Is “Race Traitor” Racist? Depends on Who Says It
| August 9th, 2005In an earlier thread, trying to make the case that liberals are racist, Niels Jackson wrote:
If you think that liberals don’t use the term “race traitor,” you haven’t looked very hard. Try reading up on what some liberals say about Clarence Thomas. For example, Manning Marable explicitly says that Thomas (and other conservative blacks) are race traitors. So does a book edited by two Georgetown professors. Use Google, and you’ll find plenty more references. (Such as this Margaret Cho article about none other than Michelle Malkin, or this article about Condi Rice.)
David of the admirable blog The Debate Link (which currently has a good post, quoting an anonymous comment-writer, criticizing left-wing racism) seemed to endorse Niels’ links, as well.
I have to wonder if Niels and David even read the links in question. For instance, as the Daily Howler link Niels provided explained, the book edited by two Georgetown professors (Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment) didn’t call Thomas or anyone else a “race traitor”; it objected to that sort of attack. As the Daily Howler - again, in the link Niels himself provided - points out, a Lexis-Nexis search found only one example of Thomas being called a “race traitor” in any mainstream news outlet; clearly, the term was not commonly used.
Although it’s true that Margaret Cho used the term “race traitor,” in context she used it ironically; her point is that it’s a positive thing that Asians and people of color are free to be right-wingers nowadays, even though she finds Malkin’s view odious. Cho writes:
I feel kind of proud, that racial politics have progressed to the point where we can have a young Asian American woman who doesn’t have to live within the constraints of a minority identity, which presumes liberal bias just by nature of the fact that if you are oppressed by the majority, you would want to place yourself against the majority.
Cho’s essay, along with other links Niels provided, shows that what’s going on is more subtle than right-wingers admit. There are liberals who call right-wing blacks “race traitors,” but the liberals in question are disproportionately people of color. More specifically (although Cho is an exception), they’re usually Black. “Race traitor” is not the typical vocabulary used by liberals when talking about non-white conservatives; but it’s sometimes part of the vocabulary used by Blacks when having debates that take place within the Black community.
I don’t find Blacks using the term “race traitor” objectionable the way I’d find the same term used by whites (liberal or not) objectionable. It’s a little like when Chris Rock uses the word “nigger.” I don’t think it’s acceptable for whites to say “nigger,” by and large. But at the same time, it’s not my place, as a white guy, to police the language Blacks use when having debates about Black identity politics within the Black community. That’s none of my business.
Returning to the point, as far as I can tell, Black lefties are the only lefties to use the term “race traitor” with any regularity. It’s ridiculous for conservatives to imply that this is proof of widespread racism among lefties.
Context - that is, what race the speaker is - does matter. It’s clear that when blacks use the word “nigger” or its derivatives, they’re not using it in the anti-black way it’s typically been used by white racists. Similarly, the analogy between right-wing racists who have used “race traitor” (for whites who favored civil rights), and anti-racist Blacks who use the same term, doesn’t hold much water. Read this Manning Marable essay Niels linked to, for example:
This conservative wing of the black middle class during the 1980s and 1990s, in effect, committed “racial suicide,” in the sense that it disavowed any sense of obligation, or “linked fates,” with what happens to the masses of disadvantaged African Americans. There is no sense of personal responsibility or accountability to a political project that is race-based. They wish to be judged as “individuals,” not as part of the larger “black community.” They explicitly reject any notions of the concept that their career advancement was largely a product of a mass, democratic movement to challenge structural racism. So in this limited sense, the reactionary wing of the black political elite has stopped being “black” in terms of its historical function as an oppositional group against racism. They are essentially “race traitors”: dedicated to the destruction of all racial categories, or even for some the collection of data indicating racial discrimination; critical of the liberal integrationist establishment; and enthusiastic boosters of capitalism as we know it.
Would anyone seriously argue that this is no different from a KKK rant?
The bottom line is, blacks who argue about if Clarence Thomas is a “race traitor” are making an argument about solidarity, and trying to hold the line against racism. It’s not our place, as whites against racism, to tell Blacks what language they should or shouldn’t use; whether or not I like the term “race traitor,” in this context, is irrelevant. In contrast, whites who complain about white “race traitors” are hoping to protect the racist status quo (or return to an even more racist past). To claim that the two uses of “race traitor” are equal is to ignore the substance of the two positions, and reduces anti-racism to a fuss about vocabulary. No, thank you.
August 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Amp, just to make sure I understand what you’re trying to say:
If a black person calls another black person a “race traitor,” people of other races have no right to criticize this, even if they think it’s offensive, because it’s about racial solidarity.
If a white person calls another white person a “race traitor,” everybody should criticize this and find it offensive, because it’s about protecting a racist status quo.
I think your post is pretty good as far as it goes, but you didn’t address the interracial aspect of the discussion on the other thread, which I inferred was primarily about white people labeling “atypical” minorities as “race traitors.” I would like to see your thoughts on that facet.
I find the phrase “race traitor” offensive, regardless of who is using it and why, and I don’t think criticizing its use in the black community should be a “black thing” only. White people aren’t the only racists in this country.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Racism only has real meaning when it can be used to oppress people. Yeah, that might sound harsh, and it may hurt some people’s feelings, but people (white people especially) need to get over it. Racism is part of a system. It includes economic oppression, limited social visibility, restricted opportunities, unfair treatment under the law and violent retrobution for those who act out against the system. A black person who calls white people ‘cracker’ may hurt your feelings, but it sure as hell isn’t racism. Prejudice maybe, but it won’t stop you from getting a job, going to school, shopping without harassment and a million other things that white people take for granted as their god-given rights.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
“If a black person calls another black person a “race traitor,” people of other races have no right to criticize this, even if they think it’s offensive, because it’s about racial solidarity.”
Lee,
Why would you personally be offended by this? Assuming you’re a white guy, what offense could a statement by an african-american about another african-american give you? Is it just offensive because it’s mean? I’m completely serious. I have no clue why non-blacks would have a stake in that scenario.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
At the risk of seeming overly-fussy about wording, Lee, I’d never say that people of other races have no “right” to criticize. Everyone has a “right” to criticize - it’s in the first amendment.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s a good idea for whites who are anti-racist to spend their time trying to find racism in the way that Blacks talk to other Blacks about race and racism. There are lots of more significant sorts of racism for Whites to worry about. If a bunch of black activists are talking among themselves about racism, what’s the best anti-racist use of my time - to try and police how they’re talking (which takes up not only my time but also theirs), or to editorialize against something like the racial pay gap?
You wrote:
If it were a case of a white liberal calling Clarence Thomas a “race traitor,” I’d object to that, yes. But I don’t think that’s nearly as common as some conservatives have implied.
Yes, but their racism - which is by far the most thoroughly institutionalized - is the racism that does the most harm, and therefore matters most.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
IME, whites use the term, “race traitor” FTMP and its more explicit and offensive counterpart, against other whites. I don’t think of the individuals in these cases conservative alone, because a lot of conservatives don’t say these things, it’s more of an expression of racism by some individuals or groups of conservatives in this context.
I’ve been called both often enough, to have figured that part of it out, on top of the historic context from that vantage point as a White woman who has been viewed as betraying the White race(at least locally) on more than one occasion. Usually, it is yelled out in passing like from a speeding car, or by people who don’t stick around long enough to have a discussion about it. It’s a word yelled in anger, by cowards, in this context, as part of the agenda of promoting the status quo of white supremacism in our society.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard “race traitor” used by someone who isn’t White, either against a person of color or more commonly, against a White person. Not to say it hasn’t been used certainly, but other words with similar meanings are used more often here. I’ve heard liberal Whites use it against conservatives who are people of color(i.e. Thomas, Rice or a more regional favorite, Ward Connally) though they more often use “Uncle Tom”(which I also believe isn’t right). Though conservatives are guilty when it comes to branding liberal Black or Latino leaders or commentators/columnists as such, as well, even while they complain about liberals doing like.
To me, it just doesn’t feel appropriate to use those terms and others. It’s hard to explain it more than that on an intellectual level. I just don’t do it. And there’s no reason to criticize it. Whites have enough to do working when it comes to dealing with racism and white supremacy in our ranks, rather than even try to define what is and what isn’t in another racial group(as if it is somehow our god-given right to do so as has been said here)
(doesn’t mean I don’t think Connally b/c of 209 and his recent attempt to ban recording racial statistics by governmental agencies, in particular is a twit though. )
“Uncle Tom” is more commonly used, than “race traitor” here. Or “house slave”. I’ve heard both a lot in discussion but don’t use either. It’s like stealing from someone else’s venicular. There’s context to what those words mean that I’m not privy to, so it’s not my place to respond. Not every situation warrants a response.
As far as the N-word, it is never appropriate imo, to call a Black person that word under any circumstance. Just because it’s used often among African-Americans does not change that no matter how much Whites think it should be used by themselves. There’s a lot of difference of opinion to say the least, on its usage among African-Americans. For example, the couple I work with, who are older(around 60) loathe the word and wouldn’t tolerate its usage by family members or other people if it were used in their presense or they knew about it. Then in the neighborhood, there’s young men who use it in conversation with each other all the time. I think age, and what generation you lived and grew up in might play a role in its usage.
It’s an ugly word, with an ugly history, and it’s hard to hear it, and even write it down. The newspaper debated whether to use it in a headline once for a story(about a county-hired security guard who called protesters, including children the slur several times). It was the right call to use it, everyone agreed, though many people said even reading the word in that context, stung.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Just for the record, Ampersand, I wasn’t “trying to make the case that liberals are racist.” That is an incredible overstatement. I was simply rebutting the claim (made by another commenter) that no liberals ever use the term “race traitor.”
Sorry for misreading the reference to the Georgetown professors’ book. As they themselvse say:
Consider the record clarified: When it comes to terms like “race traitor,” “house Negro,” and similar pejoratives, those sorts of terms were actually used by the likes of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Spike Lee, and Emerge magazine. Alright, then.
Ampersand said: It’s not our place, as whites against racism, to tell Blacks what language they should or shouldn’t use; whether or not I like the term “race traitor,” in this context, is irrelevant.
Huh? Who says it’s “not our place” to say (if we believe this to be the case) that when a black person is accused of being a “race traitor,” he has been slurred with mean-spirited and racist language? Sure, Manning Marable isn’t the equivalent of the KKK. That’s a no-brainer. But it also seems to be a no-brainer that it is extremely intolerant (at the least) to try to denigrate other people’s opinions in such language.
People can legitimately differ about how best to address racism. It is simply foolish to accuse Clarence Thomas — who grew up in a segregated Georgia town — of not understanding racism. But he thinks, in good faith, that if the government is going to address racism, one important factor is that the government should itself treat all people equally, without applying different standards for jobs or college admissions. Agree or disagree with that idea, it isn’t crazy. In fact, it was simply the standard liberal belief in the 1960s and 1970s — treat people equally.
Now folks like Marable don’t believe in treating everyone equally; they believe that the history of racism is so devastating that more is needed to bring black people up to a position of equality. This isn’t a crazy position either.
But why should Marable and his ilk be free from criticism when they accuse Thomas of being a “race traitor” for the sole purpose of demonizing Thomas’s opinions?
In other words, why can’t I, as a white right-leaning person, say, “I like Clarence Thomas, and I appreciate his views and his experiences, and how dare someone else try to accuse him of not really being ‘black’”? I’m not supposed to be able to defend fellow conservatives from race-based attacks? How’s that?
Also, a more minor point, but Marable is ridiculously wrong in saying that Thomas is “dedicated to the destruction of all racial categories,” or “critical of the liberal integrationist establishment.” That first part isn’t true: Thomas is unique for the way that he writes with a deep appreciation for historically black colleges, for example, or for the passion that he brought to his opinion in the Virginia cross-burning case. Moreover, being “critical of the liberal integrationist establishment” is a reflection of the appreciation that Thomas has for black institutions.
Indeed, it is interesting to compare Thomas’s opinions linked above with the writings of Black Power advocates (I’m thinking of Stokely Carmichael here). Thomas was part of the Black Power movement for a while as a college student, and Carmichael’s writings reflect the same sort of resentment towards the unspoken notion that black institutions are by definition inferior (as if black people cannot learn unless surrounded by whites). In any event, it is ludicrous to claim that “Black Power” sentiments mean that a black person is a “race traitor.”
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Why would you personally be offended by this? Assuming you’re a white guy, what offense could a statement by an african-american about another african-american give you?
Maybe because racism is offensive no matter who it happens to? (Leaving aside the question of whether this usage of ‘race traitor’ is actually racist.)
Same questions, different group:
Why should men be personally offended when a woman attacks another woman using sexist rhetoric? What stake do they have in it? And when misogyny perpetrated by men is such a bigger problem, aren’t they just wasting energy that could be better spent elsewhere?
This comment was written by Kate.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Of course, there’s also a pretty vibrant anti-racism practice of whites using “Race Traitor” to praise white activism against white supremacy. The best known would have to be the journal “Race Traitor” started by David Roediger, author of the book “The Wages of Whiteness”. Anti-racism or anti-sexist liberals might demur, since part of our argument is that racism or sexism damages the advantaged group (Amp makes this point often and well about male supremacy). But it still effectively conveys that a lot of work for justice involves surrendering privileges that are not only dear but constitute one’s deepest identity.
This comment was written by Josh.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
J-ha, nice way of separating out the issues. I’m behind you on this. Other than that, nothing to add.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Why do people say that Clarence Thomas isn’t really black? Well, the position that to fight racism, we need to do nothing is a pretty white pleasing position, isn’t it? I hate cross burning and like HBCUs as much as the next person, but that’s not a coherent position against institutionalized racism. The thing is that blackness is a defined position, unlike whiteness. And for many people, blackness includes a position against institutionalized racism even if it might make whites uncomfortable, and also, remembering where you come from(as my mom says- Thomas benefited from AA, but now he doesn’t want anyone else to). Respect for other blacks is conveyed in actions, not words. He can say what he likes, but his loyalties are shown by his actions, and his actions haven’t been on our side. It’s on those grounds that his blackness is challenged. He can do what he likes, but others will critcize him.
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
No, “blackness” is not a “defined position.” That is not true in any conceivable sense. That’s the problem with both black and white racists: They assume that if they know someone’s skin color, they know everything there is to know about that person.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Thomas benefited from AA, but now he doesn’t want anyone else to.
That’s not exactly true: The only cases that have reached the Supreme Court during Thomas’s tenure have involved state governments that practice affirmative action. With state governments, Thomas holds them to a high standard of treating everybody equally. But that doesn’t mean that Thomas “doesn’t want anyone else” to have affirmative action. I don’t believe there has been any case whatsoever where Thomas said that private entities (such as General Motors, Harvard, etc., etc.) are forbidden from practicing affirmative action.
Plus, it’s very ironic that liberals criticize Thomas for being against affirmative action: The very reason that he always cites for being against state-government affirmative action is that it undermines black people’s success. And the way that this happens is that people look at a black person in a high position with suspicion: “Do you really deserve to be there, or did some white person give you 200 extra points on the SAT?” Etc., etc. The irony is this: Countless times, liberals have made this very accusation against Thomas being on the Supreme Court. That is, many liberals have said, “Thomas wasn’t really qualified for the Supreme Court; he was just put there because he was black.” I can’t even count how many times I’ve seen that accusation in print.
What a rich irony: These liberals are unwittingly doing their very best to confirm Thomas’s opinion of affirmative action, i.e., that it causes people to yell and whine about a successful black person supposedly being unqualified. Based on his own experience, Thomas takes the view: “Look, we black people are strong and noble, and we can succeed without handouts from whitey.” (Using the vernacular there, but that’s the whole gist of his opinion in the Michigan affirmative action case.)
That’s not an “anti-black” position. Just isn’t.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Blackness is not just a skin color- we in America, have developed a culture to help us through oppression, just as whites have a culture, in which words are exaulted over actions; this causes some confusion. His advancement was due to conservatives wanting to have a black face to advance anti black ideas. This involves a different value system than you are used to, so listen carefully. Actions and their results are what are being used to judge Thomas. We don’t care about what he says, we care about what he does. White people’s attitudes are their own problems, they would believe bad thihgs about blacks no matter what; why is he catering to their bigotry, instead of helping his own people? Blacks being able to be admitted to the gates of oppurtunity would show the greatness of black people better than being locked out, for any reason.
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Niels, I’m trying my hardest not to take offense at what you’re saying, but guess what- I’m failing miserably.
Niels: “No, “blackness” is not a “defined position.” That is not true in any conceivable sense. That’s the problem with both black and white racists: They assume that if they know someone’s skin color, they know everything there is to know about that person.”
I’m sorry, but do you know what you’re talking about? Speaking as a BLACK PERSON, blackness is a defined position. It’s been defined by the historic use of racism by white people to oppress African-Americans and to place them in positions of inferiority and lesser privilege. Blackness is a state of being, true, but it is also viewed by BLACK PEOPLE as a position in society. My blackness puts shapes and defines my social mobility. This may be something that you as a white man (?) fail to see because of your PRIVELAGE.
And I believe J-Ha made it clear- black people cannot be racist. In order to be racist, you have to be in a position of power to use your beliefs to oppress another group of people. In other words, a target group CANNOT be racist. Prejudiced as all hell, yes. But NOT racist. So please stop using the term “black racist” because its just wrong.
(sorry for all the caps. I’m not yelling- I simply can’t figure out how to bold individual words)
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
And as for the Thomas… By opposing Affirmative Action, Thomas is essentially stating that he doesn’t want any other black people to benefit from AA. Affirmative Action is twisted by conservatives and portrayed as a program that lets under qualified minorities get ahead of more qualified white people. In reality, affirmative action is a program that gives qualified minorities an equal chance to compete in society that doesn’t want them to. By opposing the AA, and by accepting and disseminating the conservative’s twisted perception of AA, Thomas is betraying the black community. Yes, there are some problems with AA; If Thomas wanted to address those, all he had to say was, “well, there are some issues with AA that need to be worked out, but it still has an important purpose”. I would have understood that. But instead he chose to renounce AA as a whole, act as if the world is equal so we should all be colorblind, and act as if black and white people can now prance hand in hand in a field of lilies. So you know what, I do consider Thomas to be a “race traitor” (although I prefer to describe it as betraying the black community). And in some ways I would also list Bill Cosby and Condoleeza Rice as betrayers of the black community.
As a black woman, I expect members of my community who succeed to such high profile positions to either advocate for black people and give back to their communities OR to just not do anything to screw it up for everyone else. Thomas has decided since he’s been on the bench that all of a sudden he doesn’t have a significant investment in the black community. My reaction- fine. Just don’t be surprised when the African-American community rejects you.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Sydney: I think we’re not understanding each other here.
You say “blackness” is a “defined position,” with the word “position” meaning something like “a place in society,” or “the way that society treats me.” Obviously, “blackness” affects someone’s “position” in society. No doubt about that.
But the way that Shannon was using the word “position” was to mean “belief” or “attitude.” She spoke of “a position against institutionalized racism,” for example. So when she said that “blackness” is a “defined position,” that means that people who are “black” are all supposed to have a “defined” belief about the world. And — what a miracle! — the way that all black people are supposed to think is exactly in agreement with Shannon. What a coincidence.
This is what I disagreed with. Call it “black racism” or “black prejudice,” whatever you like, but it is demeaning and insulting to believe that all black people have to agree with you in order for them to be “really black.” (I happen to think that “racist” is a better word. “Prejudice” literally means “pre-judging” someone. Shannon isn’t really prejudging anyone, but she is treating them as if their beliefs should be determined by race. Thus, “racism” is a better word.)
Shannon: You disagree with Thomas. Fine. But don’t pretend that he arrived at his beliefs from being “anti-black” or “not a real black” or any such nonsense. He arrived at his beliefs precisely because of his blackness (and as I said, you can trace his beliefs all the way back to the Black Power movement of the early 1970s).
