Glenn Beck University is NOT an accredited University. It is a series of classes that anyone can “take” for a fee. It is an “unaccredited online education program.” Judging by the use of terminology by those in GlennBeckistan, I hesitate to even mention it as an “education program.” It can be found here: http://www.glennbeck.com/becku/
What I really wanted to discuss today is this misuse of terminology, mainly by the New Right, the Teabaggers, Libertarians and everyone else marching around angry that a Black President wants to give people health care.
The term “Progressive” is being thrown a lot. I fear that many people do not even know what a Progressive is, or what Progressivism really was. The Progressive Era started in the end of the 1800′s and lasted until the 1920′s. Progressivism is marked by several characteristics:
- Progressives were against corruption. They had “muckrakers” that exploited corporate and government waste and abuse. They stood against any form of corruption.
- Progressives believed in education, science and technology.
- Progressives believed in the power of democracy over the elite.
- Progressives were for Prohibition, and wanted to alter the Constitution to promote ‘morality.’
- Progressives believed in government regulations against monopolies and unfair wage practices.
Many today use the word “Progressive” to mean something similar to “Socialist” or “Communist.” Does that sound like a Socialist agenda? I really don’t feel it does. But, what does seem interesting, is when you look at Glenn Beck U: The tagline is “Faith, Hope and Charity.“ The “Faith” is teaching of history, the “Hope” is teaching of Economics, and the “Charity” is political science, connecting the Constitution, Federalist Papers and “the U.S. as a charitable nation.” (Time Magazine) The motto on the ‘coat of arms’ is latin for “Revolution against tyrants, submission to God.” Sounds pretty “Progressive” to me (in accordance to the beliefs of American Progressivism).
Progressives did institute social programs, such as Child Labor Laws and Unionized Labor practices… those radicals! They also changed the Constitution to inhibit freedoms. Who wants to do that today?
Likewise, as I say ad nauseam, Liberalism is the belief in liberty and equality. To some extent, everyone in American Politics follows Liberalism. (In context of Classical Liberalism, the Constitution is very focused on liberty and equality, over monarchy and authoritarianism.) Social Liberalists are what Americans call “Liberals” today. These people are really Center-Left. The believe that social harmony benefits the individual. They believe the government should protect Civil Rights and address economic concerns. Tradition Conservatism opposes change and maintains the “old order.” Technically, in America, the Conservatives are actually “Liberal Conservatives.” They do not support an aristocracy, monarchy or theocracy (verbally). These are really not very far apart from themselves.
But to hear the Sarah Palins of America, you would think that the American Left and the New Right are like Socialists and Shi’as. And a large amount of the animosity and hatred really does pour from the Right, from the Glenn Becks out there. (But there is some unfair animosity from the Left, that unabashedly stands against anything GOP for no reason other than Party Lines.) It’s almost like people have taking sports rivalries and applied them to politics.
Today another poll was released that asked if people believed President Obama was a Muslim:
Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations? (Newsweek)
52% of Republicans/Lean Republicans believed this was ‘true’, or was ‘probably true.’ (14/38) That is more than half. Why is this so important?
Well, does anyone recall, in 2008, there was a man in the news named Reverend Wright? There was a big stink about the fact that then Candidate Barack Obama had attended this Reverend’s Church for two decades. Many in the opposition to this candidate were afraid he shared all of the sentiments that were partially displayed by Rev. Wright. (Most of his comments were taken out of context, but that’s another issue.) Well, which is it? Do you believe he is a Black Baptist that follows Revolutionary Theology, or do you believe he is a Muslim?
The reason this is important is simple: How are we (those not affiliated with the New Right) supposed to take anyone on the New Right seriously when they cannot seem to utilize any terminology properly, or even believe simple items such as President Obama being a Muslim? When has Barack Obama ever unequivocally stated he followed the faith of Islam? (He never has done this.) And does it even really matter? Even by the same poll, most people stated they had a favorable view of Muslims. So why the inability to understand even something so simple? And how are we to believe you listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin critically when you simply parrot their misinformation?
I could be wrong. Maybe the same people who believe President Obama is a Muslim are not the people who were outraged that he attended Reverend Wright’s services. Maybe those calling President Obama a Fascist are not the same people calling him a Communist/Socialist. Maybe the people who want to call everyone whom is Left of Margaret Thatcher a “Progressive” did not pick that up from Glenn Beck University, or a Sarah Palin sound bite.
What is even more frustrating is that I spend so much time on things like this that I cannot even voice my real complaints with this administration or this situation. Can we at least all start using the same language? How are we ever going to communicate when we keep making up our own definitions for words?
“Maybe the same people who believe President Obama is a Muslim are not the people who were outraged that he attended Reverend Wright’s services.”
No they’re the same people but just one thing: Considering that ‘Reverend’ Wright was first a member of the Nation of Islam before he became a Black Liberation Theologist there is no contradiction. In other words since Obama revered a man who believed that Whites are devils as a Muslim before he switched to a Christianity that holds that Whites are devils it all fits together rather nicely. Doncha’ think?
