I’ve got a friend who is a liberal—probably the only liberal I call a friend—with whom I have regular “discussions” about current events. I can have these conversations with him because, unlike other liberals, he can “take it” as well as “dish it out”, and doesn’t resort to the furious insults that most liberals belch out any time their “righteous” arguments are contradicted. In other words, he’s idealistic and (in my opinion) naïve, but not a narcissist.
This friend openly admits he hate guns. Hates them. When we discuss President Obama’s record on taxing guns, on AG Holder’s and Sec. of State Clinton’s wish to reinstate the “assault weapon” ban (“AWB” for short in this article), he agrees that they should be banned. Why? “No one needs an Uzi to hunt ducks”, he once told me.
As if the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment to protect our access to sporting goods.
That statement led to a series of arguments about the Second Amendment, and about the statistics about how rarely the “assault weapons” are used in crime in the USA.
I found another interesting link about the ballistics of assault weapons, which revealed the amazing statistic debunking the myth about their “deadliness”. In short, the thesis goes this way: assault weapons and their ammunition are designed for use in combat, and are not designed necessarily to kill, but rather, to maim as many enemy combatants as possible. The full metal jacket on the rounds is designed to penetrate and exit the body, causing significant but not overly severe wounds. A man shot in the belly—even the chest—can survive if given timely medical treatment. So, by shooting an enemy with an M-16 round (.223) or an AK-47 round (7.62x39), you not only take out the victim, but also his comrades who have to evacuate him. And you create a costly mass of casualties that the enemy must treat in hospitals.
The author performed a study of several mass killings by criminals. Some used “assault weapons” such as the AK-47. Others used shotguns. He analyzed the survival rate of the victims and found a surprising result:
While victims of an AK-47 attack had a 76% survival rate, the victims of a 12-gauge shotgun attack only had a 33% survival rate. In one case, 35 people were shot with an AK-47, and 30 survived—five people tragically died. In another, 21 people were shot with a shotgun, and only seven survived.
In other words: shotguns are more than twice as deadly when used in a criminal attack as an assault weapon. So, logically, why stop with the AWB? Progressives, I argued, will never be happy with that limited ban.
When I pointed out that statistics show that assault weapons are used in less than ½ of 1% of all criminal acts in our country, and that Shotguns are actually twice as deadly, I asked him, why should we reinstate the AWB? His response: “Because five died.”
Five deaths were too many, and constitute a reason to abandon the second amendment?
If we extend this illogical reasoning, we could come to the following rationale:
· When Jeanine Garrafolo insulted the 100,000+ participants by calling them “tea-bagging racists”, which hurt their feelings. 100,000+ insulted people versus Free Speech. Better restrict the first amendment so we’ll all be happier.
· 10,000 people per year die because we have our guns…better eliminate the second amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of people die each year because we weren’t able to search the property of criminals without cumbersome legal constraints. If we eliminate the fourth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Forty million babies have been aborted: better revoke Roe V. Wade immediately to stop this holocaust.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because of due process laws that restrict our ability to lock away these dangerous villains. We should eliminate the fifth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because a it was not possible to gather the required proof of guilt, since everyone has a right to a speedy trial. We should eliminate the sixth amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Thousands of criminals are released each year because trial-by-jury failed to prosecute the murderers, who were released and killed again. We should eliminate the seventh amendment; it will save thousands of lives.
· Police, FBI, CIA, cannot use coercive methods (such as water-boarding and bugs in boxes) to interrogate terrorists with information about upcoming attacks (such as the one “illegally” and “immorally” thwarted by the Bush administration that would have taken place in LA). Better eliminate the eighth amendment; that will save thousands of lives.
He responded to this sarcastic analysis thusly; “I have no interest in barring anyone from owning a gun. I think people should own guns. I just don’t like them. It’s a personal feeling that I have and I don’t {like} them. No one is going to repeal any of the amendments that you’re talking about.”
But our Dear Leader has already telegraphed his intentions. He and his cohorts have repeatedly mentioned the reinstatement of the ban, and even altered the statistical facts regarding Mexico’s drug war to try to gain political steam and press forward.
In fact, "progressives" just proposed a new ban on the possession of semi-automatic guns in specific zip codes in Illinois, mostly in primarily black and latino neighborhoods. And they have a provision in the law they passed that if there is too much outrage about it, they can simply remove the zip codes, making the law apply to all of Illinois.
So here’s your “good intentions” run amok again: because there is a high crime rate in certain neighborhoods, which also just happen to be primarily Black and Hispanic, they ban the legal possession of firearms there. This of course ensures that law abiding citizens in the most violent neighborhoods are unarmed, while the criminals can continue to be armed.
And, what’s the most astonishing aspect of the Democrat law? It unfairly targets minorities. No, progressives could NEVER be racist, or discriminate, or profile their constituents. They are too good, too kind hearted, for that kind of thing. That’s something only those evil ”tea-bagging racist” Republicans would do.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Response to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Obama
The most disappointing aspect of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama is not that he supports Obama, but that the reasons he gives are, for the most part, so patently absurd, that it calls in question the intellectual qualifications of a man I once greatly admired.
For example, Powell states that, while he admires McCain, he has “concerns about the direction the party has taken in recent years, it’s moved more to the right than I would like to see it…”
What is absurd about this statement is that McCain is notoriously centrist, and not a far right “radical”. In fact, his moderate stances have alienated him from his party. It is to this that he is referring when he says that he has stood up to his own party and has “the scars to prove it.” So, supporting Obama will do nothing to bring the Republican party to the center. Quite probably, the opposite is true.
Powell had questioned Obama and asked; “do you bring good judgment to the table.” He then states that he watched over this “final exam” of the candidates went through during the recent the economic crisis. “I must say that…in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure about how to deal with the economic problems, and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem…he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.” Secondly, on the choice of Sarah Palin, “I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States…and so, that raised some question about the decision that Senator McCain made.”
To start, I'd like to point out that, at the height of the crisis, I don't remember anyone that seemed sure of what to do. Not the Fed Chairman, not the executives, not the congress...and I certainly do not have any recollection at all of hearing anything substantial from Obama at that time. In fact, he stubbornly continued to promise to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, as if the worst financial crisis of the century were not actually happening. How does that demonstrate having any "grasp" of the economic problems we have had?
By contrast, Powell says that, “on the Obama side…he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity and a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this…and picking a vice president that truly is ready to jump in and be president on day one. And also not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.”
There is irony in this that Powell apparently missed. It was McCain who immediately suspended his campaign in order to try to get Republican support for the “bail out” plan. While Obama continued to enjoy the praise of his cult following, McCain tried to rally the troops.
It is McCain, not Obama, who has it very clear in his mind that the origin of the cause of the crisis lies squarely in the Democrat policies that led to the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the Republicans, led by John McCain (and others), who warned of the imminent financial meltdown, but their efforts at reform were thwarted by Obama and Chris Dodd.
The Republicans are not free from the blame: it was Bush’s support of the continuation of the Community Reinvestment policies through the Ownership Society that perpetuated the momentum toward the crash. It should be noted that this sort of social engineering is not a conservative policy, and should be considered to be additional evidence that the failure of the Bush administration was that it was not conservative enough, rather than—as Powell said—that the party had moved “too far right”.
Powell goes on to criticize the Republican Party again by saying that their approach {in the election} “has become narrower and narrower, while Obama … is crossing lines, racial lines, ethnic lines, generational lines…and I’ve been disappointed about the approach that the McCain campaign has taken… If Mr. McCain says that William Ayers is a washed up terrorist, then why do they make the connections with him all the time? And the party has moved even farther to the right and I have problem with that.”
This is probably one of the most astonishing things Powell could say. It was John McCain who reached across racial lines to try to find a fair and just solution to the immigration issue that split the Republican Party over the past few years. And even Powell cannot deny that there were more minorities in high-level posts under the Bush administration than under any other administration in American history!
As for the accusation that the Republican party has been saying that Obama is a terrorist: that is false.
What the party has been saying is that one can examine the kinds of friends that Obama keeps, and from that draw conclusions about how he actually feels about the country. Obama’s “friends” include the felon John Resco, the domestic terrorist William Ayers, the stridently anti-American and anti-white reverend Wright, among others.
Was that not a reasonable thing to ask?
Ask yourself the inverse, to test the proposition:
What would happen if John McCain had befriended the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph? If he had launched his political career from his living room? If he had written a forward and endorsement for his book?
We would all agree that, given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, it would be very reasonable question McCain’s judgment. So why isn’t it allowed to apply that logical question to Obama?
Because he’s black?
To say that the media has “given Obama a pass” is an understatement. But now even Powell has decided that Obama has somehow demonstrated “good judgment”, in spite of his associations with some very seedy individuals.
It is difficult to take Powell at face value. When his reasoning seems so shallow, so contradictory, we must ask ourselves if maybe—just maybe—Powell was not the intellectual that we had thought. It is possible that Powell was brilliant in terms of military issues and is an intellectual midget when it comes to social and economic issues.
Or, perhaps, he was the intellectual we believed, but now finds himself swayed less by political loyalty than racial loyalty.
Why should we believe that he is picking Obama for any reason other than race? Is that unfair to ask?
When the Democrats constantly attack every white voter who says he or she can’t vote for Obama, when they say that they must therefore be racist, they are drawing the conclusion that the only logical reason why a white person can’t vote for Obama is because of his race.
So why would it not be fair to apply the same “logic” to Powell? Since none of the reasons Powell gave actually make any sense, the only logical inference is that Powell is actually voting for Obama because he is black.
For example, Powell states that, while he admires McCain, he has “concerns about the direction the party has taken in recent years, it’s moved more to the right than I would like to see it…”
What is absurd about this statement is that McCain is notoriously centrist, and not a far right “radical”. In fact, his moderate stances have alienated him from his party. It is to this that he is referring when he says that he has stood up to his own party and has “the scars to prove it.” So, supporting Obama will do nothing to bring the Republican party to the center. Quite probably, the opposite is true.
Powell had questioned Obama and asked; “do you bring good judgment to the table.” He then states that he watched over this “final exam” of the candidates went through during the recent the economic crisis. “I must say that…in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure about how to deal with the economic problems, and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem…he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.” Secondly, on the choice of Sarah Palin, “I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States…and so, that raised some question about the decision that Senator McCain made.”
To start, I'd like to point out that, at the height of the crisis, I don't remember anyone that seemed sure of what to do. Not the Fed Chairman, not the executives, not the congress...and I certainly do not have any recollection at all of hearing anything substantial from Obama at that time. In fact, he stubbornly continued to promise to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, as if the worst financial crisis of the century were not actually happening. How does that demonstrate having any "grasp" of the economic problems we have had?
By contrast, Powell says that, “on the Obama side…he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity and a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this…and picking a vice president that truly is ready to jump in and be president on day one. And also not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.”
There is irony in this that Powell apparently missed. It was McCain who immediately suspended his campaign in order to try to get Republican support for the “bail out” plan. While Obama continued to enjoy the praise of his cult following, McCain tried to rally the troops.
It is McCain, not Obama, who has it very clear in his mind that the origin of the cause of the crisis lies squarely in the Democrat policies that led to the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the Republicans, led by John McCain (and others), who warned of the imminent financial meltdown, but their efforts at reform were thwarted by Obama and Chris Dodd.
The Republicans are not free from the blame: it was Bush’s support of the continuation of the Community Reinvestment policies through the Ownership Society that perpetuated the momentum toward the crash. It should be noted that this sort of social engineering is not a conservative policy, and should be considered to be additional evidence that the failure of the Bush administration was that it was not conservative enough, rather than—as Powell said—that the party had moved “too far right”.
Powell goes on to criticize the Republican Party again by saying that their approach {in the election} “has become narrower and narrower, while Obama … is crossing lines, racial lines, ethnic lines, generational lines…and I’ve been disappointed about the approach that the McCain campaign has taken… If Mr. McCain says that William Ayers is a washed up terrorist, then why do they make the connections with him all the time? And the party has moved even farther to the right and I have problem with that.”
This is probably one of the most astonishing things Powell could say. It was John McCain who reached across racial lines to try to find a fair and just solution to the immigration issue that split the Republican Party over the past few years. And even Powell cannot deny that there were more minorities in high-level posts under the Bush administration than under any other administration in American history!
As for the accusation that the Republican party has been saying that Obama is a terrorist: that is false.
What the party has been saying is that one can examine the kinds of friends that Obama keeps, and from that draw conclusions about how he actually feels about the country. Obama’s “friends” include the felon John Resco, the domestic terrorist William Ayers, the stridently anti-American and anti-white reverend Wright, among others.
Was that not a reasonable thing to ask?
Ask yourself the inverse, to test the proposition:
What would happen if John McCain had befriended the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph? If he had launched his political career from his living room? If he had written a forward and endorsement for his book?
We would all agree that, given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, it would be very reasonable question McCain’s judgment. So why isn’t it allowed to apply that logical question to Obama?
Because he’s black?
To say that the media has “given Obama a pass” is an understatement. But now even Powell has decided that Obama has somehow demonstrated “good judgment”, in spite of his associations with some very seedy individuals.
It is difficult to take Powell at face value. When his reasoning seems so shallow, so contradictory, we must ask ourselves if maybe—just maybe—Powell was not the intellectual that we had thought. It is possible that Powell was brilliant in terms of military issues and is an intellectual midget when it comes to social and economic issues.
Or, perhaps, he was the intellectual we believed, but now finds himself swayed less by political loyalty than racial loyalty.
Why should we believe that he is picking Obama for any reason other than race? Is that unfair to ask?
When the Democrats constantly attack every white voter who says he or she can’t vote for Obama, when they say that they must therefore be racist, they are drawing the conclusion that the only logical reason why a white person can’t vote for Obama is because of his race.
