by James May • May 5, 2011
A really disgusting headline caught my attention at the Huffington Post on April 29, 2011. It read: "White America's Shame". The story is by a George Mitrovich and under his name it says "San Diego civic leader" and the article is here. The story kicked off a period of about 36 hours of articles of hyterical exaggeration and hoo-hah at the Post about the "birthers".
This first story is about people in America, white people I guess, called "birthers". "Birthers" are people who want proof that Barak Obama was born in America, a topic which I find of no interest one way or the other and could care less about. Two days before I saw this Mitrovich story President Obama released to the public a digital version of the long form of his birth certificate because of all the controversy surrounding whether he was in fact born in the United States. Mr. Mitrovich reacted by writing the following:
Barack Obama's humiliation was brought on by circumstance over which he has no control -- the color of his skin.
The birther movement was born by Barack Obama's blackness.
Those who lead the campaign questioning Mr. Obama's birthplace did so because they cannot accept that a black man is president of the United States. They will deny their racism because to acknowledge it carries legal, societal and political consequences; but there should be no confusion -- their hatred of President Obama is centered in the color of his black skin. And what the election of 2008 denied they have sought by other means to counter -- no matter how dishonest or despicable those means.
The last time I checked my brain it told me this: accusing people of racism whose minds you cannot read and basing that accusation on the color of their skin is racist and the title of the piece singles out faceless people in their millions for this treatment. If the "birther" phenomenon is my shame because I am white then black gang violence in no less the shame of black America, but don't look to Mr. Mitrovich to come out with any articles with that title anytime soon because he is just another in a very long line in America on the liberal politically correct Left who believe in the double standard that basically goes, "white people bad, black people good".
It is sickening to me how typical the cries of racism are from the political Left and from minority groups in the United States; they brandish it about like a hammer and there is not a shred of nuance or truth to such blanket accusations. I in no way wish to defend "birthers" and this essay is not about them: this essay is about the hysterical reaction to the "birthers" by entities on the llberal Left in America and a well entrenched phenomenon in the black American community that existed before any "birthers" that attacks white Americans by skin color as racists for questioning social policies in America or even for just existing since these attacks normally do not have a name attached but just faceless large numbers of people.
Things that are joltingly obvious in America can literally not be seen by the politically correct such as Latino advocacy groups called "The Race" like the National Council of La Raza or a racial version of American government called the Congressional Black Congress. Organizations that formally organize themselves in writing and in title around the concept of race and whose membership reflects those titles are not racist but organizations like the Tea Party, who do no such thing, are racist. They are racist, it is argued, not because they disagree with the policies of the Democratic Party or President Obama, but because they don't like black people and don't like the idea of a black president even though they have no such racial dimension attached to any formal writing attached to their organizations; they don't need to though - they speak in white racist code and anyway, the aura of racism simply flows out of them, or so men like Mitrovich would have you believe.
A man like Mr. Mitrovich knows a racist when he sees one because he brings, not any kind of direct observation or proof to the idea, but his judgment and instincts. Mr. Mitrovich blithely applies his summary judgment to white America in the actual title of his article; to do so is not racist because according to Mr. Mitrovich's logic, actual proof of racism doesn't produce a charge of racism but lack of proof does.
If you're confused by the word play so am I but it is typical of so much one reads in this country on this issue that I worry for the sanity and justice of America. Go to a mainstream black culture web site like The Root, and you'll find mindless mountains of such "reasoning". Read through some of the articles and comments sections at The Root and if you can stomach them then you're a better man than I. My rhetorical question is: how can a group that identifies itself by race be obssessed with notions of equallty and yet be somehow mysteriously bereft of the all too human traits that comprise the dark side of our nature? That's not an argument for sameness but a quality of otherness and once an otherness is established a whole can of worms is opened and value measured and it's not all going to be good - unless one resides on the political Left and then it's all good if you have the right skin color or sexual orientation and all bad if you have the wrong political orientation or, God forbid, you're a normal pragmatic rationalist.
Like I said, I don't truck with no ideas about the President's birth status but to suggest that people who want to see him produce a birth certificate have absolutely no ground to stand on is ridiculous. First of all, you have to be born in America to be President of it and that isn't some weird idea that someone pulled out of a hat but a real law that would presumably be checked on if there was some doubt involved. The fact that President Obama had a foreign father and lived in Indonesia for a time has no racial dimension to it but are actual facts that have peaked people's curiosity. To utterly ignore those circumstances and simply go with the idea the "birthers" simply don't like "darkies" is a stretch and a rather disgraceful one. It should also be said that it wouldn't have killed the President to simply produce the birth certificate when the issue first came up instead of only feeding the speculation by pointedly not doing so.
The controversy surrounding the President's birth certificate is not "baseless skepticism" but simple skepticism based on events not wizardry. President Obama appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show the same day his long form birth certificate was released; even Oprah Winfrey said "Why did you wait so long, though?" and "When it first came up, were you thinking, I hope I was born here?" Does that make Oprah Winfrey a racist or someone who has the same curiosity as do millions about this issue? There were some doubts about even this long awaited release of the President's long form birth certificate, possibly engendered by the fact that the Hawaiian "Signature of Local Registrar" on the form is "U.K.L Lee" - you might as well sign it "Don Ho" or "Phuc Yieu".
If Mr. Mitrovich feels producing a birth certificate is a "public humiliation" and even Oprah Winfrey, one of the most politically correct people in America looks like a pragmatist on the issue, then where does that put Mr. Mitrovich on the scale of thought? Unfortunately Mr. Mitrovich's thoughts are all too common in an American phenomenon of the liberal Left that consistently doles out morality by skin color from Katrina to illegal immigration to affirmative action and always with the attendant judgment like Mr. Mitrovich that anyone on the wrong side of those issues who is white is a racist; if you're a minority with a point of view - well, then you're "issue oriented".
Of the Republican Party, Mr. Mitrovich blithely states that it "is racist at its core -- and the party of Lincoln stands in ruin." To take such a stance in light of the fact that 95 out of every 100 black voters in the last presidential election voted for Barak Obama in what was clearly a vote for skin color is appallingly hypocritical because 95% of white Americans don't belong to the Republican Party; that would only happen if they adopted the same value system arranged around skin color that black voters do. Nevertheless Mitrovich plainly says "the birther movement is a race-based movement" and that's that, end of story.
Mr. Mitrovich goes off the rails when he starts spreading the blame around and says about the "birther" movement:
here's the hard truth, we are all to blame -- and white America most of all.
Every white American that has allowed this crusade against the first black president of the United States to continue stands under indictment for its moral failing -- yours and mine.
Because ultimately this isn't about political parties or philosophy of governance or religious views or none, at its core it's about human values, about whether we as a people embrace The Framer's belief "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Mr. Mitrovich wouldn't know a human value if it snuck up on him with a stick and like many of his ilk, Mr. Mitrovich has no idea of what I think or am to blame for and certainly doesn't understand one of the founding documents of America. The phrase "all men are created equal" has nothing to do with the measure of a man, none at all. It was a direct challenge to the notion that the King of England rules by divine right, which is to say, with the sanction of God himself as opposed to a "commoner".
The belief on the political Left in the actual fact that all men are equal really transforms itself into American politics to mean that, when it comes to the social arena, all games are to end in a tie and if they don't, then you need black and Latino kids to have special considerations thrown at them by the Dept. of Education and we need affirmative action and a Congressional Black Caucus to advocate by race to balance off white racism and on and on and on.
The pursuit of happiness is what is at stake here and not the right to happiness in the form of forced equality even in the face of corrupt value systems. Let's be honest, value systems that are on parade for all to see in black American culture are responsible for gang violence and a lack of productivity in school but you can't say that, no, you are racist if you do. I don't have to read anyone's mind to read crime statistics by race at the Dept. of Justice's web site or to parse statistics that have to do with black educational achievement; in fact, everyone agrees that crime and education are out of whack in the black community.
Where we part ways along racial and political lines are the reasons for those problems within the black community in America. People like Mr. Mitrovich believe the lack of black achievement is in direct proportion to white racism in a bewildering and Orwellian mixture of the seen and the unseen, delusion and reality. Even if pragmatists are wrong about why they view black achievement the way they do, it certainly doesn't have to be written off as racist; since when is it racist to be wrong or have judgment or instincts that lead one astray? Well, just ask the politically correct liberal Left in America because they have the answers because they generously dole out racism among white people as stingily as they withhold that same human fault from minorities. Among white people liberals generously divide racism along two lines of thought: either you are an ignorant and unwitting racist, or you are a vicious and purposeful racist.
Oh, but I forget, there is a third: there are the people who stand by and do nothing as if not going out into the street and defending President Obama on the "birther" issue is tantamount to watching Nazis snatch away your neighbors in the dead of night and saying a prayer it wasn't you. Yes, says Mitrovich - it's a "moral failing -- yours and mine."
After quoting the Declaration of Independence Mr. Mitrovich says "That's what we claim. That's what we say we believe." Well, actually that's not so: that's what the politically correct use as a basis for believing that all NFL games should end in a tie - it's not what I believe or say or claim and I can say that is true of many others although I am sure that Mr. Mitrovich would say I am not an American then. You see, it is those on the fascist Left who make up pretty much whatever they please and then hold me to a moral fire and it doesn't matter if they misunderstand history, human nature or the basis of reality itself - there is no room for disagreement.
Mr. Mitrovich further claims in speaking of the Declaration of Independence that "from this noblest of sentiments we have forged our national identity." I will say that there is nothing noble about his interpretation of that document because his nobility is the nobility of an ant colony where all the ground is leveled and made equal and even only to pull down the highest among us and raise up the least. That is not an American vision but a Socialist one because to me, equal opportunity is all you get and past that it's a kick out the door and a fond farewell as you make your way in this life. The truth of it is that America is about as equal as government can be made to be and the onus is not on government to micro manage equality or indulge in social engineering but to have a hands off policy that allows each man to fail or succeed as is his nature or wont.
Mr. Mitrovich says "The birther movement is about skin color and class and social standing and is thereby a denial of The Framer's vision for America." To my mind, such a statement merely reflects more negative wishful thinking and doling out nonsense and mind reading according to skin color. If this man were to write such trash but with black folks on the other end, he'd be drummed out of his own social circle of friends. As is it, he probably considers himself a hero for admitting to the endemic racism that afflicts white people as a result of the tone of their skin.
Checking one's I.D. is not, as Mr. Mitrovich puts it, an "immoral and corrupt political movement". The liberal Left has taken such nonsense and applied it to illegal immigrants as "profiling" because they are the other darlings of the politically correct in America, a group of equals but for some reason not subject to law or ethics and whose lack of respect for such is so demonstrable it could be shown in a court of law and yet it is the soft sciences as it were, the unseen, that are made concrete and shoved in the face of anyone who resents illegal immigration as racism.
As a result of the "birther" movement, Mr. Mitrovich says "we have permitted our country to be divided by a movement racist in origin, racist in meaning, and racist in denial of man's equality." One would think Mr. Mitrovich is speaking of his own group of politically correct "racers". This shows where his real and overarching sentiments and "thoughts" lie and why I wrote this piece. It is because the super-friendly and patronizing racism of the Left is only a more nuanced form of bigotry against minorities who it gives a pass based on, what, equality? For whites however there is no nuanced program to explain away our native racism and we're left only with the option to say we're sorry for it.
I know that's true because this is how Mr. Mitrovich ends what is a remarkable documentation of the state of mind of the liberal Left in the year 2011:
Mr. President, I cannot speak for anyone else. I have no authority to apologize in behalf of others. I can only tell you, Mr. President, I am sorry I waited until now to witness against the indignities and evil to which you, your wonderful wife, and your lovely children, have been subjected to. I know you believe in the power of forgiveness. I ask now, Sir, that you forgive me for my silence.
Yeah, me too; I'm sorry that I'm white and that the color doesn't come along with morality or ethics - where can I wash away my sins?
What is just as remarkable as the article are the remarks in the accompanying comments section made by people actually congratulating and agreeing with Mr. Mitrovich. To me the entire package is a stunning indictment not only of the perceptual trap the political Left find themselves in but a tribute to sheer stupidity and ignorance not to mention arrogance. The sheer number of "race pimps" among black American high profile speakers is astonishing and there is not one white man in this country I know who has made a career by baiting black Americans for their cultural predilections. On the other hand you have Al Sharpton, Roland Martin, Jesse Jackson, Tavis Smiley, Rev. Wright, James Cone, Louis Farrakhan, Cornell West, Nikki Giovanni, Angela Davis and more - all people who make no secret whatsoever of their disdain for white Americans and who consistantly make racist comments. I call them the "racers" and in contrast to the "birthers", they don't organize around a silly call for a document but are on call 365 days a year, dedicated to the sheen of race like a brainless moth is to a flame.
In an op-ed in the Boston Globe for May 2, 2011 James Carroll says:
There can be no doubt that the lurid contempt shown to the president by antagonists who question his constitutional right to hold office is rooted in white-supremacist hysteria.
