The word "racism" possesses no clear meaning and it is much more often than not employed as a rhetorical device whereby whites are bullied and intimidated into making concessions of various sorts to the uncompromising demands of our politically correct orthodoxy.
In St. John's gospel, the evangelist says of the wondrous deeds of his Master that so great are they in number that not all of the books in the entire world could contain them. It seems something similar could be said with respect to the virtually infinite claims of "racism" to which we are incessantly exposed.
But what exactly is "racism"?
It seems to me that while each admits of a multiplicity of variations, there are essentially but four definitions or models of "racism": (1) Racism as "Racial Hatred"; (2) Racism as "Racial Discrimination"; (3) Racism as "Doctrine of Innate Inferiority"; (4) Racism as "Institutional Racism." For convenience's sake, unless otherwise stated, I will refer to each model in terms of the following abbreviations: (1) RH; (2) RD; (3) II; and (4) IR. However it is specifically understood, in the popular consciousness as well as in the precincts of contemporary politics, the media, and academia, there is something on the order of a consensus that "racism" is something at once pervasive and immoral.
In what follows, while exploring these four accounts of "racism," I establish two things. First, they are mutually distinct and irreducible to one another– i.e., "racism" isn't the unitary phenomenon that the singularity of the term suggests. Second, and most importantly, each model, beset as it is with perhaps insurmountable difficulties, fails to accommodate the conventional conception of "racism." Because of spatial constraints, however, I will have to consider only some of these problems.
Racism as "Racial Hatred"
On its face, this seems as obvious a definition of "racism" as there is. Yet intellectual seriousness demands that we look beyond surface appearances. When we heed this call, what we discover is a model of "racism" that gives rise to more questions than answers, questions that, I submit, it cannot adequately address.
To my knowledge, in spite of its central importance to the RH model, this question has never been raised by any of its proponents. It is not hard to see why.
In posing this question, the defender of RH is thrown onto the horns of a dilemma from which there is no escape. If he grabs the first horn and takes the position that racial hatred is immoral because hatred itself is immoral, then the fact that the hatred is racially oriented is incidental and, as far as its moral worth is concerned, irrelevant: it is the hatred, regardless of the reason(s) underlying it, that is immoral. "Racism," thus, loses the distinctive moral significance that had been attributed to it.
If, on the other hand, our proponent of RH opts for the second horn and denies (what most religious and moral traditions outside of Christianity deny) that hatred itself is not always impermissible, but only racially-oriented hatred, then he risks similarly relegating "racism" to the moral periphery, so to speak. Racial hatred is usually condemned on the grounds that race is as irrelevant a characteristic as eye color or left handedness and, thus, undeserving of hatred. But if this is what makes racial hatred immoral, then it is not racial hatred itself that is objectionable, but hatred invoked by anything irrelevant. In keeping with our examples, racial hatred — "racism" — is neither more nor less objectionable than hatred of brown-eyed and left-handed people.
So, regardless of which horn the defender of RH embraces, he inevitably marginalizes the distinctive moral significance typically attributed to "racism."
Racism as "Racial Discrimination"
The first thing to note here is that this model in no way relies upon the foregoing and, in fact, denies the latter: "hatred" is but one motive among many by which a person could engage in racial discrimination, but it is in no wise necessary for it.
That being said, insofar as the conventional wisdom as well as most of the proponents of this model deny that "racism" is unconditionally unacceptable, the model itself fails, for there is scarcely a person with an iota of intelligence willing to deny that "racial discrimination" can, under some circumstances, at any rate, be permissible. Who objects to the owners of Chinese restaurants employing Asian workers so as to add an air of authenticity to the atmosphere? Or who would object to Epcot Center at Disney World hiring only people of the related ethnic backgrounds to work at its various "Lands?" In fact, the most zealous of "anti-racists" are especially disposed to favor racially discriminatory practices under what they deem to be the appropriate conditions.
"Affirmative action" — race-based policies favoring non-whites, particularly blacks, over whites — is a legalized form of racial discrimination. Whether this type of racial discrimination is justified or not isn't a question with which I am currently concerned. The point, rather, is that the "anti-racists" who demand "affirmative action," asserting not just that it is morally permissible but morally obligatory, acknowledge, then, that racial discrimination can be morally legitimate. But insofar as they unequivocally condemn "racism," they concede, however implicitly, that "racism" and "racial discrimination" are two distinct phenomena, the one at all times immoral, the other not at all times immoral.
In response, it could be said that it isn't always "racist" to discriminate on the basis of race, but only when race is as "irrelevant" as eye color or left handedness.
There are two quick counter-responses to this objection.
First, the notion of "relevance" is anything but self-interpreting. A white employer may concede that any given black applicant is just as qualified as any given white applicant to do the job that he is searching to fill. However, he may, reasonably enough, find the races of the respective applicants to be of extreme "relevance" if he is concerned about avoiding the astronomical costs in time, money, and reputation that would accrue to him in the event that the black applicant files a frivolous "discrimination" suit against him. Or maybe for fear of merely being suspected of being a "racist" by a prospective black employee he may decide to avoid hiring him. On the other hand, a black employer, though aware that the job description in question is race-neutral, may nonetheless prefer a black candidate over a white one because he suspects that the latter will ultimately not be as harmed by being denied this one opportunity because of the more abundant opportunities that he thinks exists for whites.
Second, if we accept that racial discrimination is immoral when race is as "irrelevant" as eye-color or left-handedness, then, as is the case when "racism" is equated with "racial hatred," "racism" loses its distinctive moral significance, to say nothing of its special awfulness, for it is the "irrelevance" of the characteristic being exploited for discriminatory purposes and not the characteristic itself that assumes moral import.
Racism as "Doctrine of Innate Inferiority"
The belief that the members of one or other races are innately inferior to one's own need not be accompanied by either hatred for those people nor even a willingness to "discriminate" against them. Similarly, hatred for others and a disposition to discriminate against them need not be attended by the belief that they are innately inferior.
So, if the belief in the innate inferiority of races other than one's own need not translate into bitterness and cruelty toward their members, then how or why can the mere possession of this belief be immoral?
Now is neither the time nor place to explore the complex relationship between belief and action, but suffice it to note that it is to our actions primarily that we ascribe the properties of "moral" and "immoral." Our beliefs, we ordinarily think, may be "true" or "false," "correct" or "incorrect," but not "moral" or "immoral."
Take, for example, the belief in "equality." As the (black) author, Thomas Sowell, noted in his book, Black Rednecks, White Liberals, this belief has been enlisted in the service of such just and noble causes as the abolition of slavery, but it has also been used to justify the worst sorts of abuses in societies throughout the world. Whether the belief in something like (moral, not arithmetical) equality can be said to be true or false depending on whether it has produced good or bad is a separate question; what seems more clear is that there is no way to ascribe any moral weight to the belief on the basis of what has been done in its name.
As I said, the relation between belief and conduct is a vexed question, and I am not sure whether I am altogether convinced that beliefs in themselves are devoid of moral value. However, one powerful consideration in favor of the view discussed here is the phenomenon with which mostly all of us are all too familiar. As we grow older, most of us realize that much of what we previously took for granted is false. In fact, in looking back over the history of our nation and the world, we realize (or at least believe) that much of what whole peoples in past eras and other places have thought is simply false. If the possession of just one false belief, to say nothing of many such beliefs, is sufficient to convict one of immorality, then there is not one among us who can escape condemnation. Ptolemy was no less immoral for having held that the Earth was at the center of the universe than was Hitler for believing that the Jews were the ruin of Germany.
