Thought For The Day
*
It is incontrovertible; a huge majority of Jews refuse to acknowledge even the remote possibility, that as a people, they are being incrementally "frog-marched" into oblivion.
"The anger is real. It is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." - Barack Obama
Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off. I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana. The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war. Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.
In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.
They did however have stro ng families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state
While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.
His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a ra zor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:
"We're owed and they aren't."
In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."
A good test case for this theory is Katrina. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the Katrina disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.
The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.
The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs. Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.
The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university. In short, it became a vicious cycle.
There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.
There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?
In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. abou t his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner. At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said:
"They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night."
Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.
During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success. Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked.
To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model. The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority."
This whole process took only a few years.
Eric Hoffer said:
"...you do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but i nfect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."
We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.
In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright.
Says Eric Hoffer:
The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own. (emphasis added)
By Ed Kaitz
March 20, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_anger.html
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
In the mid 1980's I debated Gloria Steinhem on the Phil Donahue show, during the presidential campaign where Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman Vice Presidential candidate. The assumption by feminists, like Gloria, was that all women should vote for Geraldine because she was a woman. I asked her if she would be supporting Phyllis Schlafly if she were the candidate instead of Geraldine and if she would be offended if I made that same assumption.
When Allen Keyes was running for president, as probably one of the most brilliant candidates we have ever seen, he was ignored by the liberal media and the black community because, as a black Republican, he was deemed either irrelevant or out of touch. I often wondered if he had been the first black Democrat running for office if he would have been treated better, and then I had my answer in Barack Obama.
What is it about this man that has thoughtful, conservative blacks like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts saying they might vote for him? It can't be his left of left politics that makes even Ted Kennedy look conservative. What thinking conservative could actually support a man who is going to raise taxes, increase the size of government, redistribute wealth, burden small businesses and the working class, and play nice with people who want to destroy us? (emphasis added) It can't just be about his skin color otherwise they would have been huge supporters of Allen Keyes when he ran for president, and as I recall, neither were.
Armstrong explains his position by saying, ''I don't necessarily like his [Barack's] policies; I don't like much of what he advocates, but for thefirst time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.'' JC Watts, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, who is obviously more blinded by the light of Obama, says he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy, adding ''Republicans often seem indifferent to those things.''
No, JC, Republicans try and deal with these issues in a logical, private sector, community involvement way and they are shut down and called racists. Unless a huge tax bill is attached to every single social ill in this country, liberals think a solution is impossible. When Bush instituted faith-based initiatives to allow the private sector religious and community groups to do what they do best, and partner with them instead of letting bloated bureaucracies handle personal and community problems, they were vilified for not sufficiently extricating church from state.
When welfare reform bills were passed over the vehement objections of Democrats, and then actually worked, guess who stood up and took credit for them . . . Bill Clinton. Of all the billions and billions of dollars through the years that have been thrown at poverty, each person living in poverty today would be a multi-millionaire if the money had just gone directly to them along with a financial advisor to help them keep it growing. But if the government had done that, there would be no need for the huge, bloated, out-of-control leviathan called "government" that is never sated.
And that is the big distinction in this race; those who think higher taxes and bigger governmentare the answer, like Barack Obama, and those who want their liberties back. Unfortunately, the later group has no candidate this term. If they did, I am sure people like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts would not be doing the two-step with Barack because they would see a clear distinction in the candidates, beyond race, and vote accordingly.
This news should be a shot across the bow to the tone deaf McCain campaign that has adopted a fortress mentality while killing the peasants inside the walls. They still believe they can win without their base, and think their base is a handful of disgruntled Hillary voters and disillusioned moderates who are dissatisfied with the lack of leadership from both parties. Why would they vote for (either of these) two candidates who represent exactly why they are disgruntled and dissatisfied with politics in general?
It is too bad that neither Armstrong nor JC saw our movie, "Emancipation Revelation Revolution," even though Armstrong is actually in it. They would understand that this "historic" thing that they are expecting to happen was actually prevented from happening over 100 years ago by the very party that Barack so proudly hails from. This is not a white vs. black issue that has its roots in slavery, because there were too many white men and women who gave their lives trying to end the practice of slavery and Jim Crow.
It is time to transcend past injustices, stop wearing counterfeit grievances on our sleeves, and work to fulfill the simplicity and sincerity of the American creed. The battle to end slavery was fought by whites, against whites. It was not black vs. white. The battle to keep blacks from integrating fully into society, have a place at the economic and political tables, were battles that pitted the racist white society against huge segments of the white population who supported equal rights, and many gave their lives in that battle.
The Republican Party was actually founded by white abolitionists who were reviled and ridiculed, much like pro-life advocates are today. But thankfully they clung to their principles and ended slavery at great personal cost including for many, the loss of life. Republicans today are clueless about their history; they don't think it matters, or they have taken a permanent powder.