Really? "No doubt?" This puts Mr. Carroll in the arena of being a mind reader and passing it off as judgment and instinct. My argument on this is a very simple one and it starts like this: it is uncommon to the point of non-existent for white Americans to express themselves in the media by way of books, TV, essays, or what have you, as having any interest in a subject specifically by their own skin color - Americans do not connect themselves to events in this manner and seem to be more issue oriented. By contrast, black Americans in the media can be seen every day expressing a connection by skin color to subjects and events: for example, it is very common to see black Americans talk about slavery and one would have to be an idiot to believe this is an academic interest bereft of considerations of skin color. In American culture, in the media, it is strictly forbidden under the rules of political correctness for white Americans to do the same thing and black Americans agree with this as strongly as anyone and commonly express that idea. That means that black Americans indulge in something they themselves believe is wrong because it is racist but have no problem doing themselves, therefore they who do so are also racists.
This is the double standard that makes racists out of people who are not, and absolves people of racism who are engaged in an activity that they clearly believe is racist. Generally speaking, white Americans are interested in things with a slant towards the actual issues or an academic interest; you don't see white historians ganging up on issues centered around white skin color but it is extremely common for black historians to do so and who seem to do so out of an imperative as if it is 1911 rather than 2011 - they need new clocks. When you watch the Discovery Channel, whose shows are produced almost entirely by white folks, an interest in stories and subjects centered around the idea of a white race is nonexistent. By contrast, when you watch a show that might be similar in content but produced by black folks, the subject matter invariably revolves around black culture. That is something that is easy to see in American culture and you would think it would be just as easy to understand and acknowledge instead of using one's sorry instincts and judgments to make moronic assertions accompanied by words like "no doubt" as does James Carroll, to infer the completely opposite conclusion from the American zeitgeist. Such things as concerns Mr. Carroll are in fact easy to be seen in American culture and they reside almost completely in expressions from the black American community as well as the liberal Left - the fact that they themselves cannot see what is so blindingly obvious is of no account to me.
Just listen to the things Mr. Carroll writes:
The issue has been his character as — well, as the issue of a Caucasian mother and an African father. An inch below the surface of this discussion is the perceived offense not just of blackness, but of miscegenation, that peculiarly demonic legacy of a slave system which took for granted the white owners’ sexual exploitation of slaves, while outlawing interracial sex.
Echoes abound in this affair of a very old story. First, an African-American is elected president, presumably opening a new era of racial equality. Then the racists push back with visceral denial that such a man is even eligible for the office. The pattern is well established. First, freed slaves are promised 40 acres and a mule, but then, forced into sharecropping, they are reshackled to white landowners by debt. First, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishes involuntary servitude, but then Jim Crow laws reinstate it across the South. First, the civil rights movement trumpets the long-postponed end of black subjugation in America, but then a nationwide wave of draconian anti-drug laws sends people of color to prison with wild disproportion. The burden is always on blacks to prove what, in the case of whites, goes without saying. Prove innocence. Prove eligibility. Prove rights. Prove competence. Prove that proof is genuine.
I don't know about you but mixing history with immense generalities and unproven assumptions and then projecting them into the future like a mathematical pattern onto people by skin color sounds an awful like the very thing Mr. Carroll is at least in theory against. To prove it to yourself, choose a subject that might center around black culture like the history of gang violence in L.A. and then imagine those kinds of words and ideas being projected into the future onto all black folks and you can see Mr. Carroll is a massive hypocrite with a second class mind who has no business writing for a large newspaper because there is nothing like listening to some moron lay a guilt trip on me for stuff that happened when I was in someone's DNA strand and giving me a guilt expiration date around the time the horns of Gabriel blow. Yes, Mr. Carroll, racism is wrong. Too bad your dog don't hunt.
What does hunt is that Mr. Carroll is really just telling us what he wants to believe although he would have us believe he is a neutral scientist of some kind, the kind that reads minds. I'd love to ask him what percentage of white Americans and black Americans he thinks are racist. One comrade "racer" from the beloved Left did have the gall to actually project their own stupidity on this topic onto white folks. Cynthia Tucker, who writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and by an amazing coincidence is black, said in Aug. of 2009 on the Chris Matthews show Hardball on MSNBC in regard to white folks who showed up at town hall meetings opposing President Obama's policies "I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president." Ms. Tucker is apparently unaware of the goose/gander principle wherein she is actually saying that black folks who support President Obama are hyper comfortable with the idea of a black president except that in the case of black Americans I don't need to say "Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff" as did Ms Tucker but have actual statistics that show black Americans voted for Obama to the tune of 95%. Since 43% of white Americans voted for Obama in 2008, and if we use Ms Tucker's genius for statistics and figures, we now know that 57% of white Americans and 95% of black Americans are racists. No doubt many "racers" who are emphatically not "racers" are fascinated by Byzantine explanations for white racism in voting, a phenomenon one writer at the wonderfully neutral Slate web site referred to in terms of President Obama's election as "Obama's white-vote deficit".
However I should probably save terms like Byzantine and throw in an arcane and perhaps an abstruse and impenetrable to a black writer named Ta-Nehisi Coates whose superlative glibness and carefully constructed architecture on why white people are racists should probably get some kind of award in an article from March 31, 2008 at the TPM web site called "The Issue Is Black and White". What Mr. Coates really means is the issue is white but he likes to pretend he's like a baseball umpire who calls them like he sees them when in fact if he were an actual baseball umpire the white hitters in his games would set a record for strike outs.
At the beginning of his article which is about Barack Obama's "Race Speech" on March 18, 2011, Mr. Coates references another article at TPM about that same speech by another black writer named Glenn Loury who writes that he is "a person deeply concerned for the welfare of black people in this country." I'll say this plain: were I to say that I am deeply concerned for the welfare of white people in this country I would be pilloried from coast to coast by white liberals and black Americans, the "racers". That is because it would be plain evidence of the thing people like Cynthia Tucker and Michael Eric Dyson vainly strive to find but which is a thing you never hear white people say. The great irony from such people is that the thing they cannot find among white Americans they take it on faith are racists is something black Americans put on full display and don't even try to hide and that is the advocacy and heightened interest in skin color that is absolutely not only denied to white America but stamped as racism even though it cannot even be shown to exist in the same way it so obviously exists in the black community; it's more "doublethink" and it's as simple as that. In that same article Mr. Loury makes reference to "my people" which is also something Eric Holder, the Attorney General of "My People" recently said. That link I provide is to an article published in the Washington Post on March 3, 2011 by Greg Sargent which defends Holder's comment. As is typical with "racers", Sargent doesn't provide any quotes from the people his posits as racists but from other writers who agree with him. Since Sargent's abstruse and obtuse article clearly puts a previously held belief before the facts it's no surprise it is a Rubik's Cube of semantics.
Mr. Coates and Glenn Loury write articles dripping with race about the speech of a black Presidential candidate dripping with race and I'm supposed to be as fascinated by such conduct as I am prohibited from indulging in it myself. To my great happiness, I find myself with not the slightest urge to indulge myself in such a thing and I can honestly say I have never thought or said any thing about "my people" in my entire life - that is the kind of thing I'd say if I met the leader of an alien invasion force from Mars. Mr. Coates is just another racist in a long line of "racers" who would have little to do or say if suddenly deprived of the ability to talk in terms of "my people" or what jerks white people are. White Americans are kicked in the behinds coming and going by "racers" since they are accused of not indulging in dialogues about race and when even the slightest hint of doing so occurs they are chopped off at the knees before any quotes can even be used in order to stifle debate. That is of course, unless white people are sly enough to adopt the same view as black "racers" themselves as do liberals on the political Left: in that case, it's hearty hand shakes and "well done's" all around. Black folks being angry at white folks and passing this anger to their children together with writing 10 million words constructed around a notion of "black people, good, white people, bad" has amounted to virtually a separate civilization; unfortunately this civilization is racist and, to no one's surprise with half a brain, empty, indefensible, bankrupt and ultimately a failure. Unless of course you think that the fundamental heart of Nazism and the KKK has some razzmatazz to it.
In a further shocking development by the aforementioned Cynthia Tucker, she said in Sept. 2010 on another Hardball show when speaking about the prospect of Republican victories in the coming mid-term congressional elections: "We haven't talked about the elephant in the room, and I don't mean the Republicans: race. Changing demographics. Fear of a white minority. Obama's election has suddenly made many white Americans aware of the loss of a white majority" Did I just wake up in another country that speaks some other language? The elephant in the room is all Ms. Tucker sees and talks about. Should I be surprised that Ms. Tucker won a Pulitzer Prize in 2007 for writing about race or that she was named Journalist of the Year by the National Association of Black Journalists in 2006? As far as I'm concerned Ms. Tucker should be given an award by the KKK since she is conspicuously at the forefront today when it comes to advancing their principles.
Ms. Tucker's big elephant everybody on the political Left and in the American black community like to pretend nobody discusses is actually a firmly held belief that white racism and not cultural value systems are to blame for achievement gaps and so will be looking for the Holy Grail until the end of time which by an amazing coincidence is how long whites will be accused of being racist for what others cannot or will not do. Tucker comes right out and says that the black chairman of the Republican Party Michael Steele would never have been voted into his position were he not black and but for his skin color would've been fired a long time ago, and not only dismisses that same logic when it comes to the Presidency of Barack Obama but accuses any white person who says it of being a racist. This is who they give Pulitzer Prizes to nowadays, people who are not only racists but racists who are completely unable to think in even the most elementary fashion.
Why should anyone be surprised that this type of "doublethink" is common within a racialist group that freely indulges in what it accuses others of but can't show in terms of plain evidence in anywhere near the proportion that "racers" themselves dole out every week in this country. This is a group that includes Jesse Jackson, a man who once said "You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man." at an event held by the Congressional Black Caucus in honor of the 25th anniversary of Jackson's 1984 Presidential campaign. When I think of a white guy saying something like that I think of David Duke or some racist leader of a neo-Nazi group not a man feted, unless, like me, you buy into the idea the the group feting Jackson are racist which the CBC is: how else can you characterize honoring an anti-semite?
I wonder what Ms. Tucker thinks of a case in Ann Arbor, Michigan in the late Spring of 2010 where the black principle of a grade school with a multi-racial make up singled out the black students and took them out on fields trips with the name of the "African American Lunch Bunch," who did, among other weekly activities, things like visiting a "black University of Michigan rocket scientist" according to The Ann Arbor Journal for May 16, 2010. The group was disbanded when someone tapped the principle Mike Madison on the shoulder and pointed out that his fascination with dark skin was somewhat less than fascinating to all the members of the school who happened to be unlucky enough to not have dark skin. Some of this stuff is so incredible that you'd think someone had made it up to illustrate an example of how not to be a racist at a middle school. Principle Madison wrote in retrospect: "The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students..." I find that statement truly amazing because, if fact, that is exactly what the field trip amounted to. It seems that when it comes to issues of race in America black Americans have a sense of being completely invulnerable to doing what it is they insist others should not do not to mention the conspicuous and utter cluelessness of Mr. Madison. Although I am making generalizations in this essay, I am backing them up with quotes and building a case that this attitude on the part of the African-American community expresses itself in a type of cultural solidarity that is so widely supported that the evidence for it is overwhelming. People like Michael Madison have some idea that educational principles can and should be somehow gerrymandered around the issue of race which is an idea that lowers standards not raises them not to mention the fact that it is racist and should be against the law.
Backing up that idea are the opening comments in an article from the next humorless blogger in the onslaught to make the "racer" list at the HuffPo, Dr. Boyce Watkins, who is a professor at Syracuse University. His piece is artfully titled "Why This Black Scholar Feels Sorry for Donald Trump" - he may as well have titled it "Why I Like To Eat Ants". Boyce starts:
Like nearly every other black man in America, I've been taken aback by the manner through which Donald Trump has used racist code language to undermine the presidency of Barack Obama. After first wondering if he was born in the United States, Trump has made reference to Obama playing too much basketball to pay attention to the price of gas and even questioned whether or not he truly earned the grades necessary to get into the Harvard Law School.
Since President Obama had a basketball court rather than a hockey rink built in the White House within weeks of his inauguration one can say that the President invited his own stereotyping on this matter - that is if one buys into the stereotype that basketball is the new watermelon and the fact that black folks like basketball must be turned into some kind of equal opportunity theme where we must pretend that they don't or we are all racists. Got that? Basketball is code for racism. Write it down. Dr. Watkins says so. As I write elsewhere here, since black Americans do in fact get into colleges without earning the "necessary" grades by the use of affirmatve action and have fought for this, it is hardly racist to act as if the concept is as fantastic as people from Jupiter washing your dishes or racist to refer in any way to affirmative action. Affirmative action was and still is controversial as, surprise HuffPo, reverse racism, and being on the wrong side of the argument is not like burning a cross.