The proponent of the II model of "racism" is in a dilemma. If he concedes that beliefs are of no moral import, then he must admit that "racism," contrary to conventional wisdom, is not a moral phenomenon. If, on the other hand, he maintains that false beliefs are immoral by virtue of their falsity, then like his counterparts, the proponents of the RH and RD models of "racism," he robs "racism" of its distinctive and particularly dreadful character.
From this dilemma I foresee no escape.
"Institutional Racism"
In order to sustain their charge, in the face of an ever shrinking number of instances of overt racial hostility toward blacks, that "racism" remains a nearly insurmountable obstacle to black success, the proponents of the IR model have shifted their focus off of individual white "racists" and onto something more abstract, less visible, but potentially much more formidable: society's fundamental institutions.
The reasoning here is basically as follows. While individual whites may be (at least) consciously filled with nothing but good will toward blacks (and other minorities), the very institutions of which American life is constituted and within the framework of which its citizens' worldview(s) have been formed are profoundly "racist."
So, "racism," then, requires neither hatred nor a willingness to discriminate nor a conscious belief in the innate inferiority of other races. In ways of which the best of intentioned whites are utterly unaware, their society's institutions, like the Devil in some imaginings of the Christian narrative, determine their every wicked thought, word, and deed. The comedienne Flip Wilson used to say when he succumbed to temptation: "The Devil made me do it." Apparently, whites can say when others accuse them of "racism": "Social institutions made me do it."
This theory of "racism" is immune to refutation. This isn't because it is true, though. It is immune to refutation for the same reason that Solipsism, the theory that only one's own mind is real and everything else but figments of it is impervious to refutation: it is designed to accommodate all criticisms. There are, however, damaging claims that can be made against it.
First, institutions, though human, are nevertheless impersonal entities. The three branches of government, the family, and boxing, are alike institutions. To impersonal entities it is improper to ascribe moral characteristics, whether positive or negative. The persons who engage in those institutions may be "just" or "unjust," "virtuous" or "vicious," "right" or "wrong," "racist" or not, but the institutions themselves are "useful" or "useless," "efficient" or "inefficient," "antiquated" or "novel," "necessary" or "gratuitous," etc.
In other words, this model of "racism" involves a fundamental confusion of categories. It makes no more sense to speak of an impersonal institution as being "just" or "racist" as it does to speak of an impersonal knife in these terms.
Second, the IR model relies on persistent statistical disparities between blacks and whites with respect to a number of social indicia — rates of crime, illegitimacy, unemployment, education, incarceration, etc. — where the former is at a disadvantage relative to the latter.
Analyzes of this data are in no short supply, so I won't bother reiterating in detail what has been said already. But plenty of respectable thinkers, black, white, and other, have shown that the categories "black" and "white" are fictional monoliths that obscure crucial intra-racial differences that, when taken into account, produce a dramatically different picture from that painted by the proponents of the IR model. For instance, when blacks and whites of the same description — e.g., married, college-educated, etc. — are compared, such statistical disparities nearly vanish completely, and in some instances, blacks fare better than whites. Economist and nationally syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams, for example — a black man — showed over ten years ago that for every $1.00 earned by college educated white females, their black counterparts earned $1.25!
The IR model of "racism," like the others, flounders.
Conclusion
The aforementioned models or accounts of "racism" I contend are comprehensive. Every notion of "racism" is some variation or other of one or more of these four models. I argued that each is distinct from and irreducible to the others, and none of them are adequate. Where does this leave the concept of "racism?"
It is undeniable that racially-oriented injustice is a real and dreadful phenomenon that has plagued our world for as long as there have been distinct racial groups. Yet "racism," again understood to denote a pervasive immoral reality, is a word whose time has come and passed. It should be retired, for it possesses no clear meaning and it is much more often than not employed as a rhetorical device whereby whites are bullied and intimidated into making concessions of various sorts to the uncompromising demands of our "politically correct" orthodoxy.
After such an essay; the next logically following topic in my mind would be reparations.
I've had many a discussion regarding this topic with progressives, black and white. there are two questions that immediately come to mind; none of which can I ever get a straight answer to:
The first question is "How much is enough?" This question will cause a liberal /progressive to 'lock-up' mentally. While he/she does not want to appear greedy, they hesitate to give any straight answer lest they leave money on the table. You prompt them with a further inqury; "$10,00 each, $20,000? How much? Place a price on the sweat of your ancestors?" The more thoughtful of the progressives will begin speaking in governmental programs and budgetary amounts, which of course, in government circles are both never ending and unlimited in scope.
The second question is "What are we buying for this price?" Once again, this question causes hesitation. You cannot elicit a straightforward answer because now that he/she has you at the table, there must be a method discovered to keep you there. The negotiation must be never ending. Once a set of benchmarks is reached, they must retain the right to move the goalpost further down the field.
During such a conversation you may offer $50,000 per person. This is quite a sum; $2.135 trillion. In return you would require that all affirmative action programs in the country end, there be no more legal complaints against any opportunity based upon the guise of racial inequality of numbers or percentages, and that we begin looking for the root causes of disparate outcomes; i.e. single parenthood, no strong male presence in the household, inability to promote discipline in school, and the agressive policing of gangs.
You'll quickly find out the sum is not nearly enough (whatever you offer in concrete terms they immediately double). Plus, the results are unacceptable; budgetary programs must be instituted and maintained in order to explore, allieveate, and fund progressive solutions to these challenges.
In other words, reparations is nothing more than another form of bailout; a racial bailout. Give us money, apologize to us, keep apologizing, and keep the affirmative action programs as open-ended as they are now.
Not much of a bargin.
Good points Milbrat, though reparations for slavery is just a liberal talking point to make conservatives seem insensitive to the plight of African-Americans. Heaven forbid that reparations are actually given out because then there's nothing to complain about!
Milbrat,
I believe the correct term is 'extortion'. A 'bailout' implies charity. Reparations is not charity, but a form of payback with an implied threat for non-compliance. Thus, it is pay up or we put the screws to you. Of course, you are right the screws will be applied anyway as appeasement of a bully just encourages more of the same.
As for the bailout, both it and all the other benefits according to race that have been doled out in the last half century (adjusted for inflation, of course) already far exceed your 2.1 trillion reparations estimate. Most of the current bailout has been redirected to social programs once they had agreement there would be a bailout; and 'social program' has become synonymous with race-adjusted redistribution.
I sincerely doubt most black people are serious about reparations, but some are, and are often the ones who cry loudest for justice that will put an end to abuse. Their anger is certainly justified, but misdirected against innocents having little or no part in the abuse for which they still seek redress. Imposing reparations now and on innocent people can only backfire, adding to the total number of resentments we all have to put up with. There comes a time to let it go, and, in the case of slavery and Jim Crow abuses, that time was a couple of decades ago.
None of the former and only a handful of the latter participants are even still alive, and the amount of reparations that can be squeezed from a subset of guilty octogenarians is tiny. That makes any reparation resulting in a quanitifiably meaningful restitution totally unjustified and is why the circle has been enlarged to snare all whites, living and dead, regardless of ancestral involvement. But, why stop at our borders. It would be as meaningful to visit this punishment on present day Chinese for their complicity in 18th century Arab slave trading because their ancestors once traded with Arab middlemen in silks and spices leading to the slavery needed to grow sugar, tobacco and cotton in exchange. How far does this web go and where does it stop?