Not much time tonight; I so badly would enjoy responding to your latest reply to me.
Cheers
I do not who it was that claimed Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a member of the Nation of Islam, but I have not heard of a credible source with this claim. He does have a Doctor of Ministry from the United Theological Seminary.
Wright has had an open relationship with the Nation of Islam and does not condemn them. He has also made some pretty colorful remarks regarding Jews, and the claim that he is antisemitic is not unfounded.
But Wright did follow “Black Liberation Theology” as a Christian. This ideology is one that states Black people need to define themselves in order to be free.
A previous President regularly attended services by a Pastor that decreed many things similar to the Westboro Baptist Church.
I’m not going to go down the road of trying to defend the Nation of Islam, as many of their concepts are just plainly indefensible. But, not every non-White American that holds Whites in contempt also hold the belief that all Whites are inherently “bad” or “evil.” Contempt is not racism, though it can breed the similar results.
(Take your time with any responses, I plan on working mostly on site design for the next few days.)
“This ideology is one that states Black people need to define themselves in order to be free.”
Yeah I’ll take a break but it wouldn’t be right to just let this whitewash stand. I’ll let you know up front that it didn’t make me feel too civil. Here’s why:
David Cone, the primary expositor of Black Liberation theology:
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
He wishes to use race to an immoral end. That’s the real racism – not the ‘stereotyping’ thing that you try to pass off as racism. Among other things, your lumping of the two into the same word has makes them practically indistinguishable from eachother.
Or who knows, perhaps you will just want to describe these remarks as you did Wright’s – as ‘pretty colorful’. I’d say they are as colorful as those words uttered by the attacking mob of 30 in Des Moines the other day. You remember, the mob that you empathized with -for their ‘disenfranchisement’. I mean why else would have they yelled:
“Get Whitey!”
Hey, here’s a ‘modest proposal’: What if ‘understanding’, leftist Whites offered themselves up to Obama’s Black Liberationists, the Nation of Islam the Des Moines and the many recent St. Louis mobs? Every group would be happy – all the particular Blacks who hate Whites just for being white, all the suicidal/guilt ridden Whites who believe their blood is naturally tainted by white historical oppression and as for all the non-egalitarian, non-suicidal Whites… well, our mortal enemies would be temporarily neutralized – those being the leftist white enablers who exploit Black’s lesser socio-economic status for the express purpose of destroying traditional Western Civilization.
Just a bit of dreamin’ while you fancy up this place.
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
I really do not see any racial hatred in this quotation. What I see is someone saying, “If a religion mandates my oppression, I refuse to worship in it.”
The only way this is a statement of racial hatred is IF the God of White people actually mandates oppression of Black people, and if White people have no choice but to be oppressive.
Is it racist to refuse to submit?
“all the particular Blacks who hate Whites just for being white,” Do they? Or do they hate Whites because they perceive them as their oppressors? Again, having contempt for those whom you perceive as your oppressor is not the same as racial hatred.
“those being the leftist white enablers who exploit Black’s lesser socio-economic status for the express purpose of destroying traditional Western Civilization. ”
These are the type of statements that are just fallacious tactics. Who are these Leftist Whites who have the “express purpose of destroying traditional Western Civilization?
Exactly why do Black Americans have a “lesser socio-economic status” in the United States? This country should make no apologies for the actions of the past? Should Germany, Cambodia, Italy and any other country make no apologies for their actions in the past? “It’s the price of progress.”
For that matter, to put any Black American that refuses to be subjugated as equals is about as rational as stating all White Americans are de facto members of the Klu Klux Klan.
And really, it is a bit funny, that I wrote about economics, religion, military engagements, public policy, elections.. and it was race that was brought out about Obama. (Albeit, race mixed with a non-Protestant religion.)
And we are supposed to believe you do not oppose this President and every policy he proposes simply because he is Black and does not have an Anglo name?
Hmmm, let’s try it this way:
“White theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of Whites. If God is not for us and against Blacks, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of white theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the white community… White theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the black enemy.”
Silly me, I would have thought you’d find those words racist (considering that they are only about 10 times more racist than anything Lawrence Auster ever said). And I suppose they don’t in the least tell you that the speaker hates Blacks just for being black – in the same way that if white mobs were to attack random blacks in an Iowa mall yelling “Get Blackey” you wouldn’t say they hated / harmed just for being the race that they are.
Or when the tables are turned shall you turn to the weasel words of the ‘progressives’? – that Blacks have insufficient socio-economic power to be held responsible for their blatantly racist words and deeds in which they assault whites. Will you give take up their absurd plaint, “You can’t be a racist unless you’re of the race we determine to be ‘oppressors’”? Such thinking necessarily implies that Blacks are not free moral agents and you have said that Blacks must be held to the same standard as whites in this regard. So you won’t be going down that path. Right? Good, then I’ll suppose you’ll want to reconsider your evaluation of Mr. Cone’s words, Wright’s religion and Obama’s support of it.