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
as far as I can tell, Black lefties are the only lefties to use the term “race traitor” with any regularity.
Not quite. White lefties of the 1960s generation use it on occasion, about themselves. Seen this.
This comment was written by Fielder's Choice.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Shannon:
You keep saying, “Actions and their results are what are being used to judge Thomas. We don’t care about what he says, we care about what he does. ”
This makes no sense. The main way that Thomas affects the world is by “what he says” in his opinions. “What he says” is exactly “what he does” as a judge. They are the same thing.
If you’re trying to make a remark about how Thomas behaves in his personal life, you might be surprised to know the truth. According to one article, Thomas “meets regularly with a group of young drug addicts and with fifth-graders in an after-school program in Staunton, Va.” As another article puts it, “Thomas has developed life-changing one-on-one mentoring relationships with Washington-area schoolchildren.”
You might also be surprised to read more of Thomas’s actual opinions:
From United States v. Fordice (a segregation case):
From Chicago v. Morales (a case about a gang loitering ordinance):
From Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (the school choice case):
And finally, from Kelo v. New London (the recent eminent domain case):
This is someone who doesn’t care about black people? Please.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Sydney:
This is an absolutely bizarre position, but lets roll with it anyway. Does that mean poor whites can’t be racist since they obviously don’t hold any power to oppress a group of people? Can the white janitor working at the rainbow coalition office building be racist toward Jesse Jackson? Who has more power over the other? Who do you think will have more privilege and opportunity though out their lives the janitor’s son or Cynthia Tucker’s? Can Asians be racist (Michelle Malkin)?
The expectance that all blacks have to think same way on a list of issues seems like an incredibly racist idea. Do you think Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Janice Brown (as prominent black conservatives) are too dumb to realize they batting for the wrong team or that they have been tricked? It certainly couldn’t be that they, like other intelligent people, have thought carefully about certain issues and simply disagree with their assigned “black positions” and with the liberal illuminati.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Niels - links, please. It’s a pain to have to scroll through all that text.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Syd - Thomas provides a classic example of failing to send the elevator back down. Which makes sense, since he’s a conservative. I’m not at all surprised that black people are angry with him. It’s the same reason I dislike Phyllis Schlafly a lot more than I dislike many equally conservative men. They’re both pissing all over the very policies that allowed them to get to where they are.
“Do you think Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Janice Brown (as prominent black conservatives) are too dumb to realize they batting for the wrong team or that they have been tricked”
As far as I can tell (excuse me if I’m misreading your position, Sydney) she’s not accusing them of being dumb, she’s accusing them of being selfish. There’s a big difference.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 5:11 am
The Internal Critics and Intersectionality
Ampersand’s latest post argues that there is a material difference between blacks accusing other blacks of being a “race traitor,” and whites doing it. Specifically, he argues
This comment was written by The Debate Link.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 6:17 am
I know you were trying for a reversal here, but I *would* have a problem with men calling women out on their misogyny. I would definitely wonder why they weren’t going after the root of the problem (other men) and I would probably suspect some sexist motives behind it. Paternalism may sometimes look like heroism, but it’s not.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Not to get too Humpty-Dumpty on people, but here is the definition of racism I was using when writing my original post (it’s from the Institute for Cultural Partnerships):
“Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual’s race. It can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices.”
Go visit this website.
I understand that others are using different definitions of racism when responding to my comment. Radfem in #5 and Kate in #7 expressed somewhat more clearly what I was trying to say.
As a white woman living in an area where the population is 80% black, I have heard my share of epithets directed against me, against members of my family, and against my neighbors. I have heard all combinations of white-on-white, white-on-black, white-on-Asian, black-on-black, black-on-Asian, black-on white, etc. name-calling, directed at family, acquaintances, local politicians, and national figures. My position still remains that “race traitor” is offensive, regardless of who is using it, and that you don’t have to be white to be racist (in the sense that I was using the term).
Amp, no, obviously we shouldn’t police or go out looking for what different groups are saying among themselves - why on earth should we do that? But if a conversation were taking place amongst people I knew in a social or business context where the term “race traitor” is used, I would try to let the speaker know my opinion at some point (when and where it would be most effective - could even be later, in private). Or as we have done in the Malkin case about a misogynist comment on a blog, we should post a dissenting comment or discuss it on our own blogs. The bigger problems deserve the bigger efforts, sure, but the incremental effect of small efforts should not be discounted, either.
As far as the impact of AA on minorities goes, I thought this article had some interesting things to say. Many of my friends and neighbors of color have commented at one time or another about having to prove they deserve to be where they are, which frequently passes me by because I’m white, but which I also have had to deal with on occasion as a woman in the sciences.
I agree it is selfish not to give a hand up to the ones who come after you, especially when you have benefited from assistance yourself, but isn’t it better to call someone selfish than a “race traitor”? As far as I can tell, most high-achieving people give back in some fashion, even if they keep it very quiet. Is “giving back” only valid if it appears on the cover of Ebony or gets profiled on PBS? I think Justice Thomas’ position on AA tends to reflect a conservative view that the most effective assistance comes from individuals, rather than the government. I don’t agree with his stance, because I think institutionalized discrimination needs an institutionalized solution in addition to individual effort, but I don’t think that it makes him anti-black. But then, I’m white, so what do I know?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:08 am
Niels - links, please. It’s a pain to have to scroll through all that text.
I gave links. But I also included several quotes, because those are lengthy judicial opinions, and I was interested only in those passages where Thomas was clearly concerned about the problems faced by poor blacks. Plus, if all I did was provide links, I highly doubt that anyone would read even one of those opinions.
Here are two helpful hints:
1. Click on the far-right-hand sidebar, in the space underneath the little cursor that shows where you are on the webpage. Every time you click, the page scrolls down by one screen length.
OR:
2. If you have a “page down” button on your keyboard (look on the right-hand side), that too will cause a webpage to scroll down by one screen length.
That way, you can easily save an extra second or so when looking over the comments here.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:28 am
I should make something clear before I go any further. I realized after talking to my gf last night that I did not make something very important clear. When I say that there is no such thing as a black racist, what I mean is that it is impossible for a black person to be racist to a white person. The power dynamic in the U.S. is such where a black person does not have the agency to implement racist power over a white person. This does not mean that minorities cannot be racist to each other. But for the purpose of this thread, I’m stating that black people cannot be “reverse racists” towards white people.
This being said, I would like to address Larry’s comment:
Larry: “This is an absolutely bizarre position, but lets roll with it anyway. Does that mean poor whites can’t be racist since they obviously don’t hold any power to oppress a group of people? Can the white janitor working at the rainbow coalition office building be racist toward Jesse Jackson? Who has more power over the other? Who do you think will have more privilege and opportunity though out their lives the janitor’s son or Cynthia Tucker’s? Can Asians be racist (Michelle Malkin)?”
Poor whites can be racist because they can use the privilege of being white to oppress minorities. You do not need to have money or high class status to act in an oppressive manner. By the simple virtue of being white, a person who chooses to can act in a racist fashion toward minorities. I’m and NOT saying that all white people are racist- I’m simply asserting that being white gives you a level of protection from persecution that other minority groups do not have. It also allows you to act in an oppressive manner if you so choose.
As I said above, Asians can be racist to other minority groups. However, I do not believe they can be racist against white people.
Larry: “The expectance that all blacks have to think same way on a list of issues seems like an incredibly racist idea. Do you think Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Janice Brown (as prominent black conservatives) are too dumb to realize they batting for the wrong team or that they have been tricked? It certainly couldn’t be that they, like other intelligent people, have thought carefully about certain issues and simply disagree with their assigned “black positions” and with the liberal illuminati.”
I never said that I think all black people should think the same way. My problem with Thomas, Sowell, and Brown isn’t that they’re conservatives. My mom is a die-hard republican. My problem is that they regularly take positions that HURT the black community. I do not think that they’re stupid- as much as I don’t like him, Thomas is not a stupid man. I do think, as Britgirl said, that they’re being incredibly selfish and that is what really angers me. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn’t be angry if someone advocated for policies that clearly hurt your family?
This comment was written by Sydney.And finally, please lose the condescending tone in your writing. You may not intend for it to come across this way, but you sound like you (presumably not a black man) are trying to tell me (a black woman) what is best for the black community.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:38 am
Amp, could you fix my links, please? I thought I had closed everything properly, but now it looks as if I didn’t. Sorry.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Niels: “But the way that Shannon was using the word “position” was to mean “belief” or “attitude.” She spoke of “a position against institutionalized racism,” for example. So when she said that “blackness” is a “defined position,” that means that people who are “black” are all supposed to have a “defined” belief about the world. And … what a miracle! … the way that all black people are supposed to think is exactly in agreement with Shannon. What a coincidence.”
Niels, I think we understand each other perfectly. I just disagree with you. I would say that black people do have a position against institutionalized racism- that it’s bad! I would also assert that because black people have a shared heritage of oppression, that people who actively work against overcoming that oppression (Thomas, Sowell) are looked at with disgust by the black community. No one is saying that they don’t have a right to their own opinion. No one is saying that they’re “less black”. What people (like me) are saying is that they are betraying the black community. If you work against the best interests of a community you are part of, then you will be viewed as a traitor whether you like it or not. Not all black people have to agree with me or with Shannon. But I would say that the majority would and for damm good reason.
And I also disagree with your definition of prejudice and with your belief that Shannon’s statement was prejudiced (or racist). Yes, she (he?) believes that race should play a role in a person’s beliefs. So do I. What exactly is wrong with that? The fact that I’m a woman plays a role in my beliefs. The fact that I’m bisexual plays a role in my beliefs. What I’m disturbed by is the notion that race shouldn’t play a role in one’s beliefs. Race (at least for minorities) is a key part of individual identity. To deny that is to deny a possible source of one’s personal motivations and behaviors. Am I racist or prejudiced for stating this? Hell, no. Do I believe that race should be a sole determinant in formulating beliefs? No, but I do believe that for black people it has to play some role because of the institutionalized racism that is rampant in this country.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:00 am
You may not intend for it to come across this way, but you sound like you (presumably not a black man) are trying to tell me (a black woman) what is best for the black community.
This wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll respond anyway.
So you’re a black woman. Why does that mean that you are infallible? Black people don’t all agree with each other — that’s the whole point of this discussion. Some black people think one way, some black people think another. What gives any of them the right to say, “I’m black; therefore I know what is best for the black community, and no one has any right to disagree with me.”
The same thing could happen in reverse, you know. Clarence Thomas could tell a rich and privileged white like Ted Kennedy, “Hey, I’m black, and I know what is best for the black community. How dare you try to tell me that affirmative action isn’t a demeaning thing, when the fact is that liberals like you are always using affirmative action as an excuse to bash me as unqualified. Since you’re white, you have no right to an opinion here.”
Or a white person could say the same to you. “If you’re not white, why are you opining on the problems of the white community? Leave it to us whites to figure out. And by the way, I’m white, so I know what is best for white people to do.”
All of those statements are ridiculous. And racist too. (I know, you want to define “racist” as an expression of power, but I don’t accept that definition.) Those statements are racist because they treat people not with respect and dignity, but with suspicion and hostility based on race.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Also, to expand on what Sydney said above, you have to look at racism as a SYSTEM. If you look at it all at an individual level, you can start to believe in “reverse racism” and all that tripe because you only see one story at a time “well, I’m poor and this rich black guy called me honkey trash. Isn’t that racism?” No, it isn’t. The system is set up to favor whites. It is also set up to favor rich over poor, man over woman, straight over gay. And it’s easy if you are poor, female, or gay to ignore the ways in which you enjoy other priviledge, but you can’t. And we can argue specifics all day. “What if I’m poor and gay, but white. Is a rich, straight black man still oppressed by me?” But that would be missing the point and it would only be a way of absolving people of responsibility. Because people want to believe that as long as they’re not at the very top of the pyramid (rich, white, straight, male) then they don’t have any hand in the oppression of people of color, women, gays, the poor. But that’s not the case. The fact that I benefit from being white doesn’t make mean I’m not oppressed for being gay, but I still benefit from being white and that is taking part in a racist system.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:15 am
What j-ha just wrote. What is so hard to understand about that?
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Lee, I think you need to understand that if I call Thomas a race traitor, I’m stating a fact. Much in the same way that I’m stating that the sky is blue. I know this seems callous, but IMO, if you act in a fashion which hurts the community of which you are a part, then you are betraying your community. If the community is grouped by race, then by that very definition you’re being a race traitor. The term has ugly connotations and frankly, I prefer not to use it simply because it doesn’t highlight the actual action so much as scream ‘insult’. This is why I’m far more likely to describe Thomas based on what I perceive his actions to be, rather than the term race traitor. I also think Thomas’s selfishness is what’s causing him to betray the black community. Selfish may be a nicer description, but it doesn’t fully capture Thomas’s actions.
Also Lee, giving back doesn’t need to be high profile. I’m sure that Thomas donates to charities all the time. But as prominent black man, whether he likes it or not, Thomas has a responsibility to the black community. That responsibility may not be something he asked for, but is something given to him by succeeding despite all the rampant institutionalized racism. I’m not saying he should become a democrat (although how he can support a party which has systematically worked to maintain the oppression of minorities is beyond me) but he should not accept the rhetoric that we now live in a color-blind society and as such AA, and AA type policies, are detrimental to black people. That is foolishness and he is way too smart to honestly believe that. Therefore I must conclude that he’s being selfish and choosing to betray his community.
* note that the last paragraph has a lot of my personal opinions and may not be representative of every black person.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:24 am
I just disagree with you. I would say that black people do have a position against institutionalized racism- that it’s bad!
Justice Thomas would absolutely agree.
I would also assert that because black people have a shared heritage of oppression, that people who actively work against overcoming that oppression (Thomas, Sowell) are looked at with disgust by the black community.
Justice Thomas is not “actively working against overcoming that oppression.” Please read the cases that I quoted above before you say anything else. Justice Thomas is as concerned as anyone can be about helping minority children get a good education, helping minority communities rid themselves of gangs, protecting minority homeowners from having their homes taken away by wealthy white corporations. In each of those cases, liberals were staunchly on the other side.
What people (like me) are saying is that they are betraying the black community. If you work against the best interests of a community you are part of, then you will be viewed as a traitor whether you like it or not.
That is just not true. You’re making a key mistake here: You think that you alone know what the “best interests” of the black community are, and that if any black person disagrees, he is therefore a “traitor.” Now in some instances, this might be true. Everyone would agree that slavery was not in the black community’s best interests, and everyone would agree that the Africans who sold their fellow Africans into slavery were betraying those fellow Africans. No doubt about that.
But it is just implausible to use that kind of “traitor” language about someone like Clarence Thomas. He absolutely agrees with you that racism is a problem; it’s just that on one or two issues, he disagrees with you about the solution.
It’s as if two people were trying to put out a raging forest fire. One person wants to spray with a water hose, and the other wants to cover the area with dirt from a helicopter. They both agree that the fire is a problem, and they are both trying to solve that problem in their own way. It would be ludicrous for one person to accuse the other person of being a “traitor” and of trying to spread the fire. Disagree if you want, but at least be honest enough to admit that the other person is worried about the fire too.
Again, read the opinions that I quoted above. Also, read this law review article by a liberal black law professor. She concludes (page 94):
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:32 am
I think because racism has come to have two somewhat differing definitions, we’re talking a little at cross-purposes here. Some of us are talking about racism in terms of prejudice, and some are talking about racism in terms of discrimination and access to power.
I mostly agree with Sydney that it is (almost) impossible for a black person to be racist against a white person in a discriminatory sense, because the system in the U.S. today still has the balance of power on the side of the white person. For instance, the phrase “driving while black” - if the rich black man is pulled over because he’s driving a red BMW, that’s racist in the discriminatory sense.
However, it is possible for a black person to be racist against a white person in a prejudicial sense, as in the rich black man calling the poor white man in j-ha’s example “honkey trash.” I’ve mostly been talking about racism in this sense in my posts on this thread.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Niels, as a black woman I’m not infallible. But don’t you think that because I’m a black woman I might have a better idea of what’s going on in the black community? Don’t you think that it would be offensive to not only presume you have some special knowledge about the black community that I didn’t, and then proceed to relate that information to me in a condescending fashion? Would you presume to tell a woman, with your voice dripping paternalism, that you know more about misogyny? (Just in case the answer to that is yes, you really shouldn’t. It’ll piss us off).
The statements you provided are completely off base and distract from the main point. I’m not even going to comment on them aside from saying: You don’t get to take the “moral high road” here. No one is saying that white people don’t have a right to express opinions and commentary on the black community or vis versa. What I took issue with was the way Larry chose to respond to my comment. Don’t try and twist my intent.
However, your refusal to accept racism as an expression of power kind of tells me a lot about how you view race relations. You don’t actually listen to black people do you? Because there is not a black person that will tell you that racism is NOT an expression of power. You cannot expect black people to take your words as valid if you refuse to acknowledge what is a basic fact of racism. The definition of racism you’re using is not up to date and it certainly is not how black people (you know, the target group) would define racism.
Next time why don’t you go after my whole argument instead of latching on to the specific criticism that pertained to the delivery of a message, and was not even directed to you.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Sydney:
So then, how would said janitor act to oppress Jesse Jackson or other blacks? What specific actions? Since it obviously isn’t helping his station in life, how can he cash in on his “white privilege”? Can someone half white/ half black be racist toward half Asian/ half white?
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:04 am
*sigh*
Niels, giving me a decision to read in which Thomas doesn’t say “racism is great!” does not mean that he isn’t working against the black community’s interest. Please give me some credit for having a brain. Yes, I understand perfectly well that disagreeing on solutions is the problem. However, his reasoning is what I take issue with. Not the fact that we disagree.
Here is an example of what bothers me about Thomas as taken from the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy:
“In the United States v. Morrison, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) that gives victims of gender-motivated violence a private right of action against their assailants. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the law, holding that the Commerce Clause did not provide Congress with the authority to enact the civil remedy portion of VAWA, since the provision was found not to be a regulation of activity that “substantially affected” interstate commerce; and secondly, because the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not provide Congress with authority to enact the provision.”
Seems unrelated doesn’t it. I mean what does VAWA have to do with racial civil rights? Two words: commerce clause.
“With Thomas and four other justices declining to extend the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact VAWA, “the unfortunate consequence of a series of political decisions harking back to Reconstruction” occurred, said Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale. The 14th Amendment is arguably the natural home of civil rights legislation, as it guarantees equal citizenship, and it gives Congress power to enforce equality rights. Balkin elaborates, “We should recognize what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended: Congress has an independent power and obligation to promote and protect equal citizenship and civil rights.” Therefore, if Congress believes that a law is necessary and proper to promote equal citizenship, it should have the power to pass it “without using the fiction that inequality affects interstate commerce.”
Balkin’s point seem reasonable, no? So while Thomas isn’t saying, “racism is awesome!” what he’s doing is setting the ground work for eliminating the abilites of Congress to protect civil rights. And finally, this last bit:
“The effects of Morrison have undermined civil rights generally and women’s safety issues in particular. “The Rehnquist Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Morrison is a setback for women’s rights and a triumph for those that seek to roll back 30 years of federal civil rights law under the guise of states’ rights,” said Kathy Rodgers. “The Court has slammed shut the courthouse door, wished women good luck, and sent us back to the states for justice.”
Gotta say I agree with Kathy. Thomas ACTIVELY works against the black community when he supports decisions that lead the eventual erosion of civil right. If you want to read more about the way Thomas is putting the screws to the black community, click here
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Oh, you got her there. A white janitor can’t bring Jesse Jackson down therefore racism is meaningless. As long as some white people are poor, then they don’t have white priviledge.