So why would it not be fair to apply the same “logic” to Powell? Since none of the reasons Powell gave actually make any sense, the only logical inference is that Powell is actually voting for Obama because he is black.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Modern Liberals and the "Neo-Massa Cult"
I’ve got just a quick note for the conservative commentators: you guys keep missing the most important points in the speeches made by the left!
I am seeing a real hullabaloo being made about Michelle Obama’s speech in which she had advised voters to make their choices based on issues, and not to cast a vote because “she’s cute.”
The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote.
In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday. But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:
Can it be any clearer, folks?
I am seeing a real hullabaloo being made about Michelle Obama’s speech in which she had advised voters to make their choices based on issues, and not to cast a vote because “she’s cute.”
Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with her saying that. Get off her back! Weeks before, conservatives were criticizing the voters who wanted to vote for Obama simply because he is considered “handsome” by some women, or simply because he is Black by others. Michelle was right. There are probably some voters who are enamored of Palin because she has a great personality and is “cute”—not to say that she is not a solid intellectual, also—but her attractiveness can be a big factor.
But please, pay closer attention to everything that Michelle Obama said! Michelle did us all a favor and revealed something absolutely crucial about her liberal, leftist mentality. The full quote, before the “cute” reference, was that voters should consider the candidate that best serves “your personal interests”.
How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
But please, pay closer attention to everything that Michelle Obama said! Michelle did us all a favor and revealed something absolutely crucial about her liberal, leftist mentality. The full quote, before the “cute” reference, was that voters should consider the candidate that best serves “your personal interests”.
How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.”
The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”
The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”
And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."
The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote.
In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday. But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain
things in the constitution had to be changed?”
McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”
Goldberg:“I got scared!”
Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”
{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}
Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:
Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”
Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”
Can it be any clearer, folks?
Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality.
Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!
It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the
womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a
return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the
Plantation.
Perhaps the anthem for the Obama campaign should be the Stephen Foster tune, Suwanee River;
Is the African American ATLAH ministry, led by Pastor Manning, correct in their assessment that Barack Obama is an unworthy socialist who is selling the Black community a neo-communist a wealth re-distribution plan?
I am tired of the media missing these highly revealing commentaries that really clear away the confusion about what the Obama supporters are really proposing. And what’s more, the politicians—especially McCain—cannot afford to simply smile at the camera and not take people like Behar to task when they hear this kind of commentary. It should not be allowed that white liberals accuse conservatives of racism and discrimination, when it is the liberals who are openly telling Blacks that they cannot take care of themselves and they need the patronizing support of their liberal white friends!
The liberal socialists are promoting a cult of dependency, much in the same way that racist Southerners rationalized slavery by saying that Blacks were not intelligent enough to survive without their Masters--or "Massas" as they were called in the colloquial pronunciation.
Now, they don't see it that way. Of course not. They think it is "compassionate" to take from the rich and give to the poor. They think Robin Hood is a hero--not a thief! They idolize Fidel Castro, who essentially established an island of slaves, but hey: "They have free medical care!" They worship Pancho Villa because he promised land and dignity for the Indians--even though what he brought was war and killing.
At some point, it will have to become self evident that the "Neo-Massa Cult" is racism dressed in Socialist ribbons and bows.
And then all the press will be talking about how awful it is, and "why didn't anyone warn us?!"
Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!
It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the
womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a
return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the
Plantation.
Perhaps the anthem for the Obama campaign should be the Stephen Foster tune, Suwanee River;
Way down upon de S’wanee ribber, Far,Is that what is going on?
far away, Dere's wha my heart is
turning ebber, Dere's wha de old folks stay.
All up and down de whole
creation Sadly I roam, Still longing for de old
plantation And for de old folks at home.
All de world am sad and dreary, ebry
where I roam,
Oh! Darkeys how I my heart grows weary,
Far from the de old folks at home…
Is the African American ATLAH ministry, led by Pastor Manning, correct in their assessment that Barack Obama is an unworthy socialist who is selling the Black community a neo-communist a wealth re-distribution plan?
“The person who is running on this wealth distribution plan is Barack Hussein Obama. His wealth distribution plan has got a lot of people talking…I want you to look at how misguided the Church is regarding its understanding of the …scripture… we need to be armed with the word of God. Now that’s Obama’s plan for America…you should take from the wealthy and give to the poor…
But is that what Jesus would do? … Absolutely not. If you are poor, and
you are given a talent and you don’t use it, you don’t get to take the rich man’s money and spend it. You don’t get any welfare programs, you don’t get any social services programs…you don’t get that in Jesus’s plan… If you don’t use your talents in the right way, what you have will be taken from you and given to the rich! …
Jesus is saying, ‘You are lazy. And if you don’t use your talent, I’m not gonna take the wealthy man’s…I’m not going to take Exxon’s money and give it to you! Cause I gave you a talent and you haven’t used it. ... If you’d use your talent the way you’re should have used it, you’d be the one with Exxon’s money. I’m gonna take your poverty and give it to Exxon and send you to hell! …that’s the way it ought to be.
Someone has to come along and say to us; ‘No, that wealth redistribution model is wrong! It’s anti-God, it’s anti-Bible, it’s anti-word, and it’s anti-personal development as well. We can get the government to subsidize us…and it makes us lazy, it makes us wicked.” --Pastor ManningOf course Pastor Manning is decried and slandered, accused of being an "Uncle Tom" by the very left that screams about racism everywhere else.
I am tired of the media missing these highly revealing commentaries that really clear away the confusion about what the Obama supporters are really proposing. And what’s more, the politicians—especially McCain—cannot afford to simply smile at the camera and not take people like Behar to task when they hear this kind of commentary. It should not be allowed that white liberals accuse conservatives of racism and discrimination, when it is the liberals who are openly telling Blacks that they cannot take care of themselves and they need the patronizing support of their liberal white friends!
The liberal socialists are promoting a cult of dependency, much in the same way that racist Southerners rationalized slavery by saying that Blacks were not intelligent enough to survive without their Masters--or "Massas" as they were called in the colloquial pronunciation.
Now, they don't see it that way. Of course not. They think it is "compassionate" to take from the rich and give to the poor. They think Robin Hood is a hero--not a thief! They idolize Fidel Castro, who essentially established an island of slaves, but hey: "They have free medical care!" They worship Pancho Villa because he promised land and dignity for the Indians--even though what he brought was war and killing.
At some point, it will have to become self evident that the "Neo-Massa Cult" is racism dressed in Socialist ribbons and bows.
And then all the press will be talking about how awful it is, and "why didn't anyone warn us?!"
***{Additional Information*** One of today's most interesting headlines is about the foul mouthed Sandra Bernhard's tirade against Sarah Palin, which she repeatedly calls her vulgar names, but most interestingly, says that if Palin went to New York she would be "gang raped" by the "black brothers." So, we have a white, liberal Jewess perpetuating the stereotype of Blacks as rapists...and where is the Liberal outrage? Silence from the left. Yet another example of racism that is forgiven if it's from a lib!"
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Race wars, Riots, and the Left's idea of "Democracy"
***WARNING***'BAD WORD' ALERT***WARNING***
I just read an article by Fatima Ali, published in the Philidelphia Daily News, in which laments what she perceives as a political crisis in America and quotes a Langston Hughes poem:
"Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, Life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly, Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams go, life is a barren field, frozen with snow."
Beautiful quote. Peaceful, although quite melancholy. Ali then goes on with a litanny of accusations against the republicans, and ends with this nugget:
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a
deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and
hopelessness
Say what? Did this African-American journalist just threaten America with a "full-fledged race war"? Are you kidding me?
Isn't Philly supposed to be the "City of Brotherly Love"? Is a race war any way to show the love?
Is she going to try to claim that-when she said "war"-she didn't really mean the shooting kind? Then what the hell did she mean by "full-fledged"? That term means "da real thing, bro". She means that Blacks will wage war against Whites. And by stating "class war", she seems to think that there will be an actual uprising of working class people-of all races-who will raise arms against the "upper" class.
So, what classes are going bear arms against their fellow citizens? Will that be middle class on down? Or just the working class? Or maybe, what she means is, all the anarchists and neo-communist scum like the ones who protested violently against the Republican National Convention.
The rampaging protesters attacked members of the Connecticut delegation,
spraying them with a noxious liquid. One 80-year-old delegate needed medical
treatment. Others tossed bottles, slashed tires and shattered windows -
including those of a police car.
These are the "peace" protestors. Notice, during the Democratic Convention the previous week, the only violence was from the same left-of-center anarchists and communists who support Obama-but were outraged that Obama was not quite far enough left to fully erect their communist cocks. No, they need a new Che Guevara to do that.
Che gives the kids a woody they can use to bash windows.
No, these ruffians won't be happy until they have a war-oh, wait, that's right, silly me, they're against war. War is bad. Even a war that topples a tyrant and mass murderer. Even a war that liberates an entire nation and gives them the ability to choose their own future. War in which the US government is ever the protagonist must, by definition, be bad.
Race wars and class wars, on the other hand, those are GREAT. Revolution is the aphrodesiac of the left.
These are the "Recreate 68" radicals, and if you just take a gander at the "Soirée" artwork you can see the reference to the French revolution right away. Again: the lefties all thi
nk that revolution is Oh-so-kewl. Any time you can get together to kill the rich has got to be a good time, don't you agree?Well, I'm not sure to which "Dream" Ali thinks Langston Hughes was refering in his poem, but if it involves race wars, it sure doesn't sound like Martin Luther King's "dream". And it sure doesn't sound like she's the kind of "dreamer" that John Lennon had encouraged us all to envision...you know, "imagine all the people Living life in peace..."
No, this is the kind of "over the cuckoo's nest" kind of revolutionary talk that Lennon had rejected when he wrote:
We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you
know that you can count me out
Race and class wars. Hmmm. Why does this remind me of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabbe?
I've been saying for a while that Obama-far from uniting Americans across racial boundaries-would more likely trigger a passionate and violent conflict. Not because whites would react against him as a President, but because it would encourage the radical left-and especially certain elements within the radical black community-to lash out in a kind of psychopathic and racist assault against the preceived oppressor. An Obama Presidency would give some folks the feeling that "aha! we're in power NOW", and the direct result of decades of victimology promoted by the likes of Reverend Wright would make these new racial and class vigilantes feel entitled to their rage, just in their violent expression, and unstoppable.
Articles like Ali's will help to spread a sense of vindication and righteousness.
In the meantime, I've heard from several different white colleagues-none of whom are what anyone would consider to be gun-toting racist rednecks-that they are genuinely concerned about what the Black reaction would be if Obama loses. This same concern was echoed by Fox Radio host Tom Sullivan who asked a simple question:
Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not
win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential
race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and
say, 'Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but
this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks
and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have
anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be
riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes
Sullivan was then savaged as a racist neo-con for even daring to ask if Blacks might respond violently to an Obama loss. But what is so shocking or racist about wondering? Afterall, weren't there riots triggered by the verdict in the Rodney King case? Didn't Blacks threaten to riot if O.J. Simpson was found guilty? (they did; I was a teacher in a mostly Black school and the students were literally running through the halls yelling "WE GONNA RIOT!"). Aren't there people saying "Recreate '68", in reference to the race riots of 1968?
Of course, it's fair to remind everyone that there were PLENTY of "White riots" in response to the civil rights struggle, but I can't remember the last "White riot", since nowadays Whites-especially conservatives-don't riot over these issues. So it isn't unreasonable to wonder, under these very unusual circumstances, what might happen?
But most importantly, I think it's highly irresponsible for Black journalists to begin suggesting in any way that this would be expected, acceptable, inevitable. Let's be totally frank here: if Obama loses, and Blacks take to the streets to burn down cities, fire upon and beat up White citizens (such as the white trucker Reginal Denny beat up during the Rodney King riots in 1992), I have to think that Whites are not going to just sit back and let their towns be burned and their families be threatened.
America does NOT need any sort of class or race war. We need redemption, we need progress. The self-proclaimed "Progressives" must aggressively police their own radicals and make it very clear that they cannot be against "that war in Iraq" and for a race war over here.
If you're a peace-nik, for goodness' sake, promote peace.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wiley experience versus unsteady charisma: McCain Vs. Obama
On August 28, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate and apparent wanna-be Caesar Barack Obama gave the speech of his life at the Denver Invesco stadium to a huge crowd of nearly 80,000 fans. Fans, I say, because it has become clear that Obama is more of a celebrity than a candidate. The mainstream media treats Obama like a Rock Star: ignore his foibles, pretend that he is not frightfully lacking in experience, do not draw attention to the confused and conflicting policies he has put forth, try to cover for his arrogance and haughty attitude that reinforces the feeling from many Americans that he is either totally out of touch or woefully elitist.
So today, August 29th, it would be natural to expect that Obamania would cover the pages of the electronic media. But no. Look at Foxnews.com, and you don’t see Obama today. Nor will you find his Lordship gracing the cover of the more liberal CNN.com. No, instead you see McCain—and his newly announced running mate.
Just at the time when the press was all giddy about Obama—McCain may have just upstaged him!
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been tapped to be McCain’s VP, surprising most people who thought that Romney or Pawlenty would have been the natural choices. Was this a brilliant strategic move by McCain? Palin is young, relatively inexperienced, could this have been a mistake?
Coming out of the Democratic Convention, CNN talking heads proudly pronounced that “76% of Democrats said that the convention unified the party.” Interesting spin on a statistic that we already knew weeks ago: about 30% of the Hillary Clinton supporters were bitter about how she was treated by the Obama campaign and surrogates, and were not likely to vote for Obama. Many women in the country, who are likely to be the swing voters and turn the tide in this campaign, felt deeply disappointed that Clinton was not the Democratic nominee, or at the very least, Obama’s choice for VP. So saying that 76% of Dems feel that the party has unified is just another way of saying that 24% are still not happy. And that 24% equates to hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.