The only thing that is problematic when you change the terms around is “which participates in the destruction of the black enemy.” Who exactly would be the “Black enemy”? Where are the Black people that are oppressing and subjugating whites?
Otherwise, there is no implication of any malice towards individuals, just an oppressive theology. The statement, when used properly in Black Liberation Theology, is one stating that accepting the religion of your oppressor leads to farther oppression. It does not state that all Whites are the enemies of Blacks, or all religions are the enemy. Only those which seek to oppress.
And there is a definition of racism that includes the implied power to oppress in the term. Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) defined racism as predicated on decisions and policies that utilize ethnic divisions that lead to the denial of rights and subordination of one group to another. I typically do not use this definition, but the more accepted definition in the belief of superiority/inferiority. None of these statement imply this.
The rejection of institutional racism is not racism. This claim is absurd. How can you call someone a racist for rejecting an ideology that lays claim to the belief they are inferior?
I think it is very telling when people perceive the terms “White enemy” as “all whites.” When it seems fairly clear in these statements that is is meant to refer to the dominant and oppressive whites that seek to discriminate. When the discrimination or oppression has ended, so too has the adversarial stance. The only way these claims of refusing subjugation, or inferiority, are offensive is if one holds that view that these elements are intrinsic.
I did not claim one cannot be racist if they are not the dominants. What I claim is that all hatred, resentment and anger are not born out of racism. There is also contempt that fuels hostilities. If a group of Whites were to target Blacks on the basis of ethnicity, to what end? Are they tired of be relegated to subordinate positions? You can reverse the terms but not the concept. When were White people in this society subjugated for being White? When were they given second-class citizen status for being White? In fact, the opposite has happened… some Europeans became White (Germans, Italians, Spaniards, etc.).
Just for general knowledge: On occasion, I have come across sentiments from non-Whites that imply some type of racial superiority over Whites, and have countered that with the same statements.
Anyway, I fail to see how is racist to claim that any god that justifies your oppression is your enemy. And I do think it is problematic to state “Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.” But that is without context. James Hal Cone (David Cone is a Major League baseball pitcher) also stated “I think the time has come for black theologians and black church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world…For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups.” This is not a call for any subjugation, unless you believe that the only way Whites will coexist with non-Whites is if they are dominant.
Does an end to White oppression mean an end to White people? Does it have to? (I guess it is plausible.)
“The only thing that is problematic when you change the terms around is which participates in the destruction of the black enemy.”
Okay I see, the first paragraph is not problematic at all and if Lawrence Auster were to state it just that way then you’d be just fine with it. Yeah right.
I apologize for the ‘categorizing’ here but in my experience, adherents to the psuedo-religion that I believe you are a member of, have a disturbing habit of seldom responding to the most serious aspects of what is being said. Instead, as in this case, they take an atypical interpretation of a couple of the words (white or black enemy) being said and then riff only on those; instead of addressing head on, the essence and the totality of what was being said.
So in case it isn’t clear, I am interested in your take on the sentences before the …, (since you wish to interpret the last two words in such a way as to have no problem with blacks speaking about their white enemy or whites speaking about their black enemy).
And I stand corrected on Cone’s first name.
Did you read the proceeding entry? There are things that Auster says that I do not fin problematic. Some things I even agree with him. If he were to say the earth is round, I would agree.
I do not think there is anything offensive with the first part of that statement either way. The only problem, as I stated, is Whites complaining of their “Black enemy.” How are Blacks the enemy if Whites? When in the history of this society have Blacks disenfranchised Whites simply for being White?
I do not see what is offensive about rejecting any theology that seeks to oppress you, though.
Referring to my personal theistic beliefs, they are not contained within this discourse.
The issue in the main for “Get’s Rich…” and many “Tea Parties” is that they project the power oppression relationship they witnessed exacted against Black folk as being reciprocated against them in a Black folk in power reality. It’s the same paranoia about the so called “Death Tax” but in reverse. Black folk are against White Supremacy not because they hate White folk, but because White Supremacy is a zero sum game for them! And the evidence of such is fairly well documented and known. That I am contemptuous of my oppressor is by no means immoral, that I would not be would be. Would the experience of South Africa have been the same if the table were turned? It is that fear that permeated the Afrikaners that is now raising it’s head in America. What will happen to us if “they” take over? Will “they” now exact revenge? The tacit message is that “we” would if “we” were treated like “they” were.
The zero sum game is a great point. I spent quite a while yesterday trying to think of one time in Western Civilization where Whites have been oppressed, or even disenfranchised, by non-Whites (for being White). I really cannot think of one instance. (I acknowledge that I am not a historian, and there may be several instances I am unaware of, but you would think they would be better known instances.)
The very sad reality is that the longer this attitude prevails, the chances of retribution become greater. Why go to a point where the blowback is going to be detrimental?
Just as Cone envisions goals for black communities, whites envision goals for theirs. So if Cone’s statement is not problematic then it would require you to approve of whites spouting “God, supreme goodness, is total identification with the goals that a white community envisions for itself.” (Just as Cone’s statement means that the goals he envisions for his community is the supreme goodness). Hmmm, so if Cone was living in the black community of the Hutus, the goals of his community, which were to slaughter the Tutsis, would be the supreme good. Sure, I get it.
