Apparently Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech reflected an “insufficient..half-measure…that in the end operates as a form of racism.”
Digging for golden resonance, and resonant gold
Jul 25 2014
Apparently Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech reflected an “insufficient..half-measure…that in the end operates as a form of racism.”
Jul 31 2012
1. Why do you believe the Tea Party wants Barack Obama to be a one-term president? (please select one answer from the list below)
a) Because the Tea Party is racist
b) Because the Tea Party is racist
c) Because the Tea Party is racist
d) Because the Tea Party is racist
e) Because the Tea Party is racist
f) Because the Tea Party is racist
Several times while watching the Olympics I have heard Morgan Freeman’s voice come on the air and pitch the Visa card. Perfectly acceptable in spite of the fact that he has recently taken the liberty, virtually unchallenged, of labeling an entire group of Americans as racists, with nothing more than his own personal assertion as proof. Of course anyone who may take exception to that is also labelled a racist. This from the tolerant left.
On the other hand the president of Chick Fil-A can make a statement about his support of traditional marriage. He is then vilified in the press, boycotts of his business are called and he is told by the mayors of Chicago and Boston that his business is “not welcome” in their towns. This also from the tolerant left.
I welcome someone who can explain how and why this is not a double standard.
(Hat tip to Larry Elder)
Jul 14 2012
The previous post in this series is here.
John Terry, a soccer player, has been found “not guilty” of racist speech in a criminal trial in merry old England.
Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle delivered his verdict after a five-day trial at Westminster Magistrates Court in London.
He said the case was not about “whether Mr Terry is a racist in the broadest sense of the word”, telling the court he had heard “a great deal of evidence to show that he is not”.
“It is understandable why Mr Terry wants to make this point – his reputation is at stake,” he said.
He was accused of racially abusing Ferdinand during a match between QPR and Chelsea at Loftus Road in October. He was investigated and charged after a complaint from an off-duty policeman.
Riddle said Terry was a “credible witness” and “nobody has been able to show that he is lying”. He told the court: “There is no doubt that John Terry uttered the words ‘f****** black c***’ at Anton Ferdinand.
So, it seems that losing control a bit and uttering an epithet or two in the heat of battle is a criminal offense in the land that brought us the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution, not to mention John Locke and Edmund Burke.
Details are here, but the reason for the not guilty verdict, given that Terry did say the words, is that he claimed to be repeating back an accusation from the “victim,” Anton Ferdinand, and this produced just enough question about Terry’s intent and motivation to create “reasonable doubt.”
I have reasonable doubts that Britain is any longer anything remotely resembling a free nation. And consider: the USA’s founding fathers thought of themselves as fighting to keep “the rights of Englishmen” which they thought they had been denied.
It would seem that Englishmen lost them some time back, too.
In the meantime, consider that this five day trial has to have cost the state considerable money, which might have been better spent other ways, perhaps not withholding necessary treatment to the elderly and infirm.
Just call it an informal death panel.
Aug 14 2011
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?
Aug 09 2010
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.
Jul 23 2010
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:
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.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
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.
Jul 15 2010
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?
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.
May 24 2010
It’s unseasonably cold at my house today, too. It snowed this morning, a little, very unusual for this time of the year.
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.
May 22 2010
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.
Apr 29 2010
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?