The GOP mystique: It’s a white thing

[michaelintp]

This is my last comment on the topic on this thread. I am really tired of it.  Please don't ask me anything further on this.

I know.  Just seemed to me that "something else" started happening.

That really is my feeling though.   

[Wise Son]

(1) Many people do find false accusations of wrongdoing to be offensive and wrong - that is why we have laws of libel and slander on the books;
(2) Many people do find the active use of offensive racial slurs, as slurs, to be offensive and wrong;
(3) Many people do find the negative stereotyping of an entire race to be offensive and wrong;
(4) Many people do find the fostering of "us vs. them" attitudes to be offensive and wrong. The same facts can be described to foster this hatred and fear, or they can be accurately and truthfully described in a way to foster the opposite, to bring people together.

I think everyone in this thread agrees with all of those things, and I don't think anyone in the thread has done any of those things.

So, it's good to go over those basics, but I don't think it affects too much.

So, yeah, we can leave it there.

 

[BmoreAkuma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1qcae9rdZc&feature=related

I hope it is to be honest.

Had to change it since I just grabbed a random video at work and couldn't view it.

[Redjack]

A fact is not susceptible to variant description. That's what fact means.

Either you describe a thing accurately or you leave bits out. if you leave bits out, you are not stating facts. Doing that intentionally is called lying.

By attempting to proscribe the means by which the offended may describe the offense you're attempting  to take control of the conversation by limiting the means of expression to what you find acceptable. This conversation is not yours to control nor is what you find acceptable relevant. The terms of this conversation are ours to set and yours to either accept or ignore. But you don't get to control them under the guise of "can't we all just get along."

Yes. We can.  

On our terms.

[Kristopher]

A fact is not susceptible to variant description. That's what fact means.

Either you describe a thing accurately or you leave bits out. if you leave bits out, you are not stating facts. Doing that intentionally is called lying.

By attempting to proscribe the means by which the offended may describe the offense you're attempting  to take control of the conversation by limiting the means of expression to what you find acceptable. This conversation is not yours to control nor is what you find acceptable relevant. The terms of this conversation are ours to set and yours to either accept or ignore. But you don't get to control them under the guise of "can't we all just get along."

Yes. We can.  

On our terms.

Well said.....again!
Mind if I borrow this?

[Redjack]

it's an open forum. I presume anyone can be quoted.

[Reginald Hudlin]

FIELD NEGRO:

I have to say a few words about the CPAC folks down in D.C. before I call it a night.

I want to say this in all seriousness to my conservative/republican friends, because I really care about you, and I really want a vibrant two party system here in A-merry-ca: Do you really think that you can win over most A-merry-cans by inviting white nationalist and separatist to your conference? If you do, you are making a big mistake. No matter how many times you shout the N word to the delight of the faithful, it will never change the fact that, to the rest of us, you all just look like an angry group of racist.

Diversity is not "weakening the American identity", it is making it stronger. Knuckle draggers like you will never see that because of the "extreme color arousal" you all suffer from. (Thanks for that phrase, Francis)

I kind of agree with this poster from Kos:

"So I went and searched the names of these guys and found dozens of hits on civil rights websites. I believe in free speech and would never seek to silence anyone... no matter how abhorrent their ideas are to me.

But the idea of having these guys on the same stage as Presidential candidates... and no one objected... not one of them or the attending members of congress so much as batted an eye over sharing the stage with these bigots.

White Supremacists Showcased At CPAC Conservative Conference
Excerpt:

Two white supremacists are set to speak at panels at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference that will also feature speeches by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
The first white supremacist is Peter Brimelow the owner of the website VDare, which is labeled by the SPLC as an anti-immigration hate website. VDare has featured the works of noted white supremacists, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Virginia Abernethy, Kevin MacDonald as well as conservative pundits, Michelle
Snip!

