The Mantra of White Supremacy - The Atlantic
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 3 years ago • 164 commentsBy: Ibram X. Kendi (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The idea that anti-racist is a code word for "anti-white" is the claim of avowed extremists.
By Ibram X. Kendi Fox News / Getty / The Atlantic November 30, 2021, 7 AM ETShare
About the author: Ibram X. Kendi is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities and the director of the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research. He is the author of several books, including the National Book Award-winning Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in Americaand How to Be an Antiracist.
====================================================================
Below a Democratic donkey, the Fox News graphic readANTI-WHITE MANIA. It flanked Tucker Carlson's face and overtook it in size. It was unmistakable. Which was the point.
The segment aired on June 25—the height of the manic attack on, and redefinition of, critical race theory, which Carlson has repeatedly cast as "anti-white." It was one of his most incendiary segments of the year. "The question is, and this is the question we should be meditating on, day in and day out, is how do we get out of this vortex, the cycle, before it's too late?" Carlson asked. "How do we save this country before we become Rwanda?"
David A. Graham: Tucker Carlson, unmasked
Some white Americans have been led to fear that they could be massacred like the Tutsis of Rwanda. CRT=Marxism, Marxism→Genocide Every time, read a sign at a June 23 Proud Boys demonstration in Miami. Other white Americans have been led to fear America's teachers—79 percent of whom are white—instructing "kids to identify in racial terms," as Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, said in May. "You are good or bad, depending on what you look like. At this point it is straight up anti-white racism. I don't think we're allowed to say that. But let's call it what it is."
Even when GOP politicians and operatives don't openly "call it what it is," they end up echoing Masters nonetheless, saying without saying that "critical race theory is explicitly anti-white," to use the words of Christopher F. Rufo, a travel-documentary filmmaker turned leading critic of CRT. At his final campaign rally, in Loudoun County, Virginia, Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin said, "What we won't do is teach our children to view everything through a lens of race where we divide them into buckets and one group is an oppressor and the other is a victim and we pit them against each other and we steal their dreams."
Republicans provoked a backlash against CRT, which they also call anti-racism or wokism. Their backlash won 2021 elections. "But it wasn't a backlash of parents," William Saletan found in his close study of polling data. "It was a backlash of white people."
How many Americans know that the claim that anti-racism is harmful to white people is one of the basic mantras of white-supremacist ideology? Americans are familiar with white-supremacist movements like the Klan, skinheads, neo-Nazis, and the Proud Boys. But they don't seem to recognize white-supremacist ideology—the most venomous form of racist ideology. I suspect that many Americans don't know how much white-supremacist ideology shapes their political thought and America's political discourse, and allows juries to exonerate racism and convict anti-racism.
With hisANTI-WHITE MANIA graphic, Tucker Carlson yet again presented the most dangerous mantra in American politics: Attacks on racism are really attacks on white Americans that lead to white people being harmed. "Anti-racism is anti-white" is the old and explosive mantra of avowed white supremacists. It has been their organizing vehicle, fueling their rage, fueling their backlashes, fueling their delusions.
All year long, this white-supremacist mantra has been fueling what Martin Luther King Jr. once called the "white backlash" against last year's racial reckoning. It is inciting voter-suppression policies and insurrections (to protect white political supremacy). It is inciting swarms of lies, insults, threats, and simulated killings of anti-racist Americans (who are branded as anti-white). It is inciting the false claim that anti-racist books and education are harmful to white children. It is inciting bans of those books and lessons. It is inciting the second assassination of King to justify those bans.
Ibram X. Kendi: There is no debate over critical race theory
Some Democrats have predictably made it a bipartisan affair. As Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the 1619 Project, recently told the Los Angeles Times, "This idea that racial reckoning has gone too far and now white people are the ones suffering is the most predictable thing in the world if you understand American history."
Centrists told abolitionists that they'd gone too far and provoked the backlash (causing southern secession). Centrists told King and other civil-rights activists that they'd gone too far and provoked the backlash (causing Democrats to lose elections in 1966 and 1968). Some centrist Democrats today say "woke" politics have gone too far and provoked the "wokelash" (causing Democrats to lose elections in 2021). "Some of these people need to go to a 'woke' detox center or something," the Democratic political strategist James Carville said after the 2021 elections. "They're expressing a language that people just don't use and there's backlash and a frustration at that." Actually, GOP operatives are expressing (or whistling) an anti-white language that anti-racists just don't use—and there's a backlash and frustration at that.