Whenever I analyze this situation, the most logical analogies that come to mind seem to be either Chess or military strategies. I am a fan of chess and in chess there are three principal elements to the game that must be mastered in order to win the game.
They are Space (territory on the board), Momentum, and Material.
Once upon a time, Obama had all three of these to his advantage.
Once upon a time, Obama had all three of these to his advantage.
Voter support, translated into votes, won states, and thus delegates, is the territory. And according to most polls, Obama appeared to ahead. But he has slowly leaked that support away through a number of missteps. Obama gave up territory.
In order to win—Chess or war battles equally—combatants sometimes must sacrifices territory in order to gain either momentum or material.
Obama apparently decided that, by nominating Joe Biden to be his running mate, he could use Biden’s years in Senate to counter the attacks on Obama’s lack of experience, and hopefully come out of the convention with increased momentum. But this didn’t seem to work. Many who had hoped that he would choose Hillary were disappointed. And while Biden is a fairly serious choice, back when Biden was one of the Democratic candidates opposing Obama, he had made a number of stinging criticisms about Obama’s lack of experience.
This gave new ammunition to the GOP, and facilitated the attack on Obama’s lack of experience—and judgment: Obama's choice actually undermined the weak flank he had hoped would be reinforced. And Obama left the convention without gaining in momentum.
McCain’s choice of Governor Palin appears to be a classic flanking maneuver. McCain had attacked Obama on experience, which forced Obama to choose Biden over Clinton, since Clinton—in spite of her popularity—could not claim many years of experience as anything other than the wife of a former President. The choice of Biden reinforced the public’s suspicion that Obama was inexperienced, but it also reinforced the resentment by Hillary’s supporters, and the women who had so wanted to see a woman in the White House in a role other than first lady or sexy intern.
That third element in chess, material, is usually the “pieces” that empower the player. Rooks, Knights, Queen, etc. Without material, the player simply cannot control the board or the momentum. In politics, it can be equated to financial support, and that intangible support that is media attention and buzz.
The Palin choice, announced the day after Obama’s biggest speech, has taken that advantage away from him, and with it will come momentum. After all, on the day when everyone should have been talking about Obama’s great speech, they are instead talking about VP candidate Palin. Women callers to the Laura Ingraham show this morning were energized, excited, and without an exception said that this decision will encourage them to donate to the McCain campaign. In other words, McCain has now gained additional material to propel his campaign forward.
On all three fronts, material, momentum, and space, McCain has slowly whittled down the Obama advantage. We are witnessing a classic example of a battle led by two very different generals: an older, experience statesman, and a young, brash, charismatic celebrity.
And it is becoming very clear, that while there is a romantic attraction to the young and charismatic leader, unless that charisma is enhanced by some real street smarts, he can easily be outclassed by the wily old man.
In my opinion, barring some unforeseen disaster on the McCain camp, Obama just lost the lead, and may be headed toward doom.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Race in the race
I saw two articles today that caught my eye and kind of got my goat.
Behind the Scenes: In Barack Obama Black or Biracial?, and then Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama.
In the first article, CNN’s Jason Carroll “explores the issue of race” and notes that it is odd for Americans to immediately call Barack Obama “Black” since he is, in reality, equally White. He says that “He may be the nation's first black president, but he would also be the nation's 44th white president.”
According to the article, Obama’s mixed race ancestry is an advantage of sorts. He quotes David Mendell, author of "Obama: From Promise to Power", who believes that “there's an idea of a ‘post-racial’ candidate, a candidate who transcends the labels of race to appeal to all races…” In this context, Obama uses “his own experiences to appeal to both black and white audiences and that has translated into political success.”
Immediately after reading that, I read the contradictory article by Charles Babington, who quotes one white Pennsylvania Democrat woman who—while claiming she won’t vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, not his race—nevertheless says that “I don’t think our country is ready for a Black President…A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania.”
The author quoted another Obama campaigner who called to gather support for Obama. "To me, it was almost a code…'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"
OK, so let’s look at this a little. Shall we?
What gets my goat is that there are people who just can’t get it. When a White person says “I can’t vote for him because he refuses to wear a lapel pin”, what gives a Black listener the right to say, “Ah, that’s code for ‘the dude is black’”? Why isn’t it possible that there are people who see the pattern of Obama’s church as a sign that he harbors deep seated resentment, and manifests that resentment in his choice of church, friends, and decision to not show patriotism? It is not wrong to say “I don’t want to elect a President who doesn’t even like the United States of America.”
I’m not really convinced about the woman who says “I’m not voting for him because of his politics, not because of his race…but our state will never vote black anyway.” Really? Now, that—to me—sounds like the assumption of a person with some serious denial going on.
On the one hand, it appears that Blacks had to overcome their own discriminatory beliefs before they could even support Obama. Remember those days? Back when he wasn’t “Black enough”, when he was defending himself and publicly replying by saying essentially, who gave you the right to question my ‘blackness’? Blacks either thought he was too White, or even if they thought he was “Black enough”, they didn’t think he could actually win, because they assumed that Whitey would never vote for a Black man.
Now, ignore whatever bullshit you read in the press, and just consider the facts: Whitey did vote for Obama, and in record numbers. He beat Hillary in a number of key states where it was White, urban votes that pushed him over the edge.
Let’s look in a new direction: White liberal voters, who tend to be young and well educated, are Obama’s bread and butter. Ask them why they want Obama, and you’ll hear the standard, shallow “change, change, Obama change change the thingy change no more Bush need change yes we can change.”
And I think the key to the White vote is a deep rooted desire to prove: “HEY WE REALLY DID CHANGE!”
Obama’s great strength, as Carroll pointed out, is that he can appeal to both Blacks and Whites. His cool, calm demeanor and his—do I dare say it?—eloquence enable him to convince White liberals and moderates that he is just another “guy next door”. Notice, I didn’t say Black guy next door. Just a guy they could get along with.
And yeah, you know deep down there has to be a kernel of thought that says, “Here is a candidate who is inspiring, intelligent, and yes he is Black, and I’m OK with that. And even if he isn’t very experience, I want to give him the chance, so we can REALLY get this racist legacy off our back!”
Now, you may criticize those White people for their “ulterior motive” of trying to assuage their “White guilt”, but let me ask you: is a good deed that is done in penitence any less valid than one that is done for no other reason?
Of course not. It’s White America’s redemption song.
What is wrong with Black America, that seems to think that if a Black man has a way of getting along with Whites without either offending them, or scaring them, or hurting them, then he must not be Black enough?
If you ask me, it isn’t just WHITE America that needs a little “change change change yes we can change”
Behind the Scenes: In Barack Obama Black or Biracial?, and then Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama.
In the first article, CNN’s Jason Carroll “explores the issue of race” and notes that it is odd for Americans to immediately call Barack Obama “Black” since he is, in reality, equally White. He says that “He may be the nation's first black president, but he would also be the nation's 44th white president.”
According to the article, Obama’s mixed race ancestry is an advantage of sorts. He quotes David Mendell, author of "Obama: From Promise to Power", who believes that “there's an idea of a ‘post-racial’ candidate, a candidate who transcends the labels of race to appeal to all races…” In this context, Obama uses “his own experiences to appeal to both black and white audiences and that has translated into political success.”
Immediately after reading that, I read the contradictory article by Charles Babington, who quotes one white Pennsylvania Democrat woman who—while claiming she won’t vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, not his race—nevertheless says that “I don’t think our country is ready for a Black President…A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania.”
The author quoted another Obama campaigner who called to gather support for Obama. "To me, it was almost a code…'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"
OK, so let’s look at this a little. Shall we?
What gets my goat is that there are people who just can’t get it. When a White person says “I can’t vote for him because he refuses to wear a lapel pin”, what gives a Black listener the right to say, “Ah, that’s code for ‘the dude is black’”? Why isn’t it possible that there are people who see the pattern of Obama’s church as a sign that he harbors deep seated resentment, and manifests that resentment in his choice of church, friends, and decision to not show patriotism? It is not wrong to say “I don’t want to elect a President who doesn’t even like the United States of America.”
I’m not really convinced about the woman who says “I’m not voting for him because of his politics, not because of his race…but our state will never vote black anyway.” Really? Now, that—to me—sounds like the assumption of a person with some serious denial going on.
On the one hand, it appears that Blacks had to overcome their own discriminatory beliefs before they could even support Obama. Remember those days? Back when he wasn’t “Black enough”, when he was defending himself and publicly replying by saying essentially, who gave you the right to question my ‘blackness’? Blacks either thought he was too White, or even if they thought he was “Black enough”, they didn’t think he could actually win, because they assumed that Whitey would never vote for a Black man.
Now, ignore whatever bullshit you read in the press, and just consider the facts: Whitey did vote for Obama, and in record numbers. He beat Hillary in a number of key states where it was White, urban votes that pushed him over the edge.
Let’s look in a new direction: White liberal voters, who tend to be young and well educated, are Obama’s bread and butter. Ask them why they want Obama, and you’ll hear the standard, shallow “change, change, Obama change change the thingy change no more Bush need change yes we can change.”
And I think the key to the White vote is a deep rooted desire to prove: “HEY WE REALLY DID CHANGE!”
Obama’s great strength, as Carroll pointed out, is that he can appeal to both Blacks and Whites. His cool, calm demeanor and his—do I dare say it?—eloquence enable him to convince White liberals and moderates that he is just another “guy next door”. Notice, I didn’t say Black guy next door. Just a guy they could get along with.
And yeah, you know deep down there has to be a kernel of thought that says, “Here is a candidate who is inspiring, intelligent, and yes he is Black, and I’m OK with that. And even if he isn’t very experience, I want to give him the chance, so we can REALLY get this racist legacy off our back!”
Now, you may criticize those White people for their “ulterior motive” of trying to assuage their “White guilt”, but let me ask you: is a good deed that is done in penitence any less valid than one that is done for no other reason?
Of course not. It’s White America’s redemption song.
What is wrong with Black America, that seems to think that if a Black man has a way of getting along with Whites without either offending them, or scaring them, or hurting them, then he must not be Black enough?
If you ask me, it isn’t just WHITE America that needs a little “change change change yes we can change”
Friday, June 6, 2008
You better cast a Black Snow-White!
In my first blog, I analyzed the senior thesis of Michelle Obama, and discussed the absurd notion apparently put forth by Black “sociologists” that demand that White schools and other institutions actively promote “Black Culture”, draw attention to Blacks in History, and—even when Blacks are a tiny minority of the population within the institution—ensure that programmed non-academic activities should not “systematically follow the interest of Whites.”
In other words, even if 90% of the students are White, it’s just wrong not to plan things that Blacks will want to do. It might make them feel bad.
This demand is patently absurd. It’s obvious that in schools in California, for example—the Asian and Hispanic student population might be much larger than that of Blacks, so wouldn’t it make more sense to plan non-academic events for them? But then, wouldn’t Blacks feel left out again?
It reminds me of my little niece who, at the age of six, demanded that all visitors to her house stop their conversations and sit down to watch the movie of her choice. She just wouldn’t shut up and let the adults talk, she demanded that everyone participate in what she thought was entertaining, and damn it, if you didn’t do it, she was gonnna yell, scream and cry until her needs were attended to.
Now, that may seem a little harsh. Yeah, I know. Blacks suffered at the hands of White bigots and were marginalized in various ways. OK. So I think it’s great that there are people attempting to draw attention to the historic travesties that were inflicted on Blacks. Films like “Roots”, the “Color Purple”, “The Tuskegee Airmen”, and others have shed light on some very sad and even uplifting historical stories. And it’s not just Black directors who are contributing. Clint Eastwood directed a fantastic movie about Charlie Parker called “Bird”.
But now we have Spike Lee insulting Eastwood’s masterpiece film, “Flags of Our Fathers”.
In case you didn’t see it, “Flags of our Fathers” is about the young marines who raised the U.S. flag over Iwo Jima following a brutal battle. The event was captured in a one of the war’s most striking photographs, later converted into the Marine Corp War Memorial statue that is world-famous. Most of the men who participated died soon after the photo was taken. The ones that didn’t were employed as a propaganda tool to try to rally waning public support from the war-weary country at the end of the Pacific campaign. One of the flag raisers was an American Indian, and was prominently portrayed in the movie.
So what’s Spike’s beef?
None of them was black. Of course, historically--that's accurate.
Spike wants to point out that, in the entire film that Eastwood directed, he never once portrayed the Black munitions unit that was involved in the protracted battle. Lee found the lack of Black soldiers to be unacceptable. He complained, "That was his version. The negro version did not exist."
Eastwood’s response is perfectly logical: the film wasn’t about the black munitions corp. It was about the men who raised the flag, were turned into heroes and propaganda spokesmen, and about what became of their lives. Oh, and by the frickin' way, Spike: THEY WERE NOT BLACK.
Eastwood further stated, “If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."
Eastwood is totally correct. The movie is not about whether or not there were Black soldiers at Iwo Jima. But to radical Blacks, historical accuracy is not what is important: they want to be the center of attention, even when it’s not appropriate.
So, just like my little niece, the world needs to stop its grownup talk about nuclear disarmament, dwindling energy sources and skyrocketing food costs, and never mind Global Warming.
But you damn well better pay attention to the one thing that counts: Blacks have played a role in History.
Now I know why Kevin Costner created a role for a Black Moor (Morgan Freeman) in Robin Hood:
To keep Spike Lee off his ass!
So, the next time anyone thinks about doing a Snow-White redux, just remember:
YOU HAD DAMN WELL CAST A BLACK SNOW WHITE!
In other words, even if 90% of the students are White, it’s just wrong not to plan things that Blacks will want to do. It might make them feel bad.
