I like that the light is shining on the racists.

[DanBlather]

@magellan01

No he didn’t. He said that he could bring something different to the court. No one thinks that’s a bad thing. It’s a good thing. Her statement pointed to her individual wisdom leading, more often than not, to better judgements than those of her white male counterparts.

So if I make a different decision, but it is not a better decision, then it must be a worse decision.

[you_with_the_face]

@mswas

I haven’t read that book mainly because I have heard little but derision for its scholarship.

Read it for yourself instead of taking someone else’s word for it.

[miamouse]

@magellan01

The question is not whether the U.S. was racist, its whether Buchanan’s answer was racist. Or the one I offered, from which you extracted my quote.

Do you care to answer that?

Buchanan glossed over the fact that for most of the time that he was referencing (“white males were great rahrah!”), the success of someone who wasn’t white and male was severely limited due to government sponsored racism. It’s seems to me it’s a little like praising skill of the guy in a poker game who knows how to read the marked cards.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

@Slithy_Tove

Well, we can state with some confidence that all the Germans at Normandy were white.

Yes, but.

The US captured a handful of peple in German uniform speaking an unknown language. Turns out they were Koreans who were in the Japanese Army, captured by the Soviets, captured by the Germans and then captured by the Americans, who returned them to Korea,

One wonders if they fought in the Korean War and if anyone believed their stories.

[magellan01]

@miamouse

Buchanan glossed over the fact that for most of the time that he was referencing (“white males were great rahrah!”), the success of someone who wasn’t white and male was severely limited due to government sponsored racism. It’s seems to me it’s a little like praising skill of the guy in a poker game who knows how to read the marked cards.

In his answer he said that black were discriminated against. Is there really any reason to expound on that, when his larger point was that it was a predominantly white nation? That is inarguable. Do you think that people don’t know that slavery existed? Or Jim Crow. Seriously, his answer didn’t call for an essay on the evils of slavery and its effects on black Americans. It did call for two things: 1) the idea that this was a white nation and 2) an acknowledgement that racism played a role. He did both those things. Could he have used different language? Sure. Would it have helped if he said blacks were subjugated, as I did, instead of “discriminated against”. I think so. But that some major hairsplitting. He’s talking off the cuff, and his answer was correct. Or do you think it was not. If so, what was wrong with it?

[Freudian_Slit]

@magellan01

In his answer he said that black were discriminated against. Is there really any reason to expound on that, when his larger point was that it was a predominantly white nation? That is inarguable. Do you think that people don’t know that slavery existed? Or Jim Crow. Seriously, his answer didn’t call for an essay on the evils of slavery and its effects on black Americans. It did call for two things: 1) the idea that this was a white nation and 2) an acknowledgement that racism played a role. He did both those things. Could he have used different language? Sure. Would it have helped if he said blacks were subjugated, as I did, instead of “discriminated against”. I think so. But that some major hairsplitting. He’s talking off the cuff, and his answer was correct. Or do you think it was not. If so, what was wrong with it?

But why is what Buchanan said just misphrased, whereas what Sotomayor said racist? He’s pointing out that white people were in power, and what she seems to be pointing out that because of this, a lot of white people take things like privilege/power for granted, things that non-whites and women might be more sensitive to.

[DanBlather]

@magellan01

It did call for two things: 1) the idea that this was a white nation and 2) an acknowledgement that racism played a role.

That’s just about the most obvious thing I ever heard. If a black columnist had said that, Pat would say he was a token hire.

[Rubystreak]

@magellan01

In his answer he said that black were discriminated against. Is there really any reason to expound on that, when his larger point was that it was a predominantly white nation?

He failed to acknowledge that white men stacked the deck in this country for the majority of its history and wouldn’t let anyone else get ahead, but is more than willing to cry racism if a minority gets an advantage through something like affirmative action. Sorry, white men were the beneficiaries of affirmative action so pervasive and institutionalized that no one even questioned its existence until the last half century or so. Ignoring that and whining about how Sonia Sotomayor got into Princeton is laughable. And alleging that her appointment to the SCOTUS is an affirmative action hire is also pretty ludicrous.

[mswas]

@you_with_the_face

Read it for yourself instead of taking someone else’s word for it.

Why would I bother reading a very long book that I have seen fairly universally derided as being a poor work of historical scholarship when there are so many books out there that are not? That’s why peer review exists, so we don’t have to read every piece of crap that comes down the pike for ourselves.

[Bridget_Burke]

@mswas

Why would I bother reading a very long book that I have seen fairly universally derided as being a poor work of historical scholarship when there are so many books out there that are not? That’s why peer review exists, so we don’t have to read every piece of crap that comes down the pike for ourselves.

Please, link to some of that universal derision! Or do you simply not care to read very long books?

[mswas]

@Bridget_Burke

Please, link to some of that universal derision! Or do you simply not care to read very long books?

Well considering I am in the midst of Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, a book whose sources are heavily and properly cited and is longer as Guns, Germs and Steel I’d say…no.

