I may be a masochist. Today I went to Laurence Auster’s website, A View From The Right. I know that I really should know better, but I am just a glutton for punishment. What kept me on the site was his feelings towards Glenn Beck. It seems Mr. Auster could, quite possibly, dislike Glenn Beck more than I do.
Anyway, I was reading his entries, and he had one that was entitled, “Black woman throws acid in face of white woman.” (Do we italicize online articles or put them in quotes? I don’t know the protocol.) I really wanted to respond to his entry, but he only accepts email comments and selectively adds comments at his discretion. I figured, since he has already tried to dismiss me as a “knee-jerk liberal blogger,” that I would be better suited addressing my concerns here.
So, there’s an article on MSNBC.com about the “Acid attacker,” in which a woman in Oregon had acid thrown on her face. It was an especially heinous crime because the girl who received the acid was particularly pretty.
Mr. Auster only added this as a preface to the article on his site:
The assailant was a stranger and the attack was unprovoked. MSNBC does not mention the race of the assailant until the last sentence of the article.
When you read the article, this is indeed correct. The last line of the article states:
Police said the assailant was described as a black woman between 25 and 35, who wore a green shirt and khaki shorts, The Columbian reported. She had medium-length black hair that was pulled back.
[If you are wondering, The Columbian is the newspaper name. It is not an olive skinned man with an impeccable suit and shoes that sits at the end of the bar with an unlit cigarette dangling from his lip and manages to observe, through his Latin mistique, all types of things that other people tend to miss.]
They described her race as part of her physical description. Where is the problem with this? Well, my problem with this is simple: The same people who claim minorities are always “pulling the race card” tend to have the same things to say in these situations. How can we win? Do you want us to judge people as individuals, or be predisposed of racial judgments?
Mr. Auster contends that he is not a racist. He was rather upset that I compared him to Stormfront. (The Nazi website.) But, my comment to Mr. Auster is this:
Mr. Auster,
Why are you bothered that MSNBC did not mention the woman’s race until the end of the article and why do you feel the need to headline race in the topic? Is it not possible that the acid attacker was just a mentally deranged person? Do you really want a world without preferences to race? Or do you just want people to stop challenging white preference?
On one of the pieces regarding Glenn Beck, Mr. Auster stated the following:
How many times have I condemned George W. Bush for going to Africa and saying that the racism that drove slavery is still operative in America today? How many times have I excoriated his pal Condoleezza Rice for saying that America still hasn’t reached racial justice for blacks, and has much further to go?
Wake up, Beck supporters. White America owes nothing to black America. The debt has been paid in full, and more than full. Any person who believes that whites still must repent for slavery and discrimination is locked inside the suicidal liberal mindset–and lost to any meaningful conservatism.
Coupled with the recent complaint that MSNBC did not disclose the perpetrator of a crime as “Black” until giving her physical description, this has a more than a tinge of racism in theme.
But that’s not all. I have to admit, this anti-Muslim slant is a bit concerning, as well. Auster states:
However, I regard Islam as a permanent, deadly threat to our civilization and everything we are; but I don’t have an emotion of hating Muslims. I simply believe that they do not belong among us and should be returned to and isolated in their own world where they can’t threaten us.
I constantly talk about context, so I will put the above statement in context. The piece was about hatred of Jews. I actually commend Auster on pointing out that hatred and belief someone is an enemy are not the same thing. And I agree with this.
Farther, I think it is important to acknowledge that racism is not hatred; no more than hatred is racism. It is possible to be racist and not hate people of another race. If you simply feel one race is superior to another, then you are a racist. On the same hand, when people hate those they perceive as their oppressor, they are not racists. Whether the feeling is warranted or not, if Black people feel as though they are oppressed in America for being Black, that feeling is not racism. It may be contempt, and even hatred, but it is not racism. There is no implied belief of superiority.
Now, why the problem with Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece stating she has a problem with ‘White privilege’? I see on his site that Auster claims white guilt has superseded white privilege, and that is a debatable topic. But to call contempt for white privilege anything other than contempt would be in err.
And what is the cause of this feeling that Muslims should be isolated? The history of manifest destiny and divine providence in regard to Christians are sufficient evidence to make the same claim about them. And there are more non-Christians than Christians in the world. Shouldn’t the Christians be delegated to their own corner, and let the Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists and Jews have the rest without fear of them?
I also want to give credit to Mr. Auster on his piece entitled “Clueless, cowardly whites.“ There is a picture of two white men at Glenn Beck’s rally with signs saying “Do I look racist?” standing on the sides of a Black man wearing a fanny pack. (I think the Black man in the photo is drunk and confused.) [The photo was from pandagon.net.] In reference to this image, Auster states:
George W. Bush would literally say, “How can I be a racist, since Condi, my National Security Advisor / Secretary of State, is black?”, while Condi, as clueless, tone-deaf, and lacking in taste as her boss, participated in the idiocy. And in addition to being pathetic and weak from a conservative point of view, these eagerly non-racist whites, whether Bush or the white men in the photo, don’t see how offensive it is from a liberal or just a human point of view—how condescending it is to use a black person as a prop to demonstrate one’s own virtue. So these whites degrade both their own dignity and that of the black people whom they treat as badges, while the blacks who willingly join in the charade, whether Condoleezza Rice or the black man in the photo, are blind or indifferent to how they are degrading their own dignity. That’s what right-liberalism does to people–it takes away their humanity and makes them see themselves as symbolic abstractions.
I literally had to read that three times. Laurence Auster actually pointed out that this degrades everyone involved, including the Black people who participate? I wholeheartedly agree. I felt it would be prudent to mention the positive things I see, as well as the negative, in the interest of being fair. (Even if Glenn Beck himself says something I agree with, I will admit it.)
On the whole, I have to admit, at least Laurence Auster does see the lunacy that is Glenn Beck for what it is. And he does seem to have a degree of concern for non-Whites. But I do not see the reason to be so concerned that a brief media article did not make a big deal about the race of a Black assailant in a heinous crime. I also fail to see the rationale in debasing Islam over any other religion. To a Buddhist or a non-Theist, all Abrahamic religions have a pattern of violence.
And what of this claim that America “owes nothing” to Black Americans? I assume this also applies to the indigenous populations and the Asians, that also contributed and received little reward for their contribution? Surely this does not apply to those of Germanic and Gaelic descent in Appalachia, right? I mean, at least they are the right color, aren’t they? Did Germany owe the Jews anything? Do they today? Oh, wait, they actually made reparations.
This whole tangent was spurred by one sentence. Regarding how they did not mention the alleged assailant’s race in the article. And then I go on to read that there is some reason and logic in these opinions. So, why the selective application? Why can you not apply your rationale to people and situations that might slightly differ from yourself? Is it possible that non-Whites just believe they are not treated fairly and react accordingly? Is it possible that Muslims and East Asians fear cultural hegemony as a form of domination as much as you fear them?
Is it possible that I am Gay, Black and Married? (Or is that just an album title?)
