There must be a run on white bed sheets these days among our resident "conservative" commentators.
Complete denial that a racist statement is racist. Much like the Free Dominioners whose comments on Muslims have now caused a complaint to be investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "D'oh! But there's nothing wrong with what anyone said!"
Vile! These words are my answer.
I started reading some of these sites in order to understand how (some) people think. I was shocked at what I found. (Even the name of the blog, "small, dead animals", bespeaks contempt for defenceless suffering as does the term, "leftard", which is deemed entirely acceptable.)
I used to believe that some people were just uninformed or misled but my perspective has hardened.
I don't know what to think, quite honestly. Kate's site is interesting and provocative, but sometimes it just slides over the edge, especially around Native issues. I think Kate is at least subliminally aware of this, and of the calibre of some of her "winged monkeys," because she gets a mite tetchy when you point this out. Indeed, I was banned from her site simply for quoting her and some of her commenters.
Racism is an ugly reality on the conservative side of the spectrum, with some honourable exceptions. It's usually well coded, but breaks refreshingly forth on occasion, as in this case. Meanwhile they play the old "No, you're the racist" game, and try to define the word out of existence.
Dr.Dawg: Just so all don't forget, Muslims are not a race.
Mark
Ottawa
Unfortunately, Dawg, the word racist has been used so often we are desensitized. I think Kate and her site are mean-spirited. I know I have been over using that particular hyphenated word this last while, but I can't think of another word that says what I mean to say.
I trust my gut, often, on these matters. Kate would say she is just exercising some fundamental rights (of self-expression etc) but I am, more and more, just taking my eyes and mind away from the nasty thoughts that appear to predominate at a spot like sda...
Er, Mark, Muslims? You're obsessed! : )
So Mark,
does that justify the many hateful things said about Muslims by your Blogging Tory friends past and present?
Or is it all semantics now?
"Mean-spirited" comes pretty close, I think. I might like a somewhat stronger term. There's contempt there. I know there's also contempt on "the left" and it often disturbs me. But the worst kind of contempt, I think, is contempt for the poor, the weak, the defenseless, the oppressed - the sda mob would call them "losers".
ajsuhail: Find something objectionable I have written about Muslims in general.
I would agree that many commenters at SDA are OTT. But I don't think Kate is.
Mark
Ottawa
I lived in the Bahamas for a couple of years in the late 60's. The first couple of months in a trailer park for migrant workers. Everyone - blacks and whites - dissed the Jamaicans. This seemed odd at the time as the only black man I considered to be a friend was a Jamaican.
We need a better word than racist to describe the form of ignorance that attributes the actions of a few members of the group to all members of the group. Maybe "ignoramuses" but I suspect there must be quite a few bad actors among the group of all Jamaicans for them to be so disliked
Inter-island rivalry is a way of life down there. And I mean inter-island: I know Bequia quite well--it's the biggest of the Grenadines in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The Vincentians (from the island of St. Vincent proper, known locally as "the mainland") are not well-liked in Bequia, and not exactly made welcome when they come off the ferry (it's an hour and a half across the channel). Same nation, same patois, but don't tell the Bequia folks that!
Mark:
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but did you not author a post a while back over at Daimnation that worried aloud about Muslim birth rates in the UK? Sounded a bit Yellow Peril-ish, I recall.
Incidentally, my apologies about my earlier comment--I hadn't read Holly's comment before that, and thought you had meant to type "Jamaicans" or something. Mea culpa.
Dr Dawg: I may well have done so. Just as the Saudis, Iranians, Chinese (all under current regimes) might worry about a rapid rise in the Christian birth rate.
Mark
Ottawa
But Mark,
I thought that the whole point was that YOU DID NOT want to be like the Saudis or the Iranians.