I'm trying to imagine a white person offended by a black person saying white people like hockey and I find the idea too fantastic even for a science fiction novel. White people are famous for having developed the singular skill by way of an ego defense mechanism of being invulnerable to racial insults. 100% of slurs that remind white people that they are white people triggers an automatic release of endorphins that give them that warm southern wind feeling and invokes the smell of freshly mown grass. Calling me a racist actually makes me laugh out loud, kinda like when men like Watkins use the word "objectively" in a sentence - as when Watkins uses his "objectivism" to point out the "price that Oprah Winfrey paid for jumping out to support President Barack Obama". If you have any questions about the price the most popular woman in the U.S. bar none among white women paid you can visit her website: "billiondollarwoman.com". Watkins then goes on to amend his remark to say "Winfrey's price was minimal" which is his own code for "non-existent" which is similar is that respect to his "objectivity". I hope you're following all this because words are tricky, funny and evil too and if they're written by white people they are probably racist.
The giveaway with Dr. Watkins and the point is his "like nearly every other black man in America..." comment. This casual view of whites as racists who try to hide their racism by using code talk involving things black Americans actually do enjoy as a culture is monumental within black American culture and spoken of like it is as irrefutable as "Planck's constant" - it's black math and black Americans the Van Helsings of racism - cryptanalysts and racist hunters determined and qualified to ferret out white semantics and pin the words down with a stake through their heart.
Like his mentor Holmes, Watkins can "from a drop of water... infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other" - and that goes double for white people. Watkins can infer the skin color of a person merely by scanning voting lists although at this stage it is imperfect and can only work with black voters but is reputed to be 95% accurate.
What is "elementary" to our dear Watkins' article and the heart of it which needs a stake driven in is his contention that he cannot understand why Donald Trump would indulge in such conspicuously racist behavior considering the harm it would do to his business interests. Here's the obvious answer: white racism is so natural to us that we don't even realize we're doing it. It's part of the scenery like our flat hind ends and lack of soul which The Root's fun feature "The Whitest Black Folks We Know", is post-racial enough to bring to our attention. Of course the other startling and revolutionary concept is that asking for I.D. from a black man is neither racist or that 2nd most horrible of all words in the english language to black America: "profiling". Watkins shows us his "Stuff White People Hate" list by placing black people at the top above even "spiders" and "running out of coffee".
Dr. Watkins finishes up his stage show in mind reading and magical illusion by writing "Whatever the reason for Donald Trump's most recent behavior, the price is going to be steep." I have little doubt of that since the mentally challenged cadre of racist hunters at the HuffPo are distributing garlic in the way of boycotts and hypnotic double standards that is the only defense against white America whose native racism cannot be cured but only fended off or destroyed by exposing white's code talk to the light of day and so destroying the curse they stoically but haplessly endure, guided by the moral hand of Jim Cone and Tavis Smiley and the pure essense of that most elusive yet at once real of skin induced traits - soul.
Hallmark Cards certainly is in fear of the process of Holmesian deductive reasoning combined with the power of an economic boycott by caving in to the NAACP semantic forensics division in 2010 on the matter of the Hallmark code talking card which blasphemously used the physics term "black hole" when even a moron could see Hallmark was trying to slip by the phrase "black ho'" simply to gratuitously offend black people in an insider practical joke because Hallmark hates black people because Hallmark is owned by white people. Dressed in white NAACP lab coats, outraged black detectives held a press conference announcing the results of an intensive investigation by the finest minds at the NAACP: "That was very demeaning to African American women. When it made reference to African American women as whores and at the end, it says 'watch your back,'" said Leon Jenkins of the Los Angeles NAACP." This was after the NAACP's other triumphant 5 year investigation that confirmed what black folks had already thought from the very beginning: hurricanes are racist and use the same route as slave ships from Africa did. The NAACP cried "wolf" on this Hallmark incident and trivialized their own cause not to mention making the NAACP look like hapless fools caught in the headlights of the ascent of man in the process. If this is the best the NAACP can come up with then I declare the problem of racism in America solved.
Reportedly this incident was nominated for the honor of "Stupidest Thing A Human Being Has Ever Done In the Entire History of Mankind Award" by the secretive and tiny racist group, "White People Who Still Have A Lick of Common Sense", none of whom work for the Huffington Post. White writers at the HuffPo are reportedly screened by a sophisticated system of flash card tests involving dolphins, rainbows, unicorns and John Denver. When they take the inkblot test the only correct answer is to refuse it as racist and culturally stacked against black people as is every test ever invented in the history of life on Earth. Black writers don't need a racial sensitivity screening because they are born with it and it is similar to W.E.B. Spider-Man's "spider sense". Alarms bells in their head and a tingling of the skin alert black people to the presence of white people which is to say racism. By uttering the password "Katrina", the alarms can be disabled. In case you're white and unable to parse my racist code, I am saying these people are stupid fucking morons.
Tavis Smiley ludicrously confirmed the view of black Americans that Eurocentrism is wrong by applying a myopic exaggeration of Afrocentrism in comparing the end of the trivial "birther" controversy to Gerald Ford saying "our long national nightmare is over" at the end of the Watergate scandal. Smiley also confirms the bewildering hypocrisy of black Americans by quoting Cornell West as saying about President Obama "We need to respect the president. We need to protect the president. And when necessary, we need to correct the president." The very connection by race black folks have to President Obama and by extension of this thought, the connection they then don't have to a white President is confirmed and it is skin color on both ends while piously talking about white folks who won't judge Obama on the issues; even more complex, as excuses for racism always are, when white folks do talk about issues, it is assumed that to be on the wrong side of an issue is - are you ready - yes, you're a racist to disagree with the President, but only if you're white. Another extension of this same thought would require that agreeing with President Obama by black people is - yes, you guessed it, also racism. And of course, just to be clear: all black people who didn't like President Bush were racists. Black American thinking on this subject is as elegant and clear as Byzantine thoughts that surround racists who claim not to be racists while claiming everyone else is a racist always are.
What is so obvious that it will not be looked at is the false notion that skin color is something to be proud of as it that alone will accomplish something: skin color endows nothing. What people in the African-American community should be looking at is individual achievement and not dwell on somehow expecting achievement to emerge from a racial self-fascination or filter achievement through a racial or black cultural lens. What about achievement and interests devoid of notions of race? What you see in my opinion is a very profound view within the African-American community about issues of race that are projected onto a world outside their culture that in fact has no interest in portraying themselves in such a manner and or is there any evidence of it in mainstream America.
I care nothing for the Tea Party but the way they have been attacked by the NAACP and black writers tells me that what you are in fact seeing are black Americans saying and thinking that the Tea Party believes in race in the same way African-Americans do. It is natural for people to tend to project their own notions of the world onto others as if everyone shares their concerns but it is an empty practice and also a tell-tale giveaway into how a mind works that makes baseless accusations and not how the accused act. A simple truism in life is that the more a thing is not known but the more it is asserted to be known is only a measure of what a person believes and wants to believe and tells one nothing about reality.
Generally speaking black Americans are in love with the idea that white Americans are racists and white supremacists and it is really just that simple: it is a theme that runs throughout black arts and culture over and over again. That notion buys into many mantras that run through the rhetoric of the black American community in a self-serving and to me loathsome and childish fashion. It is a philosophy based on blame and excuse making and racism that is so blithe and casual that is somewhat astounding to read essay after essay in their hundreds by black writers that betray almost no ability to look at the world they live in with context, proportion, balance or a sense of having a connection to the rules of reality itself. We are talking about carefully formed arguments compiled over the years that amount to nothing more than delusion piled on delusion piled on false assumptions and in the end it is virulently racist and full of the kind of hatred and resentment that will eat a culture alive. When this rhetoric built within the context of an insular and intellectually segregated black community touches the mainstream press then you have men like Roland Martin and Al Sharpton.
They are nothing more than con men as are all their bretheren and the naive political community of the liberal Left that is white eats this nonsensical and racist rhetoric with a spoon which is amazing to sit back and watch. That white liberal community accepts it because the African-American view of history dove-tails nicely with politically correct liberal views that also disavow the history of America as one that is sinful and the enablers of that sin, who are white people, must have their culture and their country leavened with people of color in order to dilute the endemic racism of white Americans.
That is why the Democratic Party are so on board with and so protective of illegal immigration. While denying any notion that people of color are an "other" white liberals nevertheless treat them exactly so, as if their skin color somehow bestows some innocense and perspective simply unavailable to white folks. The entire foundation upon which the Rainbow Left in America builds their policies around is so false and so detached from reality and so blithe in it's assumptions of the hate people they don't know other than by skin color hold in their hearts comes very close to a reverse view of the world as the Nazi party held on matters of race; a reverse view but with the same principles and that's why I find the rhetoric and policies in America that emerge from this world view so appalling. Simply put, this astounding view amounts to the same thing as saying that a baseball team in last place is there because of racism and so it is to that racial philosophical space where one goes to fix the problem; needless to say, it doesn't work.
A particularly vicious article at HuffPo at this time was by a black "scholar" named Clarence B. Jones titled "April 27, 2011: A Day of National Shame", referring to the day the President released the long form birth certificate. Jones begins:
The release by the White House of President Obama's "official" birth certificate was a poignant reminder of just how deep and pervasive racism remains in our nation. Think about this: A sitting president has to 'prove' to the nation that he was indeed born in America -- Hawaii -- and therefore eligibly qualified to be elected president of the United States!
Well, yeah, think about it: how can Jones make such a ridiculous set of disconnected assumptions without a shred of proof while at the same time demonizing millions of white Americans while asserting he's not a racist himself? The answer is that he can't because if a white writer wrote such a crazy equivalent about black folks he'd be roasted alive in the media.
Jones adds that the "birther" phenomenon was enabled because "of the silence and tacit acquiescence of white political, religious, and community leaders, especially leaders of faith-based organizations, who sat, said and did nothing to counter this insidious new form of 21st-century racism. The silence and abnegation of moral leadership, by persons whom we should have otherwise expected to publicly to challenge this growing 'birther' issue, is a stain on the conscience of our nation." No doubt these entities were white since Jones' tone says the racist radar of black folks assures them they were on the right side of this "issue". Jones' ridiculous false assumption accompanied by his overkill and exaggeration is patently disgusting, especially as he is clearly yet another African-American bigot hiding behind the politically correct shield offered to people of color in America when it comes to their own offensive racism.
In his article Jones' nearly hysterical logic even invokes Jews, Martin Luther King and Hitler in defense of his cartoonish view of reality. Jones says "white political leaders...should hang their heads in shame." It is Jones himself who should hang his head in shame because of attributing racism to people he knows only by their skin color and who also attributes moral cowardice to other whites who bear that burden by not running to Obama's defense. I found Jones' article so disgusting that I am totally mystified how anyone would allow such an article to be published and yet it is common among liberal and black American websites. It is not a bunch of faceless and numberless "birthers" who are racists here but Jones himself who uneloquently indicts himself. Jones goes beyond being a mere race pimp to occupy the exact same ground he accuses others of occupying because Jones' leap of "logic" is intellectually bankrupt as is his obvious disdain for white Americans.
One commenter below the article who was on board with Jones opinion gives insight into this way of thinking about white folks and Obama, asserting that the "birther" phenomenon "came about for three reasons: the color of his skin, the sound of his name, and the nationality of his father. In the minds of the birthers, a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, a name given to him by his African father, could not possibly be an American citizen, not the kind of 'real American that they perceived themselves to be". Such a spectacular ability to project ones own racism by claiming to be able to read minds is simply stunning to me. What is also stunning is that I have yet to read one single article by a black writer who calls this racism out for what it is.
Another commenter on the Jones article is a reflection of the imperative I have found in black American rhetoric surrounding the whole issue of race and which is common to the point of mundane in the black American community in my opinion:
Considering how the country was created from the beginning and how it has behaved through the centuries -- 250 years of African American enslavement, genocide and incarceration of and massive land-theft from the Native Americans, naked-aggressive land-grabbing from Mexico in 1848, imperialistic global endeavors -- America has basically dug its own grave. No one can behave like that without expecting to eventually pay a heavy price. That is life... "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. "
Another commenter adds: "I tremble when I think of America, and karma."
Simply put, white Americans will pay a price based on their skin color and not by their deeds and today's black Americans indict whites wholesale and payback is not only implied but stated. In this regard it is plain to see that people who share this view in no way consider themselves Americans but some kind of separate nation and a more moral one at that. If I as a white American share some connection to slavers 250 years ago, then what connection do black Americans share with mountains of black crime in America out of all proportion to their numbers today? It is a bankrupt and racist argument to even talk such nonsense. What is clearly obvious is that if black Americans had the power every single American president throughout the rest of eternity would be black and don't even pretend otherwise although in some far flung corner of their semantic and dusty attic they will tell you they voted for Obama strictly on the issues. That is true if one has the deluded and racist view that all issues in America revolve around the addiction to racialism of 12% of the population. The rhetoric I have provided in quotes throughout this essay from black American writers shows that there simply is no concept of the greater good being respected and any good being discussed in what's good for black folks and not for us all. Black Americans like Obama because he is black and they take it on the faith reflected in their own words that Obama will look out for black folks and that's supposed to be okay. Those same black Americans cannot find similar quotes among white writers that so favor white skin and yet black Americans find that rhetoric expressed in code and so to disagree with Obama is it's own quote and so evidence of white supremacy.
