of individuals, the loss is yours.  None of us “treat everyone the same.”  But if your opinion of a group does not cause you to demand something from or do something unjust to members of that group just because they are members of that group, then you are not a racist.

What has happened in modern political correctness is that behavior, perspectives, or speech that would formerly have been called merely racially oriented (or race conscious in some way) are now called racist, if “white” people do them (though not, apparently, if “minorities” do them).

It is a terrible idea to compare politicians you don’t like to Hitler (even if you think they are evil people who want more power than they should have) because it devalues the extraordinary evil that Hitler personified.  (Overuse of the word “holocaust” is a similar problem.)  Similarly, the meaning of the word “racist” is devalued when you apply it to people just because they have different viewpoints or attitudes than you may wish they had.  If a person is assumed to be a racist for holding the opinion that affirmative action, set asides, preferences and quotas are a really bad idea, what word do we have left for people who thought slavery and state enforced segregation was just dandy, or who were untroubled when the laws against murder were not enforced against killers who lynched blacks?   What word is left for people who think minorities need not apply, because they should have no chance, and who try to make sure that they don’t have that chance?

You are not a racist just because you believe that the “war on poverty” was a terrible idea, that the welfare culture and easy access to abortion are killing African-Americans disproportionately, that affirmative action and quotas (and the smokescreen for them, “diversity”) do more harm than good, and that multi-generational poverty in the USA is a values problem, not any longer a “discrimination” problem.  You are not a racist just because you believe in tax cuts, capitalism, law enforcement and criminal punishment, border enforcement, and the like.  You are not a racist because you think the US Constitution is a pretty good document, and should be followed according to the understanding of the people who wrote it and approved it, as amended (as opposed to the understanding of judges who keep finding new meanings in the wording that were never intended by those who wrote it and approved it).

A racist is a person who thinks and behaves as if they have the right to demand something from another person, or do something to another person, just because of that person’s race, often or mostly using state power or sanction (either explicit in law, or implicit in “wink-nudge” refusal to enforce the law to protect all equally).

“Racism” that doesn’t result in racist behavior or explicit endorsement of it isn’t really racism.  You may have all kinds of  opinions, and you may even express them, but if you do not believe you have the right to take unjust action against people because of their race and do not encourage others to do so, you are not a racist.

Racism is a truly evil thing.  We should not minimize it by applying the word to mere matters of opinion, preference, economic perspective or political orientation.

UPDATE:

Timothy Dalrymple has the 3rd part of his series on this question posted here.

***********************
In the most mealy-mouthed sort of unattributed criticism, the Christian science monitor tells us about the upcoming NAACP resolution on alleged tea party racism

The tea party movement has been criticized before for allegedly harboring racist attitudes toward President Obama. Now the NAACP is set to vote on a resolution condemning supporters of the tea party for displaying “signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.” It calls “the racist elements” within the movement “a threat to progress.”

This kind of “passive voice” language (“has been criticized”) is really just passive aggressive.  Who, exactly, has criticized the tea party movement for “racism”?  Well…  Democratic activists, radicals and politicians with an axe to grind, from the congressional black caucus.  What evidence have they been able to bring to light?

Absolutely none.

There is no film, no audio, no photography, showing racist commentary or alleged actions like those debunked here.

I have come to the conclusion that when liberals, progressives and/or socialists call conservatives or libertarians racist, merely because they are conservatives or libertarians, it is the moral equivalent of the name callers holding their fingers in their ears and crying, “I’m not gonna listen!  I’m not gonna listen!”  In other words, it’s childish, intellectually bankrupt, and like some children can be, more than a little vicious.

Calling someone a racist, without evidence, merely because you don’t like their positions on the issues, is the last refuge of rhetorical scoundrels.  When you hear the charge leveled, without evidence, you know all you need to know about the name-caller.

The word “racist” should never be used without explicit, specific evidence in hand, publicly available.

Racializing the news

It’s unseasonably cold at my house today, too.  It snowed this morning, a little, very unusual for this time of the year.

Why Israel Can’t Rely on American Jewish “Leaders”

This is what passes for “leadership” in American Jewry. A kabuki dance is orchestrated by an Obama fan to gather other Obama fans to air the mildest criticism and to avoid challenging the factual representations of an administration that is the most hostile to the Jewish state in history. As one Israeli hand who definitely isn’t going to be invited to any meetings with this president put it: “They may be fine rabbis, but they are out of their league here.” And by not directly and strongly taking on the president, they are, in fact, enabling the president’s anti-Israel stance. It is, come to think of it, more than an embarrassment; it is an egregious misuse of their status and it is every bit as dangerous as the quietude of American Jews in the 1930s.

Indeed.

Read Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy first, then read The Cost of Discipleship… again, if you’ve read it before, through the lens of knowing more about Bonhoeffer.

Apple removes app showing “violent and hateful passages from The Qur’an”; anti-Bible, anti-Christian app still on sale

Democrat and  Former Colorado Governor, Richard Lamm first gave this speech in 2004.