I think you can concretely and usefully trace the evolution of the meaning of "racism" by looking at court cases. Basically, up until 1964 "racism" was something that needed to be prove, ie. someone needed to "prove" that an employer (for example) referred to "race" as a reason for not hiring a prospective employee. For this reason the 1964 civil rights act had no problem denouncing any reference to color or "race" –and yet still was assumed to be an "anti racist" document.
The raft of federal court decisions from the late 1960s through the end of the 1980s and even into the 1990s (though by that time Reagen appointees had begun chipping away)translated the 1964 civil rights act (and the '65 voting rights act)into court directed outcomes. W/ respect to the latter, the courts now leaned to the belief that the "right to vote" now meant that a certain number of black representatives must be elected from a given state, given the state's racial make up. Hence the mania for redistricting.
Back to race. Here, the court evolved a position that put the onus on the employer to "prove he wasn't racist." This meant, of course, achieving a statistical equivalence in his workforce with that of surrounding society. There was no longer the need to prove an employer "racist." The statistical disparity "proved it." There was a classic case in Atlanta in the early '70s where an employer tried to argue that to work in his company you needed to have certain educational and technical requirements. These were dismissed by the court as less important than "raciail parity" and the owner was punished.
Today, to get any sort of federal contract you must be in compliance w/ these racial quotas–which existed throughotu the Reagan years.
How, pray tell, do you get from the color/race free Civil Rights and Voting Acts of the early sixties? Harry Blackman made his famous argument that what was important was the "Spirit of the law," and used his interpretation of the "Spirit" to justify mandating racial/gender quotas. This is called an "activist" court. . . .
There have actually been numerous rulings by the high court beginning in the late '80s that would go agaisnt the racial quota trend–Sandra Day O'Connor's rulings being particulary improtant here. The result of these was that the Clinton Justice Department simply. . . .ignored them. In fact the legacy of the Reagan courts has been terrific on this subject–and very much suoght to bring the government back into harmony w/ the early rulings of the 1960s. Much like southern segregationists simply ignored federal orders to cease and desist, the Clinton (and presumably Obama) justice courts remain in defiance of the law.
–on the subject of reparations, any serious account of govt. affirmative action in the past forty years will find that it has already long been paid. . .
WNA
That was perhaps the most ridiculous piece of garbage about the topic of racism I have ever read.
Your thesis is seriously that the word racism needs retired? Because it doesn't have a clear definition? Love doesn't have one either. It has,at varying junctures, been considered the most ambiguous word in the language. Should we discontinue its tragic use as well?
This is typical of conservative rantings. You identify "problems" without even a half-hearted attempt at solutions. Then come the figurative "high-fives" of your party. Pathetic.
Racism isn't immoral? Belief in the inferiority of one person to another isn't immoral? The thing that makes it different than Ptolemy is that racism is a philosophy. Its not a grounded theory accepted in academic circles or published in journals. There are no exciting new revelations in the ever burgeoning world of Racism the Science.
You had a point in 1835 when most people in any given community in a slave state harbored genuine views of racism. A reasonable person of typical education at the time could not be held to any higher standard than his neighbor. Its 2009 my friend, and we all know better. We also know smoking is bad for you and coffee is usually served hot(so don't spill it on yourself).
As for affirmative action, I'll get behind eliminating it as soon as the last person who had to sit at the back of the bus in this country dies. Slaves might have been freed in 1865, but blacks weren't free until the 60's. An entire generation of them live today and were born into segregation and disparate educational standards.
So take your thinly veiled bigotry back to the church(I'm sure you're a Christian) and ask for forgiveness…because its really immoral.
Thanks,
And have a good life
MPanetta,
No one here has said racism isn't immoral or that the term “racism” should be retired when and where it is, in fact, appropriate; nor anything remotely like it.
What is being argued here is whether (or not) it should be retired from the pejorative lexicon of political rant as irrelevant, destructive, unproductive, and unnecessarily provocative. Moreover, and as Mr. Kerwick argues, it is a term so overworked it has become more rhetorical than meaningful. That’s because, in the vast majority of cases in which it is used, it is to stir up racism where none, in fact, exists; which is purely political – not moral or helpful. This abuse of the term can only stifle any meaningful discussion of race and relations; and that includes the best intended sort necessary to reducing hatreds and suspicion. “Racism” as political idea and moral imperative has been kept alive for one reason and one only, as a cudgel to be used with which to overturn tradition; not just morally repugnant, outdated values but all values with which there is disagreement. It has been exploited this way by both liberals and conservatives (though there is substantial evidence it is resorted to far more often by liberals with which to silence debate).
You know this to be true because it is precisely how you are using it now. You began from a preconception of conservative = bigoted, and built your case from there rather than from the merits of what was being argued. In so doing, you painted a totally bogus picture of those whom you mean to silence and of what is going on here. You, further, seem one of those convinced racism cuts but one way, that only blacks can have been victims. Therefore, I have to conclude you cannot have been alive during that period (segregation) of which you speak so authoritatively or understand its many nuances (here’s clue for you; I did experience some of it).
Contrary to what you seem to believe, we invite and encourage opposing views. We are here to discuss ideas, and where certain propositions are true or untrue. We invite opposing propositions that we may not merely be an echo chamber as you suggest, and that we may explore paths that might only occur to those who, like you, begin from somewhere else. We may argue strenuously positions which, to you, seem untenable, but that does not make us unthinking sycophants. We do stand by our convictions, but that doesn’t mean we are incapable of persuasion given sufficiently better arguments.
However, that does not mean we invite or encourage juvenile spite. The bile you spew marks you, rather than us the unthinking reactionary. Now, if you’d care to drop the attack-dog act and engage in some serious debate, the door is always open. Otherwise, don’t let the door ruffle your attitude on the way out; and have a blessed day.
Nathan,
Some debts can never be repaid. The question now, though, is whether that is even still relevant. Those who were dragged from their home countries and made slaves are all dead. Those who suffered segregation are likewise mostly dead or, if not yet dead, unable to receive compensation in meaningful amounts or ways. Those denied citizen rights have been overcompensated with a voting and juridical power out of proportion to their numbers, a power that has come to dominate and corrupt who they are. Those denied job and educational opportunities are now often promoted for who they are rather than what they are capable such that, even when they are capable, it is often suspect and held against them; fueling further resentment. This leaves only the distorting effects of slavery and segregation on present and future generations.
If we were to calculate an appropriate sum to be paid only to substantially abused survivors (adjusted for inflation), it would amount to a paltry sum as compared to the trillions being demanded and the trillions already spent in trying to settle accounts. For example, the typical annual wage of a common laborer in 1942 was around $1,500/year. Not every black person still living experienced actual racial abuse, though a fair percentage did at some point. Do we compensate them for every year only for those years in which they are actually abused by their race and/or retarded thereafter? As we have no means of calculating this let’s assume all survivors, but only for those years prior to Affirmative Action (1972). This gives us a rough figure $700,000 per survivor. However, to be fair to those being fleeced, this amount should first be reduced by whatever wages they did earn. In 1940, the average earnings of blacks is said to have been less than half that of whites overall. Therefore, this compensation should be reduced by half, or $350,000/survivor. The 2000 census gave us a figure of 36-million African-Americans out of a total population of 300-million (12%). In 1940, that was closer to 18% out of 99-million or 18-million. The percentage of Americans today who are 80+ is less than 2% or 6-million; and the number of black survivors of this generation should be in roughly the same proportion or 360,000. So, this group would be theoretically entitled to around $126-bn. Assuming a similar calculation for those 36-79, we arrive at a cap in the neighborhood of $6-trillion, a figure in today’s dollars already exceeded by previous entitlements. If this is the compensation due direct victims of an abuse, how should the compensation due indirect victims residually ‘stigmatized’ by their genetic association with an abused person. Does this stigma really even exist other than as a desire to inflict vengeance by the descendants of victims on the descendants of their abusers? Certainly, they can’t get even the compensation due surviving victims out of the surviving abusers (probably equal in number), most of whom are now living on fixed income and the subject of yet another liberal demand for compensation.