The other white supremacist is Robert “Bob” Vandervoort who spoke on a panel called “High Fences, Wide Gates: States vs. the Feds, the Rule of Law & American Identity.” Vandervoort works for the site ProEnglish.com and also was the organizer for Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance which met regularly with the Chicago Chapter of Council Of Conservative Citizens.

American Renaissance is white supremacist organization run by notorious racist Jared Taylor that organizes a conference of racists including neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan including David Duke and Stormfront owner, Don Black. The Council Of Conservative Citizens is another white supremacist organization." [Source]

But not a word from the "lamestream media". (I wonder why?)

Still, I am sure that one of my black conservative friends will come out with a statement condemning the CPAC folks any day now. Right guys?

[michaelintp]

Reginald, as I mentioned to you, I have not been following politics to the extent I was some years ago. I'm burned out on it. That said, I of course recognize the big national names.  

Perhaps fortunately, I recognize none of the names or organizations mentioned in the piece above. At least one, from the description, American Renaissance, sounds bad given the overtly racist organizations it has worked with. However, as to CPAC as a whole, it seems "Field Negro" may be engaging in some guilt-by-association here, by pointing out one speaker's alleged support for that organization, though it sounds like he (Vandervoort) was not speaking as a representative of that organization at the CPAC conference. Also by pointing out another speaker (Brimelow) who is in some capacity involved with the issue of immigration (again with references to things published by others, though I don't know the content of those specific articles referenced).

The blog you quote is largely short on specifics and heavy on name-calling and perhaps mischaracterizations. I understand that many on the Left view as "racist" anyone who believes that our nation's immigration laws should be enforced as to everyone and that illegal entry should not be encouraged and rewarded. They view it as "bigoted" that measures be instituted to prevent voter fraud. Many on the Left similarly believe that it is "xenophobic" to believe that there is a unifying value for our nation to speak one common language, English. As a result, it is not uncommon for Left-wing critics to distort their opponents' positions and engage in name calling ("racist," "bigot," etc.) where it is uncalled for.  Though, of course, doing so does serve an ideological and politcal agenda.

That said, sometimes the label fits. I agree that there are some elements on the Right, as well as the Left (as we've discussed), that pander to the worst elements and emotions. Which is why, to a significant extent, I'm fed up with all of it.

To the extent some persons who have been active with real hate groups are infiltrating the broader Conservative Movement, it is good for them to be identified. However, one should be careful in one's characterizations of others. Pro-legal-immigration, pro-legal-voting, and pro-English as a unifying language, are perfectly reasonable stances. Still, it is also the case that extremists do get involved with the immigration issue as well.

So why don't major politicians, Republican and Democrat, spend all their time condemning fringe assholes on the extreme Right and extreme Left, respectively? I imagine because they would rather focus attention on the areas of disagreement with their major opponents and with the other party.

Anyway ... I am spending most of my free recreational time watching TV shows and movies, instead of engaging in these sorts of discussions. Far more productive than endless fruitless political debate (particularly when it turns ugly, which sadly is not uncommon where politics and strong feelings are involved).

[Curtis Metcalf]

That said, sometimes the label fits. I agree that there are some elements on the Right, as well as the Left (as we've discussed), that pander to the worst elements and emotions. Which is why, to a significant extent, I'm fed up with all of it.

To the extent some persons who have been active with real hate groups are infiltrating the broader Conservative Movement, it is good for them to be identified. However, one should be careful in one's characterizations of others. Pro-legal-immigration, pro-legal-voting, and pro-English as a unifying language, are perfectly reasonable stances. Still, it is also the case that extremists do get involved with the immigration issue as well.

So why don't major politicians, Republican and Democrat, spend all their time condemning fringe assholes on the extreme Right and extreme Left, respectively? I imagine because they would rather focus attention on the areas of disagreement with their major opponents and with the other party.

I don't expect candidates to condemn every fringe asshole out there (as you put it so well). However, when CPAC invites the likes of Brimelow and Vandervoort to speak as panel members, I'm looking at them sideways. As far as I'm concerned, candidates that attend that conference have some explaining to do. If they're going to seek support from groups that invite and thus implicitly condone  supremacists, they need to say something lest we conclude that they also condone those supremacists.