Hey, wait. Maybe white priviledge is more than just whether or not you have money.
Nah, that’s just anti-white talk!
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:09 am
j-ha
Rather than misstating what I said (the “racism is meaningless” garbage) why not answer the question?
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:22 am
When you put white priviledge in quotation marks like that it conveys your doubt as to the existence of such a thing. And if white priviledge doesn’t exist then racism as a system seems pretty meaningless and all we have are individual prejudices that mean nothing in a larger context.
And as to answering the question: Well, could I give an answer you would accept. As I said before, it seems to me that you equate priviledge solely with income level. Isn’t that why you put your hypothetical janitor next to Jesse Jackson instead of another, black janitor?
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:23 am
I didn’t mean any offense; I certainly don’t understand everything there is to know about being black in America. I readily admit that.
I do address the rest of your arguments, though. Please scroll above and read the rest of what I wrote and quoted from Thomas’s opinions. It’s totally unfair to say that Thomas is ignoring (much less working against) the rest of the black community. That just doesn’t fit with the reality of many, many opinions that he has written.
Do you intend to address Thomas’s actual opinions at any point?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Larry, I’m starting to wonder if you’re deliberately trying to be thick about this.
Larry: “So then, how would said janitor act to oppress Jesse Jackson or other blacks? What specific actions? Since it obviously isn’t helping his station in life, how can he cash in on his “white privilege”?”
Before you read further, please see J-Ha’s excellent comment (#29).
Larry do you understand what institutionalized racism is? I don’t mean to sound insulting here, but if you truly don’t understand what it is and how it works than what I’m going to say is going to make no sense. If you don’t, please say something. Anyway, that janitor may not be able to directly oppress Jesse Jackson. But he can contribute to the institution of racism by tapping into his white privilege and use a racial slur against a black co-worker in front of other white co-workers. He may be given daytime working hours over a black co-worker because he is considered more “presentable”. With this example he may not have control over what hours he works, but he is benefiting from institutionalized racism. The point is that there are a hundred different ways in which your janitor’s privilege allows him to engage in racist behavior or to directly benefit from the oppression of black people.
As for your “Can someone half white/ half black be racist toward half Asian/ half white?” comment, bi-racial people are not viewed as white. Despite how they may personally identify, society accepts them by their non-white status. Therefore, someone who is mixed with black and white cannot oppress a black person in the same manner as a white person. Secondly, I’ve already said that minorities can be racist to one another- although I think we need to be careful about how we use that term because white racism manifests itself in a very different fashion than minority racism and also has much different effects.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Niels, I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Thomas’s opinions because I honestly believe the impact of Thomas’s opinions are far more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.
This being said I do love reading judicial opinions being a law student and all. So please look at comment #36. (oh wait, its awaiting moderation for some reason so this may be why you haven’t seen it).
Anyway when my comment is accepted you’ll see that this opinion exemplifies to me what makes Thomas so dangerous. On the surface of his opinions, he is technically not doing anything that would directly betray the black community. But in reality he is setting the ground work for some serious civil rights problems should we have a congress that doesn’t place a high priority on civil rights. And many of us believe we have just that in George W. I refuse to believe that Thomas is not intelligent enough to understand the full impact of his decisions, so I must conclude that for Thomas, civil rights may not be a high priority for him. Thomas’s interpretations of the law are what scare me and a lot of other black people and make me describe him as a betrayer of the black community.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:02 am
I’m not sure how this works, but apparently you wrote a comment up above that doesn’t appear?
Anyway, you say: Niels, I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Thomas’s opinions because I honestly believe the impact of Thomas’s opinions are far more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.
This makes no sense at all. It’s as if I said, “I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Sydney’s posts, because I honestly believe that the impact of her posts is more important than what she says in those posts.”
It’s trying to make a distinction where there is none.
And anyway, what matters in the cases that I quoted above is NOT just limited to the “wording,” but the fact that Thomas was voting the way he did in part because of a concern for the black community. No honest person can deny his motivation of concern.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Sydney: “Before you read further, please see J-Ha’s excellent comment”
OK, lets look at that for a minute, becuase I think there is a fundamental disagreement.
j-ha:
Systems have structure and can be diagramed. Since the supposed racist system’s components are made up of individual people (I think we can agree that buildings can’t be racist) and a system’s components (people) must “do something” for the system to do anything, then peoples actions must contribute directly to output of the system (racism). Where in the diagram does the white janitor fit and what action does he take to contribute to the racist output? For the concept to have any merit the actions he takes must be actions not available (or not reciprocal) to a black co-worker.
I do not believe in this magically, nebulous “system” concept. It is my opinion that individual people are racist by doing individually racist things and saying racist things. I don’t think genetics plays any role as in this supposed “system” where white people seem to be born as components in this system. If a black guy doesn’t get the job because he is black, that’s racist. If a white guy doesn’t get the job because he is white, that’s racist. The race of the interviewer/employer is irrelevant.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Anyway, you say: Niels, I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Thomas’s opinions because I honestly believe the impact of Thomas’s opinions are far more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.
This makes no sense at all.
It actually makes a lot of sense. His motives for voting the way he does doesn’t matter nearly as much as the impact of his votes.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Jake —
What she apparently meant to say was “the impact of Thomas’s VOTES are [is] more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.”
That at least makes sense. It’s still misguided, of course.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Niels- yeah, I wrote a comment that’s showing up on my computer as #36 that isn’t showing up. Perhaps because I put a link in there and I haven’t done that before?
But as for whether what I said about not getting tied up in Thomas’s exact wording makes sense, perhaps I was to blasé about my statement. What I meant was that Thomas is not going to say anything that outwardly hurts the black community in his decisions. The closest he’s actually come to this is in the AA rulings. Of course he’s going to frame his decisions as being what’s best for the black community. So I prefer not to examine just the individual ruling but to place them in a larger context. Which I did in comment #36 but unfortunately, it isn’t showing up right now. To give another example, I can say I’m not homophobic but if I make decisions or perform actions that lead to a gay bashing, then hey- I’m probably homophobic. IOW, a person’s outward claim isn’t necessarily reflective of their true intentions.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Jake: “It actually makes a lot of sense. His motives for voting the way he does doesn’t matter nearly as much as the impact of his votes. ”
Thanks Jake, you stated in a more consice fashion what I have been trying to.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:32 am
I do not believe in this magically, nebulous “system” concept. It is my opinion that individual people are racist by doing individually racist things and saying racist things
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It just happens to be wrong. Speaking as a academic sociologist, the fact that there is a racial system in society existing prior to individuals, that they garner meaning and interactive rules through in regards to race is a basic a concept as evolution is to a biologist.
Yes, there are individuals, and the manner that agency and structure interact (ie individuals and the social system) is the cause for discussion within those of us that study societal forms for a living, not whether either of those exist or not. Also, I have no idea where you ‘needs to be diagramed’ theory came from.
Moreover, we aren’t arguing from a position of genetics, we are looking at race as socially constructed societal cateogories whose reality is entirely predicated on the basis of a bunch of assumptions and practises that existed prior to the birth of current generations, and while it will certainly change in form, will exist after these generations die off.
White people gain racial privilege by the very fact of existing as white within a racial system that privileges their race over those of others. They perpetuate that system not only by not acknowledging it, but also by performing racism that contributes to the stability of that system.
This why social context and social positioning so phenomenonly alters meaning when it comes to actions and discourse. One behaviour as performed by a member of one social group simply does not have the same meaning as the same behaviour when performed by a member of another social group.
I happen to completely agree with what Sydney is saying, and it fits excellently within current and historical understandings of how race operates socially.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Larry,
So what were Jim Crow laws. Hell, what was slavery. Just the decision of some individual land-owners to own people? Did they occur in a vacuum? Or were they made possible because there was a belief structure in place that said whites were superior and therefore in charge of every other race? And yeah, I’m sure you’ll counter that slavery and jim crow are in the past and you’re talking about today “don’t blame white people today for the mistakes of our ancestors blah blah blah.” But people love to believe that the moment something is outlawed, that society magically changes its opinions in accordance with the law. And that the effects of hundreds of years of being less than human according to both the law and public opinion can be erased in half a century. They can’t.
Your white janitor has the whole history of this country backing him up. When he went to school he learned about all the great things white men did (even if they were slave-owning whites) but he knows only a few names of great black leaders. He lives in a society where black crime is over-hyped and sensationalized and white crime is, oftentimes, ignored or excused. He grew up with centuries of stereotypes about black men (aggressive, stupid, violent) and women (exotic, mammy-esque, bitches) that are rarely challenged. If he is charged with a crime, he will receive better treatment in the courts. He will be less likely to receive the death penalty because he is white. He lives in a country where all the presidents have been white, the vast majority of congress is white and chances are this will never be presented as odd/wrong, but simply left as is of proof of white superiority.
And all of this is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Now, you want me to compare him to Jesse Jackson b/c, whether you admit or not, by asking me to compare the two you are hoping that I’ll get confused and mix up racial oppression with economic oppression. Nope. Won’t happen. Just because fake janitor’s white priviledge doesn’t put him “above” Jesse Jackson doesn’t mean it’s worthless. Oppressions intersect. They do not form a neat pyramid or graph. This doesn’t negate their existence. Asking to compare someone at the bottom of economic oppression to someone closer to the top is a silly way to talk about racism and, imo, just a way to avoid any real issues.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Hmmm…
“whether you admit it or not” should read “whether you know it or not.” I don’t think Larry’s resorting to evil trickery.
Also, what Sarah said.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I’m also going to chime in with a “what sarah says” comment.
(thanks sarah & j-ha. if I had to try and explain one more time how racism involves systemic oppression I was going to bite through something!)
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Sydney, sorry, something’s wrong with my browser today - it’s not refreshing properly or something. I didn’t see your post #31 until just now.
By your definition, then yes, Clarence Thomas is a race traitor. But then, by your definition, *anyone* in the black community who takes actions that are detrimental to the community is a race traitor; the *only* members of the black community who are actually called race traitors are the ones who take positions similar to those of the white establishment, which is why I think it’s racist to use the term.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Amp,
Perhaps you are intellectualizing and prioritizing the racial terms beyond common utility. For me, it is discomforting to hear marginalizing racial and sexual terms, in that (for one) it gives tacit approval for others to do the same, and it reinforces the boundaries that are being difficult to break down. It is vary easy to use language that places people into camps that many quickly understand; a preexisting stereotype. It takes thought to work out how we feel and voice it in a way that accurately and openly describes what we see. In the case of Chris Rock, he often uses sarcasm and irony coupled with racial terms to illustrate his points against those very stereotypes. (It still is discomforting.) I received an “alert” (Don’t you love it? They are still trying to convert me.) from some conservative colleagues about Rocks’ monologue on abortion. When I listened to it, it was apparent that he was not supporting abortion, but illustrating it with irony. Many folks get hung up on the words.
“Race Traitor” is a terrible distinction assuming there is an accepted behavior predetermined by a group that is contrary to a given norm. I call that racism. I do see your point though of people accusing folks of one race from using terms amongst themselves as outside of another group’s criticism. My favorite teacher says the same; remove the beam from your eye before the splinter from another’s, and similarly, do not cast stones unless you are free of the same sin.
Niels said,
“But he thinks, in good faith, that if the government is going to address racism, one important factor is that the government should itself treat all people equally, without applying different standards for jobs or college admissions. Agree or disagree with that idea, it isn’t crazy. In fact, it was simply the standard liberal belief in the 1960s and 1970s … treat people equally.”
I am a firm believer in Affirmative Action to treat effect equality in that treating people equally does not always equate with treating them the same. The problems many marginalized folks deal with are economically founded. It is a strange coincidence that the economic boundaries frequently follow race and gender lines. Until we can provide equal access to quality education, healthcare, and representation, there needs to be allowances made to help others who do not get the benefits of folks more equal then they are. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 11:02 am
j-ha, and Sydney thanks for your posts, especially for putting the myth of reverse racism(against whites) out there for what it is, pure rubbish.
I come from a city which pays off quick settlements for absolutely ridiculous “reverse” racial and gender discrimination law suits(as if police department management would EVER favor anyone besides White men) while they pay hundreds of thousands to fight well-documented cases involving racial discrimination for years and years.
I have a friend in LE, who’s a man of color, who was promoted after YEARS of being passed over. His promotion was fought by nine white male sergeants, who were younger, less qualified and he’d trained most of them. Still, they got promoted retroactively(after an earlier unsuccessful attempt to promote them behind the chief’s back) back to the date of my friend’s promotion and paid off. What a slap that is, to someone who’s done a good job and worked hard for over 25 years! And I think it still hurts him deeply. What rubbish. They based their allegation on a comment the chief made about having to promote a Black man, yet my friend was not Black. He was American Indian, though culturally, he identified himself as also with the African-American community because of his upbringing. Two other Black men were up for the same promotion, including one who had been passed over almost as many times, so then the White sergeants argued that he “looked” Black.
I’m not in a good place this morning because of stuff that’s been going on locally, but I do think that there is a lot of really good discussion on this thread, and a lot of patience being shown by several of the posters as well.
Poor whites still have racial privilage, and racism transcends class lines. It follows people of color up the class ladder.
A rich Black man can still be lynched a lot quicker than a poor White man. Historically, many were lynched because they had business enterprises that competed with White-owned businesses. He can be stopped by police, for being in the “wrong” neighborhood. He can be shot by police, for trying to pull out his wallet to produce identity to police officers, or for pulling out a replica gun when he sees someone in the backyard dressed up like a cop(it was a Halloween party, after all), or for pulling out a cellphone in a car(as happened to a young Black woman in Chicago, I think).
I can’t think for the life of me, ANY situation where a White man, rich or poor, would be shot 41 times for standing in his doorway, or be shot in the head 12 times simply for being in a car suffering from a medical seizure.
41, times, where the hell does that come from? Racism.
Not to eliminate the issue of class, and how it impacts members of all races, abeit differently, but because there are poor Whites doesn’t mean they are experiencing racism at the hands of Black men or women who have more money. Racism is backed by power, and Whites have that power and keep it exclusively.
So no matter how much wealth a Black man or woman has, they will never transcend racism in our society, as is. It will always put them “in their place” especially if their class status makes Whites around them feel insecure or envious.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 11:03 am
I am a firm believer in Affirmative Action to treat effect equality in that treating people equally does not always equate with treating them the same. The problems many marginalized folks deal with are economically founded. It is a strange coincidence that the economic boundaries frequently follow race and gender lines. Until we can provide equal access to quality education, healthcare, and representation, there needs to be allowances made to help others who do not get the benefits of folks more equal then they are.
Well put Rock, very well put. I don’t agree with everything you say, nor everything above, but this I just had to voice my congrats and agreement with.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Lee: “By your definition, then yes, Clarence Thomas is a race traitor. But then, by your definition, *anyone* in the black community who takes actions that are detrimental to the community is a race traitor; the *only* members of the black community who are actually called race traitors are the ones who take positions similar to those of the white establishment, which is why I think it’s racist to use the term.”
You bring up a good point. Technically I should label anyone who took actions that were detrimental to the black community as a race traitor. But I don’t. I think (for me personally) the difference is who the betrayal benefits and the impact of the betrayal. I believe Thomas is strengthening white oppression over black people. The history of race relations in this country makes this a deep & painful betrayal worthy of assigning the label traitor. To label someone as a traitor is not something I do lightly. However, I think it’s appropriate considering Thomas’s actions. Black people do act against the overall black communities interests-I’ve witnessed it. But none of these people are Supreme Court justices and they don’t serve as a visible representative of black Americans. As a visible representative, Thomas gives off the impression that black people should support the white establishment, and if they don’t they’re clearly “blinded by race”. And that pisses people off. You know, as I write about this, I’m getting pissed. I don’t like the fact that people like Thomas make it seem that black people who want to force white people to see the impact of racism are irrational or too emotional. I detest the fact that the existence of overly accommodating black public figures like Thomas prevents uncomfortable but important racial discourse from taking place. I- hmm, I better stop now. I feel a rant coming on……..
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 11:31 am
quick side comment- is comment #36 showing up on anyone else’s computer?
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Yes, I see comment #36 now.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
never mind, its showing now.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Radfem has already said much of what I would want to say here, but I want to speak to the red-herring idea that poor whites have no power to be racist.
There are a number of organizations historically and in the present who recruit poor whites to perform violent acts against Blacks (also against other people of color, Jews, gays, lesbians, transgendered people, and immigrants).
The initials of one such organization are KKK.
In the historical cases, almost all of the white perpetrators have escaped prosecution. Why? Because there were rich and powerful whites who approved of the violence, helped foster it and protected the hands-on perpetrators from justice. This is but one of example of how institutionalized racism promotes and sustains racist acts by people who themselves are not terribly powerful. It is also an example of how rich and powerful racists use racist ideology to drive poor whites to fight against their own economic interests, stay poor, and keep race hatred and class anger festering together among people who are themselves harmed by institutional inequalities.
Not so different from the past were the shootings at the Lockheed Martin Plant in 2003, in Meridian, MS, a famous home to Klan activity:
The most irrational, hate-filled acts of racial violence and the broadest levels of institutionalizeed racism are all different layers of skin on the same, rotten onion.
This comment was written by Ben G..Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
j-ha:
OK, so the fact that the majority of the historical figures, current politicians happen to be the same race as about 70% of the population is somehow evidence of this racist “system”? If I grew up in China as a white person, how many white people do you think I would learn about in a Chinese history class? Or the great white leaders of China?
Now could more of an effort be made to incorporate more minorities in an American history class? Sure, thats fine with me. But, surely you are not suggesting the janitor is racist because he attended history classes? In fact you still haven’t answered the central question of what the janitor could do directly to oppress black people, beyond the fact that he was born white and therefore a part of this supposed “system”.
j-ha:
I used Jesse Jackson vs. a janitor because you, Sydney, and others seem to think racism can only exist if one person has “power” over another. Who do you think is more powerful Jesse Jackson or his white janitor? Who do you think the vast majority of Americans would think is more powerful? Assuming, that is, that “power” has anything to do with the real world definition with action -> consequences and not another conjured nebulous concept designed to make sure that all blacks are the rightful victims. And again, if you think the janitor somehow has “power” over Jesse Jackson I want to know how he would exorcize that power.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
hmm, didn’t think I’d coded boldface there. Emphasis was not added intentionally.
This comment was written by Ben G..Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Sydney, thanks for that clarification. Sorry if I wound up your rant-meter by asking for it. ;) This whole discussion has been very valuable to me, at least in part because talking about race relations in a mixed group like this one can be very volatile.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Larry, it’s like you’re TRYING not to understand what J-Ha is saying. Frankly, I don’t have the energy or the patience to engage.
Please go back and read Sarah’s comment( #49). I think she does a great job of answering many of your questions regarding how racism involves the application of systematic power over another person or group of people.
I’m done trying to explain things to you.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
70%??? Um, you might want to try a bit higher than that.
Read Radfem’s last post if you want some ways that racism still works against Jesse Jackson.
Argh, that’s why I’ve stated several times that to observe racism on an individual level is to blind yourself to it. Ok, Jesse Jackson, due to his economic and social advantage might be seen as “higher up” than anonymous white janitors. Who cares? Is Jesse Jackson a typical black man wrt his wealth and power? If a white man had his intelligence, drive and political saavy (not making any judgements on any of these btw) would he have gone farther politically than Jackson did? Factors other than race play a part in how people’s lives turn out. Maybe the janitor was born into poverty and received a terrible education. Maybe if he wanted to become a politician or ceo he would have to overcome those hurdles. Fine. But he will never have to fight racism. never. No white person in America has to fight for a fair shake because of their skin color. If that isn’t a system of racism then I don’t know what is.