"Anti-racism is anti-white" is the mantra dividing the Democratic Party, especially since the 2021 elections. It is the mantra unifying the Republican Party, especially since the 2020 election. There are numerous variations on this mantra. "Wokism" or anti-racism or critical race theory or the 1619 Project or "cancel culture" or Black Lives Matter or anyone challenging racial inequity is said to be anti-white or racist or an anti-white racist. And variations on this mantra have become so ubiquitous in the American political discourse that people can easily dismiss or deny its origin in white-supremacist thought.
When Robert Whitaker, 76, died in June 2017, white supremacists reflected on his legacy online. "Perhaps his most important, and most lasting, legacy is that his incessant promotion of the term 'anti-white' is now slowly but surely going mainstream," someone named "Bellatrix" said on Stormfront, the prominent white-supremacist website. "A very important corner to turn indeed, as it is the rebuttal of the accusation of racist."
Whitaker, a former economics professor and Reagan appointee to the Office of Personnel Management, had been radicalized as a young man in opposition to the civil-rights movement. He was a propagandist for more than half a century. But Whitaker's fame among the most extreme white supremacists came toward the end of his life, when he wrote a screed called "The Mantra."
"Everybody says there is this race problem. Everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries," Whitaker wrote in "The Mantra," which he first posted on his blog and the websites of a neo-Nazi organization in 2006. "But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."
"The Mantra" ends with what has become the new mantra in American politics: "They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
Over the next decade, and particularly after Barack Obama's election, a self-identified "swarm" of online trolls posted quotes and reprinted "The Mantra" online wherever they could, and attacked anti-racists as "racist" whenever they could.
Whitaker's mantra has been linked to some of the deadliest acts of white-supremacist terror over the past decade. Anders Breivik murdered 77 people in Norway in 2011. On the day of his terrorist attack, the leader of the swarm, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as Michigan anti-Semite Timothy Gallaher Murdock, was among some 1,000 people to whom Breivik sent his 1,500-page manifesto. The manifesto raged against "anti-racist witch hunts" and how "the slightest excuse to label whites as 'racist' is continually sought"; it railed against the "quasi-religious undercurrent to the anti-racist movement"; it seethed against the "ridiculous pursuit of equality." And, again and again, Breivik numbered himself among the real victims. "I consider myself to be an anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi," he wrote. "That's the main reason why I oppose Cultural Communism/European multiculturalism. THEY are the Nazis, they are the fascists and they are the racists! I have witnessed much racism in my time but 90% of it has been against Europeans."
From the April 2019 issue: White nationalism's deep American roots
Dylann Roof, who in 2015 murdered nine Bible-studying African Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, posted his manifesto on a website named The Last Rhodesian. He included photographs of himself wearing a jacket patched with an old flag of Rhodesia, a former white-supremacist colony in southern Africa. Whitaker lived in Roof's hometown of Columbia, South Carolina, but there's no evidence Roof and Whitaker had any direct contact. But Roof might have had contact with Whitaker's ideas.
Many Americans have had contact with Whitaker's ideas, likely without knowing it. In the days after Roof's massacre, Morris Dees and J. Richard Cohen, the founder and president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, pointed this out. "In recent years, extremists have distilled the notion of white genocide to 'the mantra,' parts of which show up on billboards throughout the South, as well as Internet chat rooms," they wrote in June 2015. "It proclaims 'Diversity = White Genocide' and 'Diversity Means Chasing Down the Last White Person,' blaming multiculturalism for undermining the 'white race.'"
White supremacists were quietly organizing elements of what's now Donald Trump's base. From the earliest days of Trump's presidential campaign in 2015, his support has been most concentrated among white Americans who think anti-whiteness is ascendant. Trump voters typically considered racism against white people to be a bigger problem than racism against people of color. Among white Americans who don't think there's much anti-white racism, support for Republican presidential candidates has actually fallen over the past decade.