[Curtis Metcalf]

By attempting to proscribe the means by which the offended may describe the offense you're attempting to take control of the conversation by limiting the means of expression to what you find acceptable. This conversation is not yours to control nor is what you find acceptable relevant. The terms of this conversation are ours to set and yours to either accept or ignore. But you don't get to control them under the guise of "can't we all just get along."

Yes. We can.  

On our terms.

It occurs to me that the very belief that one can/should control the terms of discussion is often the result of white privilege. 

[michaelintp]

Curtis, by swallowing Redjack's mischaracterization of everything I've said, if you are indeed doing so, you are revealing what an utter waste of time this is. People are free to frame issues any way they wish. Some wish to foster "us vs them" attitudes. Others do not. All I'm suggesting is that people should do so or not do so with eyes wide open. Whether the speaker is white or black.  

It is, in truth, not the white participant in this conversation who is demanding how issues be framed and by whom.  

Believe it or not, Curtis, I really thought you understood what I was saying and might be inclined to correct any misperception, based on our conversation. Instead you follow up with the above.  Yep, just another example of the privileged white man dictating what you can or cannot say.

Ohhh gawd. How pointless all of this is. To hell with it.

[Curtis Metcalf]

Curtis, by swallowing Redjack's mischaracterization of everything I've said, if you are indeed doing so, you are revealing what an utter waste of time this is. People are free to frame issues any way they wish. Some wish to foster "us vs them" attitudes. Others do not. All I'm suggesting is that people should do so or not do so with eyes wide open. Whether the speaker is white or black. 

It is, in truth, not the white participant in this conversation who is demanding how issues be framed and by whom. 

Believe it or not, Curtis, I really thought you understood what I was saying and might be inclined to correct any misperception, based on our conversation. Instead you follow up with the above.  Yep, just another example of the privileged white man dictating what you can or cannot say.

Michael, if you'll notice, I have leveled no such accusation at you. Just a statement that the dynamic in question occurs often which is true. And therefore, there is a sensitivity to it among many of us. If it doesn't apply to you, good. I'm willing to take your words at face value.

[Redjack]

There is no "us vs them" mentality being put forth. There is only a "truth vs BS" agenda at work. Often, when the truth is put forth, it stings and makes some people wish for softer language and easier conversations.  But softer language is, in this context, false language.

The War of Northern Aggression may be how many in the south perceive the Civil War but they are wrong. Using the former description feels better for them but it is a lie. And what is the purpose of the lie? To make them feel better about themselves when there's no legitimate "better" to be felt. The former lets them say i was just defending my town/way of life"  rather than, "I was willing to murder my fellow citizens over the right to enslave other human beings."  The former allows one to look at the brutalities of war committed under the southern banner as benign and heroic. The latter shows them to be the proto-nazis that they were and, more importantly, proclaimed themselves repeatedly to be.

Lots of white people in modern times don't like the use of the term "white privilege" because they don't perceive their lives to be that great or they think it means they're being described as part of an elite that doesn't' suffer.

That, too, is a self-serving lie.

White Privilege is a description of the absence of a particular set of troubles that, while common among non-whites, NEVER touch whites, at least, not in the West. Use of this term forces honest people to admit, yes, they don't have to carry a particular burden and, thus, don't have a true understanding of what that burden actually is. It also forces them to admit that the "mainstream" viewpoint they hold, the one that mitigates or refutes the concept of White Privilege, while often supported by other whites, is not, in fact, based upon anything more than social consensus which is not the same as being based upon facts.

The whining about the "us vs them" mentality is simply the hurt feelings of someone who's used to being relevant but who, in this particular context, is not.

You can marry into a new faith, in other words; you can change your nationality but, no matter how close you think you are to being black in the USA, if you're not actually black,  you don't get to describe the racist paradigms at work in this culture as anything like a 50/50 proposition with culpability on all sides. That dog simply does not know how to hunt.