To me it is true that Obama's election to the Presidency has brought out a lot of racism but the bigotry that is most front and center has come overwhelmingly from black and not white America. The reason it is so out front is that the double standard black Americans enjoy on matters of race and their own unwitting racism leaves those who choose to indulge in potshots against white America conspicuously revealed. The behavior is so against the interests of those black Americans who indulge in that were I a conspiracy nut I'd be convinced that someone is giving such people enough rope to hang themselves because black Americans who participate in the ideas I am writing about in this essay are not making any friends in America except among those of the apparently guilt riddled white liberal Left who actually buy into such stupidity and have an equal presence on the Huffington Post. Over on black culture websites run and staffed by black Americans there certainly can be no suicidal conspiracy to make enemies but the rhetoric on such sites that amounts to an open season on white people is similarly ill-advised and in the end as is any wholesale addiction to stupidity.
America in some ways has become a nut house where we can look at racism and not see it and look where there is no evidence of it and see it without a problem. This is the delusional effect of political correctness which is a sickness that is sapping the life out of America in some ways and giving full expression to the least productive, innovative and intelligent amongst us by punishing success as exploitative and rewarding failure with a texture of morality and a bible of excuses wherein the word "failure" doesn't even really exist anymore; there is only the exploited and the oppressed and there are no more stupid or ignorant people with debauched value systems left in the United States or the world for that matter.
You can't celebrate achievement if you posit that it only exists because of luck or immorality and you can't finger failure if you say it doesn't even exist; there is no light without dark. Among politically approved groups the least achievement is celebrated because it is assumed that it was accomplished by swimming upstream against white bigotry whose existence in massive numbers isn't doubted for one minute by white liberals and by the vast majority of people of color in America. The myth among the black American community that black folks work twice as hard to achieve the same status as a white person is taken for granted as true and real. In my opinion only children believe in such nonsense and racist nonsense at that. Racism exists - it is not singular to white people - anyone who believes otherwise is a gullible idiot. Doling out racism according to skin color is itself racist - how frickin' hard is that to figure out? Give it out by culture yes but show me the quotes and don't dress it up in any stupid code or wishful thinking or lipstick and a push up bra either.
Jim Cone's Black Liberation Theology is the inspiration for the philosophy at Chicago's Trinity Church which is where President Obama spent 20 years and whose now retired Rev. Wright is considered a hero in the black community and a vicious racist by any American with brains. Jim Cone wrote in his 2004 essay in, "Living Stones In the Household of God", "...white supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even tho black people are dying daily from it's poison." "Hardly name it"? Try you can't name it at all. No black people are dying every day from white racism but you can easily see how such thinking exists throughout the black community in America stretching from the President of the United States to the Attorney General Eric Holder and throughout the rhetoric of black intellectuals, celebrities, artists and writers.
On this same day in the Huffington Post was an article by Will Bunch called "Racism on Ivy League Campus and by Alum Donald Trump Cut From Same Ugly Cloth" It is about how a drunk white student one night on the University of Pennsylvania campus asked a black student where he could get some fried chicken and called him a "nigger" and how Donald Trump, who led a mini-crusade in recent days about Obama's birth certificate, both really operate out of one imperative. And what is that imperative? Surprise: racism. Then the author asks "This is your post-racial America?" Such consistently one-sided attacks on mainstream left leaning web sites against whites which are welcomed with open arms would in no way be countenanced if aimed at black folks.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that a white guy walking around an all black neighborhood at night might yield the exact same results, and has, as the event recited in Bunch's article. But a view that distributes mankind's foibles according to race seems to have particular traction on the political Left and by minorities in general in America and that race is white. Why is this so? It is so because the issue of skin color is the centerpiece from which emanates liberal thought in the United States. The Left in America is preoccupied by the wrongs done by the West to the Third World in history and their lexicon is boringly rife with terms like colonialism and imperialism. Again, by positing minority groups as "innocents", the Left is actually positing those same groups as having some kind of an "other" status which in reality is merely an ostensibly friendly form of racism and bigotry. It is a twisted version of the "white man's burden" and a monstrous and ill-advised concept of the word "justice".
How can one call it anything else than twisted when a man, however much he is a clown like Trump, is said to be calling the President of the United States a "nigger" by asking him why he will not produce a long form of his birth certificate when asked to do so by some Americans for 2 years?
Less than two weeks before these articles at the HuffPo I'm commenting on, two British men were shot dead in a robbery. According to the article, one of them had traveled to "Ecuador, Taiwan, Argentina, Vietnam and Laos among others." That was before he came to a place more dangerous than those, a black neighborhood in the United States. You won't see anyone bitching about black folks gunning down white tourists at the HuffPo, it doesn't fit in with the scenery and isn't nearly as interesting or dangerous as being asked where one can find some chicken. Of course we don't know if they Brits were killed out of racism but don't expect the crack investigative journalists at the HuffPo to look into it or into the brutally common fact that such incidents of murder in black communities are tiresomely large in number. The article says 20 shell casings were found. Too bad boys - wrong color on both sides of the equation for the HuffPo or The Root - turn it around and it's news - not only because it would fit in with the political correctness theme but because it would be damn rare. But Jim Cone says the opposite is true and he knows - he can smell it.
At The Root black cultural web site this same day is an article called "Let's Call Trump's Language What It Is" by Elon James White. The subtitle is "With all of his Birther and affirmative action talk, what's the point of tiptoeing around who Donald Trump is appealing to?" Once again, asking for a birth certificate or suggesting President Obama benefited from being black in college, which black students clearly do benefit from else why have affirmative action, is counted as blatant racism. Even if the article is correct that Trump is "playing the race card" as the article puts it, it is not something Trump makes a career at but which is the reason for living at The Root as anyone who has ever read their articles knows. My rhetorical question for the writers and editors at The Root would be: do black Americans ever think about anything other than black Americans? Once again you have a situation from the Left/minority coalition that points accusations at a racial bias that is either nonexistent, unprovable or vanishingly small within the context of a man's interests, in this case Trump, who usually shows no interest in race, and points the finger from a position that is much more rife with racial bias than the direction the finger is pointing.
Mr White even, surprise, invokes slavery by saying that by having to produce a birth certificate, the President is having to "show his teeth" like a slave at auction. To say that black Americans are perceptually living in another century is somewhat of an understatement given the constant harping one sees from black voices in this country about things long past and the parallel liberal extension of past institutional racism right into 2011 without diminishment though there is no proof of it, just the ephemera, clues and code and that's enough, in fact it's plenty.
The delusional hypocrisy and irony is that White writes "Perhaps out of fear of being perceived as race-baiters, virtually no one within the mainstream media, outside of a small few, will actually point out that race is dripping from almost all of the words for which Trump has been getting coverage." Wrong Mr. White; as is the case among black Americans only too well typified by The Root and white liberals, the reality is that that statement is the opposite of the truth since one can in fact find "virtually" everyone in the mainstream media pointing out the racism "dripping" from Trump and the "birthers", even David Letterman for crying out loud. Hell, MSNBC is actually yelling at a "birther" guest, literally.
White also writes:
Since the rise of President Obama, there has been an embargo on calling out racial BS. Because the country is so supposedly past race, we aren't allowed to deal with it when it comes up, unless the issue is how white men built America or how white men are having their rights taken away. Race is now the territory of a select few (the Revs. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and so on) who have yelled about race so much already that in the year 2011, people roll their eyes when they're on TV.
An "embargo"? Has the meaning of "embargo" changed to "open season" while I slept last night? The rest of the paragraph speaks for itself with its tireless portrayal of the mind set of black Americans that is so pervasive and so childish that you'd think it would stop simply out of sheer boredom for it is the very embodiment of the phrase, "tired refrain".
White's reference to Trump's "coded language" is its own code and clue that we are listening to a distinct dialect here and one that is steeped in an obsession with race and the idea the whites are racist and black Americans are not since this "dialectic" is entirely one directional. White goes on to criticize Trump for talking in the exact same language which is par for the course at The Root without even a hint of irony or self-awareness. When it comes to the issue of black achievement in America the articles at The Root and by the rest of the high profile black American "intelligentsia" are "Exhibit A", the culprits found and Sherlock Holmes back in his flat.
In attacking white America for not enabling a "post-racial" America, White concludes "The folks who have gotten past race are largely the same folks who didn't have to deal with it in the first place. Privilege has its, well, privileges." And there you have more of the not so subtle black American version of their own code when it comes to the idea of race in America as being ever present and the silver spoon of "privilege" in the mouths of white America the "secret" of their success. It goes without saying except that it never does, that white Americans have never been on the receiving end of bigotry or racism and so it may as well be 1954 as 2011 and young black Americans take on all the burdens of all black people since the first slave ship left Africa for the Americas to maximize their grief and sense of outrage even if they were born in 1990. One commenter on the article says as much: "I contend that had this POTUS had a more traditional 'African-American' experience, here, wherein his fore bearers were subjected to the atrocities of the Middle Passage, Slavery, and Jim Crow, he would have possessed the steely reserve to continue to ignore the 'carnival barker.' (Trump)" "Steely reserve", grief to be put on display and apparently white racism are preserved by skin color in some mysterious DNA/heritage generational tradition where race is the primary factor and value systems irrelevant.
That commenter continues in a remark aimed at another commenter:
...validating any and all attacks against the POTUS, particularly this pernicious attack leveled against him by this, this sub-human; this pernicious attack that actually extends to all African-Americans, makes you come off as a blind-with-rage, self-hating person akin to Sarge in "A Soldier's Story."
You can bet money that this person would never have defended Bush in such a way because Bush resides within a default racist mode as defined by the value system of not only black Americans but the liberal Left. Notice how the commenter ascribes the least hint of disagreement, not to a valid difference of opinion but to in essence, disliking his own skin color - even other black folks are not absolved of seeing dark skin and attaching a point of view to it; it's an exercise in racial fascism and the self-serving and rather stupid idea of self-hating Jews or blacks.
Yet another commenter on the White article said this:
"The race card" has got to be the most brilliant rhetorical dodge this country has ever invented. Its supposedly used by black people all the time, and yet the only people who call it on a consistent basis are neo-conservative whites. Of course, the "race card" originated from the white black lash against the OJ Simpson murder trial and the 1990s LA riot as a way to de legitimize any racial grievances that arose from those events ("Jury nullification? Nah, you're just playing the race card." "Police harassment of minorities? Nope, race card using welfare babies." "Economic disparity between groups in a meritocracy? Dude, stop using that race card against me")
If you think I'm cherry picking comments go to the article and see for yourself - this mind set is very common. What else would you expect of a web site that is centered around skin color, the very thing these people claim is not important but who talk about in a way that is light years more common than within the European-American population. Visit other black culture web sites yourself, watch documentaries black Americans make about themselves, read essays by black writers like Alice Walker - it is a massively common thread that runs right through the black American community that posits a position of eternal innocence by race and that white folks are on the wrong side of that one. Watch HBO's The Black List films or read a black woman named Nina Shen Rastogi at the liberal Slate web site ask: "Is 'Game of Thrones' Racist?", writing about the brand new HBO fantasy series.
It just goes on and on and this is only stuff from a few places in the last couple of weeks. The racial and racist obsession among the liberal Left and black community in America is mind boggling in its constant drumming, especially among the latter where it simply never ends. There are even black sport's writers on mainstream non-raced-based web sites whose articles have nothing BUT a racial dimension to them. Jason Whitlock at Fox Sports web site as far as I can tell only writes about race since I have yet to see one article he has authored not about race. The humorous side to his column is that a blurb next to it says he "writes about the sports world from every angle, including those other writers can't imagine or muster courage to address."
That is Newspeak for saying he doesn't do anything of the kind. The idea that a white sports writer would have a column where he only writes from a white perspective is at once so ridiculous and so disgusting that it's hard for me to believe Whitlock actually even has such a column. It cries racism and double standard at the same time in a voice so loud that I can only believe that we have erased the concept of hypocrisy clean out of American culture.
If you need any further proof there is no racism to speak of within white culture Whitlock's column is it; if white folks saw the world through a lens of races like the "racers" do, they'd have boycotted and complained Whitlock's column into the ground by now. I privately wonder to myself if men like Whitlock have any idea of the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy they move in - it's like watching a reality show where people make themselves look like utter idiots and undercut their own position while attacking their own position if someone else does it - it is as pure an expression of the proverb of calling the kettle black as you will ever see.