You want this to be about individual behavior for the same reason so many men want sexism to be about a few mean guys; it lets you off the hook for your apathy. It makes doing nothing the same as not being racist. “Hey I’m not a member of the KKK.” “Hey, Usher makes a better living than I do so I’ll ignore the scores of blacks living below the poverty line in my city because that’s got nothing to do with me.” It’s not about white guilt or poor little white babies being “born racist.” it’s about inheriting a centuries old system of racism and facing up to the advantages it gives us white people.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Now that comment 36 has finally shown up:
Niels, giving me a decision to read in which Thomas doesn’t say “racism is great!” does not mean that he isn’t working against the black community’s interest.
This comment is not very accurate. 1) Thomas never writes anything remotely like “racism is great.” Why are you trying to imply that he normally writes that kind of stuff? 2) I provided 4 decisions, not just one. 3) You still don’t address even a single one of those decisions, in ALL of which Thomas’s concern for the black community is deep and thoughtful. So you disagree with him on some issues; why is that any reason to be so vicious in attacking someone who cares as much about the black community as you do?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Lee, its no problem. I don’t mind getting my rant meter going- I just want this to be a constructive dialogue and if I start ranting it won’t stay constructive for long!
What I find interesting is how this conversation has evolved into a defense of the idea that racism is institutionalized and involves a system of power over others, and a discussion about “well what about the poor whites”. Neither of these things have any actual bearing to the initial topic, which was the use of the term race traitor. Instead, these red herrings distract from dissenters presenting real arguments as to why they are personably uncomfortable with black people using the term race traitor. Lee, I believe you are the ONLY person who has truly stayed on topic. Oh and Rock.
Oh well, I don’t know why I expect anything else.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I’m personally uncomfortable with black people saying “race traitor” to describe relatively trivial disagreements with mainstream political opponents. Why? Because it’s easy enough just to say, “I respectfully disagree with Clarence Thomas’s opinions on how best to help the black community.” And then leave it at that. How hard would that be to do?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Oh. My. God.
Niels: “This comment is not very accurate. 1) Thomas never writes anything remotely like “racism is great.” Why are you trying to imply that he normally writes that kind of stuff?”
Niels- It’s called pithiness! I made a pithy comment! Remind me not to ever do that again with you. I’m not implying anything of the sort. What I meant was that I do not expect Thomas to write an opinion that supports blatant racism. So showing me opinions where he doesn’t reveal motivations that are outwardly hostile to the black community is not surprising to me.
As for the rest of your comment:
Niels: “2) I provided 4 decisions, not just one. 3) You still don’t address even a single one of those decisions, in ALL of which Thomas’s concern for the black community is deep and thoughtful. So you disagree with him on some issues; why is that any reason to be so vicious in attacking someone who cares as much about the black community as you do?”
I provided you one decision that I felt helped make my point. In the interest of not clogging up space, I linked to a website that gives you plenty of other decisions that are controversial and show that Thomas may not have the black community’s best interest in mind. Do me a favor- click on them and read them. For example, don’t you think that excessive jail sentences might have a disproportionate effect on the black community? There is a link to the Ewing case that explains how Thomas’s decision once again helped put the screws to us. As for not addressing the decisions that you posted, I have already said that Thomas is NOT going to frame his decisions as being bad for the black community. Yes, he shows concern, but if he truly thinks that his rulings are going to help the black community, than he needs to have his head examined. Because Thomas is a Supreme Court justice and intelligent man, I personally believe he has put his own interests above that of the black community, no matter what he states in his decisions. I can go on and on about how concerned I am about the disabled, but if I pass a law that result in higher insurance premiums or the denial of benefits for the disabled do you really think I’m looking out for the best interest of the disabled?
Give me a break.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Niels: “I’m personally uncomfortable with black people saying “race traitor” to describe relatively trivial disagreements with mainstream political opponents. Why? Because it’s easy enough just to say, “I respectfully disagree with Clarence Thomas’s opinions on how best to help the black community.” And then leave it at that. How hard would that be to do?”
And at last we get to the heart of the problem-the phrase “relatively trivial disagreements”. They may be trivial to you, but they’re not trivial to most black people. Deciding to stand against affirmative action, deciding to not follow years of judicial precedent and instead endorse longer jail sentences, deciding to support decisions that undermine civil rights- this is all a big fucking deal. And the fact that you don’t think so is privilege. And its possibly one of the reasons why Amp said:
“It’s not our place, as whites against racism, to tell Blacks what language they should or shouldn’t use; whether or not I like the term “race traitor,” in this context, is irrelevant.”
Don’t tell black people what language you feel they can or cannot use if you don’t fully understand the emotions and history that is involved when dealing with the actions of someone like Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell. If you’re uncomfortable with it, fine. But don’t presume that gives you a right to argue against the language and then have your opinions respected.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
j-ha:
Here is the disconnect. I thought I explained this clearly in #44 talking about systems, but I will give it another shot. You claim that racism is a “system.” Lets define the structure of your “system”? Since buildings can’t be racist your “system” must consist of people correct? (if everyone died your system would cease to exist) Or more precisely, white people. Within your “system” white people must “do something” in order for the system produce racism, yes? So then, even if your system existed as you know it, it is essentially individual people contributing with individual ACTIONS to the racist system, correct?
I am responsible for my own actions because I can control my own actions. I am not responsible for what you do, what my father did, or my great great grandfather. Saying it’s the system is not much more helpful than saying the Martians are causing racism. Its some vague thing that you can’t really point to and say “you are responsible!” No one controls the system so there isn’t any responsibility.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
No, it wasn’t the link - you can include up to three links in a single comment without getting put into the “needs approval from a moderator” pile. (Comments with four links or more are automatically put into the “needs approval” pile).
I have no idea what put your post into moderation, specifically.
The computer has this big list of words that automatically get a comment put into the “needs approval” pile; most of the words are somehow related to poker, to porn, to loans, or to prescription medicine. If your post happened to use one of those words, then it got put into “needs approval” list. Also if you happened to be posting from an ip address other than your usual ip address.
(For a while, every time someone wrote a comment using the word “socialist” it was automatically put into moderation, because the word “cialist” is on the list!)
Anyhow, once a comment is in moderation, it stays there until me or one of the other moderators approves it. And if we happen to be busy or asleep, that can unfortunately take a while . Sorry about that - but it really IS necessary. There are dozens and dozens of spam posts caught by the system every hour, which “Alas” readers never see; the discussions we have here would be unworkable without moderating them away.
(Sorry about the digression!)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
And at last we get to the heart of the problem-the phrase “relatively trivial disagreements”. They may be trivial to you, but they’re not trivial to most black people.
What I meant was that anything is trivial — in this debate — short of the hypothetical example of the African who sold his fellow Africans into slavery. That guy was a race traitor. But someone who merely thinks that a state government shouldn’t be automatically giving college applicants an extra 200 points on the SAT just because they’re black? That’s nowhere in the same league.
Look at the whole picture.
The liberals on the Supreme Court are the ones who say, in effect:
And Clarence Thomas is saying:
When you look at the whole picture, why aren’t you equally mad at liberals?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Oh no problem Amp! I was just confused for a while becasue i kept refrencing my post which no one else but me could see!
Now I get to figure out what word put my post into moderation. hmm.. this could be fun….
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Your analysis too simplistic. The system consists not only of people, but also of how those people are organized.
For instance, you could say that the game “duck duck goose” was a system, whose purpose is amusing small children. However, to say that the “DDG System” consists only of small children would be inaccurate. The children are part of the DDG System, but they’re not the whole of it; another part of the system is the rules of the game.
That’s part of it, but it’s not the whole.
I think you’re conflating two different concepts, “responsibility” and “fault.”
If I get a job because, without my knowlege, my employer had a policy of hiring white people over equally qualified blacks, that’s not my fault. But if I find out about it, it’s my responsibility to do something, even if the “something” I do is only quitting and looking for another job.
It’s not my fault that I’ve been advantaged by my skin color. But I have been given some unfair advantages by my skin color, and I think that makes it my responsibility to try and support changes to make our society less racist.
This is irrelevant; you’re talking about how easy racism is to fight. You’re right, racism might be easier to fight if it were only a matter of individual action, so we point to the bad people and say “you are responsible!” However, in the real world, that’s not how racism works, and it would be foolish and counterproductive to pretend that is how it works.
(By the way, no one has been saying it’s “the system.” People have been saying racism is “a system.” Not the same thing at all.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Niels…..
I would love to continue this discussion but your last comment has caused me to hit my head repeatedly against my desk. In the interest of not giving myself brain trauma, i’m going to step away from my computer for a while. I’m hoping that during the intervening time common sense and clear logic will be restored to this thread.
ta- ta.
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
“In effect” meaning “they never actually said this, or anything like this.”
Niels, you’re such a hypocrite! You spend this entire thread arguing that people shouldn’t attribute anti-black sentiments to Thomas that he doesn’t actually have. But clearly, you think that only conservatives deserve that kind of consideration; when it comes time to make up lies about what liberals have said, you don’t hesitate for even a moment before doing it.
By the way, I love the way that you leap upon every liberal who makes a generalization about Black opinion, accusing them of implying that all Blacks think the same thing. But then you go and make a blanket statement about what “all the black parents” want. Again, such a hypocrite.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
So does your not being actively racist make white priviledge go away? What counts as action anyway. Do you have to burn a cross, tell a racist joke, or attend a skinhead rally to be racist?
See you keep talking about how I need to create a nice, organized chart in order to prove that racism exists. You keep talking about how buildings can’t be racist. You never address white priviledge. You make statements about how only 70% of our political leaders have been white and then never mention it again even when you’re challenged on them. I’ve said time and time again that prviledge is more complicated than a is higher than b which is lower than c and somehow that means that it doesn’t exist?
So you don’t “do” anything racist. Ok. Chances are pretty good you get paid more than black people who have your same job. But that’s not racist b/c you didn’t decide on those salaries? If you and a black man are convicted of the same crime, chances are very good that he’ll get a harsher sentence. But you’re not the judge so it’s not racist on your part? Some black men make more money and have more influence than you so therefore racism only operates on the individual level - you can just ignore the higher percentage of poor blacks and hispanics in this country.
Priviledge doesn’t require that you do anything other than be born into a priviledged group. That’s all.
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Also what amp said
This comment was written by j-ha.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Ampersand:
Actually I was quite correct, the DDG system is comprised of small children. The actions the children perform distinguish DDG from the TAG system which is the point about individuals doing individual things contributing to the system.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Niels, you’re such a hypocrite! You spend this entire thread arguing that people shouldn’t attribute anti-black sentiments to Thomas that he doesn’t actually have. But clearly, you think that only conservatives deserve that kind of consideration; when it comes time to make up lies about what liberals have said, you don’t hestitate for even a moment before doing it.
Ampersand — I knew that as soon as I posted the above, someone would respond like this.
So let’s be clear: For post after post after post, Sydney (and Shannon) have been saying, “It doesn’t matter what Clarence Thomas says, or what’s in his heart. The only thing that counts is how he votes, and because he voted against ‘black people’ in a few cases, he’s a traitor,” etc.
What I’m saying is this: If you’re going to analyze Clarence Thomas (or anyone else) that way, then if you want to be honest, you have to analyze liberals that way too. So let’s look at the school choice cases in that light. By Sydney’s logic, it doesn’t matter how much white liberals like black people. It doesn’t matter what their motives are. The only thing that should count — according to her — is the fact that liberal Supreme Court Justices voted against the inner-city blacks from Cleveland who (in point of fact) were forced to defend themselves against a lawsuit (filed by liberals) just because they were sending their kids to a good school.
That’s NOT how I MYSELF view the world. In my world, liberal judges and conservative judges alike might have perfectly good reasons to vote a particular way — they feel that the previous caselaw dictates a particular conclusion, or their analysis of constitutional history points in one way, etc., etc. In my world, it is simplistic to reduce every single Supreme Court vote to “is it good for blacks.”
But for someone like Sydney — who doesn’t care about motives or language — the only thing that matters is the final outcome. So she should apply that same logic to liberal judges as well as to conservative ones.
Does that make sense?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
No Niels, but it does prove that you’re not a good listener.
Sorry to go off topic earlier, btw.
Thomas was wrong, wrong, wrong, on his dissenting opinion(the sole dissenter) in Johnson vs the state of California issued last May in regards to the decision to strike down a case involving race-based jury selection tactics used by the prosecutor(well, used by nearly every California prosecutor actually). But then that’s a pattern with him, not exactly a shock.
I thought Sydney’s posts on Thomas were pretty clear. Maybe Niels, you can go back and reread them?
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
If that was your point - that your analysis of liberal opinion in your previous post was deliberately stupid, and that it is the same as the analysis others have offered of Thomas - then you should have said so. I have very little regard for posters who come over here and post flame-bait but later claim they were just playing clever head games. (It’s hard not to suspect that they’re actually trying to find a clever way of backing away from an indefensible post.)
In any case, your analysis of what “liberal” judges said (actually, there are no liberals on the SCOTUS, in my opinion; there are only extreme right-wingers and moderates) wasn’t without regard for what was in their heart; the dialog you made up and attributed “in effect” to them was clearly elitist and obnoxious towards blacks in tone. You were attributing extreme callousness to them, not being neutral towards what their attitudes might be.
The rest of the argument, I’m going to bow out of for now, because I have to be getting a drawing assignment done today.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
You were attributing extreme callousness to them, not being neutral towards what their attitudes might be.
Yes, exactly. That’s the point. This is exactly the way that Sydney ought to view them IF she wants to be consistent in attributing the worst possible motives to a judge based on the way that he or she voted.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
I have to be getting a drawing assignment done today.
You draw?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Niels,
This comment was written by Rock.“What I meant was that anything is trivial … in this debate … short of the hypothetical example of the African who sold his fellow Africans into slavery. That guy was a race traitor. But someone who merely thinks that a state government shouldn’t be automatically giving college applicants an extra 200 points on the SAT just because they’re black? That’s nowhere in the same league.”
Couldn’t be farther from the truth on both counts. The majority of slave trading of people of color today is by dark skinned people of dark skinned people. (From what I have read, it is Arab on African.) Even if it were African on African, or White on White, to label it “Race Traitor” is wrong. It implies that one should have a special regard for people like themselves over others. That is just so wrong, it is the basis of so much hatred and repression that occurs simply by identifying for or against a group based on race. To not be a Race Traitor then suggests that simply because of appearance special treatment needs to be given over those that are not the same.
Secondly as far as admission points go, to create a better learning environment or to take into account flaws in testing or past education, points can and should be awarded for many issues, such as: primary language acquisition, country of origin, age, gender, personal history, etc. It has been shown repeatedly that tests are biased for culture. Mainstream American students would perform at least 200 points below one developed for Native Americans or urban African Americans, or rural African Americans. What are you afraid of giving up by showing grace in an imperfect system? Maybe to some, the admissions folks are “Race Traitors” when they apply remedies that level the field so all people can join in? Is a world of well-educated people having an equal crack at success that threatening? Nothing when it comes to shutting out another person from being accountable for their life is trivial. Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
“41, times, where the hell does that come from? Racism. ”
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.This statement, and indeed the incident you’re referring to, really struck me as supporting an idea I’ve had for a long time. This is indeed racism, but it’s more than that, in my opinion. It’s fear. Why would anyone shoot someone 41 times who’s not attacking them (ie it’s not panic and self defense)? The only reasons I can think of are anger and fear. I’m not an American, so maybe that’s why I have a hard time understanding where the fear and anger come from, but I have lived in the South and I’ve seen a lot of American white people express hatred towards black people that, when you really pay attention to their tone and body language, seems to be based on fear. Why the fear? What are they so damn afraid of? Personally my theory is that on some level they KNOW that their ancestors committed a horrible injustice, and are afraid that at some point they will themselves be held accountable. Maybe they’re afraid that the system they perpetrated will be turned on them at some point in the future. I see the same thing from misogynistic men, the fear that at some point women will get angry enough to do to men the same kind of bad things that have been done to us. In both cases I think the fearful people are projecting and there’s very little likelihood that they will ever be oppressed in the way that they have oppressed others, but I think the fear is still there. Maybe I’m crazy, but that’s what it’s always felt like to me. Thoughts?
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
I think this may be the point at which someone calls me a “radical feminist” (actually it’s more like socialist feminist, but the people who think “radical feminist” is an insult probably don’t know the difference), or a communist, or something of the sort. Or maybe I’m just spending too much time on Hugo’s board.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
“You want this to be about individual behavior for the same reason so many men want sexism to be about a few mean guys; it lets you off the hook for your apathy. It makes doing nothing the same as not being racist. “Hey I’m not a member of the KKK.” “Hey, Usher makes a better living than I do so I’ll ignore the scores of blacks living below the poverty line in my city because that’s got nothing to do with me.” It’s not about white guilt or poor little white babies being “born racist.” it’s about inheriting a centuries old system of racism and facing up to the advantages it gives us white people. ”
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Nail, hammer, bang. Thank you. I’m thinking of a Chris Rock joke. He concluded a rant with the words “Not one of you white guys would trade places with me, and I’m rich!”. And, sadly, he was probably right.
Note - the Chris Rock quote is reconstructed from memory, so may not be exactly verbatim, but I think I got the gist of it.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Sarah in Chicago,
Even a broke clock is right twice a day! Thanks.
BritGirlSF,
This comment was written by Rock.It’s not like you need encouragement, but… Go Girl!
Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
I just want to chime in, as a bit of a jump in and disappear sort, that I have learned a lot from the comments of people here like Shannon and Sydney–thanks for clarifying my thinking on this. I do find it telling that conservatives who wish to pretend they are suddenly anti-racist accused liberals of using the term “race traitor”. I’ve never heard this uttered by anyone seriously who was not a white supremacist.
I had a moment of self-doubt about criticizing racial minorities that I see as openly acting on behalf of racist institutions, which is where I’m in a pickle. Clearly, that’s what conservatives are hoping that people like me will do–be scared to criticized someone like Michelle Malkin for fear of being called racist. But I think I’m not. I don’t think her race has much to do with anything regarding her abilities or her person. I do think that it’s something she uses and allows others to use to shield her from criticism.
Suddenly, I feel like one of those men earnestly asking for help on being useful to the feminist cause. Does it help or hurt for a white person to jump into the fray and declare that standing by oppressive racist institutions makes you a racist regardless of your race? My gut instinct is to say that as long as you are clear-eyed and criticize racist institutions and those who support them, it’s pretty unproblematic, but I may be wrong.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Actually, fuck my navel-gazing. I’m amused by how the whining about racism parallels whining about sexism. One fucking note, played repeatedly–”But I wanna, but it’s not my fault!”
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Can Blacks Be Racist To Whites?
First things first. I’ve added Alas, a Blog to my blogroll, both because their posts are superb and because their comments are intellectually invigorating. I’m glad I’ve stumbled across them, and hope that we have many more intelligent conversations…
This comment was written by The Debate Link.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Amanda:
I do find it telling that conservatives who wish to pretend they are suddenly anti-racist accused liberals of using the term “race traitor”.
I’m not pretending to be anti-racist. Indeed, you don’t know me from Adam. Who the hell are you to say that I’m pretending here? (Or that I’m doing so “suddenly”?)
I’ve never heard this uttered by anyone seriously who was not a white supremacist.
Well, you’ve READ it. Several times, if you are able to follow links. Or even if you read this very comment thread, where Sydney used that term several times (comments 15, 31, and 57).
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
What Amanda said.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Well, after taking some time away, I feel remarkably calm. Just in time to read some very asinine and very insightful comments.