So you can whine about it and pretend to the higher ground but the only people who will support you are those who are equally misguided and misinformed. The parity you claim to seek does not exist. To participate, you must defer. Just as you, as a non-physicist, would have to defer to the physicists in the room if engaging in a conversation about physics.

The implication that somehow all positions can be equal and that all deserve equal hearings and respect is, itself, insulting and patronizing when it comes to the subjects that have caused trouble here. Not all positions are equal. Not all opinions have merit. Some are just crap and, amongst adults, there's no harm or shame in describing them as crap.

No, there is not equal blame to go around and no, there is no parity of experience on this score. So, unfamiliar as it may be to some, those that don't have to carry the burden will have to defer to those who do when it comes to describing the burden and the means of alleviating it. If you can't do that, you're not ready to be in the conversation.

Those will always be the rules. They're not limited to these forums.

[michaelintp]

Actually, there is nothing dishonest or distortive in referring to "racial prejudice" "racial discrimination" and the "disadvantages" or "underprivilege" caused by them (which of course includes economic and social inequality). It is, however, more difficult to foster racial animosity against an entire race of people with such terms. Or to foster broad negative racial stereotypes, broad negative racial expectations, and broad negative racial fears.

All I am suggesting is that the wrong be accurately addressed without fostering broad racial misunderstanding and hate. Unless doing so is a part of one's objective, I suppose.

No matter the objective, it is better to be self-aware and aware of your impact on others.

[Redjack]

yes but your suggestion is, at absolute best, redundant as very few people here need such prodding. Taken on its face it's patronizing for the reasons I've laid out here and elsewhere. it's offensive because it PRESUMES the instructor's role for you, as if you have something to teach.

you don't. trust me on this. you don't. not on this. not here.

it's offensive because it PRESUMES that the "animosity" (I've seen precious little animosity here and almost never for entire ethnic groups. there is animosity between individuals but, on the whole, that's deserved. some people just don't get along.) is somehow spread around on an equal footing and the "us vs them" mentality is somehow based upon something other than facts and life experience. That's presuming also that "us vs them" is something that has been expressed which, again, it has mostly not been.

this is what i meant about you attempting to predetermine how and what language is used in order to have the conversation that makes you comfortable.  You don't get to do that and it's not because of "us" being against "them." Your comfort is simply not relevant. Making this very large, very complex conversation nice, for you, is not relevant or, frankly, desirable. Some things, accurately described, are ugly. Deal with it.

More to the point, no one's going to modify to suit you. It hasn't happened in the years you've been here and it's not going to happen in the future. This conversation is so much larger than your personal comfort zone that it's laughable to think anyone would modify their participation in it to suit you.

so, what we're left with is language and usages you don't like based, if one wants to be generous, upon political notions you have that place you in a "conservative" column and, very often, also in the apologists column, defending all but the most rabid and egregious racists on your "side" and using language that may seem reasonable to you but which we, especially those of us over 30 years old, have been hearing, over and over again, for decades.

These phrases and opinions may well be your own; they may even be new to you but they are not new to us. Been there. Done that. And so have my parents and their parents and theirs. This is  a collective, generational set of experiences, shared by people to form a rational consensus about a very real phenomenon which we then don't need to further describe because all of "us" know what we're talking about.

You'd like to disagree with that experience but all you have is unpleasant notions and what can be called theories if we're being charitable.  Again, nothing new to the majority of us.

You can't really be moved. You don't really wish to be moved but, instead, hope to find the proper argument that will convince at least some here of the correctness of your views on subjects connecting to "race" and racism.

If both sets of views were equal and equally supported, we'd be at an impasse. We're not. Only one "side" here is supported by facts, ugly or not, and it's not yours.

All this boils down to what you don't like which begs the question, "Who cares what you don't like?" or, to be really specific, "Why should anyone in these forums care what you don't like?"

This last is not rhetorical.

Why is it you think your admonitions, assumptions and directives have or should have value here?