As far as I am concerned "racers" are nothing more than a powerless version of the Nazi Party and white people are their "Jews." Thing that is so bewildering to me is how it is so blithely accepted in the United States that black Americans are incapable of producing racial zealots and bigots, especially when they are in plain site. When it comes to Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I wonder to what further level those men would have to sink to to be called out for what they are, Nazis without an army. When it comes to a website like The Root, if those writers were white, they would be regarded as a virtual arm of the KKK. The reason for that is that black Americans and sites like The Root don't just discuss black culture - that discussion virtually always takes place in the context of the specter of white racism and supremacy past and present implicit and embedded in that context is attacks on white Americans.
Don't take my word for it - go to The Root web site right now and read the articles for yourselves, read Michael Eric Dyson, read Roland Martin, Nikki Giovanni and others I have mentioned - it like a board of trustees and the foundation of their trust black Americans. It's like reading about Hogwarts with the shadow of he-who-must-not-be-named hanging over every aspect of a discussion only in this case there is in fact little evidence of shyness when it comes to naming the enemy and that enemy are white Americans. What is truly amazing is the unending glibness passing off as being articulate and endless creativity and millions of words that are all merely variations of one the one great truism behind this so-called dialogue and that truism boils down to "white people bad, black people good". To devote so much semantic structure around such a childish nursery rhyme is a truly empty pursuit. Glance at the front page of The Root anytime and I'll venture to say that half of the stories have as their bottom line that white Americans are intolerant and oppressive racists. That's a pretty slim line of thought on which to hang mountains of rap music, poetry, radio shows, essays, literature, film and the like but black Americans do it seemingly effortlessly and without the least sense of awareness of doing so.
For me the humorous thing is that this great overarching theme of a baleful white presence has all the shine of a war movie where partisans are fighting an eternal battle behind the lines and one gets the feeling that if the enemy should disappear that their reason for existence would collapse and they'd all sit and stare at one another with folded hands and ask each other what to do next. Without the theme of an ever present negative influence of white racism on black culture, hundreds of high profile black artists, poets, writers, teachers, radio show host, etc., would simply have no reason to exist and black Americans in general would be forced to look at themselves and take measure of the personal responsibility they have for their own lives.
That's what the underlying imperative for the "racer" culture is and why 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Black Americans are looking for reasons other than themselves for their problems and this dialogue which has attained the status of an urban myth is deeply embedded in black culture in America. Polls show over and over again the vast differences between the way black Americans look at a given story with a racial tinge to it and white Americans. In my opinion, black Americans generally speaking are the complete opposite of pragmatic rationalists on a higher level of thought in these matters.
This theme fosters and encourages feelings of entitlement, a people who are offended at the drop of a hat at even the merest hint of disparagement, resentment, payback, a feeling of disconnection from their own fate, self-segregation, a dislocation from accepting the basis of the simplest realities such as merit based testing, In short, black Americans are their own worst enemies, giving up control and direction of their lives to mythical racists who are ever present in the wings just off-stage, working to do black Americans harm by inventing AIDS, importing drugs and liquor into the inner city, ignoring black dominated schools and on and on. Really, it never stops.
The really funny thing is that for a white columnist to do such a thing at a mainstream site would he would have to go through the equivalent of what Jackie Robinson had to go through breaking into a white baseball world where many of the players and fans didn't want him there because he was black. Trust me when I say that "racers" will defend their territory and in fact do so with every bit as much vitriol as those who hurled slurs at Jackie Robinson and for the same reasons basically - race. In fact, the "racers" vitriol against white America is just part of the scenery anyway, without any white "racer" scabs crossing the "racer" union lines - there aren't any "racers" in the white mainstream community. Ironically, the high school Robinson graduated from has this Wikipedia entry:
In 2002, white teacher Scott Phelps was the center of controversy when he asserted that the majority of the students who are failing and disruptive were black. "But overwhelmingly, the students whose behavior makes the hallways deafening, who yell out for the teacher and demand immediate attention in class, who cannot seem to stop chatting and are fascinated by each other and relationships but not with academics, in short, whose behavior saps the strength and energy of us that are at the front lines, are African American. . . . Eventually, someone in power will have the courage to say this publicly."
The problem is that you can't say that publicly, no matter how true it is or how much everyone knows it and agrees with it. If it's the "racers" talking about white folks well then you can go to town with no problem and talk about things not at all evident except of course to the racial pimps to whom white supremacy is all too self-evident; in the "racer" world, reality is trumped by fantasy.
Jack White at The Root writes: "Every successful Republican nominee since then (1964), with the sole exception of George W. Bush, has sailed into the White House on a tide of racial resentment." Think about the amazing arrogance of the idea that the United States, unknown to the other 88%, actually revolves around the 12% of the population that black Americans comprise - if you wanna talk centrism, that's centrism, except of course the by now incredibly boring proposition that once again, racism resides within the hearts of white people because when it comes to that idea of equallity, black folks are suddenly content to be an "other" since it is a better "other". Does that sound familiar, the idea of guarding a good cultural trait for yourself and staking claim on it but not if it's bad and deriding people by skin color for their lack of values? It sounds an awful lot like racism to me but maybe it's just my eyes and ears.
Another commenter speaks about "the constant never ending need for some white people to dehumanize a person of color. This practice originated when the European stepped on American soil and it has not stopped." I'm trying to imagine me writing the equivalent remark about black Americans and have a hard time seeing it accepted by the black American community.
The "code" Mr. White speaks is the code that says one is never separated from one's skin color no matter how much time has passed or what year it is now, unless of course that connection actually is in the present year in the way of black crime for instance and then suddenly, poof, there is no skin connection. That connection is used like a whip by the black American community to engorge one's "experience" of and connection to slavery or Jim Crow in order to browbeat an argument while disappearing altogether into rhetorical dreamland if it is inconvenient and applies the other way. Connection by skin is a weapon turned on and off by black Americans in such discussions to enhance their own sense of morality and drag that of whites into the gutter without regard to proportion, context or fair play. Let me give you an example of context that is never mentioned in all this talk of what massive racists white Americans are and which I believe puts the lie to such notions.
Within the United States, such groups as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis are utterly marginalized and ignored as simple minded morons among white folks. White folks in America don't even really see themselves as a culture per se except when they joke about it but to whatever extent one can parse out realms with a vastly high percentage of white participants notions of white supremacy and groups that have such notions have no traction whatsoever. Black Americans take it for granted that white Americans are simply racists but never bring up anything that is concrete in terms of expression that one can point to: It's always like ghosts in the night that one sees out of the corner of one's eye.
It is in fact as Jim Cone puts it in saying "...white supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it." There is a simple reason for that - you can't name it. No where in the realm of the arts which are dominated by white folks is there a single shred of evidence of a zeitgeist that supports white supremacy - not in literature, film, fine art, television or anything else one can name. There is a reason for that too: it is because notions of white supremacy are not only not believed in by the majority of white Americans but are frowned upon. Bewilderingly, and again with the weird circular logic that encompasses all racism, black Americans who firmly believe in the racism of whites use the fact that racism is frowned upon in white dominated cultural institutions of expression as the reason white folks have to talk in code; so the fact that there is no outright expression of racism among whites in mainstream culture doesn't represent change, it represents that racism gone to ground to hide. It's really just the most stupid nonsense one can imagine.
In The American Enemy: The History of French Anti-Americanism, Phillipe Roger writes, "As Satre could have put it, in France, anti-Americanism's existence always preceded any essence of America." To apply that to the situation of which I write, in other words, black Americans are putting the cart before the horse and in my opinion the reason black Americans like to invoke slavery, Jim Crow and lynchings so much is because that is where they draw their "evidence" for white racism from and so it is entirely within the purview of their wishful thinking as regards the endemic racism of white Americans to draw these elements into the present and display it as that "essence of America".
The fact is that the proof of that essence has disappeared but with all this talk of code and innuendo surrounding the Tea Party and "birthers", black American advocates of the concept of a very real and present white supremacy today in America would have us believe that racism has simply gone underground, where it seethes and bubbles in frustration at having been so circumvented while white Americans long for the day when they didn't have to put up with uppity black Presidents with weird names. Even the fact that black Americans blithely refer to Barack Obama as a black man rather than half black is an actual manifestation of a desire to magnify and exaggerate their concerns, using the long defunct one drop of blood rule as a comforter and dragging it right into the present as witness half-black actress Halle Berry's recent comments in the press about calling her half black daughter she had with a white guy "black" saying "I feel she's black. I'm black and I'm her mother, and I believe in the one-drop theory".
No where is it ever mentioned by black Americans who believe in the racist code of white Americans why those white Americans, who today outnumber black Americans in their tens of millions, would have to sit back and seethe in an underground cabal if they are so adamant and in monumental agreement about white supremacy. One gets the sense that black Americans think the "good" white Americans outnumber the "bad" white Americans by the thinnest of margins and that a battle between good and evil is taking place with the outcome undecided when in fact the seed of that outcome was a done deal half a century ago and starting as far back as 1780 when the State of Massachusetts outlawed slavery in their founding consitution.
The truth is that were it not for the moral values of white Americans and their institutions, the fight that started at the very beginning of the founding of this nation and continued into the bloody Civil War that killed over 600,000 Americans and haltingly continued onwards would never have taken place and Martin Luther King would have had no moral center to draw out of those very institutions that are now so insulting to black Americans; in Nazi Germany King would've disappeared without a trace and there is no doubt of that. Even as far back as the Civil War 20 million white Americans in the North arrayed themselves against 5 million in the South to abolish slavery. Even during the high point of Jim Crow, if Americans were so blithe about white supremacy why is it not more directly expressed in popular culture in the films and literature of the 30s and 40s if it was so widely sanctioned as a philosophy and with free rein to express itself without the interference one would infer should exist were whites in those days so hateful towards blacks.? No doubt the reality on the street was a completely different story but what I'm talking about is the fact that a truly saturated version of such a reality throughout white America would have expressed itself much more openly and directly within it's modes of popular expression if it were so widely championed.
The fact is that even in the 30s and 40s many white Americans didn't have strong feelings of aggressive and philosophical white supremacy the term implies and if they did one would expect to see it more obviously expressed than in portraying black Americans as butlers or maids. I am not trying to white wash segregation during those times - it was very real and black folks were simply not allowed to mix with white Americans across a vast spectrum of American life. There is little doubt that many white Americans had disdain and doubt when it came to the idea of black Americans as being fully equal but neither can one make the argument that white Americans went about punching black people in the stomach every time they saw them. In fact, most white Americans had little contact with black Americans seeing as how whites were 90% of the population and it is evident from reading biographies and anecdotal accounts from white Americans that an awful lot didn't have any resentments towards black folks and didn't buy into notions of white supremacy; there is no opposite in American popular culture during Jim Crow of To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee published in 1960 nor the opposite of Black Like Me from 1961 by John Howard Griffin, not even at the height of racial bigotry in this country.
In the 20th century there were many white Americans who simply didn't go along with racism and the appetite for black music throughout the century and the white musicians who worked with them cannot be looked at as a few rebels or appostate cast outs unless one wants to see them that way or can read the minds of dead people across decades of time. At the center of this stupid double standard is the fact that one can say stereotypes about black folks such as they are good at jazz music or something like that and it's gonna be just fine but make a similar remark that is negative and it's racism; for me they are both stupid but patronizing acts of racism are common in America because they come from an ostensibly positive space and black Americans not only accept such notions from whites but bruit them about themselves. The fact is that one can make a case for cultural predilections but one must be careful in America, because of political correctness and racial sensitivities, in making a remark that in any other context might be obvious and innocent. If I say white kids like collecting comic books it's unlikely to set off what might be a firestorm in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The racism that the black intelligentsia so desperately wants to see in white Americans in 2011 resides within themselves. I challenge Nikki Giovanni to go for one year without talking about race and see how much money she picks up on the lecture circuit. I challenge Nikki Giovanni to go one year writing poety devoid of issues of race. I challenge Michael Eric Dyson to go one year on his radio show without talking about race - he can't do it. I challenge Al Sharpton to go for one year without talking about race and see how empty his career becomes. I challenge Jim Cone to go one year without talking about race and see how he gets through the year. I challenge Jaimie Foxx to go one year without talking about race on his radio show and see how that year pans out. I challenge Alice Walker to write a book not based on race and to go one year without talking about race in interviews or writing about it in essays. I challenge Octavia Butler to devote a year to writing her science fiction around ideas rather than race. I challenge Jesse Jackson to go one year with out talking about race and suddenly see how irrelevant he has become. I challenge Roland Martin to go one year without discussing race on TV and on his web site. I can't challenge The Root to go even one week without doing stories about race because it is their reason for existence. I challenge Angela Davis to go one year without discussing race on the lecture circuit, interviews and essays and see what happens to her income. I challenge Cornell West to go one year without making race the centerpiece of virtually everything he discusses as is the case now. I challenge Tavis Smiley to go one year talking about issues not centered around race. I challenge them to do what white Americans do every day of their lives and quite naturally because if one wants to make a charge of what is endemic in white culture in the United States it is not an interest in race but a wholesale lack of it and I'm not talking about Eric Holder's cowardice or lack of interest but disinterest.
