Come someone please provide me with a list of things that aren’t racist?

Let's see if I've got this right:

· Complaining about Obama's failure to lead = racist
· Complaining about the administration’s “tax the rich” blather = racist
· Complaining about Obama’s “shop til you drop” spending policies = racist
· Complementing the Japanese on their resolve in the face of devastating earth quake and resulting tsunami = racist

Whoa, wait a minute. What?

Count me among those who are incredibly impressed by the actions of Japanese people. While we’re at it, count me among those who have asked themselves if they would act as admirably in a similar situation. Presumably you can also count me among the people that the venerable James Wolcott considers “racist”.

In Mr. Wolcott’s very small and tightly woven world the act of complementing one race is sure sign that speaker actually means to denigrate another. Well, not just any other race-The Race. Everybody got that?

Little Miss Attila is the current subject of dear Wolcott’s ire for posting “Japanese Urged To Try Rioting” along with this picture and a link to a bit of satire:

Wolcott might ask himself why the picture and accompanying link bother him so and why he so freely associates any mention of looting, or a lack therefore, with African Americans. There is definitely a waft of racism in the air but it doesn’t seem to be emanating from the Right.

Kudos to Darleen Click for hitting the nail on the head:

Of course, JaWo and his ilk can’t be challenged as “racist” even as they inexorably link values and principles with melanin level. Shorter JaWo, with pinkie extended and tonal refinement: “We can’t blame the darkies, they can’t help themselves. We must make allowances.”

Yep, those Democrat low-expectations have done wonders for family and community structure for African-Americans. No racism there. Nothing to see. Pack your backpack of white privilege and move on.
 

In the meantime, our Mr. Wolcott has fired another volley.  Pity really.  A real man knows when he's bested.  In any case, my money is on LMA in the third round.  Why the third round, you ask?  Because I expect her to toy with him a bit first.

Morgan Freeman Knows how to End Racism

I came across this at Don Surber's and at first Morgan's solution sounded a bit simplistic to me.  The more I thought about his words the more sense they made.  We seem to have had a re-emergence of the "other".  Everything, every event, every decision made since January 2008 has been framed by race.  Are we better off for it?

Morgan was speaking to something bigger than Black History month but that is good place to start.  Did the whole of the black man's contribution to American history occur in a single month or is it interwoven with our nation's story as a whole?  Why do we separate out the black man's contribution from the "big picture" and relegate it to a single month?

As a country we have arrived where we are together.  Our history should be told as a whole, without segregation, as it occurred.  If we teach our children about the growth of our country from infancy to today with attention to fact, the story of all of our citizens will be told.  Yes, some of our history is shameful.  We do no one any good by playing those periods down or by playing them up.  Instead, just tell it and allow all to be proud of our accomplishments and how far we have come. 

I read a comment the other day that said that because of Barack Obama it will be a hundred years before this country will elect another black man as president.  Really?  I think that Obama has set our race relations way, way back because of the way he couches everything in race in opposition to reality or even common sense but his policy failures have nothing to do with the color of his skin.  He embraces a failed ideology that is also embarrassed by Axlerod, Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid, etc.  His ideology doesn't have a color.  If Americans blame Obama's lack of leadership on the color of his skin and use that broken logic to prevent others whose only connection to Obama is the color of their skin from fully contributing to our society, we will be much the worse for it.

Racism as a Tool

In the Washington Examiner David Limbaugh lists a litany of events since the 2008 Presidential election that shows that Barack Obama is not out post racial but most racial president by far. Limbaugh concludes with a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that shows that the public’s belief that Obama has advanced racial relations as fallen from 6 in 10 who believe that relations have improved to 4 in 10. Nice job, Barry.

Referring to the DOJ’s mishandling of the Black Panther case John McWhorter, whose excellent PJTV interview with Joe Hicks can be seen here, said:

"The Obama folks should realize that they are enabling [the idea] that rules of civility are different for black people. It's a tired idea, and America is less tolerant of it by the year," said the Manhattan Institute's John McWhorter, who simultaneously dismissed the Panthers as "a bunch of grown men medicated on photos of Huey Newton playing cops and robbers."

