Obama Calls West "A Jackass"

Remove all ads!

All in all, while the claim of 'racist' draws a lot more questioning these days then it did a decade ago, it's still something of a knee-jerk reaction for some who view anything the 'white man' does that they don't like that way. It's like 'communism' for the right, only it's only a sub-set of the left that does it. There may be real cases of racism in the world, but I think you need more evidence than "it could possibly be interpreted that way" to make a solid claim of it. On some level, calling someone a 'racist' is still like an accusation of rape: many people find the accused guilty before any evidence is even presented.

 

NOG, I'll not argue that there are those who are a little too cavalier with the accusation, but would point out that there are just as many who refuse to acknowledge racism when it stares them in the face. For example, some people refuse to acknowledge that comparing a black man to a monkey employs a centuries old racial epithet that is still used today by a great many people -- and that there is a clear and obvious difference between making the comparison with a white man and doing so with a black man.

Some people see double standards that do not exist. Some people preface statements with "I'm not racist, but..." and then have the temerity to wonder why they've been labeled a racist*. Some people talk about why they aren't racist based on the fact they generously allow minorities the chance to prove they don't match their pre-conceived image of them, blind to the simple truth that it is their expectation that these people to prove they don't match whatever negative or positive (racism can swing both ways) view held of their "group" that makes them racist. A color blind society doesn't "group" people, after all.

* A quick hint. If you feel you need to preface a statement with "I'm not racist, but..." you probably shouldn't say it. The statement is, at best, going to be racially insensitive. At worst...

 

Thanks for answering, LKD

Some people also say stuff about "reverse discrimination" and wonder why they get labeled bigots. Let's a play game, and let's call it looking at dictionary.com's entry for reverse:

 

On the one hand, yes, there is a difference. On the other hand, just because an artist (especially a northern one) uses that imagery doesn't mean that he is a racist, or that it was intended in a racist fashion. It has racist implications, which can be easily read by anyone who really stops and thinks about it, but that doesn't mean it was intended as such, and calling the artist a racist because of nothing more than that is, at best, stretching things.

Also, you may have to define "a great many people" for me. I'd be surprised if more than 1% of the American population uses that kind of slur today, and I'd guess at far less than that.

 

This sort of argument annoys me. Has anyone here ever met a racist who's openly acknowledged their racism? The ones I've run into say things like, "I don't like black people because of affirmative action, but I'm not racist." Sure you aren't, slick. Or "I don't think gays should marry, but I'm not a bigot." Or "Women have no place in the workforce, but I'm not sexist."

In the second place, why should conscious intent be an overriding concern? There's a reason we have laws dealing with manslaughter, as an example. And I seem to recall a fairly well known saying about intentions and the road to hell. And finally, there is this thing known as the subconscious. Does that somehow not matter? For that matter, how exactly do we know what someone's intent is? Didn't someone (I?) just post the example of that guy who was all 'there are no racists here!' before Anderson Cooper called him on this 'Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug' nonsense?

 

Yes, yes, yes. You've never lived in Texas? I've talked to people who are proud of being racist. That's why when people say this "isn't about race," I know better. I don't mean this awards thing, but all this crap that's going on about Obama.

 

Liberal southern California, how much do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

 

In some ways, If people are going to be racist, I'd rather they be open about it. That way you know what you're dealing with.

 

All of this bickering over racism reminds me of Clerks 2 - when Randle claims "Porch Monkey" is not a racial slur. It was funny because of the absurdity of the comment. Then claiming he's "Taking it back", hilarious!

 

There are some on the left that are calling that protest, the "Retard Parade", which I must admit I find amusing.

AMaster, perhaps this was your point, but is there really any such thing as "reverse discrimination"? I don't understand what "reverse" adds to the meaning of the term. Regardless of whether it is based on race, gender, age, whatever, isn't it still discrimination?

 

Let me illustrate. The wife and I are having dinner in an ok restuarant (national chain). The waiter in our area is black and he is waiting on my wife and I and another table of 4 or 5 good ole' boys right next to us (cowboy hats and all). So the black waiter chats with the GoBs; he's very friendly and obviously just being nice. So the waiter leaves the area, and one of the GoBs blurts out after him:

"Just don't come up to Conroe (just up the freeway). We'll hang your black ass." One other lets out a shriek, like a black person being hanged, which gets lots of yuks from the rest of the GoBs.

See? But race has nothing to do with any of this.

 

AMaster, all you need to do is listen to the people arguing about illegals. I think there are more racists in California than any other state (they're just not as vocal usually).

 

I am totally against illegals being here, but not because of race. I am Irish/Polish/German mix. A total mutt and a dumb, drunken kraut-head. Seriously, I speak of all races or people when I speak of illegals. That fact that they are Hispanic, Caucasin, Black, Asian or Martian means nothing to me. It's about the law and what is right. For me, race has nothing to do with it. If your herer illegally, get in line and join up the right way. That's it. Then your legit and deserve the piece of the pie. Not until then.

 

@Chandos - just to clarify, what I meant was that if people are a-holes, I'd like to know they're a-holes so that I can deal with them accordingly, rather than think they're nice folks and thus treating them with respect. I wasn't suggesting that I find their behaviour acceptable.

 

Oh, I didn't believe you were, Splunge, not in the least. I just wanted you to know how we've been hearing some of this stuff and that it's somewhat public. In some ways, it's very much like in the late 1970's and early 80s, when I used to hear it quite a bit.

 

Sure, but those folks always claim they're not racist. Actually, I had one coworker (who was fired after, um, five coworkers lodged sexual harassment complaints; good riddance) tell me that he wasn't racist because he had served in the Air Force.

No, I don't know what he was thinking.

I attempted to illustrate what reverse adds. It's an indicator that the speaker thinks that racism/sexism as has been practiced for the past umpteen decades is normal and/or desirable.

 

Just curious, isn't the term used by the people like O'Reilly to suggest the that the blacks and minorities (gays etc.) discriminate while people or the majority (straights etc.) through enforcement of non-discrimination laws?

 

Well, what does Kanye expect, if he keeps interrupting people?

 

There is one small issue here though, Blades. Your ancestry is similar to mine in terms of when the main waves if immigration occured. I trace most of my ancestry to Italy and Slovakia, and the Italians and Slavs trace their major immigration to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, just like the Irish, Germans, and Poles. Here's the thing though, prior to 1921, there was no cap on the number of immigrants you could take from a given country. There has been an immigration and naturalization government agency since before the Civil War, but we didn't start capping immigrants until 1921. So the concept of an illegal alien prior to 1921 did not exist as it would today. Prior to that, pretty much all you had to do was fill out the paper work.

Starting in 1921, we placed the first limits on immigration. Congress passed a law stating that in any given year the US will accept immigrants from any country not to exceed 3% of the population of immigrants from that country who are currently residing in the US. So, if in 1921 there were 1 million Irish Americans (and I just made that number up - I have no idea if it is accurate or not) the US would accept up to 30,000 Irish immigrants. A version of that law still exists today, although the percentage has been lowered to 2%. You can read more about this history of US Immigration Limitations here.

The point is, it's not really fair to say that immigrants today should go through the same process my ancestors went through 100+ years ago to become legal citizens of the US, when the process of becoming a citizen today is nothing like the process was 100+ years ago.

 

Ummm, ok, I guess. I don't think I made any reference or comparison to the older immigrants though. I was pointing out that all immigrants, no matter their race, should go through the proper channels to get citizenship. That's all. What we do with the ones who refuse to comply is another matter.