Niels, I’ve read all your comments since I last posted and I’m just disappointed. Disappointed that you would completely twist what I’ve said and try to portray me as intolerant, overly simple-minded, and callous. You’ve even managed to link me to white supremacy. Nice. Don’t ask me how you’ve done these things because I’m not going to bother responding. I just wanted to say that I’m sorry that we were unable to have a constructive dialogue, but in a strange way I’m glad you’ve decided to be as stubborn and bone-headed as you’ve been. Because your posts have shown other people reading this thread the kind of ignorance black people have to deal with. So in a weird way, I guess I’m saying thanks for being a hypocrite- it was a good learning tool.
Now onto Amanda’s question. I don’t think that you’re racist by saying, “standing by oppressive racist institutions makes you a racist regardless of your race”. That’s a factually true statement. The racism occurs when you don’t shut up and actually listen to minorities, but instead try to talk over them or invalidate their opinions about racist institutions rather than process what they’re trying to say. Which is something that has been done by certain posters on this thread.
By the way, I agree that conservatives do appear to think that if you criticize a minority that all of a sudden they can call you racist. Because clearly you’re criticizing the minority just because (s)he is a minority. (that was sarcasm) I believe that frequently it is because they view that minority primarily by their race, and love being able to pull the supposed “moral high ground” out from under liberals. Oh and it has also has been my experience that I find myself facing similar resistance when discussing race as I do when discussing sex. The same types of tactics are used: avoidance of discussing the actual point, maligning of my character, insinuating that it’s really the oppressed party’s fault and the requisite complaints of unfairness that occur when everyone points out the poster in question is wrong. The best is when you try to talk about the patriarchy’s role in enforcing racism and sexism on minority women. The heads start to roll then!
Also for the record, I think referencing Malkin’s tits rather than saying she is a woman was crude and inappropriate. Yet I do think it is a valid question to wonder if she is not being used as a symbol by the Republican Party so they appear inclusive. And before someone says this, I don’t think this is an unfair question to ask considering that a number of republican policies tend to primarily benefit white males and help maintain the patriarchy and not minorities. But that’s just my two cents.
I want to respond to some of the other great comments but it’s almost 2 am here and I think I’m starting to ramble. G’night!
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Niels, I’ve read all your comments since I last posted and I’m just disappointed. Disappointed that you would completely twist what I’ve said and try to portray me as intolerant, overly simple-minded, and callous. You’ve even managed to link me to white supremacy.
That’s not true. Amanda said that she, even now, had never heard the term “race traitor” from anyone who wasn’t a white supremacist. I pointed out that you — Sydney — specifically used and defended that term no fewer than three times in this very comment thread. This refutes Amanda’s point, because you are obviously not, and could not be, a white supremacist, and yet you use the term “race traitor.”
Because your posts have shown other people reading this thread the kind of ignorance black people have to deal with.
Ignorance? In my main dispute with you (i.e., over Clarence Thomas’s opinions), you are the one who seems to be ignorant of the fact that Thomas very regularly takes a position that is sympathetic with his old Black Power beliefs. (Again, see above for Thomas’s opinions in various cases involving historically black colleges, eminent domain, and school choice.) As for Thomas’s other opinions (on the Commerce Clause, for example), I’m not ignorant, I just draw a different conclusion than you. From all of Thomas’s opinions, I conclude that (1) he is incredibly sympathetic to the problems of the black community, but at the same time (2) he does his best to call it as he sees it. In other words, he does the most that he can, within his own constitutional philosophy, but if in looking at the actual Constitution and its history he is forced to come to a particular conclusion, then that’s how he votes. I respect that kind of intellectual integrity.
And I think that it is embarrassing to measure the worth of a Supreme Court Justice by asking: “Did he vote for black people every single time?” No one ever asks that sort of question about Breyer or Ginsburg: “Did they vote for the Jews every time? If not, they are race traitors.” No, everyone pays them the minimal respect of assuming that they have their own minds, and that they aren’t deciding every vote based on some sort of racial or ethnic agenda.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 7:27 am
That first paragraph was a quote from Sydney.
By the way, Sydney, your real complaint is with Amanda. You use the term “race traitor” regularly here, and after all of that, Amanda is the one who said that people who use the term “race traitor” are white supremacists. Amanda is therefore the one who linked you to them.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 7:31 am
Neil, people think you are only pretending to be anti racist, because you don’t seem to know anything about racism. You have to learn something about what you are supposedly against. There is no sign on the library saying “No whites allowed”. And Amanda, don’t be afraid to speak up. Conservatives might call you racist, but heck, I’ve been called racist for having an interest in black lit.
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 7:33 am
In mulling over BritGirlSF’s comments last night,
“I see the same thing from misogynistic men, the fear that at some point women will get angry enough to do to men the same kind of bad things that have been done to us. In both cases I think the fearful people are projecting and there’s very little likelihood that they will ever be oppressed in the way that they have oppressed others, but I think the fear is still there.”
Yes, yes, and yes.
It is a consistent theme in our culture that when faced with a minority rights situation that demands remedies, the controlling majority often defines the wrongs and prescribes the remedies, often in the absence of the people being marginalized or to whom the remedy is affecting. Frequently the proposed solutions do not adequately address the issue, do not fully empower or overturn the wrongs, and (go figure) leave the majority in a position of power to thwart any possible chance that they may loose control or become victimized themselves. This is IMO purely fear based reacting, and projecting of those values (or lack of) that others would treat the majority as they have treated the minority. It is entirely possible that some would seek vengeance after suffering for often long periods of time, however it is not always so. The Truth and Reconciliation movement in South Africa has proven that when given the opportunity, most folks just want to be told the truth and treated with respect and get on with things. Most people fighting for rights just want the rights, never wanting the fight. Blessed are the peacemakers… Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 7:36 am
Amanda: “I had a moment of self-doubt about criticizing racial minorities that I see as openly acting on behalf of racist institutions, which is where I’m in a pickle.”
I think you can criticize racial minorities, but (in my experience) it can be very tricky to be taken seriously even if you’re the same race as the person you are criticizing. Notice that Sydney felt constrained to identify herself as a black bisexual woman and that I felt I needed to identify myself as a white woman living in a majority-black area, in our discussions on this thread.
I also think the racist label has become a very popular way to discredit someone on the opposite side of the political aisle for both parties. This frequent misuse is watering down the potency of the term and making it difficut to call out the true racists in this society.
I was thinking about this thread on the way home from work yesterday. In my neighborhood, we have a phrase, “I’m not the right color to talk about this.” It’s our shorthand for saying we need help in dealing with a neighbor who is not the same race as we are. The neighborhood etiquette has evolved a method of interracial relations where if you have a problem with a neighbor who is of a different race, you approach a neutral-party neighbor who is of the same race as that first neighbor and ask them to mediate for you. I was shocked the first time it happened to me - we had just moved into our house, and one of our black neighbors wanted to make sure our yard would look nice for Easter. So he asked one of our white neighbors to explain it to us. (Apparently, the previous owners of our house were Chinese Buddhists and had to be asked to do the yardwork every spring.) On the one hand, I’m glad it’s been worked out over the years as a way to ensure more amicable relations, but on the other hand, I’m sad it’s still necessary.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 8:13 am
Neil, people think you are only pretending to be anti racist, because you don’t seem to know anything about racism.
I haven’t even talked about “racism” AT ALL, except to say that the word “racism” is typically used in a broad sense to mean “bad attitudes based on race.”
You must have me confused with the other commenter who has been disputing about the nature and extent of racism.
That wasn’t me.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Thanks for your post BritGirlSF…I think you raised excellent points. It’s an issue I’ve thought about a lot. And I don’t think you’re crazy at all, if so, you’re not the only one.
The thing about Diallo is that if he were White and the suspect was White, they would at most asked him if he saw anything suspicious. He wouldn’t be treated as a suspect just because he was White. I think the police treat Whites as individuals, and not a group, while African-American and Latinos are treated as groups, which everyone belongs to, with the word “suspect” as the label. Suspect, of something if not that specific thing.
A White person can reach into a pocket to pull out something, and the first thought in a cop’s mind is that it could be a wide variety of things. So maybe the cop is not thinking it’s something dangerous to him, or he’s thinking it’s possible, so I’ll be cautious but the gun stays where it is b/c to pull it out would be unreasonable force in the situation. With a Black man or woman, who was not the person they were looking for(a rape suspect), if he reaches for his pocket(in this case, for a wallet), it must be a gun. So they pull out their guns at once, and fire them, and possibly even reloading, as in Diallo’s case and in the case of a young woman killed in my city.
So, it’s fear, but it’s fear based on race and racial perceptions, many based on media stereotyping(as depicted in Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine movie) especially during the first 15 minutes of any news broadcast when the anchors(mostly white) provide you with a listing of the Dangerous Black Men of the moment day after day after day. Then police officers who grow up with that, like everyone else, go into departments where the culture is very insulated, very “us vs them” and very racist.
It’s deadly fear for those who are the target of it, like Diallo. But then again, the NYPD has members in it, who entered racist floats into parades, including one parodying the James Byrd killing in Texas.
http://www.racematters.org/nytarchjb173.htm
And the NYPD had officers take Abner Louima inside a bathroom in a station house, and sodomize him with a broom handle, and nearly get away with it, because more officers than those directly involved knew about it and said nothing. The NYPD’s also had several controversial shootings of Black men in a short time period, shot in the back.
So if there’s fear there, there’s a great deal of hatred mixed in with it. Also, ignorance and fear that comes to lack of experience with people of different races and cultures. Many LE agencies hire White officers who grew up in small or medium size towns and cities with little racial diversity or there was defacto segregation. Jeremy Morse, the Inglewood PD officer who beat 13-year-old Donovan Jackson came from that background, but he had a host of problems including 12 excessive force incidents in three years. One of the issues is why he was allowed to remain employeed for so long(and for all the fallout from the Jackson incident, Morse is now a millionaire cop)
That fear and resentment also extends to Black officers, who not only face discrimination on the job but they are pulled over on DWBs when they are not working and in many cases, injured or killed by White police officers as happened in LA, Oakland and Providence, RI in recent years.
Studies of both the LAPD and NYPD showed dozens of cases where White officers shot Black officers(usually off-duty or plain-clothed operatives) and killed or wounded them, yet there was not even one case where a Black officer killed a White officer. Black officers who work in narcotics or other undercover assignments are often scared that they will be hit by one of their own. That’s fear, but then since Black officers have a hard time working in predominantly White and racist police agencies, it’s not just fear at work.
That’s an issue that has been discussed in my city a lot as well, especially since the agency can’t find a Black officer candidate any where in the country who wants to work here(despite being very competitive on the pay scale).
I asked several police officers on a special task force(in charge of implementing court-mandated reforms) two weeks ago at a meeting where all that fear came from. I told them I could be a block away, see an officer do a traffic stop, not see the driver, but be able to figure out just from the officer’s body language what the race of the motorist was.
The lieutenant got defensive, first tried to seem like he didn’t get what I was saying, but then he said something interesting. First he said that officers don’t know the race of the person they are pulling over, because they can’t see them clearly. I doubted that in all cases or most cases they didn’t know the race, but I listened and he said that an officer carries a certain amount of fear when they first walk up to the car window, for anyone. Which in some way if applied across the board for all motorists makes some sense b/c that’s the most dangerous moment of an officer’s job(well that, and DV calls) when quite a few have been injured or killed. But then he said, that after the “initial contact” based on that, the level of fear for an officer goes up and down. So I asked what that was based on, and could that in part be based on the person’s race(since according to the officer that’s when they first allegedly know the motorist’s race). He didn’t respond. Whether because he couldn’t or didn’t want to, he knows the answer to that.
In LE, the degree of fear is tricky to address. Obviously, LE officers are more fearful of African-Americans, but other times, they use this fear to prevent themselves from being prosecuted for use of excessive force or lethal force against African-Americans. The defense every officer uses when investigated by the DA’s office for particularly lethal force incidents, consists of five words: “I feared for my life.”
For example, here when a Black woman was shot 12 times while in medical distress in her car, the officers wrote in their statements for the DA investigation, how scared they were. One officer said his leg was shaking so hard when he saw her two female cousins(who had called 9-11 for help) walk up to him, he couldn’t stop it, and so forth…The DA didn’t file charges, but I was skeptical about the level of fear involved in this case for two reasons:
1) the fact that after the DA declined to file charges and two of the officers were later deposed for a civil suit, in their statements, the fear was gone. No legs shaking. No nervous sweat. It became all about having to do something, and getting it done. They no longer needed to be scared, b/c self-defense was only necessarily to thwart criminal charges of murder.
2) Post-shooting, there was so much hi-fiving, laughing and celebrating going around and racist and gender slurs being used, they obviously weren’t afraid. They were happy, and that happiness came from their belief that they had not even killed a human being.
And the officers who reported this behavior which led to the officers’ who did the shooting and their sergeant’s termination, were reviled by the rest of the agency, which reacted to the firings by engaging in a massive head shaving campaign.
I think that was fear, of what happened to the officers happening to them, and hate that five perfectly good White officers lost jobs because they shot an n—–. Adopting what was viewed by African-Americans as a skinhead symbol, enmass just put more fear into the city.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
“From all of Thomas’s opinions, I conclude that (1) he is incredibly sympathetic to the problems of the black community, but at the same time (2) he does his best to call it as he sees it. In other words, he does the most that he can, within his own constitutional philosophy, but if in looking at the actual Constitution and its history he is forced to come to a particular conclusion, then that’s how he votes. I respect that kind of intellectual integrity. ”
—————————————————
Sympathetic in words, or in actions? Actions matter. Words, are words. Walk the talk.
I think he does his best to please and propogate the continuation of the white supremacist patriarchal system, which he has proven his loyalty to during his career. He was appointed after Thurgood Marshall retired, and the adage took affect which states that a) only one person of color can serve on the USSC at one time, and b) a person of color can only be put on the case to replace another person of color. There weren’t very many Black conservative judges and Thomas had only one year on the federal court of appeals when he was appointed, though he did a stint under Reagan on the EEO. He had been criticized a lot for changes he made in the EEO, as director by civil rights organizations. But that was a strategic appointment by Reagan. After all, in a white supremacist patriarchal society, like the U.S., who makes the decisions?
Now, do you think Reagan would put someone in charge of the EEO who would weaken it, or empower it? Civil rights organizations say that Thomas weakened it by his actions against class-action law suits, for example.
To maintain white supremacism, it is useful to have one or a handful of people of color from different racial groups to act on your behalf to maintain your system, and to hide behind when you get criticized on racism. How can we be racists, so-and-so(insert name) is PROOF that we are not racist against(insert racial or ethnic group).
Some people like Thomas, I think, want to be viewed as successful, and as ambitious(and I think you could say any USSC justice was ambitious) and who is going to be able to navigate their way up the judicial(or any other)laddar more quickly? The Black man who supports the racist system, or the one who challenges or fights against it?
They know race and politics go together, and they kind of go with it to get power and respect within society.
And when conservative leaders of any governmental entity are challenged on their practices being racist(i.e. employment), they will always head off the challenges aggressively as unmerited after the required “investigation” and that charge will always be lead by a person of color to put a stamp of what they believe is authenticity on that investigation. Because again, how can we be racist, if he or she is front and center on our side? And the vast majority of the time, their opponants, and this is especially true of liberals go silent, for fear of being labelled racists on the basis of the assertion above, because I think they have a difficult time rationalizing that an action can be done to defend and perpetuate racism with a person of color in the mix.
This applies to conservatives, I think, but also liberals, because even liberals get uncomfortable around people of color who include White liberals o the “wrong side” in their discussions of racism. Some times, efforts are made to divert those discussions towards “it’s all about classism, or sexism” Not that those aren’t important but they’ve also been used as diversions. Or if we eliminate(oppression of choice, usually classism, but always excluding racism) racism(and sometimes sexism is mentioned) will go away. Don’t count on it. The classism, sexism and racism in many liberal and progressive movements says otherwise. Not to pick on them, but they’re and we’re not immune.
Thomas also said once that he was puzzled why he was steered by the conversatives including the Reagan administration into civil rights with the EEO because he had no interest in civil rights, but was interested in tax law. He wondered why he was not encouraged to work in that area. Hmmmm….so why be pigeonholed by conservatives into civil rights, heading the EEO, and not “allowed” to pursue his preferred course into tax law? Where would a White Yale-trained lawyer be prodded towards, by the leadership?
And FTR, I often do scrutinize positions taken by Ginsburg and O’Conner, as the only two women who are and who have ever served on the USSC, more carefully than the men. I try to see what they bring into the decision making process on cases that impact women, i.e racial/gender discrimination, AA, abortion, etc. How do the decisions they make as women on the highest court in the judicial branch, impact women? Though even O’Conner doesn’t step on the fingers of the women coming up the ladder behind her, quite as often as Thomas has done with Black men and women.
Maybe if the USSC were packed by women, rather than White men, I wouldn’t scrutinize the few individuals too much(and white women it appears have broken the “no more than one” rule). Maybe it’s just that so many of them historically and present are White men that they can be viewed more easily as as individuals rather than as a group.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
“Context - that is, what race the speaker is - does matter. It’s clear that when blacks use the word “nigger” or its derivatives, they’re not using it in the anti-black way it’s typically been used by white racists.”
I disagree. You cited Chris Rock(ATM skit), who clearly draws a distinction…as do other members of the community, although in more subtle ways.
This comment was written by bilbo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
I hate to be Mr. Moderation here, but it seems to me that both of the dominant narratives about racism and racial power are fairy tales, rather than historical fiction.
Racism, although manifested in the actions and attitudes of individual people, is not primarily an individual phenomenon. The right-wing description of it as such is wrong. There is social power that inheres in group identities, and the arrangements of this social power flow from historical contingencies that simply are not under individual control. Chris Rock can have all the money and fame in the world but there are always social structures that are going to put them at a structural disadvantage vis a vis members of more dominant groups.
On the left-hand side of the spectrum, we have the bizarrely indefensible proposition that all social arrangements are controlled by these histories - as if power accrued to a particular favored group at all times and in all circumstances, with no reversals or exceptions. A view of historical contingency so powerful that it precludes the making of any new history. The hothouse nature of this idea is manifest in its utter failure to make conversions outside of the academic setting, in striking contrast to most other liberal notions which have made huge memetic inroads or outright conversions of entire societies.
The individual-action hypothesis does have this in its favor: it broadly prescribes the correct, achievable course of action (fix your own individual behavior, since that’s what you actually can do), even as it fails to adequately describe the situation. The collective-action hypothesis has in its favor the fact that it is on to some basic truths, even as it fails to come up with workable plans of action. (Ironically enough, folks who are clueless often behave better through random guessing than folks who have a part of the puzzle but are convinced that what they have is the Holy Totality.)
It would be nice to see a synthesis of these partially-wrong theories. We might actually start making some progress again.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Robert wrote:
It’s easy enough not to see the control factor if you’re one of the privileged race, I’ll wager.
Is that really what you get from this thread ? Maybe you should re-read it. The question is not whether there are reversals or exceptions, but how important they are to the big picture, and how relevant they are to most members of the privileged or unprivileged groups.
Of course, as with issues surrounding sexism, it serves defenders of the status quo to focus as much attention as they can upon exceptions and reversals. Man bites dog, and so forth.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 12:31 am
The question is not whether there are reversals or exceptions, but how important they are to the big picture, and how relevant they are to most members of the privileged or unprivileged groups.
Right. (Eyeroll.) And yet somehow, in no significant situation or area do those exceptions to the pattern become worthy of voluntary comment, or action, or anything.
I observe a similar rhetorical defense mechanism in some of my racially prejudiced cousins; “oh, not all the are wicked or lazy or immoral; why, some of the finest people I know…” - but somehow, none of the finest people are ever president of the bank.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Comment is one thing. Manipulating a discussion to make it look like one or two cases of tit for tat makes “equality” is quite another. Again, I don’t think you’re really comprehending a lot of what has been written here.