The emotional effects of slavery are incalculable, but even if we could put a value on this and it was possible to do so without doing irreparable violence to the economy (over and above what is already being done it) and without generating a different sort of injustice, the opportunity is lost. Let’s say we agree to pay just direct victims on the installment plan, 95% of them will be dead before the decade is out. If maintained thereafter as an ‘inheritance’, it becomes an extortion no different than a host of other extortions promoted in the name of justice, and a source of future resentments on both sides driving us further apart as a people. Similarly, the emotional effects of segregation, abuse, mistreatment and lynching can neither be calculated nor compensated. Of the racially-motivated lynchings recorded (3,437 black, 1,293 white), few occurred after 1951, and few of the victims children remain alive (lynching has a tendency to reduce progeny, especially as many so murdered were young).
This leaves then, only casual abuse, violence, job discrimination, and stigma of which whites were more culpable than blacks prior to 1964; yet of which blacks in this same time period were also not innocent and which has grown markedly since. Since 1964, there have been in excess of 33 race-riots in which the predominance of violence has been black-on-white rather than the other way around; and virtually no cases of white-on-black rioting since 1968. Notably, there has been an upsurge in racial-violence since 2003, but this has been entirely a black v. Hispanic phenomenon. There have been sporadic cases of individual white-on-black violence, but none that is white-community supported and almost none in which the principle motivation was race (muggings, rape, brawls, road-rage, &c); which is mutual and should not therefore be included. 1968, then, should be taken as a cut-off for compensation as regards both non-lethal and lethal violence by whites.
If long since quieted abuse of blacks by whites is to be compensated, shouldn’t the more recent (and substantial) abuse of whites at the hands of blacks be given at least equal consideration and subtracted from the total due to blacks? Whites too have been stigmatized, vilified (abused) as ‘racists’, beat up (I am in this category, though no record exists), and discriminated against. How then is the ledger to be balanced by reducing the overall compensation due blacks, and how is it determined who shall receive awards and who shall not, and in what amounts as many of the victims are dead and/or unverifiable? This guarantees almost all compensation will go to those not themselves direct victims of racial-abuse or injustice, or, in some cases, to those more abuser than abused.
This is all so hopelessly convoluted by this point it would take the wisdom of a million Solomon’s to unravel.
Anderson,
You said “…reparations for slavery is just a liberal talking point to make conservatives seem insensitive to the plight of African-Americans. Heaven forbid that reparations are actually given out because then there's nothing to complain about!”
I think you may be underestimating the pool of liberal-white guilt in this respect. Conceding to such demands doesn’t satisfy them. Rather it merely validates the rage, leading to additional demands for redress. At some point, it stops being redress and becomes extortion, and there is always an element of extortion from the very start. As I said above, there is no reasonable dollar amount you can offer that will make this go away, and, therefore, no ceiling to the demands that can be made. If one segment of the black community is satisfied, another refuses to be and then another and another; and, by the time you’ve satisfied all of the present generation, the next generation kicks in where the prior left off (i.e., my parents maybe got theirs and are satisfied; but what about my anger, what about my needs?). This is especially true where one generation spends its compensation unproductively, leaving none to the next. Don’t forget, in the liberal-lexicon ‘needs’ and ‘compensation’ are hopelessly inseparable.
Something similar has been happening in Israel for generations with the Palestinians making endless demands to which Israelis make endless concessions. In the case of Israel, the rationale for punishment is nowhere near as clear-cut or valid as the case of slavery and Jim Crow, yet the success demands have had over there is hardly lost on radicals here. Each concession only results in new demands; and that will continue until either Israel is whittled down to nothing or both sides annihilated. Things are not that dire here as yet, but continuing to fan such demands/rage on the one side while yielding to them on the other cannot have a good outcome for any of us, white or black.
I also disagree with you that ‘reparations’ is “just” a liberal talking-point. It is a talking-point and one mainly used to promote socialist-redistribution and, incidentally, a blunt instrument to used against conservatives, but it is also a widely held conviction within the black-community. Many blacks honestly believe there can be no justice until whites are made to suffer as their parents, grandparents and great-great-great…parents suffered. I was listening to a black caller to my local radio station giving vent to this rage only this morning, and there was absolutely nothing phony about it. His argument just wasn’t particularly valid and there was no convincing him otherwise.
Mr. Bob Stapler
The conclusion clearly states that the word racism's time has passed. I am not sure how you don't agree, as it is written in black and white.
I can appreciate your clarification that the author intended the word to be removed from the "political lexicon", but that hardly needs clarifying. I did not,after all, assume he was talking about taking it out of the menu at Hardees. Unfortunately, your claim about the statistical validity of accusations of racism cannot be substantiated. No such survey has been done(to my knowledge), and perhaps I have limited perspective on the techniques of sociology, but I doubt such a study could be done in a comprehensive fashion.
You accuse the word racism of failing to be moral or helpful when and where it is charged. I ask you under what set of circumstances would one who truly feels he has been victimized by racism seek to accuse his transgressor in a manner that adds value in terms of morality or helpfulness? Like someone who was robbed of any other possession, the victim of racism would simply want his dignity back wouldn't he? How can we place the onus of social metamorphosis on such a person?
You claim that racism has "been kept alive" to be used solely "as a cudgel…with which to overturn tradition". Please provide me with a list of traditions that have been overturned because of claims of racism, aside from burning crosses in black peoples yards and not selling land to people who aren't white. I would be happy to entertain your claim with just a smattering of substantiation. Otherwise, I plan to share it with friends as it has very high entertainment value.
I'm not sure where I said that "you" do not invite debate or opposing views. What I said simply illustrated that there is a "you". You personally(Bob) must agree with that collective assessment as you made use of the pronoun we. And the "you" I see may appreciate debate and might perhaps be maleable in some regards(though I doubt it…nothing personal but most people are stuck in their ways…myself included I'm sure), but the series of "thumbs up" that followed the original post showed little thought or critical analysis of the argument at hand. It was a classic example of fraternal conservatism, if you will. The right end of the aisle sticks together much better than the left(for a myriad of reasons).
And, dear Master Bob, how do I seem to be one that feels that racism cuts but one way? You made no such accusation of the original writer who clearly feels that black white racism is the major issue. His comments could, should one desire, be interpreted the same way you interpreted mine. I don't think racism goes any particular way. I think racism will be real as long as people are different, which will probably be forever. It will happen in every direction and all the way through time. Much of it will be harmless for the most part. There will, however, always be people that hate other people; that blame them for the madness of the world, etc. Maybe I'm being pessimistic but I think its part of human nature.
How did you get that I began with a preconception of conservative = bigot? I never said that. I said the author was a bigot, and frankly I think he is. I didn't call conservatives bigots. I did say that conservatives are fond of introducing problems without solutions. I think thats true. You might make the same argument about liberals but I don't think it holds water. Liberals always have plans. Some of them remind of Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner, to be fair, but they are plans nonetheless. Meanwhile conservatives are always sure that yesterday was better and crave a sort of cosmic social rewind button. I don't get it, personally.
