WHAT REAL RACISM LOOKS LIKE

[philunderwood]

Dr. Sanity
Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life


Wednesday, June 15, 2011

WHAT REAL RACISM LOOKS LIKE

These days, you hear the term "racism" and "racist" used with wild abandon by the political left as a strategy to attack those who disagree with their ideology or their policies. Many live in fear, for example of saying anything that might be remotely construed as "racist", since that has become the most horrifying accusation (whether true or not) that can be hurled at another human.

RACISM is defined by the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary thusly:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Here is a rather perfect example of the term in practice, described by Roger Clegg:
Disgusting Little Boxes

If you want to be disgusted, take a look at the front-page story in today’s New York Times, “On College Forms, a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” It’s about how selective colleges and universities are wrestling with the problem of how to deal with applicants who check more than one box for race and ethnicity: which mixes are to be most favored, whether it’s better to be mixed or pure, what do to about students who refuse to check any box, and how to tell if a student is really sincere in his or her self-identification or is just “gaming” the system. Now, maybe it’s just me, but I think a lot of people will find it really sickening to read about how these politically correct educrats sit around and give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down to an 18-year-old based on his racial and ethnic mix. As for “gaming” the system, were we supposed to lament the fact that a black applicant 100 years ago might try to pass for white? I think our condemnation then and now should be more concentrated on the racially discriminatory system itself rather than on those who tried or try to game it.

Real racism is indeed truly disgusting; and nowhere is it more real and objectively manifest than in the left's politically correct posturing and in the perpetual victimhood scams perpetrated by their compassionate policies--you know, the ones that infantalize other races and ethnicities and keep them "in their place" so that the truly superior denizens of the political left can manage their lives.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity

[twinder]

I saw a comment on a Facebook site, of all places, yesterday that read:

"X-box and Nintendo Wii are both white and neither one of them stole my credit card information. Playstation, on the other hand, is black. Just saying."

I laughed and recognized it for what I felt it was. A stereotype of blacks. Both the X-box and Nintendo Wii have a white outer case while the Playstation 3 has a black case. Playstation recently had some issue with its on line gaming service where people had their credit card info stolen and eventually it led to the on lime part being shut down until they could get control of the problem. I'm not sure if it is back up yet or not. We have a Wii and an X-box with on line service for games. (Yes, I play as well with the kids and I enjoy it!) I have friends who has Playstation and they cannot play on line due to the situation. This is what the poster was referring to in his comment.

There were a whole bunch of comments posted about the "racist" comment. They all stopped suddenly when the original poster was identified to be a black man.

So, I ask, is the comment racist?

[philunderwood]

Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation

By Walter Williams

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., referring to his race and the Constitution on John Stossel's recent show "The State Against Blacks," said, "I wasn't even considered three-fifths of a guy." The Rev. Al Sharpton, debating on Sean Hannity's show, said, "Any black, at any age at any stage, was three-fifths of a human." Even eminent historian John Hope Franklin charged the Founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men." Statements such as those either represent ignorance or are part of the leftist agenda to demean the founding principles of our nation by portraying the nation's Founders as racists. Let's look at the origin of the three-fifths clause.

Northern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and those opposed to slavery wished to count only free people of each state for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Southerners wanted to count slaves just as any other person. By counting slaves, who didn't have a right to vote, slave states would have had greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person in deciding representation in the House and Electoral College. The compromise reduced the power of slave states relative to the South's original proposal but increased it over the North's original proposal.

My questions for those who condemn the three-fifths compromise are: Would blacks have been better off if slaves had been counted as a whole person? Should the North not have compromised at all and a union not have come into being? Would Rangel and Sharpton have agreed with Southerners at the Constitutional Convention, who argued slaves should "stand on an equality with whites" in determining congressional representation and Electoral College votes? Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."

Patrick Henry acknowledged reality, saying, "As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition." With the union created, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. James Wilson believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid "the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country."

Other Founders condemned slavery. George Washington said, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." John Adams: "Every measure of prudence ... ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence." James Madison: "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." James Otis said, "The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black." Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is ... an atrocious debasement of human nature." Franklin, after visiting a black school, also said, "I ... have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained." Alexander Hamilton's judgment was the same: "Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours." John Jay wrote: "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

Here's my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the Founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool as they try to reduce respect for our Constitution.

[Ritty77]

What the President Won’t Tell Latinos This Weekend
July 23, 2011
blog.heritage.org/2011/07/23/what-the-president-won%E2%80%99t-tell-latinos-this-weekend/

Here’s what you won’t hear from the President this weekend when he addresses the largest Latino advocacy organization’s annual conference:

* Latino unemployment is in double digits following a failed stimulus bill.

* Nearly one out of every two Latinos will fail to receive a high school diploma, despite the federal government’s control over education policy in the past 50 years.

* Unfettered government spending has led the national deficit to balloon to nearly $13 trillion, jeopardizing American economic security and quality of life.

Instead, President Obama is likely to use this opportunity before the receptive audience at the National Council of La Raza to recycle stale excuses and promises. The President will blame the previous Administration for the country’s pathetic economy and seek to portray conservatives as the enemy. The President will ask the Latino community to continue supporting his policies of increased taxing in order to pay for more government programs we cannot afford, all the while racking up even more debt.