This demand is patently absurd. It’s obvious that in schools in California, for example—the Asian and Hispanic student population might be much larger than that of Blacks, so wouldn’t it make more sense to plan non-academic events for them? But then, wouldn’t Blacks feel left out again?
It reminds me of my little niece who, at the age of six, demanded that all visitors to her house stop their conversations and sit down to watch the movie of her choice. She just wouldn’t shut up and let the adults talk, she demanded that everyone participate in what she thought was entertaining, and damn it, if you didn’t do it, she was gonnna yell, scream and cry until her needs were attended to.
Now, that may seem a little harsh. Yeah, I know. Blacks suffered at the hands of White bigots and were marginalized in various ways. OK. So I think it’s great that there are people attempting to draw attention to the historic travesties that were inflicted on Blacks. Films like “Roots”, the “Color Purple”, “The Tuskegee Airmen”, and others have shed light on some very sad and even uplifting historical stories. And it’s not just Black directors who are contributing. Clint Eastwood directed a fantastic movie about Charlie Parker called “Bird”.
But now we have Spike Lee insulting Eastwood’s masterpiece film, “Flags of Our Fathers”.
In case you didn’t see it, “Flags of our Fathers” is about the young marines who raised the U.S. flag over Iwo Jima following a brutal battle. The event was captured in a one of the war’s most striking photographs, later converted into the Marine Corp War Memorial statue that is world-famous. Most of the men who participated died soon after the photo was taken. The ones that didn’t were employed as a propaganda tool to try to rally waning public support from the war-weary country at the end of the Pacific campaign. One of the flag raisers was an American Indian, and was prominently portrayed in the movie.
So what’s Spike’s beef?
None of them was black. Of course, historically--that's accurate.
Spike wants to point out that, in the entire film that Eastwood directed, he never once portrayed the Black munitions unit that was involved in the protracted battle. Lee found the lack of Black soldiers to be unacceptable. He complained, "That was his version. The negro version did not exist."
Eastwood’s response is perfectly logical: the film wasn’t about the black munitions corp. It was about the men who raised the flag, were turned into heroes and propaganda spokesmen, and about what became of their lives. Oh, and by the frickin' way, Spike: THEY WERE NOT BLACK.
Eastwood further stated, “If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."
Eastwood is totally correct. The movie is not about whether or not there were Black soldiers at Iwo Jima. But to radical Blacks, historical accuracy is not what is important: they want to be the center of attention, even when it’s not appropriate.
So, just like my little niece, the world needs to stop its grownup talk about nuclear disarmament, dwindling energy sources and skyrocketing food costs, and never mind Global Warming.
But you damn well better pay attention to the one thing that counts: Blacks have played a role in History.
Now I know why Kevin Costner created a role for a Black Moor (Morgan Freeman) in Robin Hood:
To keep Spike Lee off his ass!
So, the next time anyone thinks about doing a Snow-White redux, just remember:
YOU HAD DAMN WELL CAST A BLACK SNOW WHITE!
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Democrats need to get it right on Chavez
For over six years, the Florida-based non-profit organization, Free Venezuela, Inc. worked to complete its mission of educating the American public and elected officials about the ongoing socio-political crisis in Venezuela. Six years ago, our warnings that Hugo Chavez posed a real and present danger to the National Security of the United States, and to regional stability and development, were met with skepticism.
But time proved us correct.
One would have to be living in a cave to not be aware of the multiple and serious international complaints against the government of Hugo Chavez, its expansionist policies, repeated interventions in the internal affairs of surrounding sovereign nations, weapons accumulation, ties to terrorist and violent revolutionary groups, and other threatening actions and policies.
During the height of the 2004 Presidential campaign, Free Venezuelan leadership analyzed the positions of the candidates (George Bush and John Kerry) with regard to their positions on the looming crisis in Venezuela, and made friendly contacts within both camps, in order to ensure that the candidates were fully informed about the situation and hopefully would include the crisis in their policy statements.
To our great pleasure, the Kerry campaign responded by publishing a very brave statement that criticized many of the Chavez regime’s most nefarious actions and let it be known that, were he elected, John Kerry would keep a close watch on the developing situation. This comment was widely commented on by the Hispanic population in Florida. After all, Chavez’s policies have direct and dire implications for not just the Venezuelan community, but for Colombians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians, Mexicans, and—most importantly considering their numbers as voters in Florida—the Cubans. It highlighted the Bush administrations lack of leadership in the hemisphere. And it also sent a very powerful signal directly to Hugo Chavez: Americans of both parties see through the propaganda, and recognize that the Chavez policies are destructive to region stability.
Looking forward
As the 2008 elections loom near, Republican Presidential John McCain has taken a hard line against Cuba and Venezuela.
Arizona Senator has called Cuba "a national security threat," adding that "as president, I will not passively await the long overdue demise of the Castro dictatorship ... The Cuban people have waited long enough." He is an adamant supporter of Colombia’s President Uribe, who has enjoyed striking successes in his long battle against the FARC terrorists, and whose economy is expanding healthily thanks to trade agreements with the USA.
This stance is arguably the right position. Quite distressingly, the Democratic leadership embodied by the two frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama, initially made very lackluster statements to the effect that they would be willing to meet with Chavez either without conditions, or with only some pre-conditions. There has been very little willingness to confront the Chavez regime for its roll-back of constitutional protections, meddling in the affairs of other nations, questionable alliances with powers hostile to the United States, massive weapons purchases, etc.
Now that Senator Obama has apparently acquired the official candidacy for the Democrats, he has now begun to take a more hard line position on Venezuela. He is in a very weak position, however. His longstanding pacifist policies make any hawkish stance seem to be worthless saber-rattling.
Obama’s weak and waffling positions reinforce the stereotype that the Democratic leadership is lacking clarity, conviction, and spine.
How can the Democratic leadership claim to have international diplomatic skills and yet be so glaringly unaware of the dangers that are lurking in our own hemisphere? They should not be afraid to criticize Chavez’s policies, since by doing so they would be the good company of so many current and former heads of state. Even his some of his former international allies, Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil) have joined the chorus, with President Lula Da Silva stating that “it is a danger for Brazil and for Latin America for there to be a military power installed in the continent. An arms race would oblige us to divert funds from social spending to ensure military balance.”
The interventionist policies of Chávez government has had nefarious impacts on numerous nations in the hemisphere. From Ecuador to Mexico, Bolivia to Argentina, and especially in neighboring Colombia, there is a growing outcry that Chávez has illicitly funneled millions of dollars into those nations to influence elections and strengthen leftist groups across the region.
In the most recent and most infamous case, the FBI has concrete evidence that the Chávez government covertly funneled large sums of money into Argentina to influence the election of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The implications are frightening: the Castro-Chávez axis is using Venezuelan petro-dollars to destabilize the region and influence elections. In December, 2007, Chávez even had the temerity to threaten creating a “violent revolution” in Bolivia if the opposition there did not quit battling President Evo Morales.
The Democrats, who should be publicly laying claim to a long heritage of Diplomatic leadership in the Americas, are instead abdicating this leadership role to the more belligerent Republican Party. The Democrats must find a way to stand strong on international issues of national security and regional stability, but do so in a way that differentiates them from the more bellicose Republicans.
A proposal to the Democratic Leadership
So what can the Democrats do that will achieve the goals of 1) gathering Latino Votes to their party, 2) demonstrate consistency in their philosophy and policy, 3) showcase their resolve in tough international issues and diplomatic skills?
The solution is by taking an international leadership stance that offers a roadmap to actionable diplomatic solutions, which embodies the Democratic traditions, rather than bellicose saber rattling, which has typified the Republican approach.
Step One: Lead in the world bodies.
In keeping with the traditional Democratic philosophies to avoid violent conflict by allowing established world bodies to settle disputes and put constructive pressure on potentially dangerous governments, the Democratic presidential candidates should write a joint statement calling on the Organization of American States to hold an emergency session and consider applying the OAS Charter to the Venezuelan crisis.
A number of Latin American leaders have stated their frustration with the lack of action from the OAS. Most recently Bolivian ex-President Jorge Quiroga stated that Chavez has the majority of OAS member states under his control thanks to his use of petroleum as a weapon, and that the OAS is not living up to its mission.
Step Two: Involve former heads of state to create a strong, international approach with experienced, respected Latin American leaders.
Democrats should organize an international forum of former and current Latin American Presidents to air their complaints about the policies of the Chavez regime and to highlight their concerns about the consequences of the policies, as well as to propose legal, peaceful and diplomatic solutions.
Suggested participants; Arias (Costa Rica), Uribe (Colombia), Gutiérrez (Ecuador), Quiroga (Bolivia), Lagos (Chile), García (Perú), Toledo (Perú), Saca (El Salvador), and Aznar (Spain), Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil).
Step Three: Call for a study of the increasing regional militarization and imbalance and seek active policies to reverse the trend.
A number of Latin American Presidents, from Uribe in Colombia to Lula da Silva in Brazil, have remarked that they are concerned about the Venezuelan military buildup. Huge arms purchases from Russia, China, Belarus, and other nations should concern all Americans. Make policy proposals that would help neighboring nations correct the military imbalance that is being created.
Step Four: Take a leadership role in supporting the Venezuelan civil society that is attempting to defend its space within the society and guarantee the continuance of liberty and human rights.
The Democrats should request testimony before congress from independent organizations to provide unbiased reports about human rights violations, state sanctioned acts of violence, assaults on freedom of expression and the free press, and other undemocratic irregularities.
The Democrats could also propose a change in immigration policy to provide Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who are fleeing the increasing political repression, social chaos and violence in their nation.
Step Five: Call for investigations of the consistent and repeated accusations that the Venezuelan electronic electoral system has been rigged to allow the Central Government to control election results.
In conclusion
Up until now, the republican administration has neglected the situation, but the aggressive comments from McCain suggest that he may make it an election issue to highlight Obama's lack of experience.
The Democrats have got to find a way to appear to lead on these issues. Up until now, they have not been able to figure out what to do.
But time proved us correct.
One would have to be living in a cave to not be aware of the multiple and serious international complaints against the government of Hugo Chavez, its expansionist policies, repeated interventions in the internal affairs of surrounding sovereign nations, weapons accumulation, ties to terrorist and violent revolutionary groups, and other threatening actions and policies.
During the height of the 2004 Presidential campaign, Free Venezuelan leadership analyzed the positions of the candidates (George Bush and John Kerry) with regard to their positions on the looming crisis in Venezuela, and made friendly contacts within both camps, in order to ensure that the candidates were fully informed about the situation and hopefully would include the crisis in their policy statements.
To our great pleasure, the Kerry campaign responded by publishing a very brave statement that criticized many of the Chavez regime’s most nefarious actions and let it be known that, were he elected, John Kerry would keep a close watch on the developing situation. This comment was widely commented on by the Hispanic population in Florida. After all, Chavez’s policies have direct and dire implications for not just the Venezuelan community, but for Colombians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians, Mexicans, and—most importantly considering their numbers as voters in Florida—the Cubans. It highlighted the Bush administrations lack of leadership in the hemisphere. And it also sent a very powerful signal directly to Hugo Chavez: Americans of both parties see through the propaganda, and recognize that the Chavez policies are destructive to region stability.
Looking forward
As the 2008 elections loom near, Republican Presidential John McCain has taken a hard line against Cuba and Venezuela.
Arizona Senator has called Cuba "a national security threat," adding that "as president, I will not passively await the long overdue demise of the Castro dictatorship ... The Cuban people have waited long enough." He is an adamant supporter of Colombia’s President Uribe, who has enjoyed striking successes in his long battle against the FARC terrorists, and whose economy is expanding healthily thanks to trade agreements with the USA.
This stance is arguably the right position. Quite distressingly, the Democratic leadership embodied by the two frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama, initially made very lackluster statements to the effect that they would be willing to meet with Chavez either without conditions, or with only some pre-conditions. There has been very little willingness to confront the Chavez regime for its roll-back of constitutional protections, meddling in the affairs of other nations, questionable alliances with powers hostile to the United States, massive weapons purchases, etc.
Now that Senator Obama has apparently acquired the official candidacy for the Democrats, he has now begun to take a more hard line position on Venezuela. He is in a very weak position, however. His longstanding pacifist policies make any hawkish stance seem to be worthless saber-rattling.
Obama’s weak and waffling positions reinforce the stereotype that the Democratic leadership is lacking clarity, conviction, and spine.
How can the Democratic leadership claim to have international diplomatic skills and yet be so glaringly unaware of the dangers that are lurking in our own hemisphere? They should not be afraid to criticize Chavez’s policies, since by doing so they would be the good company of so many current and former heads of state. Even his some of his former international allies, Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil) have joined the chorus, with President Lula Da Silva stating that “it is a danger for Brazil and for Latin America for there to be a military power installed in the continent. An arms race would oblige us to divert funds from social spending to ensure military balance.”
The interventionist policies of Chávez government has had nefarious impacts on numerous nations in the hemisphere. From Ecuador to Mexico, Bolivia to Argentina, and especially in neighboring Colombia, there is a growing outcry that Chávez has illicitly funneled millions of dollars into those nations to influence elections and strengthen leftist groups across the region.
In the most recent and most infamous case, the FBI has concrete evidence that the Chávez government covertly funneled large sums of money into Argentina to influence the election of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The implications are frightening: the Castro-Chávez axis is using Venezuelan petro-dollars to destabilize the region and influence elections. In December, 2007, Chávez even had the temerity to threaten creating a “violent revolution” in Bolivia if the opposition there did not quit battling President Evo Morales.
The Democrats, who should be publicly laying claim to a long heritage of Diplomatic leadership in the Americas, are instead abdicating this leadership role to the more belligerent Republican Party. The Democrats must find a way to stand strong on international issues of national security and regional stability, but do so in a way that differentiates them from the more bellicose Republicans.