What insanity to imagine that the goals of a community, be they white or black ones, are of supreme goodness – whether it be whites lynching blacks or blacks killing every single white as was done in Haiti. And you wish to contend, that Auster has said words that are more racist than these of James Cone?
And suppose Auster went on to say, “Furthermore if there is not total identification with the goals of whites then God must be against Blacks… otherwise God should be murdered.” Could you please direct me to what Auster has said that in the least rivals the racism of that.
Apparently, ignorance of true religion allows one to imagine that supreme goodness might ally itself with the goals of skin color based communities. Hard for me to imagine that anyone but a racist could not find that problematic. But then I don’t see racism like you do.
To me, a black man that says he has overwhelming statistics to prove that generally, Blacks fight better, jump higher, dance better, run faster, create better music, dress cooler, and have a bigger reproductive organ with which to provide women pleasure is simply telling the truth. And if he proves I’m inferior in the things that matter most to him then there ain’t nothin’ wrong or racist about that.
Something just hit me about the absurdity of your take on racism: the leading Neo-Nazi philosopher Kevin Macdonald believes that Jews are superior beings – that’s right SUPERIOR. If not for that factor he wouldn’t want them destroyed. What a mockery that racist makes of your definition.
So what shall it be? Backpeddling, obfuscations on the meaning of race or going back to drawing board? Here the words of Plato and St. Augustine come to mind – if at this point in the argument, once logic and reason had been utterly banished or evicted, if the flawed and defeated argument were still advanced by the advocate, then the realm of true evil had been entered.
“so if Cone was living in the black community of the Hutus, the goals of his community, which were to slaughter the Tutsis”
This is a classic redirect. The society of Rwanda is not the society of the United States. In the United States, the Hutu and the Tutsi are both Black and the same race. What happened in Haiti was a REBELLION. Those Black people that killed all those French White people… where chattel. They were beaten and raped and forced to labor for free. That doesn’t elicit some type of sympathy. What about the Maroons? The Black Africans in Jamaica that ran away and formed their own society and killed every European that tried to put them back into bondage?
As far as the statement Cone made – there was no allusion to killing people. As the other commenter pointed out, why is there this zero-sum game? Why must a God that supports Black people call for the destruction of White people? Cannot a God have the general welfare of everyone at heart? Is this not possible?
“Could you please direct me to what Auster has said that in the least rivals the racism of that.”
Mr. Auster has stated that any Muslim that follows Islam is not compatible with Christians in society. He also mentions that any talk of being oppressed by Black people is racism. Most of his anti-Black racism is much more subtle than his anti-Muslim hatred, though. It comes across in the constant harping on race in topics of crime and social conditions. Auster posts article after article of non-whites committing crimes. He makes race an issue and ascribes race as a motivating factor to propensity to commit crime. The words of Cone and of Auster are really hard to compare. Cone is a theologian, Auster is some type of social commentary.
“To me, a black man that says he has overwhelming statistics to prove that generally, Blacks fight better, jump higher, dance better, run faster, create better music, dress cooler, and have a bigger reproductive organ with which to provide women pleasure is simply telling the truth. And if he proves I’m inferior in the things that matter most to him then there ain’t nothin’ wrong or racist about that.”
First of all, why do you assume that these things matter most to a Black man? Second, these are not true. There is no scientific evidence that any ‘Race’dresses better, or fights better. Reproductive organ size has also been disproven. (And it has been proven that too large a penis is actually painful to women – and men.)
Second, there is no backpeddling. I stand by what I said previously, none of those features are genetically linked to social characteristics of “race.” I have seen no genetic links between the tendons of a Kenyan and the color of their skin. If you ever run across a gene cluster that contains skin color, hair texture, nose shape, and penis size or musculature, you should public the work… because finding something that does not exist is pretty rare. For example, there is a leprechaun under my couch, but I cannot catch him to get his Lucky Charms.
“Apparently, ignorance of true religion allows one to imagine that supreme goodness might ally itself with the goals of skin color based communities.”
Well, it is hard to imagine that a ‘true religion’ would allow the exploitation and degradation of a people based on skin color, but they have. Michael Parenti has described this in great detail. About how American Christianity has been used to justify the slave trade and has had racism ingrained in its doctrine. Indeed, many Christian Churches decreed that Black Africans had no souls, therefore, could be treated as chattel without retribution from God. Rejecting these religions is racist? I do not even see implied racism in Black people refusing to follow a religion that delegates them to less than equals to others… and i fail to see how this equates to murder. There are plenty of sects of Christianity that degrade non-whites, especially in America.
I know very little about Kevin B. McDonald. I really don’t care much about him. I’ve read some of his comments, and I do see some taken out of context, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t an antisemite or racist. But if he believes Jews are superior, then he is a racist, by my definition. Just like if a Black person believes Whites are superior, they are a racist. Any belief that a “race” is superior, or inferior, is racism.