Well that is the rub, isn’t it? There no longer appears to be equal justice under the law. Progressives view this as a “comeuppance” for a history of unequal treatment suffered by blacks. It is a backwards looking view. We can move backwards but why would anyone want to?

There are absolutely pockets of racism in this country but overall, the thought that this country is engrossed in institutional racism is, as McWhorter says in the PJTV interview, antiquated. By trying to revive the racism boogeyman Obama appears to be giving mouth to mouth to a long dead dog. Don't let appearances fool you, "racism" is one of the most powerful tools Obama has.

Racism is being used by this administration to distract the public from noticing that Obama has been a gawd awful failure. If you point out that the Stimulus didn’t stimulate, you are a racist. If you say that ObamaCare is a government infringement of individual rights, you are a racist. The same is true for the administration’s totally inept handling of the Gulf spill crisis and the Arizona immigration law debacle. The minute you point out any flaw in this administration, you are a racist.

Of course the only answer is to swear absolute fealty to Lord Obama. Anything less is, well, you know…

The Flummoxing of Matthews

I am sitting here trying to figure out what to make of this from Chris Matthews’ interview of Representative Bob Inglis :

MATTHEWS: How do you figure your state out? It's pretty conservative obviously. It's Strom Thurmond country in many ways and, and it has people like DeMint pretty far over and then people like Lindsey Graham who are sort of regular conservatives.(Note: by “regular conservatives” I believe that Matthews is referring to those who campaign as Republicans and legislate as Democrats) But then you nominated, your party has nominated an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley. Obviously an attractive candidate, she knows how to present herself obviously, but what's that about? Is that just an interesting little aspect? "It's okay to be Indian-American but we got a problem with this black president?" What's that about?

Matthews is confused because Conservatives are not being consistent in their racism. Matthews would do well to avoid our Florida elections lest his head explode. Down here we are pro-Rubio (Hispanic), pro-Adams (Black), pro-West (Black) and anti Obama all at the same time. Someone not of Matthews’ impressive intellectual heft might conclude that the objection to Obama lies in something other than race.  Matthews isn't falling for that trap.  No, Matthews would say without a hint of irony that by virtue of their conservatism Rubio, Adams, West, etc., aren't "real" minorities.  When the facts don't fit the narrative, facts be damned!
 
The problem with hiding behind the race card is that reality can't be checked.  Matthews and his followers haven't figured that out yet.  But if Matthews is confused now, I am betting that he will be downright flummoxed come November. 

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I'm only two beers in so I can't be drunk.  I don't do drugs so I can't be hallucinating.  What possible explanation can there be for this:

A clear pattern of behavior has emerged over the last 16 months. According to liberals, if you disagree with their thinking, and if you disagree with the Obama administration, you are not only wrong, you are a “racist.”

That is from Politico, I kid you not. 

The Politico post, written by Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, calls a spade a spade-something you don't often find outside of Conservative websites.  I strongly doubt that either Martin or Meckler will be rewarded for their insight or honesty.  They have spoken out against the narrative. 

The latest strike by the left comes from the NAACP, which has resolved that the tea party movement is inherently “racist.” At its most simple, this is a direct attack on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

The NAACP has long history of liberalism and racism.

If you are a conservative — including a conservative African-American — there is no room for you at the NAACP. If you have opinions that differ from the NAACP and the liberal establishment, and if you are African-American, you are an “Uncle Tom,” a “negro,” “not black enough” and “against our people.”

In other words, the NAACP fancies itself the thought police for millions of black Americans. Disagree with them and you will be ostracized and attacked. You will be subjected to public humiliation and racist commentary from NAACP leadership. The message is clear: Tow the line or pay the price.

But the NAACP does not stand alone in this regard. The left has a long history of using the race card. It has been pulled on people across the political spectrum.

Amen.