Yes, and such a pitch actually allies their bigotry with y0urs, as you continue to foist your Invisible Hand fantasies on us as truth;Pretending that there’s no such thing as conservative elders nurturing and growing the careers of younger conservatives in the media biz. Just one or two stellar minority individuals “working hard and going to college” does it. No particular foundations, media orgs, and what not have anything to do with it. It’s, like, sunspots or something, and to suggest otherwise is nothing but crazy conspiracy talk.
Please.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 7:20 am
Wow! Robert and alsis39, please continue this dialog. It is informing and stirring thought (at least in me), in addition to what has been discussed.
Robert, “I hate to be Mr. Moderation here…” don’t worry; we won’t let it get in the way of how you really feel. It is good you brought those points to the table. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 7:43 am
Rock, I’m enjoying your comments, too.
Really, though, it’s tough to have a debate when you feel the person on the other side isn’t proceeding honestly. I tend to think that a person who obsesses constantly about exceptions to the rule is not debating honestly.
Also Robert, who decreed in the neighbor thread that Malkin “made it” through pure merit in a fictional world in which pure merit is all, and no system exists to reward individuals who tout certain party lines and who reinforce certain long-lived power structures, has more in common with his bigoted relatives than he will ever own up to.
I think Sydney tried valiantly. I applaud her stamina, which is more than I could manage.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 8:09 am
I tend to think that a person who obsesses constantly about exceptions to the rule is not debating honestly.
Right. Because it’s inconceivable that the rule could be, in fact, simply one rather large clump of contingencies, and not the totality of the reality.
Everyone who has different data sets than you is evil.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I didn’t say that you were evil, Robert. I said that your argument was dishonest.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Yes, we draw a distinction but we never use it the way racists use it. When a black person calls another person nigger they mean:
1) guy, dude, etc.
2) a close friend or person with whom you share a bond
3) an ignornant, lazy, no account, good for nothing person
It’s never a hate filled slur as it is when used by racist white people. It’s the difference between calling someone a jerk or a motherfucking asshole who likes to fellate goats in his spare time.
This comment was written by Phaeton.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
But the term under discussion here is “race traitor,” which seems to me to be an anger-filled or hate-filled phrase, no matter who says it.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Exactly.
Back to something Sydney said earlier: “And in some ways I would also list Bill Cosby and Condoleeza Rice as betrayers of the black community.”
Condoleeza Rice? Huh? She has supported affirmative action, so she passes that litmus test. What has she ever done that supposedly hurt the black community?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
“It’s never a hate filled slur as it is when used by racist white people. It’s the difference between calling someone a jerk or a motherfucking asshole who likes to fellate goats in his spare time. ”
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Snort. The part about the goats was damn funny.
And the rest of this post was right on target too. What s/he said.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Alsis: “I think Sydney tried valiantly. I applaud her stamina, which is more than I could manage. ”
Thanks Alsis. Alas, I was unable to get through to particular individuals so I decided to step back and simply read for a while. I am intrigued by the conversation between you and Robert though. I love this:
Alsis: …”Yes, and such a pitch actually allies their bigotry with y0urs, as you continue to foist your Invisible Hand fantasies on us as truth;Pretending that there’s no such thing as conservative elders nurturing and growing the careers of younger conservatives in the media biz. Just one or two stellar minority individuals “working hard and going to college” does it. No particular foundations, media orgs, and what not have anything to do with it. It’s, like, sunspots or something, and to suggest otherwise is nothing but crazy conspiracy talk.
Please. ”
Seriously, you cracked my shit up! With this statement you highlight the unwillingness of many (NOT ALL) conservatives to face actual reality and not the reality they imagine that exists. I also think you’ve made some great points regarding honesty. There is no point in continuing a fruitless conversation where the other individual refuses to analyze their personal feelings/reactions but instead jumps around from hypothetical to hypothetical in an inane attempt to “prove you wrong”. But I hope you are able to get through- good luck :)
This comment was written by Sydney.Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2005 at 8:25 am
I came across this quote in a writing on fear. I thought alsis and others would appreciate it especially, as I believe much of the response from folks that frustrate her/him are not out of malice in their person, but from fear and what happens when one lives in fear. This is not off topic, as the basis of many of the ruminations on race and “race traitor” IMO is fear. I included the address of the page to read the writing for those that want to see the whole thing. I have never seen it said more accurately. Blessings.
‘”Hatred,” wrote C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape to Wormwood, “is often the compensation by which a frightened man reimburses himself for the miseries of Fear. The more he fears, the more he will hate.” The darkest fear of all, the fear that has the power not only to shape a life for death-dealing, but also to distort an entire community, is the fear that lurks beneath the pretense of power and privilege, the fear which crouches behind the doorways of prejudice and preys upon the least of these. It is often a righteous fear, justified in the name of a greater Power who has, according to us, willed our dominant hold on the present order.’
The shadow side
by Cynthia A. Jarvis
The Christian Century
This comment was written by Rock.Sunday, August 7
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=1096
Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Maybe after a few cups of coffee, Sydney. Also I need to clean the kitchen and get some bulbs in. :/
Happy to be of some small assistance to you, though. ;)
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 13th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Did you not see the paragraphs that I quoted? I was specifically responding to someone who questioned how black people use the word “nigger.”
But in regards to the term “race traitor”, the problem is that racists and non-racists use the same term to mean different things. When white people call another white person a “race traitor” they really mean nigger lover, i.e., someone who wants black people to be equal to whites and is fighting to end racism and white supremacy. When black people call another black person a “race traitor” we mean “Uncle Tom” or “house slave”, i.e., someone who has been co-opted by and identifies with white supremacy and continues to perpetrate white supremacy and racism to the detriment of black people as a group. When white liberals call minority conservatives “race traitor” they mean the same thing. And if you think that a person who fights to end racism=a person who fights to continue it, or that calling someone “a person who promotes racism” is racist, well then I really don’t know what to say to you. And yes, you can talk all you want about how the minority conservatives who are called “race traitors” aren’t actually perpetrating white supremacy and racism but many think they are and that is why they are called “race traitors.”
This comment was written by Phaeton.Report this comment to the moderators
August 14th, 2005 at 12:23 am
a fictional world in which pure merit is all
I went to law school with a lot of people like this–one minute they’d be crabbing about affirmative action, the next, bragging about how they were a shoo-in for prestigious jobs because Uncle Bill knew a federal judge or their dad had introduced them to the hiring partner at BigFirm. Or how they went to IvyLeague U, just like dad and granddad.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 14th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
And yes, you can talk all you want about how the minority conservatives who are called “race traitors” aren’t actually perpetrating white supremacy and racism but many think they are and that is why they are called “race traitors.”
Given that there are legitimate differences in the black community about a wide range of policies, the wise thing to do would be to express disagreements in a more civil fashion. (I.e., it would be prudent to avoid calling Condi Rice a “race traitor” for no reason other than that she is a Republican.)
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 5:41 am
What Niels said.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 5:42 am
Oh, and BTW, Phaeton, thank you for the concise and cosolidated summary of usage for “nigger.” I was not reading your comment in isolation, but rather WRT the (significantly earlier) posts on this thread.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 6:10 am
“Given that there are legitimate differences in the black community about a wide range of policies, the wise thing to do would be to express disagreements in a more civil fashion. ”
Oh here we go again: the white middle-class boys dictating what is “proper” behaviour on the parts of groups that they can’t even begin to understand the positions of.
Of course, as those of us who have to face shit every day due to the forms our physical selves take know quite well, “civility” and “politeness” are often just ways to sidetrack issues, obscure the truth and generally water down any debate to the point of meaninglessness.
It’s no suprise the white middle-class boys love these rules of theirs so much: those rules go a long way to keeping the status quo.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 6:16 am
You can also be as “civil” as “civil” can get and still have a moral code that is, to say the least, objectionable. For example, I don’t in any way fault Rice for her appearance, her speech, her intellect, and what not. I do fault her for casting her lot with a nest of rich thugs and for using patriotism as a cheap backdrop for latter-day colonial bullshit.
Even formiddable intellects can sport about as much morality as would fit easily inside a thimble. Kissinger, anyone ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 6:59 am
Oh here we go again: the white middle-class boys dictating what is “proper” behaviour on the parts of groups that they can’t even begin to understand the positions of.
I’m not “dictating” what is “proper.” I’m just stating a fact: If someone wants to be viewed as a rational adult, it is prudent to avoid throwing around vicious slurs that have little-to-no basis in reality. If you want to use such vicious slurs nonetheless, feel free, but ultimately, you’re only hurting yourself.
Of course, as those of us who have to face shit every day due to the forms our physical selves take know quite well,
Condi Rice has to face shit every day due to her supposed betrayal of the black community, and she knows quite well that such accusations are based on ignorance and sheer meanness. (As “Alsis39″ points out, Condi Rice may have objectionable values in other areas that have nothing to do with white-vs-black issues).
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Niels, I actually agree with Amp in this case. As a White woman, I don’t think it’s my place to decide whether or not Rice has betrayed the Black community. I do think that she is a prominent force in retrograde foreign policies that negatively impact Americans of all races, to one degree or another– except her buddies and their corporate/military backers, of course.
For me, that’s quite bad enough. :( It doesn’t preclude any criticism of Rice that acknowledges her race. I just don’t think that I’m the one to make that criticism.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 8:02 am
I’m not “dictating” what is “proper.” I’m just stating a fact: If someone wants to be viewed as a rational adult, it is prudent to avoid throwing around vicious slurs that have little-to-no basis in reality.
Yes, yes. You know that is a fact in all circumstances & cultures. You know that the term “race traitor” has “little-to-no basis in reality” whenever it is used. That is just another simple fact. And not at all condescending or full of assumptions. Niels knows best. Thank you so much for imparting your infallible wisdom to us mere ignoramuses. Or would that be ignorami? Enlighten us more, sir, please.
I find it hard to believe that you have actually listened to anything anybody from the group that you’re instructing has said.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 8:11 am
“I’m not “dictating” what is “proper.” I’m just stating a fact”
Because, of course, your personal standards constitute “facts”, not just subjective, personal opinions of what is right. Um, no, sorry. They don’t.
“it is prudent to avoid throwing around vicious slurs that have little-to-no basis in reality.”
Sometimes these terms have a very great basis in reality. At the end of the day, if we are discussing what Black people think about other Black people, it’s up to them to determine what is “reality” in that specific case, and not two white people like you and me. OK?
What goes on between “Condi” (lord, do we need those eye-rolling smilies sometimes) and other Black people is OUTSIDE of your realm of experience. You are NOT CAPABLE of understanding exactly what the dynamics are there, so you are NOT QUALIFIED to appoint yourself judge and jury on what is “right” or “correct” or “real”. You have no right whatever to lecture Black people on their responses in this case. Full stop. It seems to me that if you were truly concerned about “civility”, you could take that on board.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 10:54 am
I want to make clear I was only agreeing with Niels on the part about calling black person a race traitor just because they are Republican. I do not agree with the rest of what he said about civility and maturity.
Sometimes the only words that can effectively convey the depth of frustration, disgust, and anger one person feels towards another are harsh, loaded terms. Based on the posts on this thread, “race traitor” appears to be one of them. It just feels to me like an excommunication from the church when someone uses it, except that once you’ve pasted the race traitor label on someone, there doesn’t seem any way to get it off.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Jake, please:
I’m not “dictating” what is “proper.” I’m just stating a fact: If someone wants to be viewed as a rational adult, it is prudent to avoid throwing around vicious slurs that have little-to-no basis in reality. Yes, yes. You know that is a fact in all circumstances & cultures. You know that the term “race traitor” has “little-to-no basis in reality” whenever it is used.
Did I say that “race traitor” is without basis “WHENEVER it is used”? No. It might be an appropriate term in some instances. Your response is therefore irrelevant.
I find it hard to believe that you have actually listened to anything anybody from the group that you’re instructing has said.
You’re not paying attention: Earlier up in this very thread, someone proffered Condi Rice as an example of a race traitor, and I specifically asked what on earth Rice had ever done to deserve that label. There was no response. So there was nothing for me to “listen to” on that point.
Crys: What goes on between “Condi” (lord, do we need those eye-rolling smilies sometimes) and other Black people is OUTSIDE of your realm of experience. You are NOT CAPABLE of understanding exactly what the dynamics are there, so you are NOT QUALIFIED to appoint yourself judge and jury on what is “right” or “correct” or “real”.
With Condi, there appears to be nothing to understand in the first place — nothing that anyone can explain in words, anyway.
I wonder how you’d like the same logic applied to any other group: “What goes on among Southern rednecks is OUTSIDE your realm of experience. You are NOT CAPABLE of understanding their pride in their heritage, etc., and so you are NOT QUALIFIED to disagree with the fact that they put the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks.”
Look, there’s a measure of truth, of course, in the notion that we all come from different perspectives, that we could all do better in trying to understand each other, and that many differences of opinion come from lack of understanding. At the same time, NO ONE, in ANY group, has the blanket right to be nasty and vicious and mean, and then to claim immunity from all criticism on the grounds that “you’re not part of my group and you can’t understand me, so you just have to shut up about anything that I say.” BULL. No group of people is beyond “understanding.”
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
“What goes on among Southern rednecks is OUTSIDE your realm of experience. You are NOT CAPABLE of understanding their pride in their heritage, etc., and so you are NOT QUALIFIED to disagree with the fact that they put the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks.”
Wrong-o, there! I happen to have real, live Southern rednecks in my family (though they thankfully do not put Confederate flags on their trucks), so nyeeeeaaaahhhh. Actually, you are playing the old game of trying to say that a group such as Southern rednecks is in an equivalent situation in US society as Black people are. And that does not wash. Southern rednecks may not be the highest-status group in the US, but they are far from a historically discrminated-against minority group, however much some of their number might like to make out that they are. And please do not come back with examples of petty indignities some of them have had to put up with. Yes, I don’t condone the classism some of them have had to face, but to put it in the same league as racism against Black people would be offensive in the extreme.
Southern rednecks have their voice in the US. They are not a freaking oppressed group. So, no point for comparison.
“NO ONE, in ANY group, has the blanket right to be nasty and vicious and mean, and then to claim immunity from all criticism on the grounds that “you’re not part of my group and you can’t understand me, so you just have to shut up about anything that I say.” ”
You are neglecting to note that it is YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION and YOUR INSISTENCE ON IMPOSING YOUR STANDARDS ON OTHERS that labels calling your beloved “Condi” a race traitor an act that is “nasty and vicious and mean” in the first place. You are dismissing out of hand any argument that such a label could have merit, or at least a understandable explanation. All because YOU say it can’t be so. And the fact that you do so DESPITE having been told by actual people of colour that you don’t know what you’re talking about, that you aren’t grasping the dynamics of the situation, is what *I* personally call bull.
You really ARE being the middle-class white guy who stomps into the middle of someone else’s home, plops himself down in the biggest chair, and proceeds to dictate to the occupants of the house how they must conduct themselves. And just because you say so, as well. Tone down the arrogance a few notches, huh?
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Crys:
The point of my analogy was NOT that rednecks are equivalent to blacks in terms of being discriminated against, etc. Of course they aren’t. But that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Don’t get caught up in things that are utterly irrelevant. (It’s even more irrelevant that you, personally, have experience with rednecks. That is totally beside the point.)
The point is, EVERYBODY can claim to be part of some “group” or another that has a unique perspective on life. Heck, multiple groups. People all have gender, race, geographic location, occupation, religious or non-religious beliefs, educational background, familial upbringing, hobbies, etc., etc. For every last one of those groupos, anyone could say that their group is beyond understanding by outsiders: “You don’t know what it’s like to be a [man, woman, Southerner, North Dakotan, child of divorced parents, student in an urban school, long-distance runner, Muslim, etc., etc., etc.].”
But part of liberalism — or of rationality itself — is the notion that we can all understand each other IF people are willing to explain themselves.
So that’s why I’m not impressed by any sort of argument that basically amounts to, “I have the right to be reckless with vicious slurs, and you can’t say anything about it, because you have the wrong skin color or other attributes, and therefore you can never understand me.”
If that’s really true — that people can never understand each other — what a depressing world it would be.
You are neglecting to note that it is YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION and YOUR INSISTENCE ON IMPOSING YOUR STANDARDS ON OTHERS that labels calling your beloved “Condi” a race traitor an act that is “nasty and vicious and mean” in the first place. You are dismissing out of hand any argument that such a label could have merit, or at least a understandable explanation.
To restate the obvious: No one has made any argument whatsoever as to why Condi Rice is a “race traitor.” That argument doesn’t appear to exist.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 15th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
” Don’t get caught up in things that are utterly irrelevant.”
What an unintentionally hilarious remark.
Niels, you have a case of entitlement disorder of absolutely monstrous proportions. Get over yourself. And quit fucking lecturing the rest of us on what is “right” and how we should behave.
Black people don’t freaking OWE you explanations for what they think or say, even if it is about (god help us) “Condi”. I know that is a shocking fact for you to have to deal with, but there it is. Maybe if you condescended to actually, y’know, *ask* somebody honest questions and (gulp!) *listen* to their replies, you might just get the answers you say are lacking. But of course, that would involve you actually doing something other than wagging your finger and lecturing.
And, btw, yes, the whole point of your bringing up rednecks to equate their position with those of Black people in the sense that they are perceived as 2 definable groups in society. I don’t have the time or inclination to give you a detailed lecture on group processes right now (hell, crack a book rather than relying on what your own personal experience tells you are “commonsense” theories some time–your life is not necessarily like most people’s you know), so I’ll just say a couple of things: unfortunately, merely existing as a definable group is not enough. For example, men cannot have a real understanding of women because most of our lives occurs under your radar. You have no real clue as to what our lives are like or what goes on between us. On the other hand, male lives are seen as the default. We get what you think and what you believe and how you live shoved down our fucking throats 24/7. We are in the position to make fairly accurate judgments about you.
It’s exactly the same thing when you are talking race relations. Black people get images of whiteness and information about white culture ALL THE TIME. White people, on the other hand, get little information about Black lives, and even what little we do get is often distorted. WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE.
If you want to change that state of affairs, you can start by shutting the hell up and LISTENING for a change, instead lecturing and patronising all of us. Until you do that, YOU are the one who is creating the situation that so depresses you.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 12:00 am
It may not be your business to police the language Blacks use, yet I do believe that is possible for whites to accurately criticize racism within minority groups. Whether a black calling another black a “race traitor” actually qualifies as an example of racism is another question, and not one that I know the answer to.
But Niels, you are oppressing people by asking them to provide justification for their statements…
How convenient. You can judge men, but they can’t judge you! What do you mean by “male lives are seen as the default”? Even if you are right that “male perspectives” are given more attention than “female perspectives” in our culture, that doesn’t mean that women can ever actually understand the experience of being male. In the big picture, I think that both genders are equally ignorant towards each other’s experiences.
Middle-class white guys do this? Wow, I must have missed reading that page in the job description…
Well, I get very little information about the lives of Southern Rednecks, and what I get is often distorted. Does that mean I am in no position to judge Rednecks who are racist?
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 7:44 am
Black people don’t freaking OWE you explanations for what they think or say, even if it is about (god help us) “Condi”
No one owes me any explanation if they keep to themselves. But when you come on a public internet forum that is explicitly addressed to the question of whether and when it’s ok to say “race traitor,” and when you use the term “race traitor” to describe Bill Cosby and Condi Rice (as someone did above), then when someone else says, “Hold on, how come they are race traitors,” you DO owe an explanation. That’s what it means to engage in public debate in the first place.
I know that is a shocking fact for you to have to deal with, but there it is. Maybe if you condescended to actually, y’know, *ask* somebody honest questions and (gulp!) *listen* to their replies, you might just get the answers you say are lacking.