I don’t really have a truck in this fight, I am just saying that after hearing people recommend it and other people deride it I was more convinced by the deriding faction. No need to get all emo about it or anything.

Here’s a good criticism though the guy likes the book overall:

One of the things I was really taken aback by is the lack of discussion of the Khans in GG&S. I admit, books like this are high on my list and right now if I was going to put two books on anybodys “history” reading list, it would be this, and H.G. Wells Outline of World History. Wells, however, gives the Khans their due. The Mongolians that both took in external domesticated animals and then turned themselves into a hunter-gatherer empire goes directly against the nature of the book. However, this, along with the kind of silly question as to why its the Euorpeans and not the Central Asians or the Chinese that rule the world is rather like asking during the time of the Golden Khans why it is the east Asian steppe people rule the world. History is still in flux.

http://www.screaming-penguin.com/node/5759

Most of the criticism seems to be that it is Eurocentric. Though from the other direction, I have heard criticism that it downplays cultural institutions as having any value in the advance of a society.

I’ve also heard that its sources are poorly cited, but I don’t know, as I’ve said, I never read it.

Overarching historical surveys can be pretty tedious, I prefer to read more focused works like Coll’s Ghost Wars for instance.

Maybe I’ll get around to reading Guns, Germs and Steel sometime.

[magellan01]

@Rubystreak

He failed to acknowledge that white men stacked the deck in this country for the majority of its history and wouldn’t let anyone else get ahead…

He did acknowledge it. He said black people, the largest group of the 10% that was not white, was discriminated against.

[magellan01]

@Freudian_Slit

But why is what Buchanan said just misphrased, whereas what Sotomayor said racist? He’s pointing out that white people were in power, and what she seems to be pointing out that because of this, a lot of white people take things like privilege/power for granted, things that non-whites and women might be more sensitive to.

I didn’t say it was misphrased. I thought it was fine. I understood it. My point/question was that maybe people would have been less apoplectic if he used the stronger word “subjugated”, instead of “discriminated against”.

Do you think that would help? Enough? What I see is the preconceived notion that Buchanan a racist and people shoehorning his statement into the preconceived notion. The actual words in the paragraph in the OP and his actions be damned.

Again, look at the passage from Sotomayor. Change it to come from a white male and tell me it’s not plainly racist.

[VinylTurnip]

Yeah, and how come they ain’t no National Association fer th’Advancement o’ WHITE People?

[magellan01]

@VinylTurnip

Yeah, and how come they ain’t no National Association fer th’Advancement o’ WHITE People?

You joke. But after a few rulings from Sotomayor we might actually need one.

[Jack_Batty]

It’ll be simple enough to change the banners for the meetings. I mean, it’s just three little “K’s” we’ll need to cover up.

[SteveG1]

@pepperlandgirl

And they were poor. Really, really poor. They were also entering the United States in great waves, year after year. Sure they weren’t “colored”, but they weren’t moneyed, either. They were willing to do the shittiest work for the shittiest pay because they had no money, and thus, were no better than the “colored.”

Also, don’t forget it wasn’t just the Irish! There was a serious debate in the country over whether or not Italians were colored (the answer was “yes” for a good many years), and people didn’t really like the Eastern Europeans too much, either. Especially the Jewish ones.

Oh noes! The Irish and Italians is stealin’ our jobs!

[FriarTed]

@VinylTurnip

Yeah, and how come they ain’t no National Association fer th’Advancement o’ WHITE People?

Google it- there is. sigh No surprise who started it.

David Duke

[Rubystreak]

@magellan01

He did acknowledge it. He said black people, the largest group of the 10% that was not white, was discriminated against.

But he cannot make the logical leap that things like affirmative action might be necessary to right several centuries of wrongs and inequities. He seems to think that everything is groovy now, so no one should be complaining or doing anything to shift the balance back, because that’s unfair to white people, who benefited from those centuries of institutionalized favoritism.

[magellan01]

@Rubystreak

But he cannot make the logical leap that things like affirmative action might be necessary to right several centuries of wrongs and inequities. He seems to think that everything is groovy now, so no one should be complaining or doing anything to shift the balance back, because that’s unfair to white people, who benefited from those centuries of institutionalized favoritism.

I agree that he can’t make that leap. I was simply parsing what he said that the OP quoted. Regardless of what one feels about the quote, AA is a different discussion. One that has both pros and cons. I’m torn on AA. I see the reasons for it, but I do think that you really can’t end discrimination by discriminating. Also, I had a friend that was a brilliant mathematician/computer engineer. Really brilliant. He also happened to be black, and many people assumed that he didn’t achieve what he did academically without AA, and didn’t initially give him the professional respect he deserved. It pissed him of, especially since he was not an AA beneficiary. He needed help neither grade-wise or financially. He told me that he never fills out “race” on anything. I think what Sotomayor is going through may be the same thing. She may have (likely) been able to achieve everything she did without AA, but that doubt will always be there for some.