Race – Page 26 – Maverick Philosopher

The Racism Charge: The Left’s Attempt to Shut Down Debate

In The Faith of a Liberal, Morris Raphael Cohen writes that "The touchstone that enables us to recognize liberalism is the question of toleration . . . ." Now if toleration is the touchstone of liberalism, there is nothing liberal about contemporary liberals. They should therefore not be called 'liberals' but leftists. There is nothing tolerant about them. They show no interest in open discussion, free inquiry and the traditional values of classical liberalism. And they are poor winners to boot. With the passage of the health care bill they scored a victory. So why all the querulous fulmination against the Tea Party patriots to whom the lefties love to refer as 'teabaggers'? Why, in particular, the routinely repeated charge of 'racism'?

This is now the party line of the Dems and toe it they will as witness the otherwise somewhat reasonable and mild-mannered Alan Colmes in this segment, Political Hatred in America, from The O'Reilly Factor. Colmes begins his rant around 6:07 with the claim that "what is driving this [the Tea Party protests] is racism." It looks as if Colmes is under party discipline; otherwise, how could so intelligent and apparently decent a man say something so blatantly false and scurrilous? That something so silly and vicious should emerge from the mouth of a twit like Janeane Garofalo is of course nothing to wonder at. What idiocies won't HollyWeird liberals spout? But Alan Colmes? If we remember that for the Left the end justifies the means, however, things begin to fall in place. The Left will do anything to win. Slanders, smears, shout-downs . . . all's fair in love and war. Leftists understand and apply what I call the Converse Clausewitz Principle: Politics is war conducted by other means.

When leftists hurl their 'racism' charge, just what are they alleging? Two possibilities.

A. One is that the arguments brought against Obama's policies are not arguments at all but mere expressions of racism and bigotry. But this 'possibility' is beneath refutation. Make a simple distinction. There is Obama and there are his policies. Obama is black, or rather half-black and half-white, but his policies are not members of any race. White leftists advocate the same policies. Arguments against the policies are not attacks against the man. Need I say more?

B. The other interpretive possibility is that the conservative arguments are genuine arguments, not mere expressions of racism and bigotry, but that the can be refuted by claiming that the people who advance them are all, or most of them, racists. But of course it is egregiously FALSE that all or most or even many of these people are racists. Only some of them are. But then there are 'bad apples' in every bunch, so this fact is not significant.

But even if we suppose, contrary to fact, that every single conservative who argues against Obama's policies is a flaming racist, that has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of the conservative arguments. To think otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy. Again, need I say more?

Race and Race

During my 26.2 mile trip from the Peralta trailhead to Apache Junction's Prospector Park, I had ample opportunity to observe the ethnic and social composition of my fellow marathoners. Only two blacks did I spy, an observation in illustration of a general truth: (American) blacks are not proportionally represented at running events. No, I am not hastily generalizing from this one observation. I am illustrating a general truth by giving an example. Generalization and illustration are distinct intellectual procedures. For corroboration of the general truth, see here. And don't tell me that I could observe only the runners that ran near me: I surveyed the whole field before the race began as I walked from the starting line to the back of the pack before the gun went off.

The tendency of liberals will be to conclude that 'racism' is at work, that blacks are being excluded, and will call for a government program to 'level the playing field' to use one of the sillier of their silly expressions. It apparently doesn't occur to these nimrods that certain sorts of people simply have no interest in certain sorts of things.

Here is a piece on U.S. runner demographics. Figures on race are conspicuous by their absence, a fact that reflects the political correctness of the age. There is nothing a liberal fears more than to be labeled a racist, and for a liberal, any mention of race makes one a racist.

I’m a Racist Because I Disagree with You?

Then you are a racist for disagreeing with me. For I have a race too. I'm a sexist because I dissent from your opinion? Then you are a sexist for disagreeing with me. For I have a sex too. I'm an ageist because I don't buy your point of view? Then you are an ageist for disagreeing with me. For I have an age too.

And one more thing. It is your liberal-left adherence to the double standard that make it impossible for you to 'get it.'

Can a Black Man Vote Against Obamacare?

If a black congressman were to vote against a Democrat health care reform proposal, could he call himself a black man? According to this source:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

Brother Jesse apparently thinks that it is somehow inscribed into the very essence of being black that one be a leftist.

When we conservatives label libs and lefties as loons, it is this sort of preternatural idiocy that we have in mind.

Mark Steyn on Code Language

Thank God for Mark Steyn, a man of intelligence and courage and a resolute foe of liberal-left idiocies. He cites one Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of African-American studies at Princeton, who proffered the contemptible inanity that “language of personal responsibility is often a code language used against poor and minority communities.” Steyn comments:

“Personal responsibility” is racial code language? Phew, thank goodness America is belatedly joining Canada and Europe in all but abolishing the concept.

