She is irritated ("Ned Williams is my favorite white person") by two recent posts of mine related to race--think of it as rhetorically rich food that she shouldn't eat so close to bed time given her Liberal sensibilities. Basically she says, "it's a black thing, you (Conservatives) wouldn't understand; so shut your pie hole." At least (as much as I can discern) she didn't accuse me of being a racist. Whew.
As you can imagine, I disagree.
To begin with, instead of responding to my actual opinions/posts, AuntB nicely--for her, paraphrases them to serve as a foil for how she would like to characterize my opinions. Well here's my response to the post AuntB wanted to write about race in America.
One of AuntB's main points is this:
You have a long row to hoe if you want to be taken seriously by black people. White people, especially white men, do not get to decide when a problem concerning black America is a “we” problem and when it’s a “they” problem, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.Not to mention a "tough row," AuntB. But I don't pretend to know what it is like to be a black American or to be able to truly empathize with them, or to imagine that I will ever have "credibility" with them if "credibility" means endorsing the NAACP's Left-wing political agenda. That being said, Bill Cosby can and so can Juan Williams. And what those two men and I (and there are a lot more frankly, it's just that these two are particularly "dangerous" to the Left and warrant destruction) have in common is that we are willing to acknowledge unhealthy trends and/or counter-productive behaviors deleterious to any distinguishable community. Sorry, but I think it is a minority of the black American community that believes single-parent childbirth, education-bashing and illicit drug use is of no cultural consequence.
Next, AuntB writes:
"Our whole history has been a series of white people doing what they thought was best for black people, what they thought was right, and most of the s**t we’ve done has been dev[a]statingly bad (to put it mildly). So, see what I’m saying? We have no credibility. We have no room to turn around and say, “Oh, hey, this time we’ve been looking in on you and watching how you do things and this time we clearly see what the problems are and so this time you have nothing to fear from the steps we’ll take to fix it.” Because almost every time we step in to fix things, we f**k things up."Screwing things up for blacks? Amen . . . I feel the same way about The Great Society and all other foolish (even though well-intended) Liberal "plans" to solve these problems. If only some Conservativish principles were given a try, then you could say "we," AuntB.
Otherwise, see above. But if being black is the prerequisite for opining, criticizing (or legitimately being concerned) then why all the hate for Cosby, Williams et al? Answer? The key is whether one dares to depart from enabling Liberal pablum.
Re. rap is nothing more than what whites want.
Well, since I criticize, don't consume and generally pontificate against such crap I can confidently say that I'm not a part of the scam. But I can also confidently say that such crap only exacerbates racism, the racial divide, glorification of such crap (even if only among whites). I also need to point out that there are more white consumers in general, and more white consumers who are not yet consumers of this crap to fuel the market. It is LUDICROUS to say that hip hop and rap media aren't pervasive in the black community, even though it is the potential for expanding the white market that drives the rap and hip hop biz.
Thinking she discerns a contradiction, AuntB writes:
So, which is it? Are black kids being ruined by rap music and lead astray into lives of crime or are black kids going to college? Or are they sneekily going to college to learn how to become better criminals, because they are smart enough to formulate such a devious plan but too stupid to not get that rap music you hear on the radio is describing a pretend world designed to appeal to and sell to white high school and college age boys?No contradictions here, just us irrefutable facts. AuntB doesn't seem too interested in the statistics, but the socio-racial alarmism of John Edwards (I know, I know, he's running for the Dem nomination--who can fault him?) was the point of my post. I'm not "bashing" Liberals or John Edwards for being wrong, I'm bashing them for being "race baiters" (apparently my use of that term was a particularly indigestible bite for AuntB) . . . that is, people, who (as I use the term) foster racial controversy on a given issue for some perceived advantage.