"The bile that I spew"? What bile did I spew, and which piece of my assessment was juvenille? Perhaps you should look juvenille up in the dictionary. As for serious debate, I am all for it. I'm not sure about your attack dog reference but I must confess that I don't typically get very erudite responses in forums like this so I didn't plan on a rebuttal. My post was not unthinking, but it was most certainly reactionary and rightly so. I saw something I feel is sickening and responded. Where's the problem?
Mr. Panetta,
Perhaps, it is you who should look up words like 'juvenile' and 'bile'. My grasp of the English language is more than adequate, I am very careful in my choice of words; that and I get most of my spellings and grammar right (you not only accused me of misusing the term ‘juvenile’, you misspelled it … twice!). In fact, you misspell and misapply words rather carelessly. Your punctuation and grammar could also use some polishing. I don’t think less of people over mere points of grammar; but, if you are going to critique others for it, you ought to hold yourself to the same or higher standard.
Abuse, on the other-hand, is different matter and I do hold people to account for that. Going right to the heart of the ‘juvenilia’ and ‘bile’, you came charging in here (see your comment #6) blazing away, mischaracterized everything said to score partisan points, trashed people you hardly know on the sole basis we don’t reflect your views, and snidely dismissed every one of Kerwick’s and our remarks as: “ridiculous piece of garbage”, “ranting”, ““high-fives” of your party. Pathetic”, and “thinly veiled bigotry”. If you can’t see the abuse in those remarks and unable to admit it, then you are beyond reach and I quit. That was pretty juvenile in my book; especially as you were supposedly engaging in “serious debate” (there again is that lower standard you allow yourself than others). Accusing others of ‘bigotry’ without a foundation for the accusation qualifies as ‘bile’ (as do unfair charges of ‘racism’ – the topic under discussion). So, too, is your obvious disgust with anyone having or expressing faith. Those bullets may have been aimed at Kerwick, but you clearly had us in the same crosshairs with your other comments.
[ Juvenile: reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity; childish – Merriam-Webster ]
First of all, it is totally unnecessary to trash people in order to make your points and dissent known. Second, you made no reasoned arguments actually supporting the positions you take; yet imply those who have (or made the attempt) are somehow ‘unreasoning’. Lastly, your whole tone was one of derision of the type most people associate with playground bullies below the age of reason. I didn’t much care for your “Master Bob” dig either, but we’ll let that slide for now.
You tell us we are flat wrong, but then: How do you defend Affirmative Action or the proposition we ‘need’ charges of racism in discussions of race in order to make progress? What kind of ‘progress’ is it you want? What does it take to satisfy you justice has been served, and is that reasonable or even feasible? In other words, what is your exit strategy? If you don’t know where you are trying to get to, how can you possibly map a reasonable way there? Not all routes make sense and some involve an unacceptable amount of pain. So, where is it you want to take us and by what route? A ‘reasonable’ outcome (to me) would be a color-blind society, one in which petty and manipulative charges of ‘racism’ are dropped as obsolete and generally frowned on as unhelpful. That requires neither reparations nor entitlements nor lopsided mudslinging. In fact, those stand in the way of a color-blind society by permanently subdividing us into victim v. exploiter classes. If Kerwick has jumped the gun (i.e., thinks we’ve reached the point of color-blind), that makes him naïve rather than bigoted or stupid the way you imply. Though, I don’t see anywhere in the article where he says or implies either. All he claims is that the way the word ‘racism’ is now used is not helping matters and should, therefore, be dropped.
If you disagree with Kerwick’s premise, if you are convinced that highly-charged, hostile, indignant, angry accusations of “racism” for anything from ‘blacks trading-insults with whites’ to ‘waiting more than 30-seconds to get seated at Chez Ritz’ to ‘DWB doing 60 in a 35’ to ‘white-whining’ are truly ‘helpful’ or add something to the debate, please explain it to us because, hey, we just don’t get it! We’re just a pack of brain-dead conservatives, after all, who don’t know how to use a dictionary or spell-checker.
As to the rest of us giving “high-fives”, there is an element of truth in that. We found little to fault in Kerwick’s presentation. We still don’t. Yet, we also didn’t make a big fuss over his analysis either.
You may not agree with the author’s points (Kerwick qualifies he does not necessarily agree with all the points himself), but that does not make them “garbage”. The article makes no final conclusion (one of your criticisms, I believe, was we provide no better solutions; which is true in this instance). However, the point of opening a discussion is to seek solutions. You only succeeded in breaking up a promising discussion of race. If you (or others like you) are determined we can’t have this discussion, then there is little point in our trying and little possibility any one person will arrive at a solution or solutions on his/her own … ever. Try rereading the article again, this time with an open mind. The points I got reading it were:
1. Racism has distinct components, none of which can be dealt with the same way or applying one-size-fits-all solutions because they aren’t really dependent on each other (e.g., you can think someone racially inferior despite you have no animus toward them and makes you no threat to anyone – for example: I had a great-aunt descended from abolitionists who thought blacks inferior, but who saw that as reason to support Affirmative Action as her social-duty toward those ‘less fortunate’)
2. Prevailing societal consensus is that “racism” is both pervasive and immoral; the author only explores the latter
3. The ‘treatable’ component of racism has to do with behaviors as:
a. there are no means to accurately and unequivocally assign moral value to attitudes
b. moral value is outcome-dependent
4. attempts to equate racism with hatred involves an irresolvable moral dilemma
5. invalid to defend racial-hatred as a basis for legitimizing charges of “racism” (I’d say he failed to convince on this one, either that or he lost me and needs to take another run at it); saying the defender marginalizes because he’s equating two separate things seems overly semantic as racial-hatred does adequately describe a recognizable and documented problem (one I’ve experienced firsthand) though often difficult to pin down
6. the charge of ‘racial-discrimination’ is generally invalid because of unequal (i.e., hypocritical) treatment
7. racism has become institutionalized; i.e., relies on the concept of ‘racist institutions’ (i.e., even if whites cease being racist, their racist-institutions [government, clubs, organizations, banks, colleges, beauty pageants, &c] live on, keeping blacks in virtual thralldom)
I would add one more item to #3 above; that punishing or controlling ‘wrong-thinking’ is destructive of freedom and, therefore, even more wrong than allowing some racist-thinking to persist. There is just so far you can go ‘educating’ people out of a prejudice and must trust in the majority and truth will suffice to keep a racist minority in check. The only way to quash all ‘bad’ thoughts is either to brainwash everyone (good & not so good alike) with daily refreshers to keep us that way and lock up the rest, or just lobotomize everyone. Neither seems to me a satisfactory solution.
In one of your remarks, you took umbrage at Kerwick’s equating of Ptolemy’s Earth-centrism with Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Ptolemy was an astronomer and geographer who gave us no system of philosophy, so I am unsure what point you make regarding him with respect to “racist philosophy”. However, Kerwick was not absolving Hitler for his vicious attitude any more than castigating Ptolemy for a foolish notion. Nor has he put forth or defended anything like a ‘racist philosophy’. He was simply making the argument attitudes don’t matter until we act on them. There were a great many people in the world who had attitudes exactly like Hitler (still are) who didn’t go around committing atrocities against Jews, Gypsies and other of us ‘sub-humans’. But, also, there were some who did. Many who didn’t were kindly and charitable, even while condescending. Were they all ‘evil’ or just wrong thinking? Hitler &Co. took action based on an attitude, amplified it, and then transmitted it to others; who then also acted. Because of this and as a Jew, I can’t completely agree with Kerwick that hatred without action doesn’t matter, but can agree to the extent actions and the presentment to act do matter more than do attitudes alone. What we then do about them is a separate matter from approval or disapproval. To the degree we overreact, we become the evil.