When Democrats say what they really think

From the New York Times:

Reid Apologizes for Remarks on Obama’s Color and ‘Dialect’

 Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, apologized on Saturday for once predicting that Barack Obama could become the country’s first black president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

When Trent Lott made racist remarks he was forced to step down, as well he should have.  But when Harry Reid states that Obama is acceptable because he's light-skinned and only speaks with a Negro dialect when he wants to, eh, no biggie.
 
How long will blacks (and women and Hispanics, etc.) be willing to be used by a political party that hasn't done one thing in return for their loyalty?  Blacks are pawns of the Democratic party and nothing more. 
 
Reid's words were racist and insulting and should be labeled as such.  Outrage shouldn't be based on the political party of the speaker but on the words themselves.  Blacks (and women and Hispanics, etc.) will never achieve equality so long as they fail to demand respect from all people.

Breaking News!

Jim Treacher uses racist imagery* to attract readers to The Daily Caller:

*Because everyone knows it is racist to show a black man bored out of his skull while listening to the inane ramblings of a potted plant.

This is Getting Tiresome UPDATED

Stacy McCain finds himself under attack, again, and this time it is Patrick Frey at Patterico's Pontifications who is kicking up the dust. I'm not going to go in to a long winded defense of Stacy because a) none is needed and b) I already went through all that when that puke Charles Johnson at LGF started flinging his feces in Stacy's direction. Anybody who is curious as to what I had to say back then can read it here and here.

I will admit I was in a bit of a muddle when this came up the other day and then tonight when the flames started flickering again I decided to figure out what was going on. I've spent the better part of the last couple of hours reading, and in some cases rereading, the relevant posts at Little Miss Attila, Protein Wisdom, Saberpoint and of course, The Other McCain. The thing is, I'm no less muddled than I was when I started out.

I enjoy reading Patterico's Pontification's so I'm in no mood to presume that Frey has any evil intent, although it is a little hard to avoid. Why is he pulling out a thirteen year old comment that Stacy made now? After this much time has lapsed the context has clearly faded making it nearly impossible for Stacy to defend himself. Frey says he isn't calling Stacy a racist and he says that he's only asking a question so what exactly are his intentions? He is clearly labeling Stacy's comment as "racist" sooooooooo?

I find the timing confusing and I find the source confusing. Frey should either explain what is motivation is for this line of attack or drop it altogether.

UPDATE

My phone rang at 7:40 this morning. Under normal circumstances, I would be sitting at my desk but the caller, the CFO at my place of employment, apparently forgot that I am on vacation and woke me up. (hey, why isn't he at work? never mind) Anyway, it was no use rolling over and going back to bed so I am back right where I left off last night.

I started by reading Cassandra's take over at Villainous Company. In order to understand Cassandra's point, it is necessary to know the two quotes:

“But at the same time we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference,” said Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City. “There’s just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other.”

And

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

The first part of the discussion revolves whether either or both of these two statements are "racist."

Devoid of any context, both statements appear racist to me but because I know the author of the second quote I view the statement from an entirely different mindset than would someone who reads the quote in "stand alone" mode. The reader, projects his or her own context on to the statement and by extension to the author. Or vice versa. Because I believe that Stacy McCain is not a racist I conclude that his statement is not racist. Which brings us back to Cassandra:

Regardless of the race of the speaker. And regardless of whether the second speaker is "one of us" (conservative, white) or "one of them" (liberal, black). Absent a convincing explanation of how those two statements differ semantically, if you refuse to apply the same standard then I can't help suspecting you of indulging in outcome-based moral reasoning.

Which doesn't strike me as intellectually honest. In fact, it strikes me as exactly the same kind of tribalism we conservatives love to point out on the Left: Ooooh! there's an unforgiving standard for people we don't agree with! And a different, far more lenient standard for those on "our side"! Would this post have aroused one tenth of the outrage it generated if the author of the second quote had been Michael Moore? I doubt it, because no one in his right mind defends Michael Moore.

So if we agree that we interpret statements through our own lens that brings us to the second part of the equation. Just as we pass judgement on Stacy based on our own context, so do we pass judgement on Frey for posting the comment based on our own context.