I'm telling you right now, those "racers" can't go cold turkey nor could they find one white public figure in the media or arts who would be put out if asked to do the same; it reflects yet another convenient and circular argument put out by black Americans that white America can never win because it says if white folks for example write fiction or films that have no black characters then those white folks are practicing a form of exclusion and any subsequent inclusion is just for appearance's sake to shut black folks up; in my own view it's just plain unhealthy to look at the world through a racial lens, not because it invariably leads to racism but because it is itself an expression of racism - if race is important then it is and if it's not it's not but you can't have two standards for the idea and dribble them out according to skin color and expect racial centrism to not enable self-interest according to one's skin color. I really find the whole idea and practice disgusting and am only discussing it here in an academic sense to call out the whole thing for the empty, childish and loathsome practice that it is.
Jaimie Foxx couldn't go one week without discussing race on his radio show. The very thing that comes naturally to white intelligentsia of every scope and description you can think of in the public media but who are the very ones accused of being part of a white supremacist and racist culture could effortlessly go a year without discussing race because they are already doing so unless it's brought to their attention by black American race baiters as are represented above. I will say this again unequivocally: the black American intelligentsia in this country would fall to pieces if denied the very thing they accuse others of - they absolutely could not survive without the thing they so very much want to see in white Americans but cannot find and that is a view of the world that entirely revolves around black Americans and the issue of race. Race is the one thing black Americans see behind every act of white America they cannot themselves escape from because when it comes to this issue black Americans are looking in a mirror. One absolutely does not have to crane one's neck to see the code-speak from black Americans in the media because they express themselves racially right out in the open and somehow get a pass from white America but cannot see it in themselves; the black American version of "J'accuse" is something they very much need a self-addressed stamped envelope for.
Octavia Butler, a science fiction writer who is noted for writing SF from a black perspective, couldn't go one year doing what white SF writers have been doing for the last 100 years because she would have to do what white SF writers have been doing and that is stand on the quality of her writing and ideas. Ironically Butler, like so many other black artists, claims the reason she writes black SF is because black folks have been excluded from the science fiction genre and she is wrong because there is a world of difference between casual and coincidental exclusion and segregation though black Americans will vociferously argue otherwise because to them exclusion is exclusion and the word purposeful gerrymandered until it gives the desired result. What has been excluded from SF is the very thing Butler herself cannot stop doing and that is seeing the world through a lens of race and that is the crucial difference and that is the thing black Americans like Butler accuse others of but which is something that resides entirely within themselves; it is Orwellian doublethink, circular logic and a self fulfilling prophecy all wrapped up in one dirty bag and shoved in the faces of the people to which it least belongs and then hypocritically called white supremacy and it doesn't even exist in the way black America characterizes it.
The "racers" who base their careers on the concept that white Americans are racists live in an intellectual space where it is the year 1850 and 1920 and as bad as those eras were for black Americans, in whatever way the "racers" can, they will make it worse by decontextualizing events, exaggerating the bad and minimalizing the good - "racers" may as well base their careers on passenger pigeons and dodos. "Racers" are nothing more than the thing they accuse others of. It is extremely unhealthy for cultures to allow destructive and hateful themes to inhabit their intellectual and philosophical space. In World War II, Japan and most importantly Germany allowed unfettered blame and hatred to suffuse its zeitgeist and in so doing destroyed themselves; cultures can go mad. To a much lesser extent and but along similar lines, black culture in America is allowing themes to become commonplace within it's community that are themes of blame, resentment and a disavowal of personal responsibility and the lack of self-criticism that comes along with such things.
Men like Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton, Roland Martin and Tavis Smiley, among others, are helping to keep intact and spread a racist and debauched view of reality that has great traction within the black American community and is ultimately destructive to that community. If black Americans would just stop and look at themselves and what it is that they are doing they could easily realize their dream of becoming what it is that Martin Luther King fought and ultimately died for. There is nothing wrong with the Japanese or Germans or with black folks or white folks either. When these entities have gone wrong it is because they have taken a wrong turn based on cultural notions that gain great currency but are at their heart hateful and counter productive not to mention implacably hostile to any they deem to be an "other" or outsider.
On, April 29 two days after the President released his birth certificate, according to the Huffington Post, Groupon dropped its ads from Trump's "The Apprentice" web site, impelled by this petition:
Dear @Groupon — Donald Trump’s recent racist attacks against our president are blatant and grotesque. We ask you to pull your advertising support from @ApprenticeNBC in protest and ask NBC to fire Donald Trump now. Given the recent blowup over your Super Bowl commercials, you are a company that understands better than most how the perception of disrespect and insensitivity can impact your brand. If you do not show yourself to be a company that stands for basic civility and stands against hateful and hurtful rhetoric, I will no longer use your daily deal service.
Build it and they will run and what is being built here is a case for racism that cannot be proven but the mere use of the word "racist" by people who are themselves the ones obsessed with race is troubling to say the least. These are racist scare tactics by the perpetually offended who see racism in their soup and there is no other way for me to describe it.
Naturally the HuffPo wasn't done, not in just one day, and so we had an article by John Milewski titled: "Birthers, Racism, Barack Obama and Hank Aaron" in which he writes:
The history of humankind is littered with attacks on "the other." You know who I'm talking about, the guy who's not from around here. He looks different and has a funny name. Never in our history has a president's claim to legitimacy been challenged in such an odd and persistent manner
What has been lost somewhere in the channels of Mr. Milewski's mind is the fact that "never in our history" have we had this particular set of circumstances surrounding the provenance of a sitting President but why bother with details when it's so much easier to just call everyone a racist? Mr. Milewski excepted of course.
Mr. Milewski tells a very moving story in this article that almost brought me to tears, mostly from laughing, about when he brought his 11 yr. old daughter to the Baseball Hall of Fame and his little tyke saw the hate mail Hank Aaron received as he neared Babe Ruth's home run record that is part of that exhibit. He writes:
As my daughter stood slack-jawed in response to what she was reading, I attempted to provide historical context. No matter what I said, she found it hard to believe that someone would threaten to kill a man for the crime of hitting more home runs than the next guy. The notion completely assaulted her sense of empathy, fairness and reality. Such is the vile, monstrous and inhuman nature of racism laid bare. She took great comfort in her belief that we have progressed far beyond those times.
I'm surprised he didn't call 911 and have her treated for Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome after getting a glimpse of the icky white people she's descended from.
Perhaps the problem lies not in the all-stars but in ourselves; it is part of life that some people don't like each other - some Jews don't like Arabs, some Arabs don't like black people, some black people don't like white people, some white people don't like Latinos, etc., etc. In this sense, his daughter's sense of "empathy" and "fairness" are going to run hard up against "reality" but it is not real reality but a politically correct one that implies, as a default position, that Hank Aaron was himself incapable of racism and so Mr. Milewski unwittingly has given fuel to the fire he thought he hadn't started in the first place that black folks aren't quite human and don't have normal feelings like jealousy, rage or greed. While attempting to assuage his daughter's feelings that black folks comprise "the other" he makes a persuasive argument that in fact "they" are because in the end it is just as stupid to put a man on a pedestal because he is black as it is to ask him to stand in a ditch; white teenagers have been doing this in America since the 1950s and still do today when it comes to popular music, ascribing a "cool factor" by skin color that is every bit as racist as saying they're a bunch of slack wits because racism doesn't have a direction finder built in but is a language and it is a double edge sword - buy into the ostensibly positive side of it and you are for sure enabling the negative side of it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to argue that we shouldn't look at what happened to Hank Aaron and have reacted negatively to it either in 1974 or now. What I am arguing is that it should not be presented in the context of politically correct arguments that use Mr. Aaron's experience to advance an agenda that is itself hateful and bigoted and to project it into today. Mr. Milelwski is teaching the lesson that any time there is a situation where there are not enough black hires at a company that it is because of white supremacy rather than hiring the best man for the job and an actual quota system has come about that buys into this idea as part of the nature of reality and that nature and that reality is that white people are racist.
In the Nov.29, 1993 issue of the black culture magazine Jet, Wynton Marsalis defended having only 5 white folks in his Marsalis Lincoln Center Orchestra by saying "...I'm choosing the best musicians. I'm not going to hire White musicians just to keep them from complaining" Yet that is exactly what a white employer is asked to do but which is an idea not spread about equally; one need only look at the National Football League or the National Basketball Association to see so. In those situations white Americans are asked to believe, and do mind you, that the best man is being hired for the job. There is no questioning about preferences by skin color being in place because of practice and custom or questions about busing suburban white kids to urban basketball courts to equally share in where the best is being taught the way black kids are bused to white schools to share in where the best is being taught. The white side of this racial equation is being asked to do something the black side is not being asked to do. The white side is being asked to take something on faith black Americans themselves will not take on faith unless by faith you mean the idea and assumption that white people are racists who you don't even know and have never met: it's simply something white people do, a good old boys club of privilege rather than a merit based culture. White folks who, on this issue, have tried to argue they are not going to hire black folks just to keep them from complaining has met with derision and suspicion not to say the full weight of the law.
Mr. Milewski's tender hearted morality play is going to ensure only that his daughter speaks a language of race that puts the shoe on the other foot rather than do away with the language entirely. This is the delusion of the politically correct and the shield that liberals cover black folks in and in which black folks shield themselves in without being aware that that shield continues a form of more subtle and nuanced racism that patronizes black Americans with a hearty pat on the head and is every bit as segregating not to mention degrading as a more direct form of dislike - the hate door is still open but it's just been painted a different color, one where different standards still apply for whites and blacks in America. It is a double standard that black Americans buy into and take full advantage of but one that is ultimately contrary to any idea of equality and is also one that will come back to bite minorities since hate isn't like a Passover angel of death.
Mr. Milewski ties the Obama "birther" controversy into a direct form of racism from the past by observing that if he himself is a holdover from that Aaron record year of 1974 then "so too are the authors of the death threats that rocked my little girl's world." The problem is that Mr. Milewski has simply "whispered" his little girl's world in a more subtle fashion in which it was "rocked" but every bit as effectively - worse even because at least people who curse at others know they're doing it but what if they thought they were being nice? This is the monstrousness of political correctness because it is a horrible form of politeness which nevertheless delivers the same old messages, just in a way that is more nefarious and subversive and therefore more difficult to fight against because it puts people in a perceptual bubble where bigotry can actually be defended. What is worse and more difficult to fight against, segregation one can see or segregation that is effectively invisible because what you're actually talking about here is not only separate but equal but different but equal and that is a hard sell to the nature of reality itself.
Mr. Milewski finishes up with a disclaimer:
Let me be as clear as possible when I say that I do not believe all birthers are racists. Let me be equally clear when I say that objecting to the president's policy positions or his handling of the job is a racist activity. It is not. But what is also crystal clear to me is that racism is a factor in the birther movement.
The problem is that that reality has been put at the back of the bus and the damage has already been done, both to his little girl and anyone else weak minded enough to be influenced by racial innuendos that lack a mature vision of what people really are in this world and relegated far down Mr. Milewski's list is the actual idea that people are equal because that idea has been semantically mauled and decontextualized to death. In the world of the HuffPo's bloggers, equality is doled out to black Americans with massages, crutches, band-aids, buzz words, loans, aid, programs, special laws, double standards, benefit of a doubt, nurturing, explanations, blame, excuses, apologies, quotas, dead ganders, white kettles, and all the things one usually associates with believing a man is an equal.
If you really believe that separating out people by skin color and putting them behind a moral wall because you like them so much is not making an "other" out of them then you're probably an idiot. Believing that a man in a turban is more spiritual than a man in a baseball cap is so horribly provincial and bigoted that it beggars belief that thinking human beings can consciously address the issue of race and culture and come up so empty handed. Yet such thinking is par for the course with every green tea drinking, yoga loving, justice crusading anti-racist from here to Kathmandu. In fact a fey glamour has been projected onto people of color by white liberals that is a de facto baptism that washes away the sin of having human frailty or responsibility for one's actions while emphatically arguing equality. This spell has completely taken over people of color who are only too willing to be convinced that nothing they do is really their fault if it is negative and that everything they do positive is a result of their color based spirituality and "soul" endemic to "their people" as Attorney General Eric Holder might and has put it.
This is a dangerous phenomenon because it isn't a fad like the English fascination with "orientalism" in the 19th century but is a hard philosophy that we don't even see as such but take it on faith as actual reality and so form important policy decisions around that affect the make-up and future and treasure of our country not to mention institutionalizing a friendly version of Jim Crow that is creeping upon us by stealth and making us sick in our hearts and minds, fracturing people along increasingly growing lines that enable the growth and power of resentment and a culture that is perpetually offended as if we all live in each other's living rooms and so fight for the sanctity of our homes but in the public arena.