A proposal to the Democratic Leadership
So what can the Democrats do that will achieve the goals of 1) gathering Latino Votes to their party, 2) demonstrate consistency in their philosophy and policy, 3) showcase their resolve in tough international issues and diplomatic skills?
The solution is by taking an international leadership stance that offers a roadmap to actionable diplomatic solutions, which embodies the Democratic traditions, rather than bellicose saber rattling, which has typified the Republican approach.
Step One: Lead in the world bodies.
In keeping with the traditional Democratic philosophies to avoid violent conflict by allowing established world bodies to settle disputes and put constructive pressure on potentially dangerous governments, the Democratic presidential candidates should write a joint statement calling on the Organization of American States to hold an emergency session and consider applying the OAS Charter to the Venezuelan crisis.
A number of Latin American leaders have stated their frustration with the lack of action from the OAS. Most recently Bolivian ex-President Jorge Quiroga stated that Chavez has the majority of OAS member states under his control thanks to his use of petroleum as a weapon, and that the OAS is not living up to its mission.
Step Two: Involve former heads of state to create a strong, international approach with experienced, respected Latin American leaders.
Democrats should organize an international forum of former and current Latin American Presidents to air their complaints about the policies of the Chavez regime and to highlight their concerns about the consequences of the policies, as well as to propose legal, peaceful and diplomatic solutions.
Suggested participants; Arias (Costa Rica), Uribe (Colombia), Gutiérrez (Ecuador), Quiroga (Bolivia), Lagos (Chile), García (Perú), Toledo (Perú), Saca (El Salvador), and Aznar (Spain), Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil).
Step Three: Call for a study of the increasing regional militarization and imbalance and seek active policies to reverse the trend.
A number of Latin American Presidents, from Uribe in Colombia to Lula da Silva in Brazil, have remarked that they are concerned about the Venezuelan military buildup. Huge arms purchases from Russia, China, Belarus, and other nations should concern all Americans. Make policy proposals that would help neighboring nations correct the military imbalance that is being created.
Step Four: Take a leadership role in supporting the Venezuelan civil society that is attempting to defend its space within the society and guarantee the continuance of liberty and human rights.
The Democrats should request testimony before congress from independent organizations to provide unbiased reports about human rights violations, state sanctioned acts of violence, assaults on freedom of expression and the free press, and other undemocratic irregularities.
The Democrats could also propose a change in immigration policy to provide Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who are fleeing the increasing political repression, social chaos and violence in their nation.
Step Five: Call for investigations of the consistent and repeated accusations that the Venezuelan electronic electoral system has been rigged to allow the Central Government to control election results.
In conclusion
Up until now, the republican administration has neglected the situation, but the aggressive comments from McCain suggest that he may make it an election issue to highlight Obama's lack of experience.
The Democrats have got to find a way to appear to lead on these issues. Up until now, they have not been able to figure out what to do.
Michelle Obama’s Princeton senior thesis: an analysis
Michelle Obama’s Princeton senior thesis: an analysis
By Shakedown Crews
For the subject of my first Blog, I wanted to spend a little time on an issue that has been touched on by the mainstream media (Politico), but not in great depth. It interests me because, as a former White liberal and Democrat, I have always had an interest in race relations in our country. I had considered it part of my duty as a citizen to try to mend fences, as it were, and to do what I could to help heal our society.
A number of issues over the past ten years have made me considerably more conservative. But I am still interested in race relations in the USA. My perspective on what to do and how to do it has changed. But I still read on the topic and try to educate myself.
Most recently, I read Juan William’s book, ENOUGH, in which he explores the wonderful ideology and activism of one of my current heroes, Bill Cosby. I won’t go into great depth on that book in this blog entry. In short, Williams and Cosby have a message for the Black community: Clean up your act, take responsibility, and quit waiting for someone else (Black “leaders”, the government, etc) to raise you up.
Now, in the meantime, I was carefully observing the 2008 Presidential campaign of Barak Obama, and I was alarmed by a number of “indicators” I saw that suggested that—although he hopes to be a “great uniter”—he actually harbors secret radical ideologies that may divide the country. His long-term association with Reverend Wright, whose extremist views are based upon the Black Liberation Theology, concerned me greatly. Black Liberation Theology is not an ideology that promotes the idea, to quote African-American taxi driver Rodney King who was beat by Los Angeles police, “Why can’t we all just get along?” No, the Liberation Theology was based upon Marxist theories of class warfare, and Black Liberation Theology added the element of Race to that notion of warfare. The result is a rather toxic cocktail that calls Whites “the devil” because of the legacy of slavery. It conveniently overlooks the thousands of years’ traditions in Africa in which Slavery was a common practice, and instead conveniently dumps the evil upon the White doorstep alone.
So for a U.S. Senator to attend—over twenty years—a church whose leader was an extremely controversial proponent of extremist and divisive thought, should have set off alarm bells much earlier than it did.
Obama tried to distance himself from his pastor—without actually leaving the church—by stating that he was retiring and a new and wonderful pastor was coming. But when the new pastor invited another radical Priest (this time a Catholic priest) who expressed more of the same Liberation Theology radicalism from the pulpit and accused Obama’s democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, of being a White Supremacist, Obama finally had to leave the church. Too little, too late, but that’s just an indication of his poor judgment, isn’t it?
So in this context, the country has been wondering why Obama would hang out with this kind of people if—as he repeatedly says—he doesn’t believe it.
When his wife, Michelle Obama made a public gaffe by saying that “for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country”, much was made of the statement because it clearly showed a lack of patriotism on her part.
That statement caught my interest, because I was pretty sure we could surmise what she meant, but we needed additional evidence.
That evidence became available when Michelle Obama’s (her maiden name was Robinson, but I’ll refer to her by her current name for this essay) Princeton senior thesis paper was made public.
Well, it was sort of made public, by Politico. You see, the thesis was stored in the library, entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community”. In that essay, Obama states:
“I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis.
I authorize Princeton University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.”
Apparently, that thesis was not made available for journalistic research. As reported by Politico,
“The 96-page Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny….Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is ‘not unusual’ for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss ‘the academic work of alumni.’
Politico did a two-page analysis of the thesis, which I did not find gratifying; I wanted to know more, and I think you might also. I should note that the 1985 essay is now quite old, and gosh, you know, I held some pretty stupid ideas when I graduated from university at the tender age of 24…or was that 26? So let’s not condemn Obama strictly by the text of the essay, but if we connect the dots between what her Pastor has said, what she has said, her husband’s refusal to wear a lapel pin, and what she wrote in her essay, we can see fairly clearly what her ideologies are.
And she hints that she is a segregationist. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean separationist.
I took time to read the essay, and did a little analysis of it, so you won’t have to. You can thank me later.
The basic premise of the 1985 essay was to Interview blacks who were graduates of the majority-white Princeton University, most of whom attended the school during the ‘70s at the height of the civil rights movement, and to find out
“to which degree they are comfortable interacting with Black and with White individuals…; the extent to which they are motivated to benefit the black community…; the ideologies they hold with respects to race relations between Black and White communities; and the feelings they have toward the black lower class such as a feeling they should help improve the lives of this particular group of Blacks.”
She specifies that
“It is important to understand what will happen to blacks that attend white schools: “will they feel any obligation … to help other Blacks… who are less fortunate than themselves?”
Obama gives some theoretical/ideological background for her approach, which is in itself quite telling. She starts by exploring the “Separationism/Pluralism and Integrationism/Assimilation” paradigm. She explains it thusly:
“The idea of Separationism and Pluralism …is…discussed by Billingsley (1968) who believes that there is a need for Blacks to build up their own communities; define themselves by new “Black” standards different from old White standards; and exercise power and control over their own institutions and services within the Black community…Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s (1967) developed definition of separationism in their discussion of Black Power which guided me in the formulation and use of this concept in the study. ‘The concept of Black Power rests on the fundamental premise: Before a group can enter the open society, it must close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralist society.”
I’ll return to this concept later, because it poses some incredible contradictions and traps for the Black community.
To get her respondent’s input on this issue, she formulated the following question:
Question # 4. “How would you describe the views you held during the three periods [pre-Princeton, Princeton, Post-Princeton] about relations between Blacks and Whites in the U.S.
Very strongly Separationist and/or Pluralist
Moderately Separationist and/or Pluralist
Undecided
Moderately integrationist and/or assimilationist
Very strongly integrationist and/or assimilationist”
I find it very interesting that this Thesis was written in 1985. I am curious to know how it was that the Black community managed to go from being 100% focused on achieving desegregation in the late 1960’s, to the point that by the mid 1980’s they were discussing Separationist policies.
Oh, and how is separationism different from segregation? Could it mean: “Separated—on our terms” perhaps?
Contrasting the Separationist ideology, Obama very briefly explores the notion of Integrationist ideology, but surprisingly does not provide any real detail or even a quotation by one of its preeminent proponents. I would interpret that to mean that she is not very interested in the arguments posed by the integrationists.
She does, however, go into depth about the difficulties that Black students face at “White” universities.
“Dejoie believes that ‘Institutional policies of predominately White universities have established practices which favor the prefered [sic] groups and have ranked priorities which are meant to facilitate the tasks and improve the conditions of White students while ignoring the needs of the black students’. Dr. Dejoie goes on in her study to discuss the effects of biased curricula which does not encourage, ‘…the contribution of Blacks, the study of Blacks, as a group’.”
This quote is very telling. Apparently, “White schools” don’t focus enough attention on Blacks and their “contribution”. Presumably, Black sociologists believe that schools need to formulate assertive policies to force Whites to focus on the accomplishments of Blacks in history.
The curricula of most schools generally focus on events, players, causes, effects, and results. A history course that explores the rise and fall of the Third Reich should focus on the historical context of the war, the factors that led up to the war, the events during the war, how and why the Nazi regime collapsed, and the major players during the war.
But should special focus on the Black group of pilots called the Tuskegee Airmen really be a required central focus? Why focus on Blacks, then, instead of Japanese-Americans who contributed? Are Japanese groups clamoring for equal attention? Why not focus on Hispanics who fought in the war (are there Mexican-American or Puerto Rican groups protesting)? And what about the Native-American contribution? Oh wait…have I just lost focus on the primary purpose of the course—“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”?!
This discussion goes on:
“Dejoie also discusses the negative aspects of social and non-academic activities…: “As in academic areas, the social aspects of university life systematically follow the interests of the White students—the majority group”.
Now, this is pretty amazing. Think about it. Obama must agree with Dejoie (since she feels the need to quote Dejoie), when she criticizes “White Schools” because the social life “systematically follow[s] the interest of the White [majority] students”.
And what would you reasonably expect…that the majority White school systematically create social aspects appropriate for Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese or Japanese? No, of course not. So are they saying that it’s only Blacks who need to be accommodated, because they are a special minority?
Or are they saying that Blacks should not attend majority White schools because social life follows the interest of White students. What should “White” schools do to correct this? “Systematically” promote “Black culture”? And what exactly would that look like? If a White school organized Brake-Dance parties or Krumping sessions, they’d be attacked for their insensitive racial stereotyping.
By the way, what are “White interests”? I thought Americans of many races shared interests in football, basketball, music, art, theatre…for that matter, what are the “Black interests” that are not being addressed and can only be done at a Black school? This is fascinating to me. I’d never categorized my interests by racial lines. From my (obviously skewed) perspective, whenever I’ve seen kids get together to explore music, computers, robots, rockets, or whatever, it was the subject that drew them in, and the racial identity of the participant was irrelevant.
The only time “race” has ever become relevant to “interests” is when it is so obvious that the participant’s ethnicity is rare for the interest. Think that’s racist? Then consider Jamaican Bobsledders. Now, why would it be racist for someone to be fascinated in such a concept? There is such an obvious disconnect between the nationality and the environment from which they come, and the very nature of the sport. Black skiers are another rarity. So much so, they have formed their own non-profit organization to promote the sport. Are they racist for noticing that few of their own have explored the sport, or are we racist for noticing how rare it is to see Blacks on the slope and to be happy to meet the few who have taken up the challenge?
So, what would be better? For the Blacks on predominantly White schools to try new things (skiing, bobsledding, and hockey) presented to them by their White counterparts…or for White schools to try to promote things they think are uniquely “Black”. Brake Dancing. Krumping. Purple cars with spinning wheel caps…? It sounds absurd because it is absurd.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand what Michelle means when she says “as a result of such biases…it is often difficult for some Black students to adjust to Princeton’s environment; and…there are very few …support groups”. I lived for a year in Costa Rica (1990), and it really can be difficult to adjust to a ‘new culture’. Of course, there are some key differences: I didn’t speak the language at first, and the cultural differences were quite drastic and unknown to me. I didn’t have much of a “support group”, and I was definitely part of an obvious minority—we gringos with very light skin do tend to stand out.
Obama says,
“My experiences at Princeton has made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’…I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong…it often seems as if I will always be Black first and a student second.”
This may not be the most comfortable feeling, but if we are honest with ourselves, is there ever going to be a time and place in which all of us are the same? Would that even be desirable? So isn’t it simply a matter of maturity and a good-natured outlook to understand that there will be times when we are in the minority, we are drastically different from the people around us, and how they react to us will depend greatly upon how we act while among them?