Whitaker did not create the mantra. He reproduced it. Since the very first Civil Rights Act, white supremacists have cast anti-racist bills as racist toward white people. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizenship, granted it to African Americans, and affirmed that all citizens are equally protected by the law. But President Andrew Johnson vetoed it, arguing that "the distinction of race and color is by the bill made to operate in favor of the colored against the white race." In an address to Congress in 1867, Johnson opposed voting rights for Black men, fearing "the dread of Negro supremacy" and the "subjection" of "white people of the South." In his best-selling 1874 book, the journalist James S. Pike described South Carolina's interracial legislature as denying "the exercise of the rights of white communities, because they are white." When an anti-lynching bill came before the U.S. Senate in 1938, Senator and lifelong Klansman Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi said its passage "will open the floodgates of hell in the South."
When a new civil-rights plank was added to the Democratic Party's platform, southern segregationists walked out of the Democratic National Convention in 1948. They formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, known popularly as the Dixiecrats, running Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for U.S. president. "We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a [civil-rights] program would be utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the Southern people," their platform stated.
Thomas Abernethy, the Jim Crow segregationist and U.S. representative from Mississippi, feared that the Civil Rights Act of 1957 would create "nothing short of an assemblage of powerful Federal meddlers and spies created for the purpose of tormenting, abusing, and embarrassing southern white people." During his 24-hour-long filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Thurmond cited a newspaper article that warned of the "persecution" that white people could face under the law.
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, opponents of racial equity largely stopped openly claiming that anti-racist measures were harmful to white people. They instead claimed that anti-racist efforts to remedy racial inequality constituted "reverse discrimination" or "reverse racism" (against white people). They weaponized the very Civil Rights Acts they had long opposed against the policies and programs leading to integration, enfranchisement, racial equity, and racial justice. When the medicine is rebranded as the disease, the disease will inevitably persist—and it has.
Allen J. Ellender, the Jim Crow segregationist and senator from Louisiana, framed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as "discrimination ... being practiced to wipe out discrimination." In a televised presidential-campaign speech in 1976, Ronald Reagan said, "If you happen to belong to an ethnic group not recognized by the federal government as entitled to special treatment, you are a victim of reverse discrimination." In 1995, Senator Phil Gramm of Texas said, "You cannot give somebody preference over somebody else without discriminating against the person who is not receiving the preference." Or, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2009, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
For five decades since the civil-rights movement, Republicans (and many non-Republicans) have expressed two conflicting racial mantras: (1) racism no longer exists, and (2) racism is spreading against white people. Since Joe Biden's election, this second mantra has overtaken the first.
White-supremacist ideology lives on what Heather McGhee calls the "zero-sum myth," the idea that progress for people of color necessarily comes at white folks' expense. This zero-sum myth erases the past and present of abolitionist and anti-racist movements, which have aided ordinary white people. It fearmongers about the future: If white people are not worshipped in schools, then they will be demonized; if white people don't reign supreme, then they will be subjugated; if white people don't hoard resources and opportunities, then they will be starved; if white people cannot kill at will, then they will be killed at will. White violence is presumed to be self-defense. Defending yourself against a white supremacist is presumed to be a criminal act.
Read: The language of white supremacy
Extreme fear perhaps breeds this extreme fear. White supremacists probably fear revenge, retaliation, the tables turning—as they wipe the blood of democracy, of equality, of the dying and dead off their hands. Like the enslavers of old sleeping with guns under their pillows, they know the level of brutality they have leveled against people of color and their white allies. They probably can't imagine that Indigenous anti-racists just want their land back and aren't genocidal; that Black anti-racists just want reparations and don't want to enslave; that Asian anti-racists just want to be visible and don't want to render white people invisible; that Latino and Middle Eastern anti-racists just want to flee violence and don't want to invade predominantly white nations. White supremacists are mobilizing against an anti-white army that isn't mobilizing, that isn't coming, that isn't there. Then again, if there is an army that is mobilizing, that is coming, that is here—it is made up of white supremacists. Their carnage is here. Their ideology, too.
In 1956, 19 senators and 77 representatives issued a manifesto. "Parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children," the legislators wrote. They decried "destroying the amicable relations between" the "races" and the planting of "hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding." They feared that "if done, this is certain to destroy the system of public education in some of the states."