It might be prudent to ask yourself why you feel that any ideology that treats Black people as equals translates into genocide for Whites.
And please don’t forget that Whites are not disenfranchised for being White. There are disenfranchised Whites, but for other reasons. And because Whites are not disenfranchised by race, to claim they have to overcome the obstacles is erroneous. How can being a dominant be an obstacle? Where do Whites need to fight against their “Black oppressors”? The only way I see this even remotely possible is when you look at historical concept, and realize Jesus was Black, as most people in Christian ideology are Arabic, Persian, or African. If Whites were to go on a rampage against non-Whites, you would have to ask “to what end?” Why would they have contempt? Where do Blacks or Latinos hold power over Whites? How often are White people detained, arrested, tried and jailed exclusively by Blacks? How often are Whites denied meaningful employment by Latinos? How often are Whites paid less? How often are men paid less than women? How often are White males objectified for being a White male?
Quite simply… you can only inverse an equation if both sides are equal. Without both sides being equal, the equation is false and each side is not interchangeable.
I do not see how any of my logical arguments have been ‘banished or evicted’ or even responded. I never claimed to support any acts of violence, nor did Cone. I also never claimed that any “race” was superior. In fact, I’m pretty sure I disputed that there is even any scientific way to quantify these things.
Or maybe you wanted to apply that to yourself… as you take the liberation of black people to mean the murder of whites… which appears to be the realm of true evil. Especially considering most people who follow Black Liberation Theology followed King’s message of people being “judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin.”
“Any belief that a “race” is superior, or inferior, is racism.”
Okay, it’s taking me a little while but I’m starting to get it. If an Asian or group of Asians were to say about Blacks, “Blacks are amazing creatures in every way. I think they’re superior specimens and I love them for that.” Well then that would be a racist thing to say.
But if the Asian(s) were to instead say, “I think that Blacks are neither inferior nor superior to all other humans but just the same, we hate them for having a different skin color and for whatever the tens of thousands of years of having been physically separated from us has yielded (I hope I said that in a politically correct enough way)”. And then the Asians decide to act on that hatred and either enslave, dehumanize, kill or perform other immoral acts to Blacks. Well, then that wouldn’t be racism. Yeah, sure that makes sense… considering the Orwellian nightmare of an education you’ve been subjected to your entire life.
Btw, not that you’re thinking of doing this now, but it would be a shame if you resorted to words like ‘why would the Asians want to do that?’ or ‘why would you assume that they would do that’ or other some such evasive words that you have now employed multiple times to not address a hypothetical I have posed.
And in the same vein of the hypothetical, did you hear that recently, disconsolate liberals were subjected to the survey they took that showed humans at the ripe age of 6 months showed preferences for others of their own race, oops, I mean skin color. They just can’t figure out yet how the oppression occurred. But then again, perhaps someone will point out that they just didn’t factor out for enough variables in their statistics (like maybe the white babies were fed white food and the black babies were fed black food?).
And I almost forgot. Isn’t this the day that vaguely celebrates the separation of us into different classes. Seems kind of discriminatory actually. Why don’t the employers get a holiday or the ones who’ve never worked – wait that’s stupid… they get a holiday every day. Don’t fret. If I have nothing better to do, one day I’ll read about the Pullman Strike.
Ciao for now
In the scenario of Asians committing genocide on Black people out of irrational hatred, I would agree that it is not actually racism, but some other form of racial hatred. The gray area comes into the confusion on why they think those of African diaspora are so different than them. Because, the reality is that the differences are so minor, other than appearance. So, is the belief that Africans are different merely aesthetics? In a argument of hypotheticals, I guess it wouldn’t be racism, if there was no belief, either blatant or implied, of dominance or inferiority.
Regarding the study with 6 month old babies: That is truly interesting. It also seems likely due to the fact that infants have very poor visual acuity. There was actually a study at UC Berkeley that showed color vision in infants is highly impaired. (I wish my color blindness was temporary.) At about 6 months old, a baby has 20/60 vision. For this reason, it would make sense that a 6 month old would prefer someone who looked more similar to their parents/caretakers. An interesting variable would be, what color were the guardians and caretakers of these babies? Can they distinguish clearly between a strange face and that of their parent? Or do they use auditory clues and other senses? There should always be an examination of external, intervening and moderating variables in any study.
And, once again, correlation does not imply causation. But it is interesting, and may give clues on why we tend to divide people into categories with such arbitrary classifications… maybe it is a primitive instinct/survival instinct left over from natural selection.
This is the day that celebrates the labor that made people like Leland Stanford and John D. Rockefeller extremely wealthy.
I see, “racial hatred”. Then let’s explore the hypothetical a bit. As before, imagine that Blacks were being violently harmed by Asians who hated them for their skin color (and for whatever role that progressive darwinists, in every case but this one, have determined that evolution differentiates life forms, isolated from each other for tens of thousands of years).