You dismissively said “… a point in 1835 when most people in any given community in a slave state harbored genuine views of racism. A reasonable person of typical education at the time could not be held to any higher standard than his neighbor. It[’]s 2009[,] my friend, and we all know better.”
Yes, well, some “reasonable educated people” of today are convinced:
• there is overwhelming agreement among climate-scientist that anthropogenic global warming is real and a catastrophic threat; and are, therefore, justified in plundering us and ruining us economically
• cutting taxes is stealing from the poor
• paying taxes is patriotic
• patriotism is fascist
• we can spend our way out of recessions, but only if government does it
• communism never killed anyone
• Senator McCarthy was responsible for creating the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and blacklisting
• the Red Scare was totally trumped up by a bunch of fascists out to grab power
• restricting gun-ownership makes us safer
• a nine-month old fetus is not a person, has no right to live, and feels no pain when snuffed out at the moment of birth (same person generally believes venomous Amazonian tree frogs have to be safeguarded at all costs, even if humans must die)
• there is absolutely no bias in the media (unless it’s conservative)
• opposing the teaching and endorsing of unrestricted sex to your kids is irresponsible parenting
• Charter-schools are bankrupting public-schools and lowering teaching standards (how do you make something that bad worse?)
• objecting to any part of the homosexual agenda is bigotry
• planes flown into the Twin Towers and Pentagon were a Bush plot to distract us from his stolen election with an assist from Israel because Bush was too dumb to pull it off on his own
• putting healthcare in the hands of government will result in better, less costly care with greater access
• socialism is inherently superior to capitalism; especially when it comes to making us wealthy
• all religions teach basically the same things and are, therefore, morally equivalent
• proper tire inflation will eliminate our need for more oil
• paying carbon-taxes is an effective means of halting global warming
• Affirmative Action works or can be made to work if we just give it a little more time
I’m not so sure (as you seem to be) we’ve ‘evolved’ all that much that we can look down our collective noses at those “pathetic” slavers.
Actually, you did make one point perhaps without realizing it; that, soon, all the people who sat at the backs of buses will be dead. At that point, whether or not Affirmative Action worked will be less important than that its object is no more and its continuation indefensible. In that sense, giving it a ‘little more time’ (until those of my generation are gone) has some political value if no moral virtue. Want to make bets though some reason will be found to keep it going? I wouldn’t be surprised if it is still being milked 100-years from now at a time when ‘pure-white’ is a vanishing breed and the chance of finding a white/racist (because all whites are racists and all racists are white) is nil. Yet, the myth of the ‘Great White Racist’ endlessly riding the night sky in his hooded bed-sheet will endure to give us ‘hope’.
Master Bob(I'm sticking with that. I kind of like it. Sorry you thought it was a jab. I was really just trying to make light),
When did I critique anyone's grammar or spelling Bob?? Don't get me wrong, I might have. I just don't recall doing it. For the record, I really don't place a whole lot of value in what you think of me, be it based on my grammar or some more relevant factoid you managed to glean from our Internet discourse thus far. Likewise, I don't care whether or not you think you have a good grasp of the English language. If I did, I would have commented. Thanks for the spelling tips though. English isn't my first language, so sometimes I spell something wrong.
On to some of the less tasty meat of this whole affair…..
I didn't trash "people" I don't know. I TRASHED ONE PERSON that made what I consider a rather insidious side of him apparent. You can accuse me of getting him all wrong, but not of trashing the lot of you. I was critical of the rest of you because you did not use the article to launch some grandiose and meaningful discourse about racism. Instead, you did EXACTLY what I said. You were all like an airing of Rush Limbaugh. You patted each other on the back, cried in your milk about reparations that haven't been a serious part of the political dialogue in my entirety of my adult life at least, and generally were not critical of the article at all. Even you, the most vocal here, said nothing about your feelings regarding intent until your SECOND rebuttal to me. Did it not occur to you in your first rebuttal, or were you too busy high fiving??
You accused me of being juvenile and spewing bile because I unfairly made claims of racism that are baseless. I feel that they had a good root in reason and drew directly from the article and the author's expression. We disagree about that. You say that I had all of you in my crosshairs but almost everything you mention that is in anyway offensive here was directed specifically at Kerwick. HE wrote a piece of garbage. HE had what I consider thinly veiled bigotry. HE was ranting. HE was pathetic. All I said about the rest of you was the high five part. Was that sooooo bad Bob? If it was, I'm truly sorry.
Okay…now the issue….
I don't defend Affirmative Action. I feel that Affirmative Action is unfortunate, honestly. I don't spend much time criticizing it for two reasons: 1) There are WAY more important issues on the books for me. There has been since I was old enough to vote. 2) The part about the last black person who had to sit on the back of the bus. When that person is dead, then maybe it will be time for me to move the issue up to the front. Of course, that depends on what else is going on at the time. Affirmative Action just isn't all that important to me.
I also never said or meant to suggest that we 'need' charges of racism in discussions of race in order to make progress. That's another nice conservative thing. If you are against the war you are unpatriotic. If you aren't Pro-Life you must be pro-death. You want to put me in a one box or the other. I don't fit in either.
What I believe is that you CAN'T take accusations of racism out of the common political discourse. You never will, unless there ends up being just one race and I don't believe I will live that long. You are the one that thinks we need to go somewhere.
I think time has already made things a lot better for minorities. I think a black president is proof of that. My boss at work is black, and he has to be several levels of pay above the average American. Minorities as a whole, and blacks in particular, have progressed.
That said, I have been privy to so many conversations of an inappropriate nature with customers and clients, other managers, family members, political figures, police officers, and random people on the street in my life, that I know the basic pieces of racial prejudice are still alive and strong in many. I don't think America is full of Hitlers, and I don't believe there are a lot of evil racist types out there, but I still think that believing as they do is wrong. It's wrong when it gets people killed, its wrong when it gets people government checks, its wrong when it causes quotas or elderly grandmother's to support them against there better judgement….its just wrong. I don't compromise on what I believe is right or wrong Bob. I don't advocate government coming in and telling people what to believe(I don't support anti-hate laws, etc.), but I feel just fine about calling people on it.
So my roadmap, now that you ask, is to wait it out. Where do I want to be? I want to be in utopia like everyone else, but that won't happen. I think I'll settle for a country that doesn't freak out when people speak another language, doesn't call a problem solved when it isn't(good as things are, white people still have all the money. Ten times the average net worth for a white family vs. a black family.), and generally doesn't consider America to be a haven for Anglo-Saxons. This is, like it or not, a melting pot.
I don't believe we have or ever will have a color blind society. Such a thing has never existed. Even when children are small and playing together blissfully at the school yard, they still find differences to make fun of and eventually to hate. I believe its a part of us. We can't even stop making points on a liberal-conservative bend. We both have danced that one quite well.
