|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:18 am
|
|
|
|
Wrote this note with my FB page, but figured I'd share it with everyone here:
Back in March I wrote the following passage in a blog entry pertaining to The New York Post and Jackie Mason being silenced in their criticisms of the president:
"And, frankly, if our hypersensitivity about race will continue to override the basic need in a free society of the critic and satirist to attack policy, then I don’t mind standing up and saying that Barack Obama should be our last black president. No more till we have no qualms about criticizing the man in some terms that might be seen as mean."
My fear in those early days was that racism would steadily become the charge leveled at opposition to Obama's policies. This past August saw a groundswell of critics to the administration's policies. Some were passionate, some were rude, others respectful and thoughtful. Some engaged in hyperbole, some took their hyperbole too far. They were labeled, throughout August, as astroturfers, unamerican, wack jobs, and the like. But at the heart of it all they had a policy complaint in mind. The entire opposition movement to Obama has been structured around economic theories and political beliefs. They are, for the most part, free-market advocates who have centered their complaints around the role of government in a market economy.
But, that's not permissible ground for criticism anymore, at least according to Maureen Dowd of the New York Times who insists of the dissent "For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both." Joan Walsh of Salon wrote "Finally, when Republicans began objecting to Obama's speaking to schoolkids last week, you couldn't ignore the racism." What neither ever deigned to do was explain how opposition to economic policies implied racist intent, other than cite the passion level of protesters and the fact that we have a black president. In fact, Walsh even concedes that Clinton faced the same passionate opposition (she forgets to mention Bush was a target of venomous opposition from the left, often times from the black community and vocalized by figures such as Kanye West), and instead, points to Obama's dip in the polls as opposed to Clinton's poll strength as evidence that a racial gambit is afoot (yes, she also conveniently leaves out that Clinton had a booming economy while in office, and Obama's economic policies seem, at best, not to have worked, and worse that things have actually continued to decline under his stewardship). To listen to Walsh, disapproval equates to racism. The bad news for her, there's certainly a lot of racists then, since the Real Clear Politics average of presidential approval ratings polls has Obama at 43.8% disapproval. Dowd dedicates her entire piece to a polemic against the south, wrapping the whole of the opposition to Obama's policies into the history of South Carolina and the confederacy.
Both columnists insist that they were loathe to believe the charges of racism, though both seem to have no problem propagating the claim. Neither, of course, articulates any means by which one might take an active, vocal stance against the president's policies without being a racist. Indeed, the more passion, the greater the numbers involved, and the more adamant people are about this opposition, it simply serves as evidence in their view of racism. Neither allows that effective opposition and popular criticism could be divorced of race. Let alone to they contemplate that it will be impossible, for the next four years, to criticize the policies of the president without criticizing a president who happens to be black. The obvious implication, at least what they leave us with, is that the only way one can not be a racist in your criticism is to either keep it to yourself totally, or be so muted and ineffective in it that you remain invisible. In short, shut your mouths critics, or you are racists.
But Maureen Dowd and Joan Walsh are columnists, not elected officials. There are even elected officials now decrying criticism as racially motivated. According to Eddie Bernice Johnson, congresswoman from Texas, when asked if race is motivating criticism of Obama she replied "As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is." Mike Honda, congressman from California, says of race as a motivator "There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency, with some I think it is." Jim Clyburn, the Democratic Whip, "“A lot of these outbursts have to do with delegitimizing him as a president." For people who cried bloody murder when Congressional Republicans questioned the patriotism of war opponents, this is more than just a case of the pot calling the kettle. . . cookware. . . . it's an attempt to use race as a cudgel to silence effective opposition to Obama's policies. In short, exactly what I feared in March has come to fruition. Race is being used, now en masse on the left, to silence critics. And that is a tragedy for our republic.