These Jim Crow congressmen expressed "the gravest concern" for this "dangerous condition." These avowed segregationists cast their ilk as "the victims." These white supremacists commended all who "have declared the intention to resist" the desegregation of schools. Sixty-five years ago, they did their best to redefine desegregation and racial equality as anti-white mania.
History reproduces itself. But when people don't know history—or are barred from learning it—how can they ever recognize its reproduction?
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
This article is by the white supremacist's favorite booger man, Ibram X. Kendi.
... and seeded from what's becoming a fave boogeyman magazine, The Atlantic, by fave NT boogeyman JR.
We could end racism , maybe within a generation, but its not going to happen unless whites acknowledge its existence past and present.
The sad part is its not even hard to do.
The mantra of white suprenacy.
Today's gop/republicans/alleged conservatives
I understand it is after 5pm, working hours, and you will not be on here now, but tomorrow after 9am, how about showing us your proof of the GOP being white supremacists...
Besides you pn'ing us and calling us this
Ridiculous and unproven---of course.
Some just hear the dog whistles of their handlers, and are told to project their racism to the rest of us.
Some do it far better than others.
Sadly, all too true.
But at least it is something that some folks revel and excel in.
A couple of posters here come to mind.
Where in the hell did that hogwash come from?????????
[deleted]
Thread cleared for no value.
The threat from White Supremacy in this country while real, is very much overblown compared to other MUCH more serious threats like China, Russia, BLM, antifa and other radical fundamentalists.
But its a fun target for liberals and progressives to hammer away on. It's regularly the soup of the day.
That about sums it up.
The author precisely puts his finger on it.
Opinions do vary John, greatly in this case.
The big mistake black and anti - racist activists made was their assumption there had been a mass shift in white attitudes based on the number of white people who came out to protest the George Floyd murder.
The biggest mistake "white people" who were at those protests made was to believe the hype that incidents like George Floyd's were primarily racially motivated. Chauvin was a just piece of shit cop who should have been gone long before the Floyd incident.
The fact that he wasn't had nothing to do with race but rather with liberal Police Union protections of turds like him.
And make no mistake. Floyd was no peach either .....
Police unions are not liberal.
Then explain how Chauvin kept his job all those years after so much misconduct?
You're damn right their policies are liberal. Most unions are.
I find it hard to take anything from The Atlantic or Kendi seriously.
Looks like a conspiracy thing to me - ya think?
Kinda like "The sky is falling - the sky is falling".
[deleted]
You need to read more thoroughly John. I didn't say unions were liberal, i said their polices and procedures at play here were liberal.
Big difference.
Now, you still haven't explained how Chauvin kept his job. i suspect i know your answer but i'd like you to share it just the same if you will
LOL
Yep but it's nice to challenge it from time to time just for posterity's sake.
Good discussion .... mostly .....
Still no answer i see .... weak
Next .....
Removed for context - sandy
Yep.
The answer is you are wrong. I thought that was obvious.
You are arguing that conservative police unions have liberal policies. It is silly.
Lol ... not even a good attempt to deflect from the real question John. Here, let me remind for the fourth time.
Man up, answer the question.
Because conservative police departments and police unions unions usually protect conservative bigots from consequence. They clearly feel that protecting the supposed "thin blue line" from any scrutiny and responsibility to be more important than getting rid of the bad apples. If they were liberal police unions they would be quickly getting rid of the bigots and 'chauvinists' who abuse their position of authority to lord it over minorities and would make diversity training regular and mandatory.
Please name one conservative police department and union, and how you determined they were conservative.
Bullshit, it usually has nothing to do with bigotry or of any color except for blue. It has everything to do with a God complex some cops tend to get
Police unions protect bad cops like this to the detriment of ALL the people they are supposed to be protecting.
It's really no more complicated than that.
This is the kind of rhetoric that radicalized Darrell Brooks.
Thread cleared for no value.
I just love how these idiot think anti-white is not the same as anti-black. Not quite smart enough to realize no matter how you look at it, it's racism. The very thing they claim to be against.
I know. One can convince themselves that a lot that is wrong, is really right, in the pursuit of a preferred narrative.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You claimed that slavery in America was not based on race. [deleted]
So true. Zip, zilch, nada.
But yet you have done nothing to prove otherwise.
Some reading for you. THESE are what the US is founded on.