Rather than looking to empower Latino communities, the President will encourage the audience to depend more and more on the government. From education to health care to energy policy, the President’s remarks will largely center on how the government is best suited to run more and more aspects of our lives.

The allure of an endless goodie bag of government programs and services is an attractive sell, particularly when coupled with the race-baiting and victimization that liberals have been so keen to perfect.

Unfortunately, liberals (including many in the Latino lobby) chose to ignore the fact that our country’s wealth was not built on government spending but by innovation, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise.

In fact, a recent poll commissioned by Generation Opportunity seems to confirm that Hispanics—particularly young Hispanics—understand this. They indicated that they prefer “reducing federal spending to raising taxes on individuals in order to balance the federal budget.”

While immigration is likely to figure prominently in this weekend’s discussions and forums, don’t expect any of the speakers to tell the audience how the President’s failed economic policies are likely to replicate the very same conditions here that countless Hispanic immigrants fled Latin America to escape.

This is especially timely as the U.S. finds itself at a critical crossroads in deciding how to reduce the national deficit to prevent bequeathing our children and grandchildren back-breaking debt. Rather than urging fiscal restraint, the President will likely pepper his speech with the word “investment”—to argue for greater government spending without explaining how he intends to pay for the growing bill.

Latinos, like the rest of the country, need a leaner and less intrusive federal government to pave the way for a much-needed economic recovery. The economic mobility that continues to elude so many Latinos will not be achieved by depending more and more on the federal government.

That’s the harsh reality that will likely be missing from this weekend’s gathering.

[philunderwood]

Having spent most of the earlier part of my life in So. CA I knew and befriended many Latinos. At least back then they tended to be fiercely independent, hard working individuals. Either things have changed a lot, or somebody’s wrong in their analysis of the left having a solid voting block in the Latino community.

Perhaps Jose can shed some light on this for us.

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=14

Who is the “racist” here?

Published August 20, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain

I don’t fling the “R” word around much, because it is a pretty loaded word. But every now and then you come across something that just requires its use.

One of the things I’ve noticed about many “progressives” is their smug belief that they’re untainted by racism while most of those on the right are completely eaten up with it. So what they tend to do is try to validate that belief with outlandish and absurd scenarios that they obviously believe because they actually put them out publicly with a straight face.

For example, take Janeane Garofalo’s recent rambling thoughts on why GOP presidential nominee Herman Cain is in the race. It has nothing to do with his political desires or issues he’d like to effect. It has nothing to do with his life’s experiences and how they’ve shaped his political beliefs.

Nope, it has to do with his race and a conspiracy by Republicans to appear to not be what Gerafalo is sure they are. Thus this explanation:


“It’s actually not new,” Garofalo said. “It’s from the first time I ever saw him, especially after the first Fox debate and Frank Luntz as you know, has zero credibility — has these alleged ‘just plain folks’ polls after these Fox debates — and he asked who won the debate. And he was just about to say raise your hand if you support and before he finished, everybody’s hand went up to support Herman Cain. So it seemed as if they had been coached to support Herman Cain.

“I believe Herman Cain is in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly, and the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been moving more and more the right, also race-baiting more, gay-baiting more, religion-baiting more.”

You might believe she was saying all of that to comfort herself and deny the reality that the GOP actually none of the above. She has obviously been a leftist Kool Aid drinker for years and this is the litany they believe despite facts to the contrary. Thus it is important to those like Garafalo that they “refute” this new reality by claiming, without evidence (or by making up stuff – coached?), to fit in their manufactured reality.

Herman Cain, in Garofalo’s world and the world of many on the progressive left, is a race traitor. He can’t be a serious candidate, because she assumes anyone with black skin must reject the right because the right is “inherently racist”. Of course that must make Allen West, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley all racial plants as well. But to explain people like this, it requires a grand conspiracy designed to “deflect” attention away from that “inherent racism” assumed by Garofalo’s ilk:


“But Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go, ‘Oh, they can’t be racist. It’s a black guy. It’s a black guy asking for Obama to be impeached’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is anti-Muslim,’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is a tea party guy,’” she continued. “I feel like, well wouldn’t that suit the purposes of whomever astroturfs these things, whether it be the Koch Brothers or ALEC or Grover Norquist or anything. It could even be Karl Rove. ‘Let’s get Herman Cain involved so it deflects the obvious racism of our Republican Party.’”

The absurdity of Garofalo’s theory is evident to anyone who knows even a little bit about Herman Cain. He’s no one’s dupe. But to the racist left he’s the Clarence Thomas of the political world. “How dare he wander off the plantation. We want our escaped slave back!”

Yeah, harsh, I know – but deserved. Garofalo comes from a long line of projecting progressives who hide their inherent racism with ignorant utterings like this. The purpose is to warn other blacks away from such behavior, i.e. thinking for themselves, and to again try to use racism as a potent charge against the right. It is all about narrative building.

The problem for Garofalo is she comes off as ignorant and transparent in her attempt. Stupid. She still doesn’t understand that in terms of narrative, that ship sank long ago. It is both insulting to Herman Cain and other blacks who’ve chosen the right because that’s where they feel most comfortable and revealing about Garafalo and where the real “inherent racism” lies.

~McQ

[twinder]

Garafalo is a has been that really never was.