Lastly, AuntB writes:
. . . we make no effort to actually understand real black people. We don’t search out their voices. We just assume that what hits us on the tv or the radio or even Time magazine must be the unfiltered truth.Well, speak for yourself. It is true that John Edwards et al frequently misstate statistics about male blacks vis a vis prison and college. It is true that the Lefty netroots (among others) demonize the Juan O'Cosbies of the world for daring to point out the obvious.
And we’re wrong.
16 comments:
Have you ever listened to Kanye West's 'Jesus Walks?'
If not, give it a listen. Yes, there is some language in it. But it is one of the best gospel rap songs I've ever heard.
And Kanye has a much better chance of reaching the black youth than a white man...with good reason. But that's another debate.
Take a listen to it. You can d/l it from Napster, and I assume it's on ITunes as well.
I will admit right up front that I still resent West's outrageous comment about Dubya during the Katrina relief telethon.
But I will hear him out.
That being said, Bill Cosby can and so can Juan Williams.
Ok, so why not let them do it?
One thing the religious right is very good at (from such extensive practice I'd imagine) is telling everybody else how to live their lives. I'd guess at least a small part of this comes from genuine good intentions (assuming their way is clearly the best and so they think they're helping people out), and probably mostly because they don't have time to acknowledge the plank in their own eye if they keep busy pointing out the speck in their brother's.
Yeah; stop telling me how to live my life, dolphin.
But as for letting Juan Williams and Bill Cosby do the criticism, that's the whole point of my post. NO criticism is allowed. And, frankly, the problems are pretty serious (though not in the way you and John Edwards allege), so I'm willing to take the arrows.
They don't call it the 'white christian party' for nothin'!!!!...
That's some good propaganda. Keep spreadin' the division, William, it'll likely pay off for you Dems.
stop telling me how to live my life
I'm sorry. You'll have to fill me in on where I told you how to live your life. When you answer, remember to quote please.
And, frankly, the problems are pretty serious (though not in the way you and John Edwards allege)
And what exactly have I alleged? Again, quoting me would be nice in your answer.
Ok, so why not let them do it?
One thing the religious right is very good at (from such extensive practice I'd imagine) is telling everybody else how to live their lives. I'd guess at least a small part of this comes from genuine good intentions (assuming their way is clearly the best and so they think they're helping people out), and probably mostly because they don't have time to acknowledge the plank in their own eye if they keep busy pointing out the speck in their brother's.
Though you were definitely making judgments and calling me judgmental and advising we Religious Conservatives how we need to change, I was kind of kidding. We all make judgments--though we often use different standards.
But I have to admit that I've never read a statement from you saying that more male blacks are in prison than in college . . . so I shouldn't have assumed you've said it or thought it. But have you ever said and did it resonate with you?
advising we Religious Conservatives how we need to change
No, I was making an observation of your current behavior. I made no suggestion on how or even if you should change. Now if you ask, I'll be happy to make a suggestion.
We all make judgments--though we often use different standards.
Making a judgment is not the same thing as trying to "fix" somebody else.
But I have to admit that I've never read a statement from you saying that more male blacks are in prison than in college . . . so I shouldn't have assumed you've said it or thought it. But have you ever said and did it resonate with you?
I think we ought to be taking steps to prevent as many people as possible (whether black, white, yellow, orange or purple) from ending up in prison.
On an aside, I am rather surprised Aunt B (nor myself) noted the bait and switch you've done with this chain of posts. Bill O'Rielly is not under fire for suggesting that there are problems in the black community (or for trying to solve them, as if he were doing such a thing). He's under fire for being shocked that black people are capable of sitting down and having a civilized dinner.
Lastly, AuntB writes:
. . . we make no effort to actually understand real black people. We don’t search out their voices.
Well, she can speak for herself, though she has a habit of speaking/fabricating for others.
Aside from the many black Americans I know personally, many more have sought me out over the past 8 years to talk about one issue of concern: immigration, an issue that affects many facets of our lives this country today. But hey, she's right: no one, other than the immigration-control movement, is listening to them! On this issue anyway.