Please try to get this through your head: For the third time, I DID ask the question (multiple times) why Condi Rice had supposedly betrayed other blacks, and there was NO REPLY. There was nothing to “listen to.”
You really ARE being the middle-class white guy who stomps into the middle of someone else’s home, plops himself down in the biggest chair, and proceeds to dictate to the occupants of the house how they must conduct themselves.
I’m not going into anyone else’s home here. If someone wants to call Condi Rice a “race traitor” in the privacy of her own home, I have no objection. If someone wants to call her housemate a “selfish bitch” because she didn’t open the blinds in the morning, that’s her privilege. If she wants to call her landlord a “psychotic asshole” because he was two days late in fixing a leaky roof, that’s fine.
But again, this is a public debate in a public forum. (You’ve noticed that we’re all exchanging messages here, on the Internet, where anyone can see?) What’s more, the very topic of debate is the appropriateness of the term “race traitor.” I have just as much right as anyone else to participate in that debate.
In fact, you’re the one who should listen to genuine blacks like Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas, etc. Maybe YOU could learn something from THEM. (But then — oh my goodness — you might realize that black people don’t always agree with each other! What is a white person supposed to do? Just pick out the person who is the most self-righteous in condemning other blacks for not being “black” enough, and then believe everything that he/she says without questioning?)
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Thanks for your posts, CrysT and alsis.
I have no patience for asshats right now, whining about the oppression of the white male or lecturing people outside their group on proper behavior. Everything you said, though.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
I have no patience for asshats…lecturing people outside their group on proper behavior.
Oooh, so much for prescriptive feminism.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Ummm, Robert, if you are going to refer to my post, could you take it in its entire context? Thank you.
Then after that, perhaps you and Niels could park your White male priviliage for a minute and reread the posts done by Shannon, Sydney, alsis, Crys T, Sarah and others here. Thank you.
You are here to learn from others and not to troll, right? Or not.
It would be nice to actually read a thread which does not have people pleading the case of the poor oppressed White male, whose life is so inconvenienced by men of color and women asserting their rights. But then hell, as a feminist, it would be just about heaven(whether of the secular or various religious interpretations of what this means) to be able to read a thread about women’s issues without it being, what about those poor damn men??? And then there’s the varying rules of civility and how men’s rules trump women’s rules and all that.
As far as whether women know the male experience or not, what I can say is that women know more about men’s lives, than vice versa. Why? Because modern society dictates that WE HAVE TO. Survival, is one reason.
I think this applies in its own way with people of color knowing more about the lives of Whites than vice versa, as well. That’s been said and shown here many times.
From an educational standpoint of how women can’t help but know the male experience:
We know about White men’s accomplishments? That’s called history.
Want to know about the histories of people of color and white women??? That’s called Black history, Native American history, Chicano history, women’s history, etc.
We know about White men’s writings. That’s called American and English Literature.
Want to know about People of color and white women’s contributions to literature? Those are electives.
That’s called Black, Chicano, Asian-American and women lit. Those are electives.
We know about male sexual responses. That’s called plot structure for novels, short stories and plays. You know, intro, buildup, climax, resolution.
We know that to men, size and ejaculatory power matters, because we celebrate tall and taller buildings, long missiles and nuclear weapons, towers, tall flagpoles, etc. Guns, rifles, cannons and rockets. Caliber sizes, magazine sizes, firing power/sec, etc. All these things.
These are a few ways, of many, that women know the male experience. It’s kind of all over the place. Men have more difficulty learning about women, because whatever presense the female has in society is either downplayed, in some cases invisible, or in many cases demeaned and denigrated.
This is a blunt, and perhaps crude depiction, but it’s there, most women know about these things, if men don’t consciously.
As far as being civil, I don’t think this post is half-bad really, either. Except for talking about some sensitive male issues.
btw, this post is for those out there who may have a “click” moment, not for those who think they know everything about everything, well just because…they’ve been told so due to a few biological factors.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
“It would be nice to actually read a thread which does not have people pleading the case of the poor oppressed White male”
But….but….if we don’t focus every fibre of our beings on white men (after all, the only Real Humans, as we all know), we might…..have energy and time to spend on others, and we certainly can’t have THAT, now can we?
I knew they’d fly into screaming fits of rage over my saying that women know far more about men than men do about women. Because not to would mean having to think for a second about how fucking privileged they actually are. And seeing as they don’t give a damn about any lives but their own, that ain’t going to happen any time soon.
“As far as being civil, I don’t think this post is half-bad really, either. Except for talking about some sensitive male issues.”
But of course, you do realise that merely pointing out those issues is taken by them to be an act of hostility. Anything other than servilely grovelling is to them an act of hostility.
They are not here to listen or learn or have any sort of exchange: they are here to masturbate their egos on us.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
But you know, Crys T, women aren’t supposed to mention SIZE….that’s breaking one of patriarchy’s most sacred laws.
I’m sorry I’m not sufficiently nice or servile, but I am so not in the mood for this crap today. Issues and discussion of issues outside the realm of the White male experience can not be done, unless the White Male Experience becomes front and central, to the discussion and everyone else’s perspective is shunted to the curb.
btw, Crys T. Your posts are spot on. I’m sure glad there’s women like you out there.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Thanks, and I’d like to say that goes double for me when I read your posts. It’s just so GOOD to see sanity does exist out there!
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
I think it’s amazingly arrogant for anyone to claim to understand the experience of any group they are not in. They can study that group all they want, but ultimately, the only way to understand the subjective experience of those people is to be one of them.
Give me a break. All the examples you gave are only a small part of the experience of some males. I hope you don’t actually believe that they encompass the totality of the experience of being male. Get this: you will never have any real understanding of the male experience. Neither will I ever have any real understanding of the female experience. Unless perhaps we both become transsexuals…
I will agree with your argument that women may have more of an understanding of the male experience than vice versa. Yet I think that is only a slight difference in the degree of cluelessness that both sexes have towards each other. And I definitely don’t think the existence of flagpoles, and reading James Joyce in highschool instead of Toni Morrison gives women a unique position to criticize men, while men cannot criticize women. Same kind of thing with race.
This criticism might make sense in another thread, but it doesn’t in this one. The topic of this thread is race issues, not women’s issues. And when has anyone complained about “the oppression of the white male” in this thread?
Actually, talking about sensitive male issues is not the problem. You may be correct that male perspectives are more common in eduction/literature than female perspectives. At my high school, we read both James Joyce and Toni Morrison, but perhaps it is atypical. As for your argument that women can understand the male experience from our culture while males cannot understand the female experience, although I consider it both wrong and arrogant, it is not actually uncivil. What I find problematic about your post is accusing Robert of trolling telling him to “park your White male priviliage for a minute and reread the posts done by Shannon, Sydney, alsis, Crys T, Sarah and others here.” Have you considered that maybe Robert and Niels have read those posts, and simply find them unconvincing? Why not get to the bottom of why they disagree, and possibly change their minds, instead of flaming them?
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Radfem, CrysT, and all:
Since I speak as a middle-class white man with a really, really big penis I know that you’ll follow my suggestions because I am a middle-class white man with a really, really big penis. This white man who is middle-class and has a really, really big penis has the grace to impart the following objectively true information to you. And you know that it is objectively true since I am, as I’m sure you’ll be delighted to learn, a really, really big penis-bearing middle-class white male.
There is nothing in this thread nearly as important as answering Niels’ question about why Condi is a race-traitor. The reason that nothing is nearly that important is because Niels is a white man with a truly awe-inspiringly huge penis. It follows that his conclusion that since nobody has answered his question that there is no way in which Condi could possibly be validly called a race traitor by some non-white or non-male.
Please, I beg of you as a kindly middle-class, amazingly endowed in the genital region, white guy to stop harming yourself by ignoring the vital question that Niels (a white man with a stunning example of a penis) has been asking over and over again. You just make yourselves look immature and irrational and I, as a white man with a really, really big penis, know that you have it in you to be rational, civil and mature.
(Things-yes, that is parody. Do not take the above words at face value.)
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
I read in a women’s mag once that Condi dresses too drably and that she should have a more flattering haircut, because her current one makes her look dumpy. Isn’t that traitorous enough for you all ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Give me a break. All the examples you gave are only a small part of the experience of some males.
Umm, Aegis darling? The examples are a part of the experience of every person who has spent time in the US education system. Are you now going to tell us that only “some males” have experienced the public and/or private schooling that is available in the US? You did read what she wrote about history & literature, right? Not to mention the bits about buildings and the importance of size which is in the realm of experience of every conscious human being in the United States, right?
Just checking.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Damn, I picked up the wrong week to give up the violin!!
“I think it’s amazingly arrogant for anyone to claim to understand the experience of any group they are not in. They can study that group all they want, but ultimately, the only way to understand the subjective experience of those people is to be one of them.”
——————————————-
If only Niels, jake and some of the men here were told to take that same advice! But then again, they don’t have to! Part and parcel of racial and gender privilage is that you get to sit and lecture other groups how to conduct discussions amongst themselves.
———————————————-
“Give me a break. All the examples you gave are only a small part of the experience of some males. I hope you don’t actually believe that they encompass the totality of the experience of being male. Get this: you will never have any real understanding of the male experience. Neither will I ever have any real understanding of the female experience. Unless perhaps we both become transsexuals…”
———————————————
I’m all out of breaks today. I’ve read intelligent posts by women who are explaining their experiences and perspectives as women, and to Black women who are explaining their perspectives, as being black, being female and being both together. Then I’ve read White men tsk, tsk everything they see, not listen to a damn word of it(because they do not have to) and be lectured by White men who seem to believe they are experts on the going ons of people of color, women and Black women.
I will be forcefed for my whole life the reality of the male experience, even if I never enjoy his priviliages or “rights”. OTOH, not only will men never have to be women(which most of them would rather be DEAD than to be associated with anything “feminine”(i.e. sissy) but they don’t have to LEARN A DAMN THING about what women are, how they feel, what they write, their sexual experiences, or what they talk about. Even less so, with women of color.
As for M-F transexuals, which I’m no expert on, they weren’t BORN women, they weren’t raised women, so they miss a lot of women’s experience, and discrimination, though no doubt they face discrimination mostly by a society that favors men who are defined by machoism.
————————————————-
Actually, talking about sensitive male issues is not the problem. You may be correct that male perspectives are more common in eduction/literature than female perspectives. At my high school, we read both James Joyce and Toni Morrison, but perhaps it is atypical. As for your argument that women can understand the male experience from our culture while males cannot understand the female experience, although I consider it both wrong and arrogant, it is not actually uncivil. What I find problematic about your post is accusing Robert of trolling telling him to “park your White male priviliage for a minute and reread the posts done by Shannon, Sydney, alsis, Crys T, Sarah and others here.” Have you considered that maybe Robert and Niels have read those posts, and simply find them unconvincing? Why not get to the bottom of why they disagree, and possibly change their minds, instead of flaming them?
——————————————–
I am correct, but it’s more than just a difference of male and female contributions to literature, being taught inside the classroom. It’s the internalization b/c of the overemphasis on men’s contributions and the underemphasis on women’s that helps build the male entitlement that it’s a fact of life that men do more, contribute more, and thus are superior(since more and more in modern times, the physical superiority argument is falling flat)
So if I ask the men here, who arrogant would be a compliment in terms of some of their posts, lol, to listen to what women are saying about WOMEN and what Black women are saying about BLACK WOMEN, warrants a response to reconsider what the White men who are all out of sorts from having THEIR opinions challenged, and try to change their minds.
They didn’t come here to have their opinions changed, or else they’d actually be listening to what Sidney’s tried to explain to them a zillion times rather than stubbornly asserting that she’s wrong about her community because they’re basically White men, who know everything about everybody. But then when women, or men of color purport to say they know anything about the MALE experience, or the WHITE MALE experience, the dander sure flies!
And actually, I’m not here to change the minds of White men who choose to be smug, why should they change their minds b/c that would mean only 98% of the pie for them rather than the whole thing! Incidently, they’re not the folks who have actually taught me anything, except perhaps things they didn’t intend to pass on….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 4:13 am
Gee, someone’s bothering with Aegis? I can sum him up easily and in fewer words:
“But you’re not talking about ME ME ME ME my penis my love life my desire to fuck anything I want to my desire to be the center of discussion my desire to talk about ME ME ME ME ME. God, you’re so selfish.”
[Ginmar, on threads started by me, I'd really prefer that personal attacks by posters on other posters be avoided. Thanks! --Amp]
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 6:01 am
Dear Jake,
you wrote: “Since I speak as a middle-class white man with a really, really big penis [...]”
Well, after reading your blog, I think the interesting issue isn’t the size of your penis, but rather the consistency of your balls. I think they got squeezed quite mushy by some women in your life:
- “I love people. The crazier and more stupid the better. [...] Kathi says, “I’m only going to pay for 1/8.” I patiently explain that that is exactly what I just told her.”
- “She gets hostile and raises her voice, demanding that I give it to her right now, that I’m stealing her money.”
- “I keep myself between her and her bike (which is parked in my driveway) because I don’t want her getting away [...]”
- “I can only guess at what Kathi told [the police], but I believe it is something along the lines of ‘…man physically intimidating me & he’s stealing my money.’”
- “And then she starts arguing with me again. I really don’t want to deal with her any more so I say, ‘Look, I don’t want to argue with you. It’s pointless. [...]‘”
- “Sharon (& that fuck) are evil.”
- “What Sharon did to me (& what that fuck did to me) is the sort of thing that causes deep, lifelong emotional pain to people. The sort of pain that makes people do horrible things like injure, maim and kill one another.”
- “Sharon is no different now than she was for the entire time I knew her. She still thinks only of herself. Witness the photo of her kid. Why not just send me a photo of her and that asshole fucking? Same difference. But that simply didn’t occur to her. Who wouldn’t want to see her kid? Certainly her heartbroken & crushed ex would love to see the kid she produced with the guy she cheated on him with.”
- “She tried to isolate me from my friends because she needed to be in total control. She needed somebody entirely emotionally and socially dependent on her and her only, she has that with that bizarre fuck.”
- “She actively tried to destroy me. She tried to remove me from all social contact with people she did not control. By that I mean people who didn’t know me before her and whose perceptions of me she could control. She tried to destroy my sexual confidence. She tried to destroy my self esteem. She tried to break me through overwork. Our relationship was all about her [...]”
- “She would have come back to me if I had tried. ”
—-
I feel your pain, man.
This comment was written by hun.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 6:31 am
Hey, hun, I don’t mind you quoting my writing a’tall. I do mind you taking partial quotes that lose the context. T’isn’t honest, y’know. This quote that you did:
- “I keep myself between her and her bike (which is parked in my driveway) because I don’t want her getting away [...]“
really doesn’t reflect the whole sentence does it? Don’t you think that, just maybe, the “…with my legal documents.” part is really important for people to read in order to judge the meaning of the sentence?
I absolutely encourage people to read that whole entry (it’s at http://www.livejournal.com/users/jakesquid/15231.html ). Then if they want to criticise me, I’m happy to listen. I’d love to learn how I could have handled that situation better.
As for all that you quote from my entries about Sharon… Do you think it might be important to note that that comes from a time of deep emotional pain while reflecting on a person who did the thing that I had told her would hurt me more than anything else? By all means, folks, if you want to read some of what I consider my best writing - writing that came from deep emotional pain and is all about me, me, me (my journal, my life and all) - I suggest reading http://www.livejournal.com/users/jakesquid/12739.html . That gives all the background you might want to know.
And, Hun? I think you forgot an important quote from the entry that you cherrypicked from:
9) I am so lucky to have found Rebecca. Now I know how a person treats you if they love you. Having had no experience before Sharon, I had no way of knowing that she was trying to destroy me, that she didn’t love me. Now I know the difference and I am so thankful.
Kind of gives a different perspective on how I was feeling on the day of that entry, don’t it? Perhaps it gives a fuller picture of my personal relationships with women.
Not to mention that the entries you quote from, especially the one about Sharon, are about personal relationships with an ex-wife (could be some bad feelings there, ya think?) and an ex-tennant and are not discussions of women as a class. Nor did I use it to hijack a thread on another person’s blog.
I am not ashamed nor am I embarrassed by any of the quotes you posted. I only wish that you had provided the links to the entries you quoted so that anyone who wants could read them in their entirety & in context. In fact, I encourage anybody who wishes to know about the most painful experience of my life and how I have dealt with it and what I’ve realized about myself to go ahead and read those entries. I’m more than happy to read any constructive criticism or suggestions that people have for me. But, I think, that belongs on my blog and not here.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 6:45 am
“I am not ashamed nor am I embarrassed by any of the quotes you posted.”
I would have been greatly surprised if you were; after all, your blog is there for all to see if they click through your username.
Yeah, I apologize to all (& especially to Amp) for hijacking the thread.
This comment was written by hun.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Wow, that was just about the most deplorable and inexcusable personal attack on another poster I’ve ever seen at “Alas” (at least, that I’m remembering at this moment). Please don’t post on any of my threads again, Hun; you’re no longer welcome here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Geeze, until I went back and re-read the entries that hun quoted from I had no idea how dishonest he was in his quoting. I hadn’t really thought of it as much of a personal attack or a bannable offense. But then I read the entries and I am stunned by the level of dishonesty.
There is a huge difference between what was actually written and what hun excerpted. This is a great example of dishonest quoting and something that anybody who wants to maintain credibility would do well to avoid. It is, of course, possible to dishonestly quote another person without intending to - I’ve done it - but I don’t think that this is an example of unintentional distortion.
Here is one of hun’s “quotes” of what I wrote:
- “I love people. The crazier and more stupid the better. [...] Kathi says, “I’m only going to pay for 1/8.” I patiently explain that that is exactly what I just told her.”
The actual quote in it’s entirety (which is why context is important) was:
I love people. The crazier and more stupid the better. So, here’s how it went down.
Sunday was Kathi’s day to do the final walkthrough & be officially gone from the house. She shows up, we look at her room, it is clean. We go back downstairs and I tell her that everything is good except for all the unremovable white circles (from hot things or wet things or hot, wet things) on the kitchen table. I explain that we will want both her & Katy to pay for 1/2 of 25% of the cost of refinishing (there’s other crap there & the stains are on one quarter to one half of the table) unless one of them owns up to it. Kathi says, “I’m only going to pay for 1/8.” I patiently explain that that is exactly what I just told her.
So, yeah, I’m no longer thinking of asking Amp to unban hun.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Gotcha, ginmar. I guess there are nicer ways to say it but it doesn’t make it any less true, that a lot of men feel threatened when women don’t focus all their attention and energy on their needs, and when we don’t follow their rules of decorum, when to us, it’s not academic, it’s very personal.
And then hun goes off and provides a perfect example of what it’s all about, in his posts.
hun has served his purpose which obviously is to instruct through example, just how the Patriarchy works and how its most fervant supporters attack people including members of their own gender(which if they aren’t sided with their own, protecting the patriarchy, they are traitors of sort), who challenge their actions. I guess this is hun’s way of calling Jake a gender traitor?
I’m sorry he did that to you jake. That’s his bad. But he’s a bored patriarchal troll who is probably just steamed beyond belief that the attention is not all focused on his needs as a man. They show up everywhere that feminist women show up to try to deter conversation back to where it belongs: on issues pertaining to them. Women have no right to think of themselves, after all.