Blacks in America can’t (and don’t) say they don’t know about “White culture”. The usual issue is that Whites don’t know much about “Black culture”. Which leads Whites to ask some pretty silly questions, make some dumb assumptions, etc. The true test of character, however, is how you handle that. I can’t recall how many times when I was in Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, and other countries, that I was accosted for being a “gringo imperialista” by the left-leaning students on campus, and bombarded by criticism for the US’s invasion of Panama the year before. Many people rudely attacked me with their extremely biased, bigoted, and completely wrong opinions of Americans in general, and White Americans in particular. I could choose bitterness, resentment and hate. I could choose (as many students did) to turn “anti-American” and lead the vehement attacks on their own country. Or, I could choose to be patient and understanding, and to accept fault where it was deserved, defend myself and my country when necessary, and to do so in non-confrontational methods. I initially joined in the attacks on the country, but with maturity and clarity, I eventually chose the latter.
Blacks at majority White campuses have to make the same choice. They can either be diplomatic representatives of their “people”, or chose to conflict with people. And they have to make a conscious effort to separate well-meant but naïve questions or comments from mean-spirited attacked by bigots.
But if they choose to believe that they are confronting an enemy, that everyone is different and they have nothing in common, that choice will ensure that what they will find is confrontation, misunderstanding, and isolation. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another key area that Obama wanted to explore is what she called “Benefit Attitudes.”
“The second set of dependent variables in this study tries especially to measure the extent to which the respondents were motivated to benefit various social groups…The first variable was designed to provide some idea of how interested the respondents are in positively contributing to the Black community relative to other social groups such as the White community, their families, their occupations.”
This quote was revealing, in that there seems to be an underlying suspicion that, if Blacks study with Whites and get comfortable with them, they’ll no longer care about other Blacks, as if their contact with Whites will turn them “White”, and of course, since we all know that Whites are racists who don’t like Blacks (I’m being sarcastic here, just in case you don’t get it), they are not concerned about Black suffering. Right?
Also, is there a judgment statement being made about a well-educated Black person who places a high value on their occupation? What exactly should we expect from someone who has acquired a very expensive education? Should they turn their backs on their family and financial success and instead go get a low-paying job at a non-profit? This appears to me to be yet another echo of the Marxist bent found within the Liberation Theology. It suggests to me that one of the reasons the Obamas didn’t distance themselves from Pastor Wright might have been—just maybe—because they agreed with him.
It seems to me that there is a subtle hint here that Obama disdains people who actually might want the “good life”, instead of working for the “common good.” This makes sense for the leftists, since socialists like Hugo Chavez and others publicly proclaim that “being rich is evil”, and there is a long line formed among the leftists and Democrats who want to cozy up to Chavez. I wonder if that’s why Barak wanted to meet with Hugo: To talk about how evil it is for everyone (except them) to get rich?
“The second variable …was designed to measure the nature of the respondents’ attitudes …specifically toward members of the lower class [Black] community …it is impossible to help everyone and everything equally at the same time.”
Oh, boy, that’s a rich statement. But you have to look into what she says next to get the full impact:
“Feelings of obligation to improve the life of the Black lower class, feelings of guilt for betraying the Black lower class, as well as feelings of shame or envy toward the Black lower class are investigated in this study.”
Am I mistaken in interpreting her statements that she perceives receiving a good education as “betraying the Black lower class”? Before you disagree, read the question from her survey:
Question # 5. “When you think of lower class Black Americans and the life they lead, how true for you personally are the following statements?
I feel proud that I have been strong enough to avoid remaining in, or falling into, that life.
I feel lucky that I was given opportunities that they are not given.
I feel guilty that I may be betraying them in some way.
I feel ashamed of them; they reflect badly on the rest of us.
I feel their life is more honest than mine; I would become part of it if I could.
I feel obligated to help improve their life.
I feel they must help themselves.
I feel they are the White community’s problem; not mine.
I feel there is no way they can be helped; their situation is hopeless.
Ah, it’s the “you can only serve one master” ploy, eh?
So the idea is beginning to form, that Blacks who go to White schools may internalize “White values”, become less “Black”, become “materialists” or “capitalists” and forget—even betray—poor Blacks. Let’s cut to the quick: if you are Black, and you get a good education, and are comfortable with whites, are you an Uncle Tom? Are you a “House Negro”? Would any respondent actually say “poor blacks are the problem of the White community?”
Again, this is in keeping with the Liberal notion that compassionate people will eschew wealth (because they believe wealth is a zero-sum game), actively promote minorities who are victims of White oppression, and—because conservatives oppose doing this via the mechanism of big government—Liberals therefore conclude that Conservatives are not compassionate and do not care about the poor.
So, if a Black (like Clarence Thomas) is a conservative, and educated at an Ivy League school, how can the Black community relate to such a person?
Remember that I taught at a predominantly Black high school? I had a Black female student that had attended the Million Man March, and while there had the exciting opportunity to meet “with all the Democrats in the NAACP”. I asked her if she met any Republicans in the NAACP, to which she snorted, “You can’t be a Republican and be in the NAACP! We don’t think you can be a Republican and still be Black.” Oh really?
Another interesting passage is when Obama goes through an analysis of the variables, listing things such as the respondent’s originating class, number of books in the household, relationship to God, and even “the race of the person whom the individual most admired…”
I can’t speak for others, but if you asked me whom I admired most as a child, I’d have a hard time coming up with one name. I had many heroes. Now, ask me the same question, but throw in the qualifier “what RACE” was the person I most admired…it adds a whole new dynamic, doesn’t it? The question itself forces the respondent to filter the list of most admired personalities along the lines of race. The question forcibly interjects a discriminatory consideration, and must also trigger a series of emotional responses.
I imagine a black respondent suddenly (and possibly subconsciously) weighing the response: “since I am Black, would it mean I’m a sell-out if I admired a non-Black individual most?” Does that suddenly make a Black candidate suddenly more admirable as a response? How is Obama going to judge a Black individual who admired a white figure (suppose it was a white parent, grandparent, or influential teacher) more than Harriet Tubman or W.E.B. Dubois? Would she take that as proof that the higher educated Black with books has “sold out” to the White culture?
So, remember my statement about the “self-fulfilling prophecy”. There are perfectly good reasons why a respondent might say that their most-admired person was Black before attending University, and White afterward, without actually meaning that the person is no longer proud to be Black or is now unconcerned about Black issues. But if you are determined to see that getting too close to Whites will change you for the worse, guess how you will interpret these responses.
Hypotheses
The basic hypothesis of her thesis is that, the longer the Black student spent with Whites, the more comfortable (s)he will feel with them. Duh! You think? Isn’t it obvious that anyone would be uncomfortable around people about whom they know little or nothing and think they have nothing in common? And isn’t it obvious that, over time, people will discover that they are more alike than they thought? Hey, I think we’ve had a breakthrough here!
She goes on to say that
“I also … hypothesize that this sense of comfort with Blacks will be greatest in all the activities measured by this dependent variable except intellectual activities. Intellectually, Blacks may be more comfortable with Whites as a result of a greater amount of exposure to Whites in an academic setting… ”
Essentially, she comes to the conclusion that the Blacks, after so much time at Princeton has forced Blacks “to compete intellectually with Whites more than Blacks”, making them feel more comfortable on “intellectual” terms with Whites than they are with other Blacks.
Whoa. Am I reading that right? The word “competing” implies matching skills. It implies improving those skills to match one’s competitors. The Black student will therefore develop intellectually thanks to their interaction with Whites. Is that what she’s saying? So were they less skilled before meeting Whites on a competitive playing field?
If so, then how would the Black community benefit if the Separationist ideology she appears to support were followed?
Another interpretation might be that the Black students would, by virtue of the close contact with Whites, become intimate with the White mindset and learn that “they aren’t as bad as I thought…” They might become comfortable with Whites when they learn that Whites are not “white devils” after all.
That would come as a shock to the Black Liberation Theology proponents, wouldn’t it? It might be better to keep blacks poor and apart from Whites, in that case, right?
So Blacks would, in the long term, become more comfortable with Whites, but is it really feasible (given this interpretation) that they would become “more comfortable with Whites than with Blacks?” There is a big difference: It is one thing to learn that the people you once scorned as a bunch of racists are actually pretty decent people, and you are comfortable being around them. It’s quite another to get to the point where—intellectually or otherwise—you begin to prefer their company to your “own people”.
Again, I have experience in this area. Being an Anglo, English speaking American, I was originally most comfortable around “my own people” (a silly term, since I’ve never been comfortable around anyone based simply on their race). But by the time I had become totally fluent in Spanish and had lived abroad, then surrounded myself with Latino friends and married a Venezuelan, my Latin friends often remarked that I was “more Latino than Gringo”. And yes, I became more comfortable with some Latinos than with most Anglo-Saxon Americans. The difference was, that I was very comfortable with educated and well travelled Latinos, and uncomfortable with uneducated and closed-minded Whites.
The inferred dilemma in the Obama essay is that this is somehow a betrayal of the Black community. Do you see the contradiction? Whites who learn to feel comfortable among Blacks are not seen as sellouts. Blacks who get an education and feel comfortable with Whites—are no longer Black.
Obama is revealing that she is not above the most basic emotional scarring left over from the trauma of slavery. Let’s boil down the argument to the most basic level: will becoming comfortable with Whites make her an “Uncle Tom” or “House Negro”? Is she suddenly an “Oreo” (Black on the outside, White in the middle)?
Her husband was initially attacked in the early days of his campaign as being too “White”, or at least, “not Black enough”. Mind you, not by Whites, but by Blacks.
This is all part of the not-so-secret but shameful legacy among Blacks, for whom lighter colored skin is often seen as preferable. This is also known as the “paper-bag test”: Young Black men and women were often encouraged by their parents and grandparents to bring home mates whose skin was lighter than a paper bag. This was seen as a step up, especially for their offspring. This is not openly discussed, because it contradicts the “Black Pride” movement. But it is a very real social undercurrent.
This preference simultaneously causes a bit of a shameful reaction… “are we betraying our Blackness? Should we celebrate our Blackness by trying to be as ‘Black’ as possible?” So educated Blacks suddenly become “White”.
When I was a teacher in a predominantly Black inner-urban high school in the rural South, I actually had students killed by other Black students because they thought they were acting “White”, simply because they were trying to get an education and behaved in a way that reflected those different values.
Blackness is at war with itself. Obama’s essay reveals the inner turmoil of that conflict, and the emotional strains placed on her as she tries to alleviate those feelings. Achieving a great education is wonderful. But does it make her less Black? Can she counter the feelings of guilt and betrayal by obsessively trying to benefit “less fortunate Blacks”? She says, on page 20 of her essay, that
“…Blacks who are more comfortable with Whites than with Blacks will probably be less interested in benefitting the Black community…The more respondents spend time with Blacks, the more positive and compassionate they will be in their attitudes towards lower class Black Americans…”
This argument is precisely the reasoning behind the vicious and bigoted attacks on Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas that would start in 1991, when President G. Bush (4I) nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall. Thomas was a conservative Black. He spoke clear English without a hint of “Ebonics” and took the stand that Blacks had to accept individual responsibility for their own successes.
Clearly, considering Obama’s rhetoric, she would see Thomas through the prism of her opinion that, because Thomas did not believe that government was the solution for Black suffering, he therefore had spent too much time with Whites, was more comfortable with Whites than Blacks, and no longer was compassionate toward lower class Blacks.
None of which is necessarily true. Because the primary argument is that dependency on Government does not teach independence and does not strengthen the community, but contrarily weakens it.
The results
Her study did find that most of the respondents reported spending more time with Whites post-Princeton than pre-Princeton, or rather, a drop of time spent with other blacks from 61% to 39%. The number of respondents who actually made a change to spend more time with Blacks was 15%.
It should be noted, that no distinction was made in the study to account for the fact that Princeton graduates are very likely to work in prestigious companies which would tend to be predominantly White or mixed, but at any rate would obviously increase their contact with Whites. So the study does not account for whether that increase of contact was due to choice or as a result of work.
An interesting result of the study shows that a significant number of Blacks studying at Princeton experienced a change of opinion about “separationist” beliefs during the period they studied there. While 26% of them were strongly separationist before attending Princeton, this number increased to 40%. But after graduation, this ideology decreased to 31%. A bias in the reporting should be noted: The study states that Black respondents reported Separationist ideologies ranging from 26%, 40%, and finally 31%. The study could just as easily state the percentages of Black respondents reported non-separationist or integrationist percentages, or both equally. But that was not the angle the author chose. Her focus is more upon separationists, and only in passing does she state that the number of respondents who changed toward integrationist ideologies rose from 16% to 32%.
Obama also states that “the percentage of respondents who were motivated to benefit the Black community increased from 46% at the Pre-Princeton point to 64% at Post-Princeton.”
With regard to the “comfort level” of Blacks with other Blacks after a Princeton education, she found that
“the 26% of the respondents who were comfortable with Blacks rose to 37% from Pre-Princeton to Princeton, and then dropped back to 22% during the post-Princeton point.”
The intellectual comfort indicator showed predictable changes.
“During the Princeton to Post-Princeton period…only 10% [were] more comfortable with Blacks while 31% became more comfortable with Whites.”
The primary assumption she makes is that the comfort level felt by the respondents has to do with the amount of time the respondent spent with other Blacks during the Princeton and Post-Princeton years. Interestingly, no mention is given to the idea that the comfort level might have to do with values, changes of values, and the possibility that an educated person, regardless as to race, will have different values than an uneducated person. So educated Blacks may feel more comfortable with educated Whites than with uneducated Blacks, but the inverse can also be said: educated Whites would prefer the company of educated Blacks over that of uneducated Whites.
The preference may have little or nothing to do with race.
At one point in her essay, she makes a couple of interesting admissions:
“…However, it is conceivable that my four years of exposure to a predominantly White, Ivy League University has instilled in me certain conservative values. For example, …I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates—acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals after Princeton are not as clear as before.”
Why does Obama say that her “goals after Princeton are not as clear as before”? What is so “unclear” about gaining such a great education and finding herself striving for many of the same goals as her White classmates? A great Post Graduate degree, a great job: does she think that these things are the antithesis of being Black?