Now further imagine that the Blacks lived in well-to-do areas and triggered by the Asian’s violence against them, they now hated Asians. And even though they didn’t harm the Asians, so great was their hate, that they abandoned their nice homes, in close proximity to the Asians who then became the recipients of their immense material wealth.
So in this hypothetical, Asian ‘racial hatred’ manifested itself in killing/raping/robbing Blacks; and the effect of Black’s ‘racial hatred’ on Asians was only to bestow immense material wealth upon them. The key is that, in your lexicon, both victim and predator are guilty of ‘racial hatred’.
So the term itself, cannot evoke much outrage (as it does when liberals yell ‘racist’) because while the Blacks in this hypothetical were guilty of racial hatred they didn’t do anything so outrageously evil to deserve what is felt by liberals when they call someone a racist.
No doubt, here, you’d condemn the Asians more than the Blacks. But with respect to the evil nature of the role that race played in the hypothetical, your lexicon, as it pertains specifically to race, is devoid of a simple, immediate way to differentiate between the immorality on the part of victim and predator.
So for areas where inferior/superior do not apply, it appears that the words that place no value judgements are the exclusive province of the modern liberal.
As Buckley pointed out the liberal mind focuses on the act of pushing a stranger – not on whether the stranger was being pushed in the way or out of the way of the oncoming bus hurtling towards the stranger.
Finally, my favorite on this subject. The liberal mind is very averse to talk about sending people to hell because they don’t believe in a particular religion. The fact that one religion asks its adherents to send unbelievers to Hell and the other one asks its adherents to do whatever possible to prevent nonbelievers from going to hell (by trying to get them to believe in God) is not a great distinction to a liberal. He only knows he doesn’t believe and he doesn’t want to go to a Hell so both Islam and Christianity are about the same and both about equal in their relationship to hell.
Well, strict definitions on what qualifies as “racism” can vary. I choose to maintain that it is only the belief in dominance or inferiority (even if implied). Quite often Sociologists define racism as denied privilege.
I choose to draw a line because of the application by many to impose “racism” on attitudes of those who have contempt by their racist oppressors. Fighting back is not necessarily a belief in inferiority/superiority.
Regarding the racial hatred in the hypothetical, one would still have to ask why bore all of this animosity and why it was deemed acceptable to physically harm someone with different physical characteristics. In that hypothetical, the Asians who felt it was acceptable to kill Blacks would likely be racist, as they would not find it acceptable to kill other Asians in such a manner. The act of genocide would facilitate the assumption of racism. (Why is one life valued less than another?)
In these systems, it is important to point out the system of dominance. When the dominants of a society focus hatred towards those who are minorities, based on physical characteristics, what is the basis for this animosity? What could it be other than a fostered feeling of superiority?
This has really left the realm of politics, though, and entered into a rhetorical or philosophical debate (although these realms do often overlap and the borders are blurry at best). If a “liberal” hurls the term “racist” and they really mean “racialist” or “racial hatred” – we all know the intended meaning of the use and disagreements are purely of semantics.
It is quite obvious, in this hypothetical that genocide, or attempted genocide, would be considered “wrong.” The concepts of differentiating the morality is quite simple. Just because something is not ‘racist,’ does not validate it. Religious fighting is not racist, but just as contemptible.
Regarding religion, I do not think it is fair to say the “liberal mind” does not believe in a particular religion. Many Liberals are devout Christians. Even some Communists and Socialists are devout Christians. The problem identified by many is that each religious devotee believes wholeheartedly that they are correct… and the belief is fostered by faith, not by reason. Debating beliefs that are rooted in faith is really a waste of time. The best solution in a crisis of conflicting faiths is to find a means of co-existence. I think it is important not to confuse a non-theist with Liberal political ideology.
On the difference between one religion sending heretics to Hell, and the other offering them salvation to avoid going to Hell, I do not see a great difference. It is my understanding in the second scenario, that if someone lives a “just” and “righteous” life, but was never offered the opportunity to “know Jesus” or “know Allah,” than they will avoid going to Hell. If they are given the opportunity to accept Jesus, and refuse, then they go to Hell no matter their lifestyle. So, in essence, this is really sending righteous people to Hell.
The reality of that situation is that both Christians and Muslims have offshoots that believe both routes of salvation. There are many Muslims that subscribe to the belief of co-existence with infidels and heretics. (Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the World has low incidents of religious conflict.) There are many Christians who belief the opposite – one only needs to see the Westboro Baptist Church to see Christian extremists.
“He only knows he doesn’t believe and he doesn’t want to go to a Hell . . . ”
If a person does not believe, how can they care about going to a place they do not believe exists? Farther, Judaism teaches that “hell is a state of non-existence.” There is no “Hell” for Jews, either. According to Judaism, everyone goes to sheol, which is a “great nothingness.” So, do Jews also not want to go to Hell? Or do they not believe in it? And what of Hindu that believe this is the ‘afterlife,’ and that you only reach Brahma when you have finished your incarnations and led a truly righteous life in His eyes? Or Buddhists that believe “heaven” is “enlightenment”? The secular humanist would likely regard Christianity and Islam the same, not for fear of Hell, but because of the irrational belief in such a concept.