Frey posts the comment. Some readers of the comment conclude that the statement is racist. Those readers smear the author as a racist based on the statement. Others conclude that Frey set up the situation with the intent that it would result in the author being smeared. This is the conclusion that Donald at American Power reaches and he is being perfectly reasonable. Frey's position is that he was merely asking a question but his question doesn't lend itself to a dry academic discussion. If we agree that intent is dependent on context, the context of Frey's posting of Stacy's comment is that it comes suspiciously close to Charles Johnson's smear of Stacy. At best, Frey's timing was sloppy.

More at:

Memeorandum
Riehl World View

Why I Rarely Watch TV

I decided for a variety of reasons to take a break from blogging. So, needing, for a variety of reasons, to pursue something totally mindless, I turned on the TV. CSI Miami to be exact. And lo and behold, ripped from the headlines is a murdered census worker complete with a angry white woman. These days who else refuses to co-operate investigators, besides, you know, we, pro-government, knuckle dragging WAPY trailer trash sorts who have suddenly become anti-government, with the election of a black man.

Suddenly, by pure coincidence, we have a black woman, a “domestic” worker with a heavy accent, who expresses concern, but can’t get involved because her white mistress wouldn’t like it. Oh, and there’s a meth lab involved. I am assuming that is because, ala my former home state of Kentucky, if you’re against big government you are also pro illegal drugs. Sheesh, how many stereotypes can they pack in to one segment?

I’m not going to watch this all the way through. As much as I really, really need a break this isn’t it. I get up every and go to work. I belong to the segment of society that pays taxes. I take care of my parents. I help my grown children. I think I deserve better than to be cracked on by a bunch on over paid actors whose only claim to fame is that they can regurgitate lines on cue.

Totally aside, the census worker’s death had nothing to do with the fact that he worked for the government. Go figure. But the evil white woman got arrested.

I Guess I'm Just "Out of Step" UPDATE

In this case, "out of step" is code for "old fashioned" or maybe just old. American Power is reporting that six women are now claiming to have had affairs with Tiger Woods. "Affairs" may be too strong of a word, it appears that these young women were "booty calls." Whatever.

I can't think of any circumstance, or any man, that I would announce to the world that I had screwed around with them. In the case of a married man, I wouldn't even tell my best friend. I would be too embarrassed and ashamed. Yet, six women, so far have come out to say that they fooled around with Tiger Woods. Why?

If it is for money, whether in the form of a payoff or otherwise, it smacks of prostitution. If it is for "fame" it smacks of desperation. Who wants to be famous for being a whore? A month from now this story will have dropped off the radar and nobody will remember who these women are. I would be surprised if any of them even get fifteen minutes of fame. It seems like little reason to embarrass yourself over.

But I guess that is where the "old fashioned" comes in. I am projecting my values where they do not exist.

Read the American Power story here.

Related because it deals with Tiger Woods but otherwise unrelated, Legal Insurrection has news of the black communities reaction to the color of Tiger's flings. I would say that I thought we were beyond this but I recently learned otherwise when a dear friend's daughter married a black man. In my family, it is not an issue. Finding someone to spend your life with is an incredible thing, one I haven't managed. I can't think of anything less important to the qualities that make a good marriage than race.

UPDATE:

It seems like the color of Tiger's "ladies" is becoming a bigger story than the fact that he is a six (at least) timing cheat. Yukio Ngaby wrote a comment at Legal Insurrection recalling his own experiences of being married to a black woman and has followed up with a post at Critical Narrative:

But then the AP pushed this article upon us: "Tiger's troubles widen his distance from blacks." What's it about? Well, a lot of it's about the race of Woods' mistresses and the black community's attitude toward interracial marriage. My favorite quote from the article:

"On the one hand, Ebonie Johnson Cooper doesn't care that Tiger Woods' wife and alleged mistresses are white because Woods is 'quote-unquote not really black.'"

"But at the same time we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference,' said Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City. 'There's just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other."'

Preservation thing? This kind of language is the same crap that various white supremacist websites push...

Read Yukio's entire post. He makes the case that this nonsense would not be tolerated if it were being made by white people. It shouldn't be tolerated when it comes from black people either.