Who are these people anyway? I used to think I knew. I switched parties years ago when I became ashamed to be a part of a political party that elected racist governors who would keep young black kids from attending white schools. I was ashamed of a party where all the Democrats were happy racists and to oppose them was dangerous. I now find myself ashamed of the Republican Party for a myriad of reasons, but unlike 30 years ago, I have no party to turn to now. And neither do millions and millions of disgruntled, disenfranchised, marginalized conservatives who see two giant parties pressing in on them from both sides.
The Republican Party today is "Democrat-lite," and reminds you of the nerd in school who wants so desperately to be cool and does all the cool things that are so pitiful it actually pains you to see how ridiculous he looks. That is this party today. They want so much to be hip and cool, and with it, and tolerant and popular and generous with your money, and accommodating to every stupid, costly idea that comes down the pike. There is no leadership in the party and it is a very pale, faded image of a party that was formed to champion the cause of freedom and liberty for those enslaved.
That entire conflict and portion of our history is written in the blood of innocent victims, by the hand of a small group of power hungry people who are motivated by greed and control of others. They are the very same people who today, have elevated a man who talks in the grand sweeping phrases of third world dictators who rise out of the dust to throw pedals of empty platitudes at the feet of the adoring crowds.
To see men of the stature of Armstrong Williams and JC Watts, fall for the con of a party using a divisive symbol to intimidate the country into following a path of virtual slavery to government is appalling and quite sad. If more women in 1984 were as gullible and easily swayed as these two male leaders are, Geraldine Ferraro would have easily become the first woman vice president. But we resisted the temptation to indulge our fantasies of feigned oppression. She would have only been a symbolic success to those who agreed with her policies and would have been a dismal failure for everyonewho opposed them. Would that have been a reflection on her ability to lead as a woman? No, no more than Margaret Thatcher was a raging success by those who approved of her every policy.
If Armstrong and JC want true leadership and pigment is that important, and like millions, are totally dissatisfied with the idea of a McCain presidency, then I challenge them to do something really courageous without selling their souls. They can write-in someone like Michael Steel as an alternative choice who, in my opinion is better than both the choices we have now. If color is what they want great . . . let's do it. If conservative is what they claim they want, then, he's the person for that too.
I challenge the country to stop whining and take control of this situation before it totally controls them and they wake up one day without choices. If you don't like either candidate, settle on a write-in and just do it. That actually might be the only way to get McCain's attention, and the only way to break this Obama spell off of people who usually have more sense than this.
Hey JC, Armstrong, and others who are being seduced by pigment; if young women, 20 years ago, could resist the feminist seduction of Gloria, Phil and Geraldine, then surely, you can resist the siren's call to socialism.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Tucson Unified History Teacher Speaks Out on La Raza "Curriculum"
As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.
During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department. Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class. I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.
I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.
Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university. Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.
The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites. In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos." It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead. It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization. It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.
As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty. When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."
The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period. The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments. Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.
The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get. The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.
Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.
Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.
John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/85853.php
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage. But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.
The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.
How to turn one's blackness to advantage?
The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence. This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong.
Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence. His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.
Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another? Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny.
For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny. And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance.
Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin. But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."
Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America"). How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol? What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background.
And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real? But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred. No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.
By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008
URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html
Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
In a racial profiling lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP), a plaintiff's attorney named Eliza Leighton said that some training documents contain "startling examples of racial stereotypes about Hispanics."
According to the Associated Press:
“For example, one document cautions that Hispanics generally do not hold their alcohol well. They tend to drink too much and this leads to fights. And it notes, Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient. Other sterotypes [sic] include the assertion that the weapon of choice for Hispanics is a knife and that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English.”
Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, we can now expect such information to be purged from the training documents. But, as I wrote about Dr. James Watson's comments regarding Africans, intelligence and genetics, this is part of a very distressing pattern. Everyone fixates on the fact that such comments constitute generalizations (about groups that are supposed to be immune from such things), as if this is an offense in and of itself. Yet, no one seems to ask the only relevant question.
Before anyone waxes stupid, please don't tell me that all generalizations are invalid because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization. Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are statements about a group's general characteristics, not individuals' specific ones. For example, if I say that men are taller than women, I don't mean that every man towers over every woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between the groups.
This brings us to an important point: While we must judge everyone as an individual, there are differences within groups but also differences among them. Thus, it makes no more sense to paint every group with the same brush than it does to pain every individual with the same brush.
My response to those who cannot or will not accept this is that if they can't understand commentary written for adults, they shouldn't read it. Besides, not all generalizations can be invalid simply because the statement that all generalizations are invalid is itself is a generalization.
Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages. But what does this imply? Well, by definition "diversity" refers to differences among groups. Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise. After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not. And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it.