Hyena, 3 days ago:
“the Asians committing genocide on the Blacks out of irrational hatred… that it is not actually racism, but some other form of racial hatred”
Hyena, 2 days ago reads that the term ‘racial hatred’ does not distinguish between genocide and just irrational hateful thoughts about a race.
So Hyena, 1 day ago:
“… the Asians who felt it was acceptable to kill Blacks would likely be racist” and “The act of genocide would facilitate the assumption of racism.”
Now that you find your original position untenable you have directly contradicted yourself on the issue of genocide. You now realize that racial hatred is a ‘namby pamby’ term, insufficient for describing the outrageousness of harming others on the basis of race. You can see that racism is the apt term.
Trying to salvage your definition of racism with regard to genocide, you wish to read into genocide, thoughts of inferiority via the approach that genocide is impossible unless you consider your victim’s lives to be of less value than that of your race’s lives and thus you must think those lives to be of an inferior race. You are clearly reaching; not only can you not prove such a statement but it is also likely to be false as explained below.
Humans kill for a myriad of reasons and in a myriad of them the killer has no thought whatsoever about the value of the victim’s life. Can a race be irrational in it’s hatred towards another race with no thought whatsoever of the value of their victim’s lives? Of course. Those who murder, by definition, almost always have little regard for the value of a human life but it is no way a prerequisite that they think their victim to be an inferior person or race.
It is axiomatic that humans often fear the unknown. People who are different are to some extent ‘the unknown’ and thus irrationally feared. As you pointed out with respect to the six month olds, it can be an atavistic survival mechanism. And there are also cases that the genocidal are killing a race whom they think to be their superiors.
The Kevin MacDonald example also makes a mockery of this latest logic. You equate inferiority with lesser value so since Macdonald thinks Jews to be superior beings, following such logic it must be that according to Macdonald, Jews must have a greater value. Obviously that racist doesn’t think that Jews do have greater value.
Thus your proposition fails for as you now admit, genocide is racism – but as argued above, there is nothing to indicate that it has to be perpetrated with one race thinking the other is inferior.
Now should racism be the word to describe both genocide and thoughts of superior /inferior traits attached to races – even if those thoughts are incorrect? Obviously not. They’re not in the same category – the category being the one of committing evil acts like genocide… on the basis of race.
Lawrence Auster asserts that generally, Blacks have lesser civilization skills. Conventional wisdom among Blacks has it that generally Whites can’t jump, dance poorly, run slow, fight like girls, are nerdier and have smaller penises. Questioning those facts is silly since whether they are not true or not, both parties sincerely think them and claims about inferior traits are rightly challenged as ‘inaccurate’ or inaccurate stereotyping – not racist.
Unless some asshat like Hitler comes along and does something evil with thoughts about inferior/superior traits they are in and of themselves rather harmless (except if you are someone who’s belief system is entirely centered about the concept of sameness to the point of obliterating differences in traits A.K.A. leftist).
Despite Auster’s and Black’s sincere thoughts with regard to better skills, or personality traits, neither believes the other race’s life is of lesser value than theirs and there is zero thought that immoral acts ought be performed to the ‘other’ on account of any inferiorities. Auster, in fact states that traits, like IQ, take a back seat to the moral worth of people.
Unlike you, true conservatives recognize and celebrate the diversity of the human species. But recognizing the diversity does not mean that they believe that the different races are necessarily compatible living with each other. In reality, you recognize this as well. A very low percent of whites like you, who claim that other whites are racists choose to live in significantly Black neighborhoods (even though it would be much, much cheaper to do so) nor even in relatively safe black neighborhoods.
Hyena:
“I choose to maintain that [racism] is only the belief in dominance or inferiority”
More Hyena in the same thread:
“I did not claim one cannot be racist if they are not the dominants.”
This second statement seems to directly contradict the first. (Double negatives are pretty bad but triple negatives? wow)
Prediction of the next Hyena response: You are taking snippets out of context.
If prediction is right, my response: False. Read the before and after of those statements yourself before you accuse me of such a thing.
Going backwards:
No. They were correct. Some of the other things were a bit out of context.
Yes. This is the definition of racism that I utilize. Others utilize definitions that include discrimination and use of power. I maintain that a racist just has the belief in superiority or inferiority. I distinguished this because we define words to have dialogue, as to not argue a war of semantics. If one person is calling something “racist” and the other person disagrees, but because they are both defining racism differently, is it really a disagreement? I really do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I truly hope people understand what I am saying if they disagree.
This is not a triple negative. The claim is that if one is not a dominant, they cannot be racist. Or only a dominant can be a racist. The claim is one I never made.
Let me go back to the beginning:
How does this contradict? I did not state that the act of genocide was proof of racism, or that the racism was inherent. I claimed that the assumption would exist. I can no longer know what is in another’s mind any more than anyone but that person. But how does one justify mass murder based solely on phenotype?