“Code language” is code language for “total bollocks.” “Code word” is a code word for “I’m inventing what you really meant to say because the actual quote doesn’t quite do the job for me.” “Small government”? Racist code words! “Non-confiscatory taxes”? Likewise. “Individual liberty”? Don’t even go there! To an incisive NPR racism analyst, the elderly gentleman telling his congressman “I’m very concerned by what I’ve heard about wait times for MRIs in Canada” is really saying “I’m unable to overcome my deep-seated racial anxieties about the sexual prowess of black males, especially now they’re giving prime-time press conferences every night.” With interpreters like professor Harris-Lacewell on the prowl, I’m confident 95 per cent of Webster’s will eventually be ruled “code language.”

Enjoy Steyn's brilliance in its entirety.

Jimmy Carter, Race-Baiter

This is hard to believe. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter tells us in the video clip to which I have just linked.

First of all, what is being "intensely demonstrated" at town hall meetings and mass rallies throughout the land is not animosity toward the person Barack Obama, but disagreement with the ideas and policies he champions. Fiscal irresponsibility and socialism are what the protesters primarily oppose. Obama they oppose secondarily as the spokesman of these ideas. Second, disagreement with Obama's ideas and policies has nothing to do with the man's race. If Jimmy Carter were now president and forwarded the same proposals the opposition would be the same.

It's about ideas, not about a man or his race.

Since Mr Carter is not unintelligent, he is capable of understanding the two simple points I have made. So we must conclude that his injection of race into the debate is nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from the issues. 'Playing the race card' is perhaps the signature liberal-left tactic. The race card has become the liberal-left calling card. They play it because it works. And every time they do it we must call them on it.

So, Mr. Carter, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You really ought to be above this sort of thing. We expect this from a two-bit scribbler like Maureen Dowd, but from you?

Are there racists among the those who stand against socialism and for fiscal responsibility? Yes indeed. But so what? There are disreputable elements in every group. Think of the dubious characters among Obama's associates.

The Gun-Totin’ Obama Protester Was Black!

If a black man exercises his Second Amendment rights, is he really black? For liberals, the answer, apparently, is in the negative. For them, apparently, the only real black is a liberal black. Take a gander at this video clip. You will see an Obama protester with a semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, a pistol on his hip, and an ammo clip in his pocket. But the shot has been edited so that we cannot see that he is black. And you liberals have the chutzpah to tell me that the MSM does not tilt to the Left? To depict the man's color would not fit in with the leftist party line that opposition to Obama's policies has its origin in racism.

In this clip you can see that the man is indeed black.

Here are two points that need to be made again and again in opposition to the willful moral and intellectual obtuseness of liberals and leftists.

1. Dissent is not hate. To dissent from a person's ideas and policies is not to hate the person.

2. As a corollary to #1, to dissent from the ideas and policies of a black man is not to hate the man. A fortiori, it is not to hate the man because he is black.

The White House Beer Summit

So what's on tap? If Officer Crowley shows up with a sixpack of Negra Modelo, will he be accused of racism by Professor Gates? After all 'negra' might remind someone of 'nigger.' Not long ago the use of the word 'niggardly' cost a man his job because it reminded some fools of 'nigger.' I am not making this up. I wish it were only a bad joke. But it is not, and it shows the depths of liberal-left lunacy. But if Crowley were to contribute a sixpack of Coors, then he would no doubt be a Nazi: the patriarch of the Coors clan rejoiced under the first name, 'Adolph.' And that might remind some fool of Adolf Hiter. In the Leftist Playbook, Hitler is evil incarnate, but Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not to be mentioned.

Actually, mixing Negra Modelo with Coors might be just the solution. You'd have your dark and your light blended together, 'integrated' if you will. And therefore dark. Just like Obama: half black, half white, and therefore black. You see, in 'racist America,' where no black person has a chance — unless he is an Affirmative Action hire at Harvard University, or President, or Secretary of State — when a person is both black and white, then he is black. The first black president? Black + White = Black? Lefty logic for you.

Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is That My Fault?

Suppose a white person uses the phrase 'black hole' in the presence of a black person either in its literal cosmological meaning or in some objectively inoffensive metaphorical sense, and the black person takes offense and complains that the phrase is 'racially insensitive.' Actual case here. Compare that with a case in which a white person uses 'nigger' in the presence of a black person.

I have just marked out two ends of a semantic spectrum. 'Black hole' used either literally or in some not-too-loose analogy to the literal meaning — as in 'black hole' used to refer to a windowless office — cannot be taken by any rational person as a racial slur. For 'black' in 'black hole' has nothing to do with race. But 'nigger' used by a white person is a racial slur.

Continue reading “Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is That My Fault?”