“These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow …will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White culture and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”
Ah, could this be the sentiment that explains Michelle's statement about never being proud of her country? It appears to explain a lot. Despite her great education, she was convinced that this innately racist country would never allow her to play a critical and central role in its future. But now that she sees Whites voting for her husband, she can allow herself to feel proud of the nation again.
It might be, Michelle, that the nation was great even before you belatedly realized it.
When we consider the stated ideology of the “Separationists”, I am stricken first by how similar the arguments of these Black sociologists parallel the segregationist desires of the racist whites in the 1950’s and 1960’s. This ideology was the same that express itself as “separate but equal”, especially when applied to schools, and seemed to be in direct conflict with segments of the society—led by such men as Martin Luther King—that fought for desegregation.
I also find it somewhat ironic that the separationist ideology on the one hand feel the need to keep apart from society, and then complain that they will never “become a full participant.” How do you reconcile that? And if you admit that the Black students benefitted by having to compete with White students at Princeton, then wouldn’t that suggest that the integrationist ideology again makes more sense?
As long as Blacks think that economic and educational success is a “White” ambition, then Blacks will forever remain “on the periphery”. This is not a problem that Government, or Whites, or anyone but Blacks can solve. It is the same problem that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams are aggressively addressing.
It is not a betrayal of the Black community to seek success.
It is a betrayal to perpetuate the belief that success means you have suddenly stopped being Black. Because the inverse statement to that is that failure is a Black trait.
If the Obamas really want to give us Change we can believe in, then this is the message that the Obamas need to address.
By Shakedown Crews
For the subject of my first Blog, I wanted to spend a little time on an issue that has been touched on by the mainstream media (Politico), but not in great depth. It interests me because, as a former White liberal and Democrat, I have always had an interest in race relations in our country. I had considered it part of my duty as a citizen to try to mend fences, as it were, and to do what I could to help heal our society.
A number of issues over the past ten years have made me considerably more conservative. But I am still interested in race relations in the USA. My perspective on what to do and how to do it has changed. But I still read on the topic and try to educate myself.
Most recently, I read Juan William’s book, ENOUGH, in which he explores the wonderful ideology and activism of one of my current heroes, Bill Cosby. I won’t go into great depth on that book in this blog entry. In short, Williams and Cosby have a message for the Black community: Clean up your act, take responsibility, and quit waiting for someone else (Black “leaders”, the government, etc) to raise you up.
Now, in the meantime, I was carefully observing the 2008 Presidential campaign of Barak Obama, and I was alarmed by a number of “indicators” I saw that suggested that—although he hopes to be a “great uniter”—he actually harbors secret radical ideologies that may divide the country. His long-term association with Reverend Wright, whose extremist views are based upon the Black Liberation Theology, concerned me greatly. Black Liberation Theology is not an ideology that promotes the idea, to quote African-American taxi driver Rodney King who was beat by Los Angeles police, “Why can’t we all just get along?” No, the Liberation Theology was based upon Marxist theories of class warfare, and Black Liberation Theology added the element of Race to that notion of warfare. The result is a rather toxic cocktail that calls Whites “the devil” because of the legacy of slavery. It conveniently overlooks the thousands of years’ traditions in Africa in which Slavery was a common practice, and instead conveniently dumps the evil upon the White doorstep alone.
So for a U.S. Senator to attend—over twenty years—a church whose leader was an extremely controversial proponent of extremist and divisive thought, should have set off alarm bells much earlier than it did.
Obama tried to distance himself from his pastor—without actually leaving the church—by stating that he was retiring and a new and wonderful pastor was coming. But when the new pastor invited another radical Priest (this time a Catholic priest) who expressed more of the same Liberation Theology radicalism from the pulpit and accused Obama’s democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, of being a White Supremacist, Obama finally had to leave the church. Too little, too late, but that’s just an indication of his poor judgment, isn’t it?
So in this context, the country has been wondering why Obama would hang out with this kind of people if—as he repeatedly says—he doesn’t believe it.
When his wife, Michelle Obama made a public gaffe by saying that “for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country”, much was made of the statement because it clearly showed a lack of patriotism on her part.
That statement caught my interest, because I was pretty sure we could surmise what she meant, but we needed additional evidence.
That evidence became available when Michelle Obama’s (her maiden name was Robinson, but I’ll refer to her by her current name for this essay) Princeton senior thesis paper was made public.
Well, it was sort of made public, by Politico. You see, the thesis was stored in the library, entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community”. In that essay, Obama states:
“I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis.
I authorize Princeton University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.”
Apparently, that thesis was not made available for journalistic research. As reported by Politico,
“The 96-page Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny….Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is ‘not unusual’ for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss ‘the academic work of alumni.’
Politico did a two-page analysis of the thesis, which I did not find gratifying; I wanted to know more, and I think you might also. I should note that the 1985 essay is now quite old, and gosh, you know, I held some pretty stupid ideas when I graduated from university at the tender age of 24…or was that 26? So let’s not condemn Obama strictly by the text of the essay, but if we connect the dots between what her Pastor has said, what she has said, her husband’s refusal to wear a lapel pin, and what she wrote in her essay, we can see fairly clearly what her ideologies are.
And she hints that she is a segregationist. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean separationist.
I took time to read the essay, and did a little analysis of it, so you won’t have to. You can thank me later.
The basic premise of the 1985 essay was to Interview blacks who were graduates of the majority-white Princeton University, most of whom attended the school during the ‘70s at the height of the civil rights movement, and to find out
“to which degree they are comfortable interacting with Black and with White individuals…; the extent to which they are motivated to benefit the black community…; the ideologies they hold with respects to race relations between Black and White communities; and the feelings they have toward the black lower class such as a feeling they should help improve the lives of this particular group of Blacks.”
She specifies that
“It is important to understand what will happen to blacks that attend white schools: “will they feel any obligation … to help other Blacks… who are less fortunate than themselves?”
Obama gives some theoretical/ideological background for her approach, which is in itself quite telling. She starts by exploring the “Separationism/Pluralism and Integrationism/Assimilation” paradigm. She explains it thusly:
“The idea of Separationism and Pluralism …is…discussed by Billingsley (1968) who believes that there is a need for Blacks to build up their own communities; define themselves by new “Black” standards different from old White standards; and exercise power and control over their own institutions and services within the Black community…Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s (1967) developed definition of separationism in their discussion of Black Power which guided me in the formulation and use of this concept in the study. ‘The concept of Black Power rests on the fundamental premise: Before a group can enter the open society, it must close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralist society.”
I’ll return to this concept later, because it poses some incredible contradictions and traps for the Black community.
To get her respondent’s input on this issue, she formulated the following question:
Question # 4. “How would you describe the views you held during the three periods [pre-Princeton, Princeton, Post-Princeton] about relations between Blacks and Whites in the U.S.
Very strongly Separationist and/or Pluralist
Moderately Separationist and/or Pluralist
Undecided
Moderately integrationist and/or assimilationist
Very strongly integrationist and/or assimilationist”
I find it very interesting that this Thesis was written in 1985. I am curious to know how it was that the Black community managed to go from being 100% focused on achieving desegregation in the late 1960’s, to the point that by the mid 1980’s they were discussing Separationist policies.
Oh, and how is separationism different from segregation? Could it mean: “Separated—on our terms” perhaps?
Contrasting the Separationist ideology, Obama very briefly explores the notion of Integrationist ideology, but surprisingly does not provide any real detail or even a quotation by one of its preeminent proponents. I would interpret that to mean that she is not very interested in the arguments posed by the integrationists.
She does, however, go into depth about the difficulties that Black students face at “White” universities.
“Dejoie believes that ‘Institutional policies of predominately White universities have established practices which favor the prefered [sic] groups and have ranked priorities which are meant to facilitate the tasks and improve the conditions of White students while ignoring the needs of the black students’. Dr. Dejoie goes on in her study to discuss the effects of biased curricula which does not encourage, ‘…the contribution of Blacks, the study of Blacks, as a group’.”
This quote is very telling. Apparently, “White schools” don’t focus enough attention on Blacks and their “contribution”. Presumably, Black sociologists believe that schools need to formulate assertive policies to force Whites to focus on the accomplishments of Blacks in history.
The curricula of most schools generally focus on events, players, causes, effects, and results. A history course that explores the rise and fall of the Third Reich should focus on the historical context of the war, the factors that led up to the war, the events during the war, how and why the Nazi regime collapsed, and the major players during the war.
But should special focus on the Black group of pilots called the Tuskegee Airmen really be a required central focus? Why focus on Blacks, then, instead of Japanese-Americans who contributed? Are Japanese groups clamoring for equal attention? Why not focus on Hispanics who fought in the war (are there Mexican-American or Puerto Rican groups protesting)? And what about the Native-American contribution? Oh wait…have I just lost focus on the primary purpose of the course—“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”?!
This discussion goes on:
“Dejoie also discusses the negative aspects of social and non-academic activities…: “As in academic areas, the social aspects of university life systematically follow the interests of the White students—the majority group”.
Now, this is pretty amazing. Think about it. Obama must agree with Dejoie (since she feels the need to quote Dejoie), when she criticizes “White Schools” because the social life “systematically follow[s] the interest of the White [majority] students”.
And what would you reasonably expect…that the majority White school systematically create social aspects appropriate for Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese or Japanese? No, of course not. So are they saying that it’s only Blacks who need to be accommodated, because they are a special minority?
Or are they saying that Blacks should not attend majority White schools because social life follows the interest of White students. What should “White” schools do to correct this? “Systematically” promote “Black culture”? And what exactly would that look like? If a White school organized Brake-Dance parties or Krumping sessions, they’d be attacked for their insensitive racial stereotyping.
By the way, what are “White interests”? I thought Americans of many races shared interests in football, basketball, music, art, theatre…for that matter, what are the “Black interests” that are not being addressed and can only be done at a Black school? This is fascinating to me. I’d never categorized my interests by racial lines. From my (obviously skewed) perspective, whenever I’ve seen kids get together to explore music, computers, robots, rockets, or whatever, it was the subject that drew them in, and the racial identity of the participant was irrelevant.
The only time “race” has ever become relevant to “interests” is when it is so obvious that the participant’s ethnicity is rare for the interest. Think that’s racist? Then consider Jamaican Bobsledders. Now, why would it be racist for someone to be fascinated in such a concept? There is such an obvious disconnect between the nationality and the environment from which they come, and the very nature of the sport. Black skiers are another rarity. So much so, they have formed their own non-profit organization to promote the sport. Are they racist for noticing that few of their own have explored the sport, or are we racist for noticing how rare it is to see Blacks on the slope and to be happy to meet the few who have taken up the challenge?
So, what would be better? For the Blacks on predominantly White schools to try new things (skiing, bobsledding, and hockey) presented to them by their White counterparts…or for White schools to try to promote things they think are uniquely “Black”. Brake Dancing. Krumping. Purple cars with spinning wheel caps…? It sounds absurd because it is absurd.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand what Michelle means when she says “as a result of such biases…it is often difficult for some Black students to adjust to Princeton’s environment; and…there are very few …support groups”. I lived for a year in Costa Rica (1990), and it really can be difficult to adjust to a ‘new culture’. Of course, there are some key differences: I didn’t speak the language at first, and the cultural differences were quite drastic and unknown to me. I didn’t have much of a “support group”, and I was definitely part of an obvious minority—we gringos with very light skin do tend to stand out.
Obama says,
“My experiences at Princeton has made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’…I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong…it often seems as if I will always be Black first and a student second.”
This may not be the most comfortable feeling, but if we are honest with ourselves, is there ever going to be a time and place in which all of us are the same? Would that even be desirable? So isn’t it simply a matter of maturity and a good-natured outlook to understand that there will be times when we are in the minority, we are drastically different from the people around us, and how they react to us will depend greatly upon how we act while among them?
Blacks in America can’t (and don’t) say they don’t know about “White culture”. The usual issue is that Whites don’t know much about “Black culture”. Which leads Whites to ask some pretty silly questions, make some dumb assumptions, etc. The true test of character, however, is how you handle that. I can’t recall how many times when I was in Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, and other countries, that I was accosted for being a “gringo imperialista” by the left-leaning students on campus, and bombarded by criticism for the US’s invasion of Panama the year before. Many people rudely attacked me with their extremely biased, bigoted, and completely wrong opinions of Americans in general, and White Americans in particular. I could choose bitterness, resentment and hate. I could choose (as many students did) to turn “anti-American” and lead the vehement attacks on their own country. Or, I could choose to be patient and understanding, and to accept fault where it was deserved, defend myself and my country when necessary, and to do so in non-confrontational methods. I initially joined in the attacks on the country, but with maturity and clarity, I eventually chose the latter.
Blacks at majority White campuses have to make the same choice. They can either be diplomatic representatives of their “people”, or chose to conflict with people. And they have to make a conscious effort to separate well-meant but naïve questions or comments from mean-spirited attacked by bigots.
But if they choose to believe that they are confronting an enemy, that everyone is different and they have nothing in common, that choice will ensure that what they will find is confrontation, misunderstanding, and isolation. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another key area that Obama wanted to explore is what she called “Benefit Attitudes.”
“The second set of dependent variables in this study tries especially to measure the extent to which the respondents were motivated to benefit various social groups…The first variable was designed to provide some idea of how interested the respondents are in positively contributing to the Black community relative to other social groups such as the White community, their families, their occupations.”
This quote was revealing, in that there seems to be an underlying suspicion that, if Blacks study with Whites and get comfortable with them, they’ll no longer care about other Blacks, as if their contact with Whites will turn them “White”, and of course, since we all know that Whites are racists who don’t like Blacks (I’m being sarcastic here, just in case you don’t get it), they are not concerned about Black suffering. Right?