I never made this claim either. Racial hatred is enough to cause tremendous atrocities.
That is called a psychopath. People feel remorse for killing another human being, unless they are a psychopath. Even police officers who kill in the line of duty and soldiers that kill in wartime for survival, deal with mental trauma when forced to kill a human being. If a person can kill with no thought about the value of another human life, they are a psychopath.
Militaries routinely indoctrinate soldiers into feeling their enemies are “inferior” in order to sustain killing in wartime. The result is typically what was just released in the news about killing for sport and taking “trophies.” The same thing happened in Vietnam. Some people murder for a greater cause, rather than a devalue of life.
Strange how this is not a universal. When people from “unknown lands” visited the African coasts, India, China, Japan, and parts of North America, there were occasions they were openly welcomed as guests and treated with high regard.
Is xenophobia unquestionable? Again, this really travels into philosophy more than politics or sociology. It may have been a good question for Marcusé.
And it could be the 20/60 vision. Could be their caretakers. Infants have a greater reason to fear the unknown (although they actually have less fear than adults). They cannot stand, see well, hear well, defend themselves, or run away.
I do not see how. He believes there is an implied superiority. It does not mean it is his own superiority, but he still believes in it. Just as there are Black Americans who actually believe Whites are superior. They are racist against Black people.
Yes. Inferiority is unequal and “Low or lower in quality, value, or estimation.” Or “second-rate; poor.”
Basically, you stated that Blacks are more like animals: “lesser civilization skills.”
Yeah, but, I do not know of many Black people that honestly believe these things. I do know a few Black people who cannot dance, run, or fight. I also know of quite a few Black people (Americans and Africans) with above genius IQ’s.
Correct, if it were not for the fact that you stated “lesser” in the example… which denotes inferiority. Which is racism.
Well, “different races” are really only different by a marginal and arbitrary classification. As stated, racial features are not genetically clustered, therefore social classifications of race are not physical classifications. There are differences in cultures and ethnicities.
I recognize that you believe this. That’s all I really recognize in this statement. I’m not even sure how you are using diversity. Do you mean ethnic diversity (multiculturalism)? Because recognition of ethnic diversity is institutional. How can you celebrate diversity and then believe there is some magical force that makes them impossible to live together? It would be interesting to see real data on how this occurs. What are the dependent variables to measure? And how do we determine if this is genetic or cultural or social?
And I do not see how “true conservatives recognize and celebrate the diversity of the human species.” What I see from true conservatives is ethnocentrism and selective application of ideals. Trying to tell Muslims where they can build their churches, but not telling Christians where they can build their churches. Burning the Qu’ran, but being outraged when Muslims burn American flags. When was the last time you were at a Conservative gathering with a tabla being played?
And I’m going to call bullshit on this, too. Because, you said “Unlike you, true conservatives recognize and celebrate the diversity of the human species.”
Unlike me? Excuse me. I do now know many conservatives that have learned Chinese and Japanese. Read Three Kingdoms and extensively studied East Asian politics and history, and then also learned a comprehensive history of Africa, including taking seminars on African politics, and on and on with the academia stuff… and on top of all of that, I have spent large portions of my life with people from these various cultures, gathering perspectives. I spent hours talking to a vietnamese neighbor about what it was like to grow up in the war, swim in the ocean to a battleship and immigrate to the United States. I mean, I could really go on, enough to write an entire transcript…. All ah dem ah mi fambly. Yuh nuh dun yet? Wanti wanti can’t get it, getti getti nuh want it.
Please spare me the “unlike you true conservatives celebrate diversity” line. I accept that Conservatives have valid talking points, but that is not one of them. I do accept that many Conservatives actually believe what MLK stated, in that they believe a person should be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin. But as long as people still believe that other qualities are somehow, magically connected to the color of their skin, this type of judgement will continue to prevail.
Maybe you have the wrong African mammal. When did I ever disclose my race or maintain that I was white? I think it is funny, because I purposefully chose a psuedonym that is racially ambiguous. And even if I appear to be White, or Black, or Latino, or Asian… does that mean both of my parents were White, or Black, or Latino, or Asian? Was I raised by Whites, or Blacks, or Latinos, or Asians?
I’m assuming you stated “not to live” in said neighborhoods. I guess that could be true. I also recall pointing out that I grew up in NJ. I also lived in the Oakland/San Francisco Bay Area… and several other areas. Very few of these areas have insignificant numbers of non-Whites. I mean, if you really want to cast that stone… I have had legal residence with African Americans for a large percentage of my life… I have also been in the projects in the South Bronx, North Philly, Newark, Camden, Oakland and plenty of other places. But I will still refrain from disclosing my race, as I find it detracts from my words when people spend time trying to dismiss me based on ad hominem attacks. Before you accuse me of not understanding the black community, you should make sure that really is the case.
You are also right, I would rather live in a “relatively safe black neighborhood” than a large percentage of White American neighborhoods.
Who is in my household and who is in my personal life is not relevant to this discussion. And, I think this is the second time I need to ask: Please refrain from ad hominem attacks.