It goes back to how different it is, for the dominant societal group(in gender, men) to call members of its own group, traitors and treat them as such, usually by challenging their manhood, masculinity, whatever, when they don’t uphold the drive for that group to dominate and control everyone else’s lives.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Thanks for the kind words Radfem. I just found it very strange & had missed some things in his post. I don’t mind people posting quotes from my entries on my bad emotional experience. Hell, that’s why they’re accessible to the public. I figured that he was trying to make me look like a foaming misogynist by quoting what I had written about somebody who hurt me very, very badly out of context. I totally missed the questioning of my masculinity. So, I guess he was trying to make me out to be an emasculated misogynist - which is strange given my comments on this thread & his positions. I’m not really concerned about the public perception of my masculinity. But that’s why I’m glad there are so many perceptive people posting & commenting on this blog - they show me stuff I’d never see on my own.
When I think about folks like hun & Aegis & Niels I’m reminded of that wonderful quote from Family Guy:
It’s okay to lie to women, they aren’t real people like us.
I think that you can substitute any “other” group for “women” and find the underlying beliefs of almost any bigot.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Har har. I don’t understand what Niels’ perfectly fair request for an explanation has to do with him being a penis-toting white male. Why is a request for an explanation a sign of entitlement to you? Or is it only when the asker is a white male and the person making the assertion is a minority, because white males shouldn’t be allowed to question minority females at all and should just bow down to the “authority of experience”? If that’s not what you intend to imply, then feel free to clarify.
The burden of proof is on those who assert that Condi is a “race traitor.” Until they provide some kind of justification for that position, it’s perfectly fair for Niels to ask for an explanation (and to wonder if that label is simply a vicious slur). Now, nobody has to explain to Niels why Condi is a “race traitor.” If they want their argument for that position to be weak (or actually, nonexistent!), then that is their prerogative. Though if they choose to forgo the inconvenience of backing up their statements, then they (and you) have no business complaining that Niels or anyone else isn’t listening to them.
I’m not going to tell you that, Jake, because it’s not true, and it’s not what I said. When I said “All the examples you gave are only a small part of the experience of some males,” I meant that Radfem’s examples only tell us about the experience of some males (not that only some males are subject to the educational system). Reading Joyce and Hemingway might tell us something about their experience as men. But what does it tell us about the experience of other men, such as you, or me, or Amp? Not very much. As for science and history, reading about Descartes or George Washington tells about their experiences and accomplishments as a mathematician or as a general, but not about their experience as men. I will defer to Michael Kimmel’s thesis that American men have no history as men.
My main point is that even though Western culture may give people a larger exposure to male perspectives than female perspectives, those perspectives are stil only a small cross-section of how males experience being male (which is why I call B.S. on anyone who claims to know “the male experience” simply by living Western culture). Do you agree?
P.S. hun’s attack on you was not cool. If he disagreed with you, there were numerous better ways he could have expressed it. Shame on him.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
I just saw this comment:
Wow, this makes me regret defending you above. What have I ever done to offend you? You lump me in with hun, you insinuate that I am a liar and a bigot totally out of the blue, yet you provide no reasons why I am either of those things. I would have hoped that someone who had just received a vicious personal attack would understand how it feels and think twice before turning around and biting someone else, yet apparently I was wrong. If hun has hurt your feelings, do not take it out on me. Please retract that comment.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Aegis,
I didn’t say, or even imply, that you are a liar. If I wasn’t clear enough on that, I apologize. What I am saying is that I get the impression from reading your comments that you don’t view women as being real people in the sense that you view yourself as a real person. I do think that you are a bigot in the sense that you don’t view women as equal to you. That is a strong impression that I have gotten from reading your comments over a long period of time.
As to your comment on my satirical comment… I was pointing out that Niels comes across as believing that he has a right to an answer. And that Niels comes across as lecturing minorities on how they ought to behave. And that Niels knows, objectively, the right way for groups he is not part of to act among themselves. These things come from being in a highly privileged group and, to those who are aware of privilege and its impact, Niels’ comments sound very much like my satirical comment.
I meant that Radfem’s examples only tell us about the experience of some males (not that only some males are subject to the educational system).
I still have no idea what you mean. How is the definition of “history” vs the definition of “black history” only the experience of some males? Sure, reading Joyce only tells us some of Joyce’s experience as a man, but I don’t see a relation between the experience one can learn reading Joyce’s works and the de-facto experience created by the definition of a word like “history” (in its practical use of being white, male history). I sometimes feel that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid discussing an idea that makes you uncomfortable.
I ceased attempting to discuss things with you ages ago because you don’t seem to digest opposing arguments. You have usually just repeated the same tired, bigoted (yes, bigoted), and often cliched, point over and over, ignoring rebuttals no matter how many times and how kindly they were explained to you, you have repeatedly hijacked threads to talk about yourself, a whole new thread was created because you largely hijacked the prior one - that is what you have done to offend me. I suspect that the same will happen here, but I wanted to let you know what I meant by including you with hun & Niels in my comment.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
crap, I obviously forgot to close my italics which should end at “(not that only some males are subject to the educational system).”
[Fixed! --Amp]
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Jake, honey, trust me, everyone here other than a few random trolls know damn well that you’r neither a closet misogynist nor emasculated.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.“I ceased attempting to discuss things with you ages ago because you don’t seem to digest opposing arguments. You have usually just repeated the same tired, bigoted (yes, bigoted), and often cliched, point over and over, ignoring rebuttals no matter how many times and how kindly they were explained to you, you have repeatedly hijacked threads to talk about yourself, a whole new thread was created because you largely hijacked the prior one - that is what you have done to offend me. I suspect that the same will happen here, but I wanted to let you know what I meant by including you with hun & Niels in my comment. ”
That’s pretty much my perspective too, Aegis. I’m not going to smack you down as hard as some others here might, but your argumentative style does leave the impression that you don’t listen, automatically disregard the opinions of women as less valid than your own, and generally feel entitled to hijack any discussion and transform it into one that focuses on the issues that are most important to you. That may not be what you’re actually intending to do, but it’s definately the impression you make upon others.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
I think one can practically set one’s watch based on the expectation that every misogynist troll in the galaxy eventually starts bleating about who’s emasculated and who’s not.
We should start a band: The Emasculation Squad. I want to play bass. I will be quiet and stoic and stay in the back, like Tina Weymouth used to, only I will be dressed in my long black skirt and a fetching black lace tank top that I picked up at the used clothing store today. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Can you all come by a week from tomorrow and help me clean out the garage so we have a practice space ?
Except you, Jake. I mean, now that I know you’re pure evil and all. You can buy the pizzas, though. I’m feeling magnanimous.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
I’ll sing lead. Can I wear the sexy jeans and the D&G corset?
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.And Jake - bring vodka, lots of vodka.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Pizza, check. Vodka, check. I can also make tasty little finger sandwiches - yummy, nutritious and easy to wolf down w/ little mess to worry about on your instruments. And sombreros & white russians - you can’t have too many kahlua drinks, it makes the whole band cool.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 1:33 am
Jake,
I guess you’re right: you only implied that I thought lying to women was ok. Anyway, I accept your apology.
Well, ok. Maybe my comments are bigoted. I don’t think so, but who knows. Or maybe they aren’t, and you just didn’t understand my arguments. Maybe you operate under the assumption that anyone who contradicts feminists must be doing so out of bigotry, and you are just seeing what you want to see in my posting. I don’t know which of those possibilities are true. I will grant that some of the arguments I have made on this blog I have failed to support, and may even be wrong (I’m not perfect!). Yet being wrong is not the same thing as being bigoted. For instance, “females have more sexual power” is an empirical claim that may be right or wrong, but it is not inherently a bigoted statement.
Accusations are cheap, Jake. I see a lot of them on this website. What I don’t see is people actually backing up their accusations. Yet I would think that if I was really as bigoted as you say, then backing up that accusation would be easy, no? Ultimately, I really don’t know what to make of your accusation, because you don’t reference any examples of statements or arguments of mine that you consider bigoted. Until you can do so, I am going to lean towards the interpretation your allegations are B.S. and you just aren’t understanding what I’m saying.
I went and looked through Niels posts for an example of this “lecturing.” Here is the closest thing I found:
Niels is incorrect that he is “owed” an explanation, because this is not actually a public intellectual debate in the sense that he means (where people do owe explanations to each other). Discussion here doesn’t follow any such rules, because so many people here don’t follow concepts such as reason and intellectual honesty (IMHO, they feel oppressed by those concepts because they misunderstand them). Ampersand doesn’t enforce them, so this is essentially a place where people get mad and yell at each other ;) It seems to me that the best solution with Niels would have been to point out that this is not the kind of debate forum he believes, instead of reading entitlement and racism into his mistaken appraisal of the way this place works.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 2:35 am
I think the problem is more likely that I often have trouble putting ideas into words. Since what I wrote was evidently confusing, I am going to restate in hopefully simpler terms:
Learning about the culture and history of a group, even a dominant group, is not enough to really understand the subjective experience of members of that group. Even if Western history is effectively white male history, that history is really only a small slice of the male experience (even of the white male experience). Why is this relevant? Because Radfem claimed earlier that by existing in Western culture, she could understand “the male experience.” Does this make more sense now?
Jake and BritGirl,
All I can say is that if you two don’t enjoy discussions with me, then you don’t have to engage in them. In the case of BritGirl, I do appreciate the amount of charity you show most of the time (if Jake gives me any such charity, I’m not seeing it).
You both say that I don’t digest opposing arguments, and that I don’t listen. Funny, I find discussions with both of you frustrating also, for similar reasons. I’m actually not surprised that we harbor these perceptions, because they seem inevitable in a discussion where both sides have radically different premises. I am willing to work around this problem, though perhaps you two don’t realize this, because you don’t see all the flames that I delete before posting them.
As for my legendary “thread hijacking,” I think that accusation is silly and childish. Hah, I wish I had as much power as you say I do. I am just a little 19 year-old with a computer. You both deny the agency (and responsibility) of those posters who choose, of their own free will to respond to me. If I post something, and 5 or 6 people go berserk and flame me, aren’t they at least as responsible for any resulting thread diversion as I am? If I raise an issue, and people can’t let it go, that’s honestly not my problem (hell, maybe some of them might even find it worth discussing?). If they really didn’t want the thread to be “hijacked,” they could simply stop responding to me. Or can they not control themselves and just have to respond because of my Patriarchal Penis Power?
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 3:41 am
Aegis, what am I going to do with you?
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Let me see if I can explain what is meant by thread hijacking by means of an analogy. Suppose there was a thread about lynching in the Jim Crow South. Now imagine that reading and commenting on this thread are a group of African American people, some of whom are old enough to remember the Jim Crow era and others who actually had family members who were lynched. Imagine that I am a white woman who is attracted to and wants to date black men, and who feels that the racism that still persists makes it difficult for me to do so. Imagine that I jump into the discussion with this complaint. To me my complaint might be perfectly valid, and to me it may be a very important issue which has a significant negative effect on my personal life. How do you think my raising of this issue in the context of lynching will appear to the other participants in the thread? My guess is that I would be percieved as hijacking the thread in order to complain about my pet issue. Now, to me my issue might be very important and relevant, but in comparison to the issue that was actually being discussed my hypothetical personal issue is actually quite trivial. It may inconvenience me, it may make me unhappy, but it pales into insignificance in comparison to the very serious crime that is under discussion.
My guess is that if I behaved in that way I would come in for exactly the kind of anger and resentment that was directed at you in the other threads. And the thing is, the people getting angry with me would be quite within their rights to be angry. My attempt to introduce my relatively trivial personal issue into a discussion about a much more serious topic would be percieved as shockingly insensitive and rather self-centered. And, in fact, from an objective point of view the people making that judgement would be entirely correct.
Do you see what I’m getting at? You jumped into a discussion about rape, which is one of the most serious crimes there is, with a bunch of complaints about the way in which the current social setup disadvantages young men. You also did it on a feminist website on which several of the commenters have actually been raped, and most of the rest of us have friends who have been raped. Do you see the problem here? You may be correct that things are not so rosy on the dating front for young guys, but frankly compared to the issue of rape the problems experienced by young men in getting a date are just not that important, and your attempts to bring your personal issue into the discussion comes across as stunningly self-centered and insensitive. That’s why people are getting so angry with you.
On another issue, I think that you’re making a significant logical error in terms of how you approach many of the topics discussed here. I’ve heard you say several times that you feel that your ideas aren’t coming across clearly and that you have problems expressing what you want to say. The thing is, I think that you’re actually expressing yourself pretty clearly. It’s not necessarily that the other commenters here don’t understand what you’re trying to say, it may be that they just don’t agree with you. For example, I’m pretty sure that I get the points you’re trying to make, I just don’t agree with the conclusions you come to. You’ve re-stated the same points many times in different ways, and at this point I’m pretty sure that most people understand the ideas you’re trying to communicate. They just think that you’re wrong.
There’s a question that keeps coming into my mind every time I run across you. What is it that you’re trying to get out of your participation in these forums? I see you post on a number of different blogs on which you seem to fundamentally disagree with the basic premises held by the majority of the participants. Why hang out in forums in which you don’t agree with the basic philosophy being espoused? Do you actually imagine that you’re going to be able to convince everyone here to abandon feminism, or liberalism? Because I don’t think that’s very likely to happen. I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m genuinely curious. I wouldn’t waste my time commenting on an MRA board because most of their basic philosophical beliefs are anathema to me. If you don’t agree with the basic premises of a particular group, what’s the point of banging your head against a brick wall trying to get them to change their minds?
Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 6:09 am
Good morning,
JakeSquid wrote the following:
Does Kimmel qualify his statement, (i.e.) white american men? James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison are two writers whose work delves deeply into their experiences of living as black men in america.
I’m surprised if Kimmel doesn’t.
Thanks!
And for whatever it is worth, hun behaved very badly towards you.
Jay
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 6:10 am
Sorry about the blockquotes!
[Fixed! -Amp]
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Jay,
I didn’t write that. I believe that was Aegis.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 7:09 am
Whoops, you are correct.
Aegis, I will redirect my question to you.
Does Kimmel qualify his statement in any way as in white american men have no history as men? (See previous question directed towards Jake Squid.)
Thanks!
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Does Kimmel qualify his statement, (i.e.) white american men? James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison are two writers whose work delves deeply into their experiences of living as black men in america.
From the introduction of Manhood in America (pp 2-3):
“So how can I claim that men have no history? Isn’t virtually every history book a history of men? After all, as we have learned from feminist scholars, it’s been women who have had, until recently, no history. In fact, if that book doesn’t have the word women in the title, it’s a good bet that the book is largely about men. Yet such works do not explore how the experience of being a man, of manhood, structured the lives of the men who are their subjects, the organizations and institutions they created and staffed, the events in which they participated. American men have no history of themselves as men.
…
But first we must make gender visible to men. We continue to treat our male military, political, scientific, or literary figures as if their gender, their masculinity, had nothing to do with their military exploits, policy decisions, scientific experiments, or writing styles and subjects. As the Chinese proverb has it, the fish are the last to discover the ocean.”
Is this the kind of context you are looking for? It seems to me that Kimmel is mainly talking about history, while you seem to be thinking of literature. I would agree with you that men do have a literature as men. I think Kimmel’s point is that males don’t have a history of their masculinity and their experience of it the same way that feminism offers females a history of femininity.
P.S. BritGirlSF, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I will respond to them soon…
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2005 at 4:23 am
Amp, he makes himself the subject of his posts. It’s kind of unavoidable. When we’re talking about rape and he talks about HIS love life and his perceptions, we don’t get a lot of room to manuever around that big elephant in the room.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2005 at 4:32 am
But first we must make gender visible to men. We continue to treat our male military, political, scientific, or literary figures as if their gender, their masculinity, had nothing to do with their military exploits, policy decisions, scientific experiments, or writing styles and subjects. As the Chinese proverb has it, the fish are the last to discover the ocean.
Jesus, what bull. Privelege, first and foremost, is about transforming itslef into normality. If you’re priveleged, you’re the last to know it.
And, Aegis, you’ve been told this over and over again. You’ve wasted amazing amounts of time having this told to you. After all that time, your feet must certainly be wet, yet you’re still denying it.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2005 at 5:49 am
Hi Aegis,
Thanks for providing the direct quote from Kimmel.
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2005 at 5:54 am
I have a thought/question that’s been rambling around my brain since a few days ago. I want to bring it here to you great folks, many of whom know theory much better than I.
So here goes:
In my anti-racist work, one of my fundamental premises is that individual acts of niceness on the part of individual white people don’t change a racist system. (I think this is the influence of Chomsky?)
Yet one of the challenges I have found is: why bother being anti-racist if the system doesn’t change? I _know_ why I am but how do others respond to this question from other white people?
Is there a so-called “tipping” point where enough anti-racists actions/orientations etc will change things?
I think so.
Yet in saying that I find myself back at the initial premise I denied: individual acts/worldviews do matter not merely individually / but collectivelly (sp?).
Paradox? Conundrum?
Thanks for any feedback / experiences/ thoughts.
Jay
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
August 28th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Now that I am back in town…
BritGirlSF, I would like to respond to your long post and answer your questions. Yet I don’t think this thread is the right place to do so. If you still want answers, then you are welcome to email me: rykrykryk AT comcast DOT net
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
September 11th, 2005 at 6:21 am
These guys are a sample of the thing behind the name.
If they’re really white, anyway.
Race Traitor | Journal of the New Abolitionism
This comment was written by Marcus Tullius Cicero.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
A reason to continue with anti-racist thinking — it keeps your pencil sharp…that is unless they completely take the paper away and then it would only be useful as a fairly ineffective self defense weapon or perhaps something to chew on in habit that in retrospect wasn’t really very good.
Consider…
Clarence Thomas in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld
Question left open:
If I wipe my ass on the bill of rights in order to demonstrate via circumspection that toilet paper is not a constitutional guarantee for a man about to take it up the ass from the Man and indefinately and with no protections, rights, or remedies, what is in fact my first principle of jurisprudence?
Answer:
No one has a clue — indeed, I shit on the whole bill of rights when I write a dissent like the one I wrote in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld. The best part…the turd will live on long after I’m gone for future turd lovers and those who keep trying to compare my turd fetish with jurisprudence and the work of my peers and predecessors.
Thomas is a Jack ass.
This comment was written by Christopher Knoepfle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 11:42 am
More on Thomas…
http://www.acsblog.org/-359-clarence-thomas-america.html
This justice’s opinions are like plutonium in reverse.
To get to the point where you can take Thomas to task on that point, you have to temporarily suspend the entire race discussion. So…
…Read what Thomas’s course of action is as indicated by his opinions in the page above (get a second opinion if you’re diligent).
And then ask, what does race have to do with Thomas as a judge?
Nothing?
As further a test, simply ask:
1.) Are Thomas’s opinions acts of kindness?
2.) Is Thomas doing anything to address racial inequity?
3.) Is Thomas looking out for my opportunities
4.) Is Thomas looking out for my RIGHTS
People of different age groups might answer 3 differently. No one can answer 4 in the affirmative.
So then, race and Thomas go together like what?
The answer to that final question is your actual position on race.
This comment was written by Christopher Knoepfle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Age or financial — I told you it was a test.
This comment was written by Christopher Knoepfle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Last thought: did I need Thomas’s limits on my rights to achieve my current status, whatever that may be.
If so, how in fact did Thomas’s limits help me?
If not, who is Thomas and can he be called for example “just another brother on the bench” without impugning who?
The answer to that question depending on what it is may in fact be a case of putting the curry before the chicken — beware, curry with chicken can be zesty but not philantropic.
It is this last that the removal of the paper does most harm to.
This comment was written by Christopher Knoepfle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 11:55 am
which is to say…
It is not necessary to destroy my rights (the basics, especially the bill of rights) in order to enforce a social structure that was already suffering before my rights were further eroded.
This comment was written by Christopher Knoepfle.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Why is that no whites are the only race that dont understand how they are screwing black over in America while other minority races can? There are rich minorities that still understand the blacks people struggle. So that’s not a excuse.
This comment was written by Jonthan Smith.Report this comment to the moderators