Any which way you care to slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma.
So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology. So it's not that they don't have biases relating to generalizations, only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism and the inability to be honest with themselves and others. So let's be honest now.
Stereotypes often arise because they have a basis in reality.
For example, often it has been remarked that Irishmen liked to drink. Once again, intelligent people know this doesn't mean that every Irishman is a drunkard, but informed people might know something else: Ireland ranks number two in the world in per capita alcohol consumption next to Luxemburg.
Another difference among groups is that some are more patriarchal than others. We know that Moslem societies are quite so, as women are usually afforded fewer legal rights. In fact, Westerners will often emphasize and lament this difference as a way to burnish their credentials as believers in women's liberation.
In light of this, let's now analyze the MSP's statement that "Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient." Since some groups are more patriarchal than others, this can be true; and I venture to say that anyone who has had great contact with Hispanic people and possesses eyes and common sense will know it's often enough true compared to, say, Swedes
As to these matters, Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark and Tammy Tam, three Ph.Ds who received a government grant to study common sense, implicitly vindicate two of the MSP's assertions. They write in their paper, Alcohol Consumption Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities:
"One traditional explanation for heavy drinking patterns among Hispanic men, particularly Mexican-Americans, is the concept of ‘exaggerated machismo.'"
While these researchers didn't accept or reject this explanation, they didn't question the suppositions that Hispanic men drink too much and are "macho." So then why are the Maryland State Police probably going to have to pay money for saying what these academics got paid money to say? Well, it neither serves the left's agenda to sue a few eggheads nor can cash be extracted from them.
Besides, there is another factor: If a truth hurts, since you can't destroy the Truth, you destroy the truth-teller.
And here is another truth. I have only one thing to say about the idea that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English: I've never been asked if I wanted to press two for German.
Stereotypes aren't just woven into flawed leftist ideology (please forgive the redundancy) and million-dollar research substitutes for common sense; they also appear in entertainment. Just think about all the times that whites are characterized as nerdy, lacking rhythm or liking mayonnaise (as to this, watch the movie Undercover Brother or Al Yankovic's music video "White & Nerdy"). Yet, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller was practically clubbed to death for quipping that Tiger Woods shouldn't request fried chicken or collard greens after the latter's record-setting performance at the 1997 Masters tournament. (I was "startled" myself; since Woods' mother hails from Thailand, I would have thrown in phat gapow). Seriously, though -- or almost seriously -- if whites can be smeared with mayonnaise, other groups can be coddled with their cuisines.
This isn't to say that every stereotype or generalization -- or what is known as a "profile" in the realm of law enforcement -- is completely accurate. But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is damning, remedy should be sought.
But this standard won't be embraced until we accept what is perhaps the most valid generalization of all: The leftist thought police are a menace to civilization and free speech. They are turning us into an ideological state, a place where ideology isn't rejected when it departs from truth but truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.
As for remedy, the best antidote to political correctness is its opposite. We don't have to speak and joke and talk and think in a way that pleases those who prove that infantilism doesn't always peak in infancy. Instead, we should stand up for truth - be it in the form of wit, policy or paradigm - and those who speak it. Do this en masse and "startle" those thought police enough, and we just might be rid of them after all. That is, if they actually do have hearts.
by Selwyn Duke
November 13, 2007
Selwyn Duke may be contacted at selwynduke@optonline.net
Every indication is that Don Imus has just been Nifong’ed. His case is a little different in that it occurred without evidence of a crime having been committed, or for that matter even alleged. Allegations of racial insensitivity were recklessly fired into the air by an ultra-activist liberal watchdog group (Media Matters For America) without any regard for personal injury. On April 4, 2007, Media Matters for America was monitoring the 'Imus in the Morning' broadcast when Don Imus was heard to refer to the Rutgers University women's basketball as "nappy-headed ho's." Two days later, the organization posted this information on the Internet and sent out a bulk emailing to individual journalists and to the National Association of Black Journalists. Everyone in the liberal media jumped on the bandwagon - just as what occurred at Duke University. CBS Radio and MSNBC subsequently cancelled the Don Imus program.
Don Imus has been paid by his suited CBS network zoo-keepers to be controversial, outrageous and insulting for more years than anyone can count – arguably since before dirt. Nothing has changed and nothing is new. Don Imus has legions of fans that for some inexplicable reason gravitate toward his lack of civility. The most notable of Don Imus' achievement swas that he was the only liberal radio talk-show host remaining on the air. The Don Imus media persona was created to fill a market niche. In the racial malestorm that began on April 4th, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the liberal corporate suits at CBS Radio were willing to ignore Don Imus' inflamatory rhetoric - for years - for profits.