Donna,
I do believe that immigration is an issue that unites many typically un-united groups. Maybe this atypical broad coalition can force policy change.
dolphin,
I think you're playing with semantics, but it doesn't affect the issues. It's just funny how judgmental ("no, it's an observation!") you were in pointing out how judgmental Religious Conservatives are . . . but that's a side issue.
As far as a bait-n-switch, have you read O'Reilly's comments, in context? You've revealed your bias against him in your brief comments on the subject here, so I'd assert (and devoted this post to the fact) that his actual words aren't nearly as important as what you suspect he meant to say or suspect that he really thinks about blacks.
And you wonder why most blacks hate the GOP.
This Op/Ed in conservative Townhall.com shows why slavery in America wasn't all that bad and that Africans benefited from it.
William,
I read the op/ed, and I trust that people will read it and judge its meaning (and context) for themselves.
It's just funny how judgmental ("no, it's an observation!") you were in pointing out how judgmental Religious Conservatives are . . . but that's a side issue.
Yes, I'm judgmental on various things, but the point of my post wasn't to point out how judgmental Religious Conservatives are. I know I'm probably talking to a brick wall here because (it's a phenomenon I've written about on my own blog in the past) religious conservatives don't seem to recognize that one can actually disapprove of something without trying to enforce that viewpoint.
As far as a bait-n-switch, have you read O'Reilly's comments, in context?
I have. Have you?
You've revealed your bias against him in your brief comments on the subject here
I'd be interested in reading the brief comments I made on O'Reily here. Could you point them out? I've mentioned his name in only one comment and the comment was nothing more than pointing out what specifically people are upset over. Is simply acknowledging a controversy exists now "reveal[ing a] bias?" And what does it say about your bias towards him since you've dedicated multiple posts to the matter? (on a slight aside, it's interesting to see just how many words you're trying to put into my mouth in this particular thread. Is there a reason? I ask just because you haven't really done alot of that before)
I'd assert (and devoted this post to the fact) that his actual words aren't nearly as important as what you suspect he meant to say or suspect that he really thinks about blacks.
You may assert whatever you like. Whether you choose to be wrong or not is of no interest to me. Over on Lee's site I just defened (of all people) Rush Limbaugh, for having his words taken out of context.
I don't have to "suspect" anything about Bill O'Rielly's views to be offended by them. On this and numerous other topics he's more than clear on them himself.
dolphin,
I disapprove of all kinds of things and don't try to enforce them; indeed, most things of which I "disapprove" I don't try to enforce on anyone other than my children.
But whether you try to enforce or impose what you believe on others is not crucial to whether you are judgmental. You passed several judgments on me (as a Religious Conservative) in your first comment here. That's judgmental.
And as far as your brief comments about O'Reilly: "Bill O'Rielly is not under fire for suggesting that there are problems in the black community (or for trying to solve them, as if he were doing such a thing). He's under fire for being shocked that black people are capable of sitting down and having a civilized dinner."
Both of those comments (esp. the first one) reflect your view of O'Reilly. Since he didn't say he was shocked blahblahblah then you are interpreting the words he did say with a bias.
But whether you try to enforce or impose what you believe on others is not crucial to whether you are judgmental.
To which the only response I can come up with is "So?"
I'm not talking about private judgments you make yourself, I'm talking about trying to impose those on others.
Since he didn't say he was shocked blahblahblah then you are interpreting the words he did say with a bias.
Wow, you're reaching real hard here. Funny the post says you don't particularly care for Bill O'Reilly, yet here you are making yourself look like an utter fool (and I assume that you know you are) to defend the man.
He didn't say "shocked" he said he "couldn't get over the fact." If you think my paraphrase as shocked is evidence of bias, one wonders if you understand the meaning of the phrase "couldn't get over the fact." In fact, I'm actually now wondering if you think I'M trying to defend O'Reilly, because "shocked" certainly makes him look better than not even being able to get over it. There are many things that shock me but I get over them.
Post a Comment