Opinions do vary on that, greatly in this case.
His credibility is zero because he claimed, in numerous posts , that because some blacks owned slaves, that shows that slavery in America was not based on race and racism.
It is staggeringly easy to prove that slavery in America was based on race and racism.
Therefore, he has no credibility. You cant be wrong about something so simple to understand and maintain credibility.
And no, opinions do not vary about that.
You dont know what you are talking about. I am not going to waste my time "proving" anything to you.
You could prove it to yourself with a minimal of google searching.
Classic losing debate strategy. Refusing to prove your point.
Just admit you lost this debate as well and move on.
You'd be way better off not saying anything [deleted]
Now on to the gaslighting technique ..... sad.
Still no answer to the question which becomes more and more telling by the moment
The Birth of Race-Based Slavery - Slate Magazine
During the second half of the 17th century, a terrible transformation, the enslavement of people solely on the basis of race, occurred in the lives of African Americans living in North America.
How Slavery Became the Law of the Land "For Blacks Only ...
The Rise of Race-Based Slavery. The system of basing slavery on a person’s race did not occur in the first years of settlement. Race-based slavery began in the mid-1600s. By the 1660s, slavery was reserved for Africans only. With a series of laws passed from the 1660s to the 1680s, slavery became codified. With these laws, blacks became slaves for life.
From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
Slavery was not only a life-long condition; now it could be passed, like skin color, from generation to generation . In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation ...
It takes literally a few seconds to find such information. And there is far more than this.
[deleted]
Damn, it's amazing that's the best you got John and still no answer to the question
How many white people were forced into slavery?
Yes, there were indentured servants who worked for room and board for a set period then given their freedom. There were also POC indentured servants. But as slavery became the norm...how many white people were forced into slavery?
So, the Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Asians, etc.. could never be slaves 'cause they're not Black?
Got it.
[deleted]
I hear ya brother or gets someone else like minded to do it for tacit deniability.
It's called the stutter-step or delayed fuse report
This place can be more fun than a barrel of monkeys at times
Of course you don't know what I'm talking about. That would make you wrong.
And yet a "minimal of google searching" seems to be outside of your capability.
I've got a bone to pick with Romans (Italians) Germans and Russians. My people have been enslaved by all of them at one point in time or another.
I figure i can get at least a triple dip out of this deal .... working on it.
There are a few others that do the same thing.
Lets start with During the 1650s , over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from their parents, and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the America
Google is your friend.
No, he doesn't. John doesn't flag.
They're people of color, are they not?
Not to mention the million Europeans enslaved by the Barbary Coast Muslims
Yes, I understand that were many Irish sold into "slavery" during that period of time. But did you read John's comment at 6.3.9?:
This was in the South, ya know, that area south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Went as far west as Oklahoma.
But how many whites were sold into slavery after these laws were enacted? You were the one that brought up that slavery was not based on racism. I am not the one who needs to do the Google search. This is how debate works, you make an assertion, you must provide the proof
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too - The New ...
Irish Slaves Myth
Were There Irish Slaves in America, Too? | Snopes.com
Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”. There were no Irish slaves in the ...
The Irish Slaves Myth - Professor Buzzkill
I hate to have to say it, but the denial that slavery was race based (as of mid 1600's) is a tell tale indication that the person is likely racist.
They make their beds let them lie in it.
[deleted]
Many Irish plantation owners owned slaves. The South was primarily settled by the Scots-Irish and the British
One of your buddies regularly links Snopes
You do have to include Native Americans, Chinese, and Japanese into the slave trade. The Chinese and the Japanese on the West Coast came to this country pretty much like the Irish indentured servants did and were treated poorly. The Chinese especially were instrumental in laying the rail road tracks in the West
[deleted]
Not according to his 6.3.9. - only Blacks were included in race.
Every "race" except whites has been discriminated against in America. In short time though, slavery became based on Negro (African) racial inferiority.
Then the other people should have been added
And then there was Cali that enslaved Blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, etc..- little bit further west than Okla.
You're really not following the thread, are you. I already mentioned the West Coast slaves
[deleted]
Agreed.
No, he goes directly to Perrie.
yeah....not so much. Trust me on this
As did I - ahead of yours - in 6.3.13 - which is probably why I didn't see yours until after you posted it.