If you think I'm wrong about this I'm not. A man in a band was arrested at the end of April, 2011 for playing "Ku Fu Fighting" because two Asians walking by were offended and this type of incident, which was unknown just a few decades before is not only common nowadays but institutionalized in law.
Good thing I'm not easily offended or I might have taken exception to what is known as the "Negro National Anthem" being played at President Obama's inauguration which was more pitiful and funny than offensive. I did find this little racist limerick offensive but really I simply felt sorry for anyone who thought it would be appropriate at the inauguration of a President of the United States.
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get [in] back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen! Say Amen! And Amen!
Difficult to believe that any adult could find that little ditty inspirational, especially a person who emphatically claims to not be racist. The way it says that part about "white" sounds like it's a very far away day in the author's estimation. I didn't find it so much offensive as tasteless. What's interesting is that it once again is really only saying that tired old anthem that is the real "Negro National Anthem" and that has very few words; it goes: "White people bad, people of color good". Not really enough to set to music or make a movie of yet black writers have managed to dress that anthem up with about 18 zillion words in essays and radio shows. It's said that a few people were offended but that most were amused by the ditty - my beef is that it would be taboo to do the same thing were the subject black folks. It's the kind of thing that should be on an HBO special and not used in such a classless way at an event the whole world was watching. Add into this the fact that it was a historical event for black Americans and you have to say that the conspicuous display along side Obama showed the idea of that he was the President of Black America.
I'm surprised they didn't build a fake alley in front of the White House and have black guys in zoot suits playing craps. There's nothing like an association with racist joke songs straight of the juke box of a beer joint to add a little class to the inauguration of an American president and point out a post-racial country that has moved beyond considerations of race. Let's face it, President Obama's swearing in ceremony was an NAACP event and in that sense to me it was a disgrace and display of vulgarity. Try having the lyrics to some old racist limericks that make fun of black people put on public display and see what happens. I shudder to think of the message Obama and his fun minions were giving to black youth in this country who are already awash in vulgar rhymes centered completely around race as opposed to white popular music which is completely not centered around race; it's plain to see who is and who isn't raising their children to think racially.
Not to be proverbially outdone, yet another article at the HuffPo cranks it up a notch at white Republicans in a piece that same day by Johann Hari titled "Donald Trump Has Revealed the Truth About the Republican Party" In Mr. Hari's piece, white Republicans are anti-gay, imperialist, yes (yawn) racist, greedy, dislike the poor, bull-headed, and dedicated to the proposition of a privileged class. With friends like Mr. Hari, black folks don't need a KKK since, philosophically speaking, one could single out any group of blacks organized around mutual ideas and give 'em hell in the exact same manner. What seems to be lost on the morally smug bloggers at the HuffPo is that an overarching argument is just that: overarching. You can't point it like a water hose or turn it on or off though that is what the eminently "decent" people on the political Left want to believe while in fact arguing for bigotry and racism that will always recognize a Democrat or minorities and be a super friendly type of bigotry and racism.
And of course a very long and trying day of exhausting political correctness at the Huffington Post wouldn't have been complete without having a final article in the wee small hours putting the exclamation point on Trump's racism called, "Donald Trump Was Once Sued By Justice Department For Not Renting To Blacks", although it bewilderingly points out that Trump referring to blacks as "blacks" was not taken well by blacks. Though the article makes a fairly persuasive argument that Donald Trump may not be all that fond of black people, the point is that this info was not known to people claiming that Trump was a racist and arguing that their instincts were born out still argues for a skill at mind reading that is not allowed in court or in debate - wishful thinking does not describe a rational enabling mechanism or facts. In any event, it still makes the argument because of the one sided context in which it is raised, that racism comes first and facts second but to me any facts about Trump, which would be perfectly valid in a neutral context, only furthers the actual context at the HuffPo on this overarching mind set about race and that is that it is a white problem. Belief ahead of the facts reveals more about the believers then it does about "facts".
The liberal political Left in America is insane: they see things where there are none and really it is pretty much as simple as that. The centerpiece of liberal thought is like a religion in that it is based on faith, an absolute faith - because in no way can it demonstrate in a larger sense and in context the things it believes in or explains away; an absence of white crime and a conspicuous presence of black crime are looked at in two entirely different ways and according to skin. Liberal thought in America revolves around reality but never quite touches it. A perfect example are illegal aliens who have "anchor babies": they ignore the law in entering the country but when it comes to having a baby born on American soil all of a sudden they insist on the full letter of the law and their "rights".
As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than hateful con artists who have not a shred of business being in this country in the first place let alone invoking the U.S. constitution. The Rainbow Left defends these grifters like they're a patriotic hero. The truth is that the only loyalty illegal aliens have is for themselves and they have no respect for the idea of rule of law as evidenced by the fact that there is none in the countries they leave. Neither does the Democratic Party have any interest in the rule of law or in their own country for that matter when it comes to the Third World; they are far more interested in their own agenda and if that means gerrymandering foreign nationals or suing an American state or allowing lawsuits against AZ ranchers by illegal aliens it's all just fine with the Dems. Because, as part of the hypocrisy wherein liberals say people who don't like Obama are racists, the Dems know those illegals will vote Democrat "on the issues" even though so doing makes them demonstrably more racist then any "birther" can be shown to be and in fact, those Dems even count on that phenomenon - that kind of racism is no problem if they vote for the right candidate.
How else can one explain a view of the easiest country in the world to succeed in that one must treat like a sinking racist and bigoted ship; and so it's minorities, women, children, seniors and gay folks into the life boats first while the privileged white male morons who built the ship but don't play fair go down with it.
You see, in my crazy world, if you can do a thing, you've probably already done it instead of bitching about all the people who've prevented you from doing it.
You see many bloggers like Mr. Mitrovich all over American web sites and the only reason they're allowed to express themselves is because of the direction of their thought and not the quality of it. In most cases a high school student could do as well writing essays but loyalty to the cause trumps competence. Were this not true you wouldn't see so many celebrities writing for the press in their spare time. That doesn't mean that there aren't celebrities that wouldn't write for a conservative cause but they know it could be a career breaker which shows how tolerant the tolerant and boycotting Left is, the one that preaches tolerance towards others and against intolerance.
I don't know any time in our nation's history when you've seen so many artists and novelists achieve acclaim for "right thinking"; it's like a plague. The plague consists of buzz words and stereotypes casually spread about without the slightest bit of thinking attached. It's why you see the use of the phrase "social justice" within so many artist's statements by those within the fine arts; they either cynically know it's worth its weight in gold or really believe in fairies. Nothing is obvious to a true and pure politically correct liberal and I mean nothing though they steadfastly claim otherwise.
Political correctness dictates that a solution to a problem will not be used if it violates the tenets of PC and when it comes to issues like eventually having 1 billion arguing and fractured people in America, half of them from the Third World, you are simply talking about committing suicide in order to observe what is a monstrous form of politeness. Immigration should be ended now and a legal cap put on our population but you can't do it - it's racist and that's the short form of the argument and the long one too.
As far as I'm concerned our Orwellian Left in America are all "Nessie" enthusiasts because, like the Loch Ness monster, they've seen it, they know it's there and can't understand why you don't believe them and have no patience for the fact that you don't.
Here I'll slide off on a tangent to show an example of how hypocrisy about racism and bigotry can be strewn about without regard for casualties and why it should be stood up to and challenged. There are so many examples I could give but this I give just because it was recent and in the news.
Recently Kobe Bryant was fined 100 grand for being caught on camera saying “fucking faggot” during an NBA game on April 12, 2011 in a moment of anger as he was sitting down on the bench.
The gay advocacy group HRC (Human Rights Campaign) released a statement that said:
What a disgrace for Kobe Bryant to use such horribly offensive and distasteful language, especially when millions of people are watching. Hopefully Mr. Bryant will recognize that as a person with such fame and influence, the use of such language not only offends millions of LGBT people around the world, but also perpetuates a culture of discrimination and hate that all of us, most notably Mr. Bryant, should be working to eradicate. Bryant and the Lakers have a responsibility to speak up on this issue immediately. America is watching.
GLAAD which is the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said:
For better or worse, Kobe Bryant has created a teachable moment for the millions of fans – many of them young – who saw that outburst on the floor, and the right thing to do now is to apologize and take responsibility for suggesting that the worst thing you can do to someone is to scream out a gay slur. This kind of homophobic outburst has dangerous consequences, even more so when it comes from a celebrity in the national spotlight.
I would say that "dangerous consequences" are the responsibility of those who commit acts and not those who use words. If a Christian gets assaulted I'd hardly blame gays for creating an atmosphere of hate or disrespect and I see no reason why one group has a First Amendment right while another is relegated to the realm of hate speech - they are one in the same, completely interchangeable.
I took note of the “many of them young” comment from GLAAD in light of the children present at the gay "Hunky Jesus" event in San Francisco last Easter Sunday which was April 24 and they had a kid’s event right before the start of it. The SFList, a San Francisco cultural promotional web site even had the gall to write “There’s something for all ages at Dolores Park on Sunday" in referring to the "Hunky Jesus" event which was completely inappropriate for kids. Even the main stream media is saying it’s okay for kids to see nudity and obscenity and mocking people without a negative influence so it should be perfectly fine to forget about Bryant doing something in a moment of anger even if it was seen by kids.
What's odd to me about this concept of young people being influenced by Kobe Bryant for merely saying "fucking faggot" is the gay community's position on how children living with gays will in no way be influenced by gay behaviors - I mean, come on, it's either one or the other and equally relevant in the instance of the kids who attended the "Hunky Jesus" contest as well. It's more hypocrisy piled on top of hypocrisy. You can add to this fact that were kids to be brought by their parents to any other event so R-rated like a non-alcoholic bar, that they would almost certainly be brought up on charges by child services. Our society does not allow children to be exposed to vulgar sexuality and whether you agree with such laws or not they do in fact exist. Also, if gay groups believe children aren't influenced by what they're exposed to, then why argue for exposure to the concept of gays while kids are in school? Obviously this isn't an argument but simply an opportunistic line of fluff used to flail about in whatever direction is best for gay people at that time.
The "Hunky Jesus" contest is held every year and is definitely R rated. It mocks Christians in a sexual way and a line-up of contestants competes for who will be that year's "Hunky Jesus". I have no problem with the event or gays in general; I grew up loving R. Crumb and S. Clay Wilson underground comics and they are far more vulgar even than anything at the "Hunky Jesus" event because Crumb and Wilson took no prisoners when they poked fun and everyone went under the knife so to speak.
My problem has to do with people who insist on a standard for others that they themselves do not abide by. In light of the words used in the press releases from the gay advocacy organizations, I see no difference between saying "fucking faggot", whether in anger or in glee, and cheering on a man simulating sex with Jesus who calls himself "Jesus Fucking Christ" - either such expression occupy the same offensive space, or neither does. Some people don't think much of gay people and the gay people at the SF event don't seem to think much of Christians.
Every one knows Bryant’s not going to make an issue of this, after all it’s his career, but it would’ve been nice if he’d held a press conference showing photos that couldn’t have been shown on TV from this Easter "Hunky Jesus" event because I think he would have had a point. You don’t have to be a genius to see that there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the gay community on the Kobe Bryant issue in light of the San Francisco event. The first press release talks about offending people but they seem to have no problem with Christians being offended; that is a double standard that should not stand and they should’ve been called out for it. That’s what you call a “teachable moment”. You wanna mock, then be prepared to be mocked and like it.
If it’s okay to call Jesus whatever slurs were used in San Francisco in abundance, then using the word faggot in anger, or even calling a gay a faggot seems no more than fair. If it’s not, then the gay community should get on the group which has been behind this "Hunky Jesus" since 1979. The Rainbow groups in this country have a special shield and it’s rife with hypocrisy. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If there’s such a thing as “homophobia” then one can argue that the group of gays last Easter in San Francisco suffer from “Christianophobia” no matter how tongue-in-cheek the event - it was certainly not done in solidarity with Christians but with a sense of contempt, the same contempt that one has for a gay person one calls a fucking faggot. In fact, in a reply to criticism of the event by Andrew Sullivan the SFList published what a member of the Sisters for Perpetual Indulgence behind the "Hunky Jesus" event calling them self Rev. Sr. Mary Peter wrote in a long reply where they mentioned the "bigotry of so-called Christians". For a group of people that wants everyone to buy into what is considered a controversial life style as if it’s totally normal then I say fine but then let gays buy into that kind of cultural relativism and give it right back to Christians as "normal".
In the SFList Andrew Sullivan, a self-professed gay conservative who doesn't like the "Hunky Jesus" contest was quoted as saying:
Again, I would fight to the death, as they say, to defend the free expression rights of these smug liberal bigots. But they remain smug, liberal bigots. Let's see what their attitude would be if a religious right group did a public performance art mocking gay marriages in the Castro - with graphic sex acts meant to ridicule gays. I'm sure they'd try to prosecute them for hate speech. Let's say it took place on gay pride. Somehow I think offense would be taken and the demonstrators labeled immediately as bigots. If they're bigots, why aren't these Sisters Of Perpetual Self-Indulgence?