Don Imus’ firing was the probable result of two factors. First, the corporate suits wanted to make absolutely sure that responsibility for their choice of tasteless shock-jock, and politically incorrect “jokes,” wouldn’t accrue to them. Secondly, hidden in the shadows, in wouldn't come as a surprise to learn that the Democratic Party's paid operatives (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) went after Don Imus with incredible venom because of Don Imus' unrelenting on-air criticism of Hillary Clinton. As for the liberal suits at CBS Radio, a new oxymoron has been coined to describe their actions, “socially responsible cowardliness," but that doesn't change the probable reality that Don Imus was politically assasinated.
In the real world, those who disapprove of Don Imus don’t listen. The same can be said for detractors of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Those who disapprove of Al Sharpton also do their best to ignore him in order to avoid involuntary projectile vomiting. Arguably Al Sharpton, with his history of racial epithets, combined with those of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, have inflicted more harm to American culture than the Crusades did to all of Europe and Asia. Those who disapprove of the Dixie Chicks and Nancy Pelosi go about their lives. The same can be said with those who dislike the international beacons of virtue, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Madonna. But not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, our nation’s premier rap culture aficionados and defenders of debasement and degradation.
Notice that Don Imus’ only sin was that his remarks lacked “racial sensitivity” and “political correctness.” How dare Don Imus make critical remarks! Who does that old white man think he is? Ok, so what? Al Sharpton, and his misguided followers, would do well to get their proverbial thumb out of their mouth.
Americans would also do well to remember that any man or woman, who feels the need to be politically correct in their speech, cannot by definition be telling the truth. Whether Al Sharpton and his ilk like the truth or want to hear the truth is the entire basis for political correctness.
Who will be next to be Nifong’ed? Ann Coulter? Make no mistake, the Don Imus imbroglio (an embarrassing personal or political misunderstanding often bitter in nature) is but the opening salvo in an ongoing culture war to silence conservatives in general and talk radio in particular using the subject of race as a sharp-edged weapon.
Until the day that Americans of African heritage pull rap music off the record stands, blackball movies depicting African-American themes of feminine degeneracy, repudiate sports figures whose rap sheet is longer than most resumes, and widely support ending institutionalized discrimination, the rest of the United States should concentrate on reality. The reality is that it was not the rest of America that created this culture that mere mention of which caused Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to go into offensive overload.
How much will CBS quietly have to “pay” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to stop creating an ongoing public spectacle? When the day comes that there are enough dollars in Al Sharpton’s pockets attributable to only the latest in a string of manufactured racial incidents, he will publicly and reluctantly extend feigned forgiveness to Don Imus.
If all men and women were truly created equal in this wonderful nation, why are so many still on welfare? Why are so many of Don Imus’ vocal detractors intentionally illiterate, systemically unemployable, terminally irresponsible and pathologically degenerate? In stark contrast, both Rutgers University and the Rutgers basketball team members seem to have retained a remarkable semblance of class and reasoned awareness. They chose not to be victims!
A non-scientific poll Internet poll of more than 110,000 people by NewsMax concluded that 91 percent believed Don Imus’ comments about the Rutgers basketball team was bad humor as opposed to racism, 88 percent thought MSNBC overreacted, 89 percent thought Don Imus should not have been fired, and 95 percent believed Al Sharpton had no credibility in personally attacking Don Imus.
It seems that we’re left to wonder if Al Sharpton has a moral compass. Is Al Sharpton simply the nation’s biggest and most outrageous racist profiteer, the African American’s cultural equivalent of David Duke? If Al Sharpton is the role model for the African American gene pool, it is no wonder that Don Imus’ criticism is perceived by African Americans as stinging.
Don Imus is obviously not afraid to tell the King that he has no clothes. If only Al Sharpton cared about cleaning up his own “house,” he wouldn’t have to worry about what others think of the condition of his “house,” or endure their criticism. Al Sharpton has made a career out of attacking the messenger of cultural criticism, while defiantly refusing to address the fact that too many in his “house” are neither free men and women nor wearing clothes.
Unless the United States has transformed itself into the Union of American Socialist Republics, Don Imus’ freedom of thought, opinion, and speech remains his inalienable right. Those who would willfully deny him the right to free speech are the same ones who work tirelessly to deny all private property rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Yes, Toto, every one of the Bill of Rights is a form of private property rights.
Mr. Imus, we support your right to be tactful or offensive, according to your choice, and we support the concept that the free market (not CBS Radio) should determine if you remain viable as a talk-show host. Yes, your employer has the right to fire your sorry ass for statements unbefitting their standards of broadcast decency, but for CBS Radio to claim standards of decency, after having ignored any and all standards of decency for years until it served their purposes, the behavior of the suits at CBS Radio is far worse than your verbal transgressions.
Hang in there Don Imus! You are in the right and it is your Right.
