So, you’re saying that many of them are indeed racists, while some are merely exploiting racism to push their socioeconomic policies? Okay, I agree with that.
His vulnerable point which is… ?
Do you follow John Mcwhorter? He has a view that people (tea partyers in particular) who want to insult a black politician (in the absolutely worst way) have few choices except to resort to the “lowest-of-lows” (racial insults). Glenn thinks that this is still racism, but not in the same vein of say…pre-civil rights era racism.
An interesting discussion.
The idea that I can get angry, furious, with my boyfriend (who is black) and can call him a nigger and that has nothing to do with racism (or rather that it isn’t revealing something about my own personal racism) just baffles me, and that seems to be what John McWhorter is claiming.
Something similar to that; he doesn’t quite say it though. He directly questions whether saying “nigger” makes you a “racist person” despite it being a clear “racist act.”
However, he does seem to recognize that this is very shaky ground. Glenn still thinks this makes you a racist, but then he goes on to compartmentalize this type of racism (“petty apartheid”) as something different then the racism of pre-civil-rights era type (the ruler-stick most current people use as “racism”).
This seems to be buying into the idea that there’s no such thing as people being somewhat racist. That there are OMIGOD RACISTS! and then there are people who commit racist acts but who don’t flip the switch to the OMIGOD RACIST position.
To me, it’s possible to be a little bit racist, somewhat racist, a whole lot racist, and OMIGOD RACIST, just as it’s possible to be, say a little bit homophobic, or a little bit sexist, or a little bit uncomfortable with [fill in the blank].
ETA: I don’t think I should say “Buying into.” Maybe furthering the idea, instead. It’s tempting to act as if being a racist is an all-or-nothing proposition and that if I’m not calling for a return to Jim Crow no one can ever say I’m a racist, but I don’t think it’s reality.
I hate to, I really do, but it simply has to be done. It’s the law.
You can’t make me click that link. You CAN’T.
Yup, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I knew what this would be without any need to click on it. (Helps that the touring production of the show is in my neck of the woods.)
My father used to say “When they cure racism, Jesse Jackson will be out of a job.” as a lame criticism of minority activism. To which I’d reply, “Well, you won’t have to worry about his job prospects for a long time.”
I gather by “professionally offended” you mean “vigilant against real and ongoing racism”?
I love how these people and groups have decided that no person or organization has a right to speak up about injustice just because they’ve done it before – whether it’s for one hundred years or thirty. It seems to me they want to particularly to silence those who have developed effective means of getting an issue heard, written about and widely discussed (NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson). Which only leaves the unknown victim or local voice for enfranchisement to raise issues so that, in this way, the injustice, inequities and inequalities will ultimately not be discussed (widely) and has every chance of continuing to be perpetuated (through silence and inattentiveness), and the disenfranchised remains so disenfranchised (through not having strength in numbers), which just how they like it.
Someone above mentioned several issues that advocates for social justice for Blacks take up for which there are already laws against. Just because there are laws, do you really think everyone automatically adheres to them, without vigilance, prodding and spotlight-shining?
Say what they will about any personal agendas or missteps of present-day justice advocates (and, boy, do they), they are a whole lot more effective than any one individual alone. You can have professional tax-avoidance lawyers, why can’t we have professional advocates for justice?
Exactly right. I’m not a big fan of Al Sharpton. Jackson is a little easier to take. But these are the guys who can ensure that a critiques about race and racism still get aired where most people can see and hear them: on the news and on Sunday talk shows. I’m sure there are academics doing really smart, important work on the subject of race. But count on Jackson, Sharpton, the NAACP to make the average joe aware of the problem.
I’ve run into people who will only have conversations about race with the people that they choose to be acceptable. Jackson, Sharpton, et al., are “too angry,” cause too much trouble, continue to insist on discussing racial issues that are uncomfortable. But they’ll always name some random non-white that they’ve run into that says things like “I don’t believe in discussing race” or “I want to be treated as a man, not a black man,” as the “right” people to talk about race.
To them, the only valid discussion of race from a non-white is when the non-white says “we don’t need to talk about race.” That makes them feel comfortable. That’s understandable - nobody LIKES to be uncomfortable. But when whites dictate which non-whites they’ll accept as conversational partners in the discussion of race, it makes me :dubious:
Oh please. Jackson wanted to “cut Obama’s nuts out” because he was “talking down to black folks”; Sharpton is never going to get the stink of the Tawana Bradley hoax off of him, and the NAACP is far more likely to make average Joe aware that the NAACP is a bunch of morons who think a fucking Hallmark card is racist. None of these assholes have been relevant for a long long time and to hold them up as beacons of truth is absurd.
Yes, they ensure we talk about racism, but they ensure we talk about racism the same way that PETA ensures we talk about animals.
One local chapter of the NAACP thought the card was racist. I got crappy service in a Taco Bell in Georgia one time, so presumably I should expect crappy service in all of them?
Nope, I see them largely as manufacturers of outrage. They twist any disparate impact on black folks as intentional discrimination against them.
I agree that there will always be racists, but manufacturing outrage doesn’t help matters.
Oh dear, how ever shall I cope? Also, WTF, pie?
Being black. It’s vulnerable in the sense that a body shot there will sting.
I still don’t see the contradiction. They’re practitioners of manufactured outrage, just as Rand Rover said. They do, in fact, twist a lot of issues that have a disproportional impact on blacks into something that specifically targets blacks. In other words, they assign intent where there isn’t any.
Now, what’s that have to do with the Tea Party and racism? Nothing. Nothing at all. They may be right about the TP. They may be wrong. Either way, they’re still generally useless.
Because Bricker hasn’t said that the Tea Party is a racist party. Others have. Bricker doesn’t call them “tea baggers”. Bricker has said there are racists in the party, as have I. But we’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong here, Bricker) “whaddaya gonna do?” You can’t get rid of them any more than the Democrats can get rid of douche bag flag burners and eco terrorists.
They can “make it clear that racists aren’t welcome”. They can’t “expel them from their ranks”. I’m saying they’ve done the former while you’re saying they need to do the latter.
It’s been done. We did this thread dozens of times last year. Honestly, I can’t go another round of link-counterlink on this issue. I just don’t have the energy. I’ve posted links of journalists saying “Oh. Hmph. They seem like normal people to me.” I’ve posted videos of TP leaders denouncing racism. I’ve posted polls. It’s. been. done. Is the onus on me to provide evidence for my claims? Sure. But the penalty for failure to do so is the loss of the argument. And I’d rather lose than go through that again. So do it yourself or remain ignorant. I don’t care which.
Because that name wasn’t used by the party. It was made up in a disparaging way and some TPers that didn’t know better used it for about a week. Now you’re using it disparagingly. It’d be like if I said “Hey, what’s my name in Japanese?” and a Japanese guy lies to me, so I go around all week going “Nice to meet you. My friends call me ‘ass licker’.” And when someone finally says “Hey, that’s a bad word,” you keep calling me ass licker.
But, like I said, you knew that.
Are you unfamiliar with the phrase “pie in the sky”?
Sorry, off topic, but where? Are they coming back to DC? I missed them the first two times they were here and haven’t forgiven myself for it.