The columnist then replied:
...insofar as a public performance art mocking gay marriages in the Castro goes, it's been done. Ad nauseam, too. Say what you will about the alleged 'smug, liberal bigots' littering the Bay Area, they're excellent at getting as good as the give. And how
For me, that's not the point. The point is, what if people who were heterosexual Christians held an outdoor stage show mocking gay marriage and used words like "fucking faggot"? I think we all know the answer there. There would be press releases from gay advocacy groups calling such an event out as being bigoted and hateful.
A writer calling them self "Zombie" at the Pajamas Media web site wrote an article about the event with the following:
...what bothers me is the double standard. In San Francisco (and places like San Francisco, including most newsrooms and TV studios), it’s perfectly acceptable to mock Christians. But to turn the tables and mock gays in a similar way is considered totally beyond the pale; a hate crime; bullying; bigotry and oppression of the worst kind. If the story as I originally titled it was true (“Christians mock gays at shocking Easter service“), it would indeed have been national news. But when the reverse happens — silence. And what this tells me is that our society is currently enduring a condition of mass rank hypocrisy.
Piling on even more hypocrisy that surrounds this event is the fact that this group of bravos would in no way do an R-rated "Hunky Mohammed" contest - no way in this world. Adding to the already mountainous hypocrisy is the fact that muslims will kill a man just for being gay within many Islamic cultures or at least certainly put them in jail. Christians don't do such things and it is footless to say they used to - it's 2011 which is a year liberals clearly don't live in. You can definitely expect push come to shove on this issue in the future as muslims agitate and their communities grow in size because targets very high up on the list will be gay bars and gay pride parades held every year across America; when that happens, gays are going to need all the friends they can get and realize that Christians are the least of their troubles. In this context, one can only wonder what would be the reaction had this "Hunky Jesus" contest been a "Hunky Jew" contest with all the attendant caricatures.
To me, what all this race based nonsense is about when it comes to the pointing fingers from white liberals and minorities is their own predilection to view the world through a lens of race and then blithely project that same assumption onto others who reside outside their own philosophical space. Anyone who can read articles at The Root and tell me it does not reflect a black culture within the United States that sees virtually everything from a position of race has a screw loose somewhere and that black view is entirely backed up by white liberals; it is monumental and it is obvious. Worse than seeing the world through a lens of race is to then go one further and accuse everyone they oppose as not only sharing the same liberal view of a world seen through the idea of race but to be racists. It's a self fulfilling prophecy whereby the Rainbow Coalition sees everything from a platform of race but only because others are racists; that kind of circular logic does not endear me to the politically correct liberal Left and minorities in America. The idea that black folks in America would suddenly become colorblind if they felt racism was passé is as ridiculous as the idea that black Americans will ever come to the conclusion that racism is passé in the first place - more circular logic and wishful prophecy as far as I am concerned. To say that the intellectual base at The Root is debauched is a vast understatement; it is the willful and baseless complaints of a resentful child who can't get their own way and can't figure out why and so it must be someone else's fault and of course, the child shares none of these faults in some miraculous reverse logic wherein they are fully human and not at the same time. This is not a truly ideological or philosophical base born out of rationality or reason but simply "me good, you bad" devoid of anything other than a nod and lip service to reality or in the basic decency of anyone who doesn't see things your way.
The idea seems to be that white racists speak in code considering the dearth of white organizations who actually organize themselves around skin color and this "code" can be seen everywhere and is all-pervasive; you just have to "know" how to parse it and believe me black Americans are experts at this type of parsing as is the gay community and feminists - they will give you all the statistics you could ask for.
The trouble is, when you keep giving statistics that consistently show a team as being in last place, excuses of racism and bigotry as catch-all explanations start to ring a little hollow. In baseball, a last place team carries along with it the startling notion that it is simply not a very good team - political correctness doesn't have a say in that, not yet, but if it did, one can easily envision Major League Baseball tinkering endlessly with the rules until a last place team performs at the same level as a first place team. Maybe 8 against 9 would work, or perhaps a designated hitter for one side and not the other would reveal the true nature of reality to us.
At the same time the Rainbow Left desperately seeks signs of racist code, organizations like The National Council of La Raza (The Race) and the Congressional Black Caucus, the Association of Black Journalists and the Association of Black this and black that and Asian this and Asian that is everywhere to be seen and it is only considered "code" to morons on the Left who enable a double standard because they somehow believe Jim Crow never died and so that double standard has an official seal of approval and endorsement that is entirely forbidden to white folks; and the irony is, white folks, the racists, have no interest in organizing themselves around such foolish notions in the first place. Yet, in the end, guess who takes the label of "racist" and who does not? It's really quite amazing. Orwell's notion of "doublethink" wherein one can look at black and literally see white seems to be a quite real phenomenon.
The idea that people who oppose President Obama's policies are racist is a problematic proposition: does that mean everyone on board with the President is NOT a racist? - if only life were so simple. It is simple at the Huffinton Post and The Root and I mean that in the meanest possible sense. Already the term "birthers" has, as a result of articles like I have discussed here, sprouted the term "racers" for the Rainbow Left and one gets the sense that it's going to sting like a bitch in the future.
The idea that conservative white men don't like women, gays and minorities and are callous to the needs of senior citizens and children is one that has a great deal of traction on the Left, who have apparently scooped up all the morality in the world and hug it so close to their breasts that there is none left to go around. For myself the idea that morality can be dispensed according to political affiliation, skin color or gender is the vast and immature conceit of spelunkers, "cavers" let's call them, mesmerized by Plato's shadow play. Also problematic is the concept that anyone who disagrees with the policies of a minority politician is a racist if they're white and not a racist if they're a black person who disagrees with a white politician. If I buy into this notion surrounding non-Democrats that whites who disagree with Obama's policies are actually racists then that means that black folks who don't vote for whites are racists - the 95% or black folks who voted for Obama seems to put black Americans firmly in the crosshairs of their own argument while letting white folks off the hook seeing how it was the issue oriented white folks who voted Obama into the Presidency. The actual fact is that if you follow the logic of black Americans that white Americans are white supremacists but use the 95% or black Americans who voted for Barack Obama as a template, then 95% of white Americans would be Republicans and so the argument and the entire edifice of black thought on this subject not only comes crashing down but comes crashing down right on top of the finger pointers which is the black intelligentsia of the United States.
I don't mean to be so entirely blithe about the whole situation because it can get as complex as you want it to be. For example, what if there had been a "Hunky Jew" contest? Would that have occupied a different moral space? Would gays ever venture into that territory and if not, why not? One man's satire is another man's hate speech. Would the Anti-Defamation League have spoken out about a "Hunky Jew" contest? What about a "Hunky Mohammed" contest? Obviously based on past history that would be problematic. What is free speech in all of this? Who should be and who shouldn't be offended. Given the oppression under which gays live in the middle east, I'm surprised the gay community isn't targeting muslims with a show given their awareness of the "Egypt Gay Trial" a decade ago.
So, what's the answer? It's simple really: black Americans and gays and everyone should stop pointing fingers for things they themselves do and for staking out moral high ground to which they have not the slightest bit of claim. The mere existence of such a concept as a "hate crime" shows that not only morality but the law itself gives over a special status to Rainbow Coalition groups that is quite the opposite of Mr. Mitrovich's posturings about the Declaration of Independence and the immorality and racism of "birthers". The Sisters Of Perpetual Self-Indulgence who put on the "Hunky Jesus" contest don't represent all gay folks and neither do "birthers" represent all white folks and I don't put bigotry on either one as some kind of default mechanism because I can't read their minds. Every one should take it down a notch and live and let live but above all try and apply one's standards to one's self rather than only distributing them to others. Hypocrisy on the political Left in America is so stunningly monumental that it truly deserves Orwell's term of "doublethink". In the old days a pirate knew he was a pirate but our new paradigm of a bad guy is a man who is thoroughly convinced of the honor of their intentions and goals and it is wrecking discourse and the the social fabric of America and leaving our worst problems years away from even being recognized as problems let alone solved.
When I was a young man I found the story of Jesse Owens at Nazi Germany's 1936 Olympics inspiring because it called out the false premises of racism and the perceptual trap men like Hitler found themselves in; it was no surprise to me that Owens caught the Nazis in their own web. But now, today in 2011, black Americans find themselves in that very same perceptual trap and are tripping all over their own misperceptions and racial agenda and imperatives; it is not a good place to be for black Americans nor is it good for America.
The story concerning the idea of white supremacy in America in 2011 is based on lies, half-truths, hypocrisy, hysteria, exaggeration, double-standards, wishful thinking, self fulfilling prophecy, racism, bigotry, prejudice, blindness, guilt, accusation, resentment, payback, self-esteem, arrogance and a great willingness to cling to a past now dead and gone and it villains past punishment. The great irony is that too many in the black community at once decry the idea of guilt by association with skin color but want reparations and guilt apportioned out to white Americans constructed on that very idea and that is something no man can survive and is an edifice which must come crashing down; one could easily make the argument that, philosophically, that edifice as typified by contemporary black American culture has already come crashing down and black Americans living in the ruins of an unsustainable philosophy yet blaming the results of such a perceptual trap on others instead of realizing, a half century on from Jim Crow and amidst the freedom and opportunities which abound, that they are living in a trap of their own making, carefully constructed and reasoned out in essay after essay and book after book and radio show after radio show and interview after interview.
The great strength of America in its history has been its willingness to take an idea for what it's worth and not for where it's found. There is no class or aristocracy of thought and opportunity in America such as existed in old Europe and which is why Europe came to be dominated by an American way of thinking. America has been imperfect because people are imperfect but it has come around and as they say, better late than never. Although we as Americans can not and should not disavow our history, it serves no purpose now to hold up slavery and Jim Crow and bruit them about like a flail or act like they represent a generational hangover that assaults the black community in America to this very day.
Jews came out of concentration camps in 1945 after 1,000 years of pogroms, bigotry and finally outright murder and built the state of Israel with the help of no one and against considerable odds. Those Jews did so without affirmative action, welfare, jobs programs or pats on the head telling them how equal they were. Equality was not an issue but equal is as equal does and such a concept does not have to be promoted and sold as some kind of a product and have dissertations built around it but is self-evident and cannot be denied. The plain and simple truth is that those Jews were entirely free of a perceptual trap as has been America throughout its history despite how black Americans were treated. Black Americans are convinced that the treatment they received from white Americans was a carefully constructed and orchestrated campaign centered around white supremacy and but in fact it consisted more of casual bigotry and racism and man's inhumanity to man then any ideology similar to the Nazis and Adolph Hitler.
The vicious rhetoric between those in favor of slavery in America and abolitionists even as far back as the beginning of the 19th century, a century that began with American naval vessels interdicting slave ships from Africa speaks to this. It is right and correct to point fingers where they should and must be pointed but to condemn and paint with a broad brush the entire history of America as one financially constructed on slavery and philosophically based on white supremacy is utter nonsense because the abolitionists won if anyone would care to pay attention and a war fought to end slavery and the winners of that war outnumbered the losers 4 to 1. Let's not as Americans make the mistake of either minimizing what happened to black Americans in this country nor exaggerated it. It is not 1862 or 1952, it is 2011 and that is a very simple fact that many people are simply unwilling to accept in a real sense.
Were I able, I would publish this as an open letter in the N.Y. Times and call for black Americans to stop formally self-segregating and acting as if they are being forced to do so by white supremacy. I would address this to the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Association of Black Journalists, The Root, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Roland Martin, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornell West, Tavis Smiley, Nikki Giovanni, Alice Walker, Jim Cone, Louis Farrakhan, the New Black Panther Party, the Huffington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Jaimie Foxx, Henry Gates, Jr., Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover who expresses themselves in a sea of race and claims to be made to swim in it against their will while at the same time accusing those who do not do so of sharing the waters. There are many examples of a culture unwittingly transforming itself from a thing it fights to becoming the thing it fights; the transition in American foreign policy that led from World War II to Korea to Viet Nam is only one glaring example. This transition can slip in under the door so to speak and I believe this transition has happened to black Americans who, instead of walking through the door that was opened wide during the Civil Rights era of the mid-1960s, have chosen instead to walk a far different and far darker path, led and enabled and reflected by high profile black men and women whose names I have mentioned several times in this essay and in this very paragraph.
The real battle here is political correctness - where winners are losers, losers are winner, failure is success and success is immoral. Equality is argued and stipulated and not shown and what is true and observable is deconstructed. It is ripping our social fabric apart in terms of internal policy and conduct and law in America. I hope that anyone who reads this, despite the anger and frustration in the tone of this essay, can accept it in the ultimate expression of love and peace I mean it to find a road to. We are not in fact all created equal but we have an innate right to equal opportunity. However that right must be leavened with common sense and not with insistence and with a true sense of accepting what it is we can do as opposed to what we should be able to do, or would be able to do or could be able to do.