Believe me - I always trust your comments.
I flagged 1st warriors first comment on this seed because he has the bad habit, for years now, of openly complaining about what type of articles I seed or write. Usually, I let it go. He has been getting worse again lately though so I flagged it as off topic.
You are right though TG, generally I do not flag anything.
Good for you! You have to exercise that flagging finger or it will atrophy
I go by the "if the shoe fits" theory.
he's all over the fucking map. his last 2 seeds were an exercise in rightwing hypocrisy.
1st's only crime here is not automatically goosestepping to a loony left wing Jodi.
For which he is now being dogpiled on from some of the usual suspects.
SOSDD
So my last two seeds dealing with the Sand Creek massacre were/are rightwing hypocrisy?
Guess you should have read them.
Let it go 1st, it's not worth one tick on your blood pressure.
Not one.
As far as I am concerned 1st can say whatever he wants as long as he addresses the topic. Rather, he often complains about the topic. Just like most of you on the right do.
I get multiple comments here every day not addressing the topics I post but rather complaining about that the topics even exist. I have to put up with this shit every day because that is what Perrie wants and in fact requires.
By all means tell us about the prejudice you have faced that is akin to what people of color deal with from white racism.
SMH
You ever go to an all black restaurant or bar? How about a funeral for a former black fellow employee?
Thank you for that permission John
.
Again - I'm not a "right winger" nor a "left winger" - I'm an Independent and proudly point out areas of each side I disagree with - but, those are my opinions and no one elses. Yes, Independents don't always have the right idea(s), but their ideas are more in line with the way I was raised - Native American, White and Black (we've had this discussion a few times already).
I expect an author of a seed/thread/article to be able to answer questions on areas I "think" I need clarification about. Unfortunately, the questions, in some cases, aren't/won't be answered, so, again, unfortunately I'll ask again and probably a third time.
I ask a question, I expect "some sort" of an answer - simple - a common courtesy sort of thing, ya know?
Oh p!ease.
You neglected to include your arrogant and possibly passive aggressive chuckle
But you weren't referring to being a woman in your comment to s Sparty were you? You're just back pedaling now
Of course I will dear
I have lived in majority black neighborhoods almost all my life.
I went to my BLACK now retired office manager's mother's funeral.
WTF kind of question is that?
Did you feel uncomfortable? Imagine feeling like that everywhere you go
I have been to all black restaurants. I dont think I ever went to the funeral of a black co-worker because I dont recall any dying while we were working together.
But you are right, they are irrelevant questions.
Yes I did and good point
It's funny. The racism I experienced were all up north, especially in college. My second grade teacher was black and favored the black kids over the white kids. As I grew up I came to understand why.
I don't experience any racism from black people here in the South.
Gotta agree with you there. My experiences I shared above that some deem a WTF and/or irrelevant question were also up north when I lived there. Since moving to Tennessee, then Alabama and finally here in NC, hardly any at all. Weird huh?
Well John, once again opinions do vary and once again they vary greatly in this case.
That said if it's so bad here why do keep coming back?
Why do you play words games and not answer questions that have been posed to you?
Why do you have a tendency of resorting to insulting the person that simply disagrees with you?
Once again i think i know that answer but once again would like you for once to actually answer some questions.
I dont answer questions into perpetuity because someone on the right cant think of anything else to say.
Should I keep posting evidence that slavery was a race based institution in America ?, because there is a lot more of it.
Here, let me fix that for you.
I dont answer questions at all when someone simply disagrees with me and i cant think of a way it doesn't blow my point out of the water.
It's all about their "feelings". They don't feel guilty about being anti-white. They do feel bad about being called racist, so they just pretend their racism isn't really racism.
I'm sure somebody will be along to demonstrate this for us presently.
Only dumbasses think they are the same.
John, have you ever experienced black on white racism? It exists. It's not as virulent as white on black racism
Of course there are black racists.
Take the Black Panthers. You could say they were racist, of course. But black racism is almost always a reaction to what these blacks perceive as the effect of white racism.
Rev Wright, Obama's pastor , led what was called the most afrocentric church in America at the time. He preached what is known as Black Liberation Theology
In Black Liberation Theology there would be prayers for God to punish the white race, but not because whites are inferior, but because of whites had historically done to people of color. It is a reactionary racism.