The bad news is, 43.8% of us, who disapprove of the president, are racists. The sad part is, it's now a meaningless term used as a political charge rather than an accurate nominative for people with racial animus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:57 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:07 pm
|
|
|
|
This thread reminds me so much of a recent posting by Baron at Gates of Vienna about the riots that took place several weeks ago after an unarmed [black] man was shot by a [white] police officer. I shall post an excerpt and the link for the rest of you to read the article and comments:
Quote: Why does this happen? Why are black people in the United States routinely expected to react with violence over judicial decisions they don’t like? We don’t expect the same of Armenians, or Japanese-Americans, or Eskimos. People of Chinese descent don’t rampage through the streets of Chinatown burning and looting in reaction to a perceived injustice to one of their own. So why do we dread the reaction of African Americans in the same type of situation? Oh, I know all the standard explanations: it’s the legacy of slavery, and Jim Crow, and racism, etc., etc. But that won’t wash. Once again, take the Chinese as an example: in the late 19th century Chinese immigrants in the West were treated as virtual slaves in many places, and the prejudice against them was profound. Yet here we are, just a little over a century later, and their descendants are functioning and productive members of society who entertain no particular collective grievance nor claim any special group entitlements. No, something much uglier is going here. It is racism, but it’s not the racism of the Ku Klux Klan or Archie Bunker or bigoted white Republicans. The racism in question comes from the news media, politicians, academics, and all the other usual liberal suspects among the cultural elites. These good people are the same folks who point the finger at you, the backwoods bohunks and slack-jawed yokels of red-state America. They are certain that it is you, and not they, who harbor the most detestable racist attitudes towards persons of color. Yet they are the ones who expect different behavior from blacks than they do from Indian-Americans or persons of Danish background. And this is not simply the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” No, this is a full-blown hard bigotry that regards Negroes — if they but dared to use the word — as inferior to white people and incapable of civilized behavior. It is liberals who regard black people as unable to restrain themselves or control their emotions when they feel slighted. It is liberals who determine that these designated victims cannot accomplish what white people accomplish unless they are granted lowered standards, affirmative action, and minority set-asides. In contrast, it is conservatives who accord African Americans the simple dignity of being treated like everyone else. It is conservatives who honor them by holding them to the same standards to which they hold themselves. Keep that in mind the next time a pointing liberal finger stands poised to poke you in the chest over the brie and chardonnay.
I would have liked to have found a smaller excerpt, but the Baron was on such a roll and drilling it to such a point that it was impossible.
Here's the link to the rest of the article: Not-So-Soft Bigotry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:19 pm
|
|
|
|
Grozny Option This thread reminds me so much of a recent posting by Baron at Gates of Vienna about the riots that took place several weeks ago after an unarmed [black] man was shot by a [white] police officer. I shall post an excerpt and the link for the rest of you to read the article and comments: Quote: Why does this happen? Why are black people in the United States routinely expected to react with violence over judicial decisions they don’t like? We don’t expect the same of Armenians, or Japanese-Americans, or Eskimos. People of Chinese descent don’t rampage through the streets of Chinatown burning and looting in reaction to a perceived injustice to one of their own. So why do we dread the reaction of African Americans in the same type of situation? Oh, I know all the standard explanations: it’s the legacy of slavery, and Jim Crow, and racism, etc., etc. But that won’t wash. Once again, take the Chinese as an example: in the late 19th century Chinese immigrants in the West were treated as virtual slaves in many places, and the prejudice against them was profound. Yet here we are, just a little over a century later, and their descendants are functioning and productive members of society who entertain no particular collective grievance nor claim any special group entitlements. No, something much uglier is going here. It is racism, but it’s not the racism of the Ku Klux Klan or Archie Bunker or bigoted white Republicans. The racism in question comes from the news media, politicians, academics, and all the other usual liberal suspects among the cultural elites. These good people are the same folks who point the finger at you, the backwoods bohunks and slack-jawed yokels of red-state America. They are certain that it is you, and not they, who harbor the most detestable racist attitudes towards persons of color. Yet they are the ones who expect different behavior from blacks than they do from Indian-Americans or persons of Danish background. And this is not simply the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” No, this is a full-blown hard bigotry that regards Negroes — if they but dared to use the word — as inferior to white people and incapable of civilized behavior. It is liberals who regard black people as unable to restrain themselves or control their emotions when they feel slighted. It is liberals who determine that these designated victims cannot accomplish what white people accomplish unless they are granted lowered standards, affirmative action, and minority set-asides. In contrast, it is conservatives who accord African Americans the simple dignity of being treated like everyone else. It is conservatives who honor them by holding them to the same standards to which they hold themselves. Keep that in mind the next time a pointing liberal finger stands poised to poke you in the chest over the brie and chardonnay. I would have liked to have found a smaller excerpt, but the Baron was on such a roll and drilling it to such a point that it was impossible. Here's the link to the rest of the article: Not-So-Soft Bigotry
That is a powerful turn of words, and I like it. I will keep that in mind! As it is ALL true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|