Also, is there a judgment statement being made about a well-educated Black person who places a high value on their occupation? What exactly should we expect from someone who has acquired a very expensive education? Should they turn their backs on their family and financial success and instead go get a low-paying job at a non-profit? This appears to me to be yet another echo of the Marxist bent found within the Liberation Theology. It suggests to me that one of the reasons the Obamas didn’t distance themselves from Pastor Wright might have been—just maybe—because they agreed with him.
It seems to me that there is a subtle hint here that Obama disdains people who actually might want the “good life”, instead of working for the “common good.” This makes sense for the leftists, since socialists like Hugo Chavez and others publicly proclaim that “being rich is evil”, and there is a long line formed among the leftists and Democrats who want to cozy up to Chavez. I wonder if that’s why Barak wanted to meet with Hugo: To talk about how evil it is for everyone (except them) to get rich?
“The second variable …was designed to measure the nature of the respondents’ attitudes …specifically toward members of the lower class [Black] community …it is impossible to help everyone and everything equally at the same time.”
Oh, boy, that’s a rich statement. But you have to look into what she says next to get the full impact:
“Feelings of obligation to improve the life of the Black lower class, feelings of guilt for betraying the Black lower class, as well as feelings of shame or envy toward the Black lower class are investigated in this study.”
Am I mistaken in interpreting her statements that she perceives receiving a good education as “betraying the Black lower class”? Before you disagree, read the question from her survey:
Question # 5. “When you think of lower class Black Americans and the life they lead, how true for you personally are the following statements?
I feel proud that I have been strong enough to avoid remaining in, or falling into, that life.
I feel lucky that I was given opportunities that they are not given.
I feel guilty that I may be betraying them in some way.
I feel ashamed of them; they reflect badly on the rest of us.
I feel their life is more honest than mine; I would become part of it if I could.
I feel obligated to help improve their life.
I feel they must help themselves.
I feel they are the White community’s problem; not mine.
I feel there is no way they can be helped; their situation is hopeless.
Ah, it’s the “you can only serve one master” ploy, eh?
So the idea is beginning to form, that Blacks who go to White schools may internalize “White values”, become less “Black”, become “materialists” or “capitalists” and forget—even betray—poor Blacks. Let’s cut to the quick: if you are Black, and you get a good education, and are comfortable with whites, are you an Uncle Tom? Are you a “House Negro”? Would any respondent actually say “poor blacks are the problem of the White community?”
Again, this is in keeping with the Liberal notion that compassionate people will eschew wealth (because they believe wealth is a zero-sum game), actively promote minorities who are victims of White oppression, and—because conservatives oppose doing this via the mechanism of big government—Liberals therefore conclude that Conservatives are not compassionate and do not care about the poor.
So, if a Black (like Clarence Thomas) is a conservative, and educated at an Ivy League school, how can the Black community relate to such a person?
Remember that I taught at a predominantly Black high school? I had a Black female student that had attended the Million Man March, and while there had the exciting opportunity to meet “with all the Democrats in the NAACP”. I asked her if she met any Republicans in the NAACP, to which she snorted, “You can’t be a Republican and be in the NAACP! We don’t think you can be a Republican and still be Black.” Oh really?
Another interesting passage is when Obama goes through an analysis of the variables, listing things such as the respondent’s originating class, number of books in the household, relationship to God, and even “the race of the person whom the individual most admired…”
I can’t speak for others, but if you asked me whom I admired most as a child, I’d have a hard time coming up with one name. I had many heroes. Now, ask me the same question, but throw in the qualifier “what RACE” was the person I most admired…it adds a whole new dynamic, doesn’t it? The question itself forces the respondent to filter the list of most admired personalities along the lines of race. The question forcibly interjects a discriminatory consideration, and must also trigger a series of emotional responses.
I imagine a black respondent suddenly (and possibly subconsciously) weighing the response: “since I am Black, would it mean I’m a sell-out if I admired a non-Black individual most?” Does that suddenly make a Black candidate suddenly more admirable as a response? How is Obama going to judge a Black individual who admired a white figure (suppose it was a white parent, grandparent, or influential teacher) more than Harriet Tubman or W.E.B. Dubois? Would she take that as proof that the higher educated Black with books has “sold out” to the White culture?
So, remember my statement about the “self-fulfilling prophecy”. There are perfectly good reasons why a respondent might say that their most-admired person was Black before attending University, and White afterward, without actually meaning that the person is no longer proud to be Black or is now unconcerned about Black issues. But if you are determined to see that getting too close to Whites will change you for the worse, guess how you will interpret these responses.
Hypotheses
The basic hypothesis of her thesis is that, the longer the Black student spent with Whites, the more comfortable (s)he will feel with them. Duh! You think? Isn’t it obvious that anyone would be uncomfortable around people about whom they know little or nothing and think they have nothing in common? And isn’t it obvious that, over time, people will discover that they are more alike than they thought? Hey, I think we’ve had a breakthrough here!
She goes on to say that
“I also … hypothesize that this sense of comfort with Blacks will be greatest in all the activities measured by this dependent variable except intellectual activities. Intellectually, Blacks may be more comfortable with Whites as a result of a greater amount of exposure to Whites in an academic setting… ”
Essentially, she comes to the conclusion that the Blacks, after so much time at Princeton has forced Blacks “to compete intellectually with Whites more than Blacks”, making them feel more comfortable on “intellectual” terms with Whites than they are with other Blacks.
Whoa. Am I reading that right? The word “competing” implies matching skills. It implies improving those skills to match one’s competitors. The Black student will therefore develop intellectually thanks to their interaction with Whites. Is that what she’s saying? So were they less skilled before meeting Whites on a competitive playing field?
If so, then how would the Black community benefit if the Separationist ideology she appears to support were followed?
Another interpretation might be that the Black students would, by virtue of the close contact with Whites, become intimate with the White mindset and learn that “they aren’t as bad as I thought…” They might become comfortable with Whites when they learn that Whites are not “white devils” after all.
That would come as a shock to the Black Liberation Theology proponents, wouldn’t it? It might be better to keep blacks poor and apart from Whites, in that case, right?
So Blacks would, in the long term, become more comfortable with Whites, but is it really feasible (given this interpretation) that they would become “more comfortable with Whites than with Blacks?” There is a big difference: It is one thing to learn that the people you once scorned as a bunch of racists are actually pretty decent people, and you are comfortable being around them. It’s quite another to get to the point where—intellectually or otherwise—you begin to prefer their company to your “own people”.
Again, I have experience in this area. Being an Anglo, English speaking American, I was originally most comfortable around “my own people” (a silly term, since I’ve never been comfortable around anyone based simply on their race). But by the time I had become totally fluent in Spanish and had lived abroad, then surrounded myself with Latino friends and married a Venezuelan, my Latin friends often remarked that I was “more Latino than Gringo”. And yes, I became more comfortable with some Latinos than with most Anglo-Saxon Americans. The difference was, that I was very comfortable with educated and well travelled Latinos, and uncomfortable with uneducated and closed-minded Whites.
The inferred dilemma in the Obama essay is that this is somehow a betrayal of the Black community. Do you see the contradiction? Whites who learn to feel comfortable among Blacks are not seen as sellouts. Blacks who get an education and feel comfortable with Whites—are no longer Black.
Obama is revealing that she is not above the most basic emotional scarring left over from the trauma of slavery. Let’s boil down the argument to the most basic level: will becoming comfortable with Whites make her an “Uncle Tom” or “House Negro”? Is she suddenly an “Oreo” (Black on the outside, White in the middle)?
Her husband was initially attacked in the early days of his campaign as being too “White”, or at least, “not Black enough”. Mind you, not by Whites, but by Blacks.
This is all part of the not-so-secret but shameful legacy among Blacks, for whom lighter colored skin is often seen as preferable. This is also known as the “paper-bag test”: Young Black men and women were often encouraged by their parents and grandparents to bring home mates whose skin was lighter than a paper bag. This was seen as a step up, especially for their offspring. This is not openly discussed, because it contradicts the “Black Pride” movement. But it is a very real social undercurrent.
This preference simultaneously causes a bit of a shameful reaction… “are we betraying our Blackness? Should we celebrate our Blackness by trying to be as ‘Black’ as possible?” So educated Blacks suddenly become “White”.
When I was a teacher in a predominantly Black inner-urban high school in the rural South, I actually had students killed by other Black students because they thought they were acting “White”, simply because they were trying to get an education and behaved in a way that reflected those different values.
Blackness is at war with itself. Obama’s essay reveals the inner turmoil of that conflict, and the emotional strains placed on her as she tries to alleviate those feelings. Achieving a great education is wonderful. But does it make her less Black? Can she counter the feelings of guilt and betrayal by obsessively trying to benefit “less fortunate Blacks”? She says, on page 20 of her essay, that
“…Blacks who are more comfortable with Whites than with Blacks will probably be less interested in benefitting the Black community…The more respondents spend time with Blacks, the more positive and compassionate they will be in their attitudes towards lower class Black Americans…”
This argument is precisely the reasoning behind the vicious and bigoted attacks on Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas that would start in 1991, when President G. Bush (4I) nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall. Thomas was a conservative Black. He spoke clear English without a hint of “Ebonics” and took the stand that Blacks had to accept individual responsibility for their own successes.
Clearly, considering Obama’s rhetoric, she would see Thomas through the prism of her opinion that, because Thomas did not believe that government was the solution for Black suffering, he therefore had spent too much time with Whites, was more comfortable with Whites than Blacks, and no longer was compassionate toward lower class Blacks.
None of which is necessarily true. Because the primary argument is that dependency on Government does not teach independence and does not strengthen the community, but contrarily weakens it.
The results
Her study did find that most of the respondents reported spending more time with Whites post-Princeton than pre-Princeton, or rather, a drop of time spent with other blacks from 61% to 39%. The number of respondents who actually made a change to spend more time with Blacks was 15%.
It should be noted, that no distinction was made in the study to account for the fact that Princeton graduates are very likely to work in prestigious companies which would tend to be predominantly White or mixed, but at any rate would obviously increase their contact with Whites. So the study does not account for whether that increase of contact was due to choice or as a result of work.
An interesting result of the study shows that a significant number of Blacks studying at Princeton experienced a change of opinion about “separationist” beliefs during the period they studied there. While 26% of them were strongly separationist before attending Princeton, this number increased to 40%. But after graduation, this ideology decreased to 31%. A bias in the reporting should be noted: The study states that Black respondents reported Separationist ideologies ranging from 26%, 40%, and finally 31%. The study could just as easily state the percentages of Black respondents reported non-separationist or integrationist percentages, or both equally. But that was not the angle the author chose. Her focus is more upon separationists, and only in passing does she state that the number of respondents who changed toward integrationist ideologies rose from 16% to 32%.
Obama also states that “the percentage of respondents who were motivated to benefit the Black community increased from 46% at the Pre-Princeton point to 64% at Post-Princeton.”
With regard to the “comfort level” of Blacks with other Blacks after a Princeton education, she found that
“the 26% of the respondents who were comfortable with Blacks rose to 37% from Pre-Princeton to Princeton, and then dropped back to 22% during the post-Princeton point.”
The intellectual comfort indicator showed predictable changes.
“During the Princeton to Post-Princeton period…only 10% [were] more comfortable with Blacks while 31% became more comfortable with Whites.”
The primary assumption she makes is that the comfort level felt by the respondents has to do with the amount of time the respondent spent with other Blacks during the Princeton and Post-Princeton years. Interestingly, no mention is given to the idea that the comfort level might have to do with values, changes of values, and the possibility that an educated person, regardless as to race, will have different values than an uneducated person. So educated Blacks may feel more comfortable with educated Whites than with uneducated Blacks, but the inverse can also be said: educated Whites would prefer the company of educated Blacks over that of uneducated Whites.
The preference may have little or nothing to do with race.
At one point in her essay, she makes a couple of interesting admissions:
“…However, it is conceivable that my four years of exposure to a predominantly White, Ivy League University has instilled in me certain conservative values. For example, …I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates—acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals after Princeton are not as clear as before.”
Why does Obama say that her “goals after Princeton are not as clear as before”? What is so “unclear” about gaining such a great education and finding herself striving for many of the same goals as her White classmates? A great Post Graduate degree, a great job: does she think that these things are the antithesis of being Black?
“These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow …will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White culture and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”
Ah, could this be the sentiment that explains Michelle's statement about never being proud of her country? It appears to explain a lot. Despite her great education, she was convinced that this innately racist country would never allow her to play a critical and central role in its future. But now that she sees Whites voting for her husband, she can allow herself to feel proud of the nation again.
It might be, Michelle, that the nation was great even before you belatedly realized it.
When we consider the stated ideology of the “Separationists”, I am stricken first by how similar the arguments of these Black sociologists parallel the segregationist desires of the racist whites in the 1950’s and 1960’s. This ideology was the same that express itself as “separate but equal”, especially when applied to schools, and seemed to be in direct conflict with segments of the society—led by such men as Martin Luther King—that fought for desegregation.
I also find it somewhat ironic that the separationist ideology on the one hand feel the need to keep apart from society, and then complain that they will never “become a full participant.” How do you reconcile that? And if you admit that the Black students benefitted by having to compete with White students at Princeton, then wouldn’t that suggest that the integrationist ideology again makes more sense?
As long as Blacks think that economic and educational success is a “White” ambition, then Blacks will forever remain “on the periphery”. This is not a problem that Government, or Whites, or anyone but Blacks can solve. It is the same problem that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams are aggressively addressing.
It is not a betrayal of the Black community to seek success.
It is a betrayal to perpetuate the belief that success means you have suddenly stopped being Black. Because the inverse statement to that is that failure is a Black trait.
If the Obamas really want to give us Change we can believe in, then this is the message that the Obamas need to address.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