Wright would tell his parishioners to shun whites. Not because he thought whites were inferior but because he believed that whites would never treat blacks fairly and it was pointless.
Generally speaking anti- black racism and anti-white racism come from completely different places.
You are correct
It's still racism.
". eology lives on what Heather McGhee calls the "zero-sum myth," the idea that progress for people of color necessarily comes at white folks' expense."
Says the "the author who justifies future discrimination on the basis of past discrimination"
Unless he's claiming that racial discrimination doesn't harm anyone, but I doubt that's the point he's trying to make.
We've seen this MO play out a thousand times. Racist far left argument gets exposed to public scrutiny and the it's proponents scream white supremacy because they can't defend their racism.
Left wing racism works best in hiding, when exposed to sunlight normal people are justifiably horrified.
We regularly justify future punishment for past criminal actions.
If you had someone stealing 70% of your income and stuff for decades and every time you complained to the authorities they said that's just how life is but then finally laws were passed that protected you an made their thieving illegal and prosecutable so they stopped stealing, should that be the end of it? Should the victim simply say "Okay, now that you've stopped stealing we're all even"? Would that be justice? Or might you want to sue for all the things that had been stolen from you for decades?
Should Native Americans just give up trying to get the lands promised them in broken treaties just because those who stole the lands are long dead? Should they just say "It's water under the bridge, nothing we can do about it now, our lands were stolen right out from under us to white people and white companies that have profited hugely off our resources and sacred lands but we should just be thankful for the tiny reservations they shoved us on to and forget about it."?
Is there any way for white Americans to pay back what they owe to Native Americans and black Americans? Of course not, it would be impossible to calculate what that bill would come to. But that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and pretend it never happened. The least we could do is share the wealth and fund programs to give them a hand up, even if it means using affirmative action. We've had white affirmative action for several hundred years and its still happening in many places, it's just unspoken. There are still white owned businesses, colleges, landlords, lenders and communities that seem for some reason to only rent to, hire or accept white applicants and while there may not be an openly racist rule or law on the books that denies minorities acceptance, it still happens.
Here's just one example of the silent systemic racism that still effects minorities all while arrogant white assholes tell them systemic racism doesn't exist and that they should shut the fuck up or it's reverse anti-white racism for even pointing out the racism.
Can you provide some examples, please?
From the video
"39% of our tests revealed Fair Housing violations. "
This was 2018.
"Jan 6 rioter who assaulted police officer gets 41 months in jail."
Virtually every criminal who was arrested, tried and convicted were given a future punishment for a past crime. How is that not obvious? Sadly, we also have a disproportional number of black Americans who are being punished for crimes they did not commit because of the systemic racism in our justice system.
"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent
defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the
1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016)"
Yes, but they looked guilty.
I think the concept of the judicial system and punishment escapes you.
Sentences are ALWAYS for crimes someone has been found guilty of, not one damn thing to do with future actions.
He wants to punish people for crimes other people of the same race committed.
It's collective punishment, similar to the theory employed by the Nazis, Soviets and other totalitarian regimes. When you don't care about individual rights, punishing innocent people for the crimes of their "group" makes sense, I guess.
As is taught to every first year law student, the purpose of our criminal law system is two-fold, both to punish the guilty offender and to act as a deterrent, i.e., to prevent future criminal actions. So, you're wrong.
Acting as a deterrent is hardly "justifying future punishments for past criminal actions" no matter how you spin it.
That's not my comment. You're spinning like a top.
Let me know when someone accuses you, individually, of being guilty of some past racial offense related to slavery or Jim Crow.
This is not a matter of individual guilt, therefore YOU are not guilty.
Who is responsible for centuries of racial discrimination? No one?
I will ask you again, if the past doesnt matter, why do we teach kids , or anyone for that matter, to admire and emulate past heroes?
Yeah, I can't stand that crap.
To me, it is fucking idiotic to punish people for their race.
Black, white, brown, red, yellow--all should be judged solely on THEIR actions alone. I guess I just like justice to be administered fairly, I'm funny like that and won't be coerced into some false sense of "white guilt" to change my mind on THAT.
No shit. It is the comment I was responding TO before you jumped in, so there is that.