On to your points:
1. Racism has distinct components, none of which can be dealt with the same way or applying one-size-fits-all solutions because they aren’t really dependent on each other (e.g., you can think someone racially inferior despite you have no animus toward them and makes you no threat to anyone – for example: I had a great-aunt descended from abolitionists who thought blacks inferior, but who saw that as reason to support Affirmative Action as her social-duty toward those ‘less fortunate’)
Ok, to me it looks like we are trying to describe the continuos in a discrete manner. But I'll take it…Being wrong though, Bob, is not bound up on how dangerous you are.
2. Prevailing societal consensus is that “racism” is both pervasive and immoral; the author only explores the latter
Fine. I disagree that racism is pervasive, for the record. Not because I think most people have shed there errant ideologies(though probably many have), but because I don't think we have a genocidal mania on our hands. Its not an 'A' priority. Anyways……
3. The ‘treatable’ component of racism has to do with behaviors as:
a. there are no means to accurately and unequivocally assign moral value to attitudes
Ok…you can't assign the scalar portion, but the direction isn't so hard. Feeling that one person is inferior to another because of race is immoral. I don't know just how immoral it is, but the smarter you are, the worse I think the attitude is to have.
b. moral value is outcome-dependent
Ridiculous. Moral value depends on outcome, sure, but not exclusively. To want to kill someone is wrong. Killing them is more wronger, or whatever. But both are wrong. By that I mean that if I want to kill you, but I don't because the consequences are not acceptable to me, how much better am I really than the person who would do it regardless of the consequences? You have to do the right thing because you believe its right, not because you fear the consequences of doing the wrong thing.
4. attempts to equate racism with hatred involves an irresolvable moral dilemma
No it doesn't. Most of the time they are related. Its the nature of the beast.
5. invalid to defend racial-hatred as a basis for legitimizing charges of “racism” (I’d say he failed to convince on this one, either that or he lost me and needs to take another run at it); saying the defender marginalizes because he’s equating two separate things seems overly semantic as racial-hatred does adequately describe a recognizable and documented problem (one I’ve experienced firsthand) though often difficult to pin down
We are on roughly the same page here. I agree…hard to pin down, but it has meat. There is something there. I don't know how we could write a law to solve the "proble", but I wouldn't propose we do that even if we could.
6. the charge of ‘racial-discrimination’ is generally invalid because of unequal (i.e., hypocritical) treatment
What? I could agree that there are plenty of racial charges that invalid because its an easy play for someone in trouble. I don't get the rest of it. But all the invalid charges in the world don't make a difference to me. The valid ones are just as insidious either way. I consider the invalid ones a cost of the time and age of our culture. I imagine they will dwindle over time.
7. racism has become institutionalized; i.e., relies on the concept of ‘racist institutions’ (i.e., even if whites cease being racist, their racist-institutions [government, clubs, organizations, banks, colleges, beauty pageants, &c] live on, keeping blacks in virtual thralldom)
There is some truth to this. The problem is that it isn't color that divides us, but class. At times I feel that the constraints of American society are such that they impose an informal but pervasive caste system on us. The brilliant will always rise to the top. The foolish will grovel for bread. The rest of us live much as our parents did before us. Our social system encourages this without outright demanding it. Blacks, being at the bottom of our economic ladder are more often victimized by these institutions than whites. Again, I don't know of an easy solution. I can tell you that my boss is successful despite being black..but his mother had a good job and passed on those values to him. How do we change the values of a generation of people born without watching the neighborhood leave for work each morning? I don't know.
I would add one more item to #3 above; that punishing or controlling ‘wrong-thinking’ is destructive of freedom and, therefore, even more wrong than allowing some racist-thinking to persist. There is just so far you can go ‘educating’ people out of a prejudice and must trust in the majority and truth will suffice to keep a racist minority in check. The only way to quash all ‘bad’ thoughts is either to brainwash everyone (good & not so good alike) with daily refreshers to keep us that way and lock up the rest, or just lobotomize everyone. Neither seems to me a satisfactory solution.
I have to comment on this. You just said one of the points you gleaned from the article was that you cannot quantify morality. So how can you decide that punishing wrong thinking is more wrong than allowing some racist thinking to persist? Also, I have no intention of punishing wrong thinking with government as my ally. I prefer to attack it where I see it. The government is not needed.
…..
You don't get the Ptolemy thing? Okay. Here goes….
Hitler and Ptolemy cannot be equated. One was a philospher and the other a scientist. Ptolemy formulated a theory based on his observation and ended up wrong. You could say that Hitler did the same, but you would only be addressing his assertion that Jews were inferior based on whatever science of his you would be quoting. He is morally judged because he did not have a scientific basis for his belief. He had a political motivation for the spread of it. So we have science, which has no moral value, and philosophy, which can have a moral value. There is no correlation, in my view, between Ptolemy and Hitler.
Attitudes do matter. You aren't ever far removed from what you really feel Bob. You are guilty JUST for feeling that Jews are sub-human. Do I think you'll burn in hell? No idea. Guess that depends on the whole picture. But I'll call you on it every time because I think its wrong. Period. I can understand why you believe that actions matter more than beliefs, but I feel the other way. I think it matters far more why we do what we do than what we do.
So far we have actually touched on some points. But here comes your conservative soap box. So I'll play with that too because I'm sick, can't sleep, and frankly enjoy it a little.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
• there is overwhelming agreement among climate-scientist that anthropogenic global warming is real and a catastrophic threat; and are, therefore, justified in plundering us and ruining us economically
There is consensus. Hate to break it to you. We can start a separate argument about that if you want. The plundering and economic ruin part is silly though. I don't support that. You know what one of the best paying jobs I have had was? I worked for an environmental company as an engineer. We built pollution abatement equipment. We all made a good living wage. See, you think forcing companies to get clean and green is economically bad, but done in reasonable steps, it just keeps the money moving Bob. Its only bad if you get crazy fast with it, or you hold your workforce to one standard, then quietly let the rest of the world start building everything and importing it without making them work to the same standard. See where I'm going?
• cutting taxes is stealing from the poor
Never heard that one. Cutting taxes with spiraling debt is stupid though. I would raise them on the top brackets and make some serious budget cuts once the recession ends to get things back under control.
• paying taxes is patriotic
No one really believes that. That was a cut by the VP in response to the last few years of accusations that those of us who oppose the war are not patriotic.
• patriotism is fascist
Never heard that one. But fascism does require ardent nationlism. I love my country, but I am willing to see its faults. I am willing to attack the problems in the voting booth, the coffee house, the classroom, city hall, or on the Internet. I don't appreciate it when people who hear what I have to say about what is wrong with this country tell me to go to another country though. That is just plain rude.
• we can spend our way out of recessions, but only if government does it
The only way you EVER get out of recession is to spend. Right now the government has to do some of that spending because no one else has the money and is willing to play. If scum bag companies like First Energy and At&t would have avoided using this recession as an excuse to lay off when they really didn't need to, and instead all got together and invested some money to end the recession, it would have been just as good or better. But we can't make companies do things for the common good. We don't even want them to make it a point to keep our planet healthy right?
For my part, I would have liked to get the government to stimulate SOLELY with public works and basic research projects; things the government tends to do anyways. That way when things improve we can cut back government spending commensurately and maybe pay down some debt. But we have to appease the idiots who still think tax cuts stimulate growth. How does cutting taxes make someone hire? I owned a pizza shop. There was only one reason I hired: I had more work. I manage a large retail store now. I am in the middle of hiring. You know why? We have more work than we can get done with the staffing we have now.
• communism never killed anyone
Agreed. Stalin did though. He was a real bastard wasn't he?