The title should pique your curiosity.  The content should give you serious pause

Please read it all.  It was only a five minute speech.  But it is sobering, to say the least.

Clearly there are those who take great exception to the recently passed immigration law in Arizona. The cries of outrage and the accusations of racism seem to be coming from everywhere.  In fact there is a clear attempt to couch this entire subject under the banner of race and racism, which should come as no surprise since that particular accusation has become quite a useful tool, both to squelch disagreement and dissent as well as to promote particular political agendas.

So, for those who feel as though our laws on immigration should not be enforced.  For those who feel that illegal immigrants should be granted a path to citizenship without obeying the existing laws.  For those who feel as though there is a compelling reason to ignore the laws of the land with respect to immigration I have a couple of simple questions:

#1: Which laws shall we enforce and which ones shall we ignore?

#2: Who gets to decide the answer to question #1?

I have already expressed my skepticism that “tea partiers,” protesting the government takeover of healthcare, actually used the N-word on African-American congress critters.

And now Andrew Breitbart shows that it looks less and less likely that it really happened, though it seems the Black Caucus members tried mightily to provoke an incident they could cry over.

I wonder what would have happened if the tea-partiers had marched through South LA carrying signs denouncing Obama-care and and video cameras to record their treatment by the community?  Because that’s about the level of provocation these congress-critters provided (apparently unsuccessfully) in an attempt to get the tea-partiers to react on film…  as if the congress-critters just couldn’t find another way to get where they wanted to go.

“Gosh!  Did I just happen to march through the middle of your demonstration?  I’m SO sorry.  I just didn’t see you until it was too late.”

Sure.

There is an article in the Washington Times today, describing the current mayoral race in Atlanta.  From the headline to the last paragraph, the content of the article is almost entirely about race – the race of the candidates, the racial mixture of city residents, the race of past mayors in the city, etc. What generated the article is the fact that Atlanta may be about to elect the first white mayor in 36 years.

After reading the article I was struck by its misleading tone. In fact I think the headline, “White candidate scrambles vote, attitudes in Atlanta race” is not only misleading, it is just plain wrong.   What is most newsworthy about the article is the fact that race of the leading candidate, a white woman, seems to be a non issue for most voters.

So why not a headline that reads, “Race plays little or no role in current election”?  The answer of course is that there are many who simply don’t believe such a thing is possible.  Loud voices remind us daily how our racial past is the lens through which all things must be viewed.  But what if it’s just not true anymore?  What if racism is no longer a major factor in elections?  Will our current climate of color-coding and color-obsession even allow us to acknowledge such a thing?

I can’t help but think Martin Luther King would be rather disappointed if he saw what his great civil rights struggle had become, for in some ways his dream seems even farther off today than it was in 1963.  For in spite of significant evidence that people are being judged by the content of their character, there are many in the public forum who would have us believe it is all about the color of their skin.

“I thought Michael Jordon using his Basketball Hall Of Fame induction speech to settle some old scores was embarrassing and demeaning, both to him and to the game of basketball.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought Serena Williams recent on-court outburst at the U.S. Open tennis match was shameful and humiliating.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought Kanye West’s unscripted drunken antics on stage at the MTV awards was repugnant and offensive.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought Van Jones history and recent inflammatory comments were an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought California State Assemblyman Mike Duvall’s recently recorded comments concerning the sordid details of his sexual affairs was pure filth, the speech of a hypocrite.

Does that make me – Oh, wait…Duvall is white.  That’s different…or is it?

An ever increasing number of United States citizens are discovering they disagree with President Obama over several very significant issues: federal spending, cap and trade, and  government-sponsored health care to name a few.  Are all of these citizens racists?  According to a recent chorus of mainstream media and administration voices the answer is, “yes.   In some yet-to-be-explained fashion we have revealed our ugly racist nature because we dare to speak in opposition to this President and his policies. Have we arrived at a place where the mere appearance of disagreement will trigger the dreaded “racism” accusation?  Do those who hurl such accusations really believe we are witnessing a racism renaissance because Obama is president, or has it simply  become an expedient and admittedly effective way of shutting up the opposition.  After all, no one wants to be labeled as racist, and there are many who will simply refrain from speaking rather that have to defend themselves in a public forum.

So what are we to say or do? Are certain races exempt from criticism ? Are there those among us who are above reproach by merit of their skin color?  This country has made perhaps it’s most significant statement about how far we have moved away from racism by electing a black President.  But then must we march in lockstep daily with everything Obama has proposed for fear of “backsliding” into our racist past?

And if every word and deed is racist, then nothing is racist and the term itself has no meaning. If everything is an expression of racism then there is no possible contrast with that which is not racist. Just like the Aesop fable about the boy who cried “wolf”, with each repetition of the accusation, the issue becomes increasingly diluted and we all sink back into a sort of racial ennui.  In the story, when the real wolf came no one paid any attention to the warning cry, they had heard it so many times before.  In our world the ability to recognize and deal with real racism will be equally hobbled because we have heard the accusation hurled so many times it will have ceased to hold any meaning.