Cut the crap.
This is not a matter of individual guilt, therefore YOU are not guilty.
I don't believe in collective guilt. If racial discrimination wasn't justified in 1950, it's not justified now. That's the point. You don't punish people for the crimes others committed centuries ago.
ho is responsible for centuries of racial discrimination? No one?
The people who did it. Some avoided a reckoning. Some died on the battlefield. Justice isn't perfect. If you expect that, you'll have to hope to find it in the next world.
you again, if the past doesnt matter,
When did I ever claim the past doesn't matter?
The crap is thick is your ignorant comment. Layers thick.
Okay ,.
Calm down.
You are punished not for future actions but for past actions. How is that not obvious to you? Crimes committed in the past are punished in the future. It would be a crime to incarcerate someone who didn't commit any crime, it would be wrongful imprisonment.
Future discrimination aka "punishment" in the form of affirmative action or reparations for victims based upon past discrimination aka crimes in the form of slavery, Jim Crow laws, mistreatment, abuse, lynching's, taking of property and goods and redistributing them among whites.
True justice would likely look more like having whites live under the same conditions they forced minorities to live under for the next few hundred years, so asking for some small effort to make society more equitable is miniscule in comparison. Of course most of the sniveling white bigots who keep refusing to accept that systemic racism exists or that they should feel even the tiniest bit responsible wouldn't be able to survive under those conditions, they'd whine and drown themselves in their tears and screaming of injustice. They've always been able to dish it out but never been able to take it.
Obviously we disagree on just about everything you wrote.
Whatever you personally have stolen, you should give back.
Maybe we could pass a law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion and national origin. Oh....wait....
Excellent. Then we can get on with our lives.
The people who committed acts of racial discrimination. This isn't a difficult concept.
Apparently it is for those determined to assign guilt on color.
So....we don't punish people for crimes they didn't actually commit, because they are not responsible for those actions.
Excellent.
And yet......
So hang on.... you just said that people who didn't actually commit crimes are not responsible for them. But they're supposed to "feel responsible"? Riiiiiiight.
How do you return several centuries of theft that is now in the pockets and legacies of the thieves descendants?
Yes, those laws exist, do you think that automatically stops all racism? Did you even bother watching the video I linked in 7.1? It clearly shows the continued underbelly of systemic racism and segregation that is alive and well in America.
Pretending that racism has just magically disappeared because we've passed laws that say you can't do it openly and brazenly is just sticking your head in the sand. Oh, and the fact is we do punish people for crimes they didn't actually commit and at many times the rate for black Americans which once again proves systemic racism still exists.
Should the blame lay only with the business owners who put up the whites only signs on their businesses, or should some blame also be placed on those who frequented those establishments and profited off the overt racism? Should the blame only be placed on those who denied blacks the jobs, bank loans or the ability to buy or rent in white neighborhoods? Or should some of that blame also lay at the feet of those who benefited from the discrimination, got the loans, jobs and could feel safe in their white neighborhoods? When a thief sells goods to a pawn shop, should only the thief be punished? Or does the pawn shop owner who knows they are stolen goods share in some of the guilt? Sad lazy bigots will of course claim systemic racism doesn't exist anymore and they have no responsibility to the victims.
There is so much nonsense in this whole ocean of foolishness it's difficult to know where to begin.
Words like "stolen" and "theft" make great teenage melodrama. But you have yet to detail what was stolen and by whom.
Of course not. But how do you propose to achieve that, exactly?
Pretending I'm pretending that is rampant intellectual laziness. Put forth some effort that goes beyond your "feelings".
What about the overwhelming majority of Americans who never did either?
John Oliver did an entire segment on this a while back on Last Week Tonight. It's on the books in many places to not let those undesirable black folks infest their neighborhoods.
That goes without saying, on any issue.
Most educated, intelligent, and rational people of sound mind are not persuaded by these baseless nebulous notions of systemic racism and white supremacy. More losing tactics for the left.
The obsession with race in this day and age is baffling to say the least.
As if talking about it day after day after day is changing things in the past.
Churches--black, white, or pink with yellow polka dots---praying for punishment of any race is nonsense and should not be acknowledged except to point out how wrong it is.
Giving racial preference to any group is RACIST, no matter the reason spun to justify it.