• Senator McCarthy was responsible for creating the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and blacklisting
Not even interesting enough to debate.
• the Red Scare was totally trumped up by a bunch of fascists out to grab power
Totally trumped up? No…but probably propogated a long longer than it needed to be because many people made a lot of money off of the fear.
• restricting gun-ownership makes us safer
No. This is like saying that communism kills people. The wierd thing is that if you make guns illegal, law abiding people will turn them in, but criminals will still have them. Must be that pesky criminal thing. I'm guessing we are on the same page here.
• a nine-month old fetus is not a person, has no right to live, and feels no pain when snuffed out at the moment of birth (same person generally believes venomous Amazonian tree frogs have to be safeguarded at all costs, even if humans must die)
Again Bob, there is no pro-death party. Abortions should never happen. But making them illegal won't help stop them anymore than making guns illegal will help stop murder by hand gun. The only way to stop abortions is to improve the education and quality of life of all our people. The better off we all are, the less bad things like this will happen. The answer is not more laws and illegality. We can compromise on partial birth abortions though. There is no reason for their existence.
• there is absolutely no bias in the media (unless it’s conservative)
The media is definitely biased. Some of it is conservative, some is liberal. Depends on the day and the channel or periodical really. What's your real point?
• opposing the teaching and endorsing of unrestricted sex to your kids is irresponsible parenting
Opposing sex education is pretty irresponsible. So is endorsing sexual promiscuity. But I have to remind you that telling kids not to do it isn't going to work. Also, sex ed has nothing to do with teaching children how to have sex or that sex should or shouldn't be had. Its about anatomy and physiology, maturity as it pertains to puberty, and awareness of birth control and STD's.
• Charter-schools are bankrupting public-schools and lowering teaching standards (how do you make something that bad worse?)
Charter schools are a joke. We should nationlize education. Private schools should exist, but be completely private. I'm fine with that. But the cost to teach a student would go down dramatically if it were nationalized. Having more buildings, principals, payroll services, electric bills, etc. is ALWAYS more expensive than having less.
• objecting to any part of the homosexual agenda is bigotry
What is the homosexual agenda Bob? I think they pretty much just want you to stop beating them when you see them out and they probably wouldn't mind getting married. I say let them. I don't care what anyone else does. Just don't ever force a church to marry gay people and we are okay by me. Marriage, because of the way people are, is not a religious institution any more but a legal one. All the other value it has comes from you. Gay marriages can't make your marriage mean less.
• planes flown into the Twin Towers and Pentagon were a Bush plot to distract us from his stolen election with an assist from Israel because Bush was too dumb to pull it off on his own
That's just silly. Everyone knows Cheney was the brains behind 9/11!! Kidding. Come on Bob, there are no educated people that really believe Bush masterminded 9/11. I do believe we could have prevented it. But it happened. Let the dead rest in piece.
• putting healthcare in the hands of government will result in better, less costly care with greater access
No. It will cost less(Medicare costs 11% less per participant than an average health care plan) per person, but the important thing is that getting sick shouldn't bankrupt you. Access to doctors and medicine should not be restricted by wealth. Socializing insurance is a moral imperative. There is no advantage to competition among insurance companies. Cutting costs for them amounts to reducing coverage and violating the rights of patients. I don't support socializing health care itself though, just the insurance companies. Incidentally, retiree health care is also crippling our automotive industry.
• socialism is inherently superior to capitalism; especially when it comes to making us wealthy
Never heard that one either. Our ecomony is mixed. That won't change. Pure capitalism did not work. Pure socialism wouldn't work either. Somethings make sense to solve as a society, and some make sense to be left at home. Example: Education is something that we all need. Healthcare is something that we all need. Those are government issues. Gay sex is a moral issue, so it should be decided at home.
• all religions teach basically the same things and are, therefore, morally equivalent
I doubt they all teach the same thing, but the believers all think they are right despite having differing views on what right is. What I glean from this is that there is no cosmic right and wrong. What I believe religiously has a lot more to do with where and when I was born than anything else. So if we are conditioned through parental teaching to believe something without question, to take it on faith, how can we be so sure its right? I question everything.
• proper tire inflation will eliminate our need for more oil
It would help. A better course of action would be to forgoe the tax cuts in the stimulus bill and spend that money developing a new fuel and deploying the needed infrastructure. That would really stop the need to import oil and let us move on in peace.
• paying carbon-taxes is an effective means of halting global warming
It won't halt global warming but its not much of an issue to me. I would rather tell the world that if they want to import goods into our country they have to meet both our living wage standards and our environmental rules or be charged a tariff for their failure. This should keep American industry competitive and make the rest of the world do its part.
• Affirmative Action works or can be made to work if we just give it a little more time
I don't know if Affirmative Action works. I think it probably helped a little. At least there were no black people in civil service and now there are. The thing about this point though is no one knows if it worked or how well. So you aren't exactly being intellectually honest here. It could go one of two ways: 1) It did nothing. That means few people got a job due to it, or else lost those jobs quickly and so did not elevate socially. In this case, it cost nothing either. Not very many white people were without jobs as a result of it or more blacks would be working a result of it. 2) It does/is working and many blacks are working and have elevated social status because of it. Accordingly many whites do not have jobs because of it. Either way, I think its fairly unimportant.
You said:
I’m not so sure (as you seem to be) we’ve ‘evolved’ all that much that we can look down our collective noses at those “pathetic” slavers.
I am sure. I look down on them. Many of them, I believe, did no better. Beating a man and sleeping with his wife at your whim are horrible things. Did you know that most African Americans have some European ancestry, so far spread was the rape (or even the willing sex). Low enough to own like animals, but good enough to impregnate. Yeah, I look down. Sorry.
Anyways,
I hope we cleared one or two things up here.
Take Care,
Mike
Bob,
Right after writing all that I happened to be watching TV and saw the famous Davinci's Pizza affair that happened in Akron OH some years back. Where the black man beat a white man half to death at the behest of his lovely women(who he later also beat, after getting out of jail for beating the white man). Do you remember hearing about it? Google for it Bob, and watch the video and such. Then let me know what you think about it. I believe it sums up todays race relations problems.
Perhaps, racism as used (and misused) in the common parlance is best understood as racial prejudice. I would contend that racial prejudice is probably pervasive and certainly immoral. With thanks to the online version of the American Heritage dictionary, 'racism' (or racial prejudice) could be expanded as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts" due to "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability".
To my way of thinking, such a clarified definition is both specific enough to be accurate and broad enough to account for such disparate racist phenomena as slavery, lynching, segregation and even subtle hiring disparities.
To me the problem isn't that we can't accurately define racism. The problem is that we can't always accurately correlate it with a specific action (even if and when we strongly suspect it).
That disparity between perceptions and reality is a boon to race hucksters who wish to see racism everywhere (and proceed to invent novel 'proofs' of its existence). We should not tolerate the mere charge of 'racist' to be a conviction (anymore than we should permit the mere charge of 'rapist' to be a conviction). We should not yield to the race hucksters.
But simultaneously, we should not give them extra ammunition by an ultimately indefensible claim that racism is a meaningless term.
It is NOT meaningless.
Rather it is far too often allowed to be used without any need to reference its true meaning.
We should not stand for its misuse.
We should increasingly marginalize anyone making an unsubstantiated claim of racism.
By the way, I believe that an UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF RACISM was made by the poster just above me (when he originally insinuated that the lead essay was racist and/or "THINLY VEILED BIGOTRY").