And I was referring to Kathy Shaidle in my previous comment alongwith the infamous Right Girl(who is now no longer a Blogging Tory thank God)I do not read SDA that often but the fact that Kate tolerates such comments indicates some agreement with their views.
ajsuhail: Indeed one does not want to be like Saudis or the Iranians; but one also in not being unreasonable in wanting to preserve basic elements of a country's culture. For example no Sharia law in the UK, or Canada--which might be hard to resist if the Muslim population reached much higher levels.
But that still is not anti-Muslim--rather it is pro-Canadian.
Mark
Ottawa
Statement A: “Criminal behaviour is an ugly reality amongst Jamaicans, with some honourable exceptions.”
Statement B: “Racism is an ugly reality on the conservative side of the spectrum, with some honourable exceptions.”
Dr. Dawg, if you would, please explain to me how someone could (quite rightly, if you do) find Statement A objectionable, then so readily go on to assert Statement B.
Mercy- more racism at the Globe & Mail no less!
http://www.tiny.cc/JKeQl
Your link doesn't work. What are you talking about?
Time to go nuts:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/...ves/
006712.html
Mark
Ottawa
Well, at the risk of being accused of "stalking," here's the money quote:
Is it that stuff about blacks named N'keesha not getting hired as fast, out of Freakanomics?
Hey, here's a plan: give your kids normal people's names!!
Dr. D, I'm with 2Sheds - why is statement A over the top, but statement B isn't? Sounds a bit like political-racism to me.
hmmmm, lets see Candace, could it be because fathead racists choose to be fathead racists, conservatives choose to be conservatives and black Jamacians are BORN black Jamacians?
there is a huge difference between villifying and discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or the accident of their nationality at birth and calling a group of people identified by their declared political philosophy racist because many of them make racist comments.
I can't even go away for two days! : )
I'm with the rev. I really can't add anything to his comment.
So, Candace, apparently conservatives shouldn’t feel offended by the crude stereotype portrayed by Dr. Dawg in Statement B because…um, well, it’s just true dontcha know. At least it’s true in the opinion of our host, so there.
It’s also painfully obvious according to the good Reverend and his impeccable logic. After all, it has clearly been shown that conservatives are all or mostly racist, because “many of them make racist comments”, or at least Dr.Dawg found a few that did, so quod erat demonstrandum. But that’s nothing like making unsupported generalizations about an identifiable group that you don’t happen to like.
In my opinion, any claim that racism is inherent in conservative ideology is, quite frankly, asinine. To support such a claim based on wild extrapolation from a few collected examples shows flawed thinking aggravated by a jaundiced perspective.
As an important aside, the statements “you disagree with my assessment of the possible causes and solutions to various pressing societal issues” and “you are a racist” are not equivalent, despite the apparent popularity of this shorthand on left-wing blogs.
2Sheds:
I can show you a trajectory of racist thinking/theorizing from the Age of Discovery to Francis Galton to the present day (Herrnstein and Murray; Kevin MacDonald), extending through the days of fascism to the civil rights struggles in the American South. The exponents of these theories were and are invariably the conservatives (sometimes the radical conservatives) of the day. If you can trace a similar trajectory of left-wing/progressive thinking in which racism played so central a part, please do so. (I don't mean a few offhand remarks in letters by Karl Marx or something; I said "central" and I mean it.)
The institution of racism is not politically neutral, never has been, and to argue the opposite is to ignore far too much. Who came up with "Gentlemen's Agreements" to keep Jews from buying property? What were the politics of the White Citizens' Councils? What are the politics of the anti-immigration crowd at VDARE? On which side of the blogosphere were the racist comments about the population of New Orleans at the time of Katrina? Or the comments about Native people around the time of National Aboriginal Day?
"Crude stereotyping?" "A few examples?" Horse puckey.
I am trying very hard to persuade myself that you aren't being disingenuous. But here's your chance: show us the equivalent left-wing racist historical trajectory, come up with more than a couple of offhand comments on the port side of the blogosphere, or have the grace to admit that your indignation, feigned or otherwise, is utterly misplaced.
Dr.Dawg, when you challenge me to provide examples of left-wing racism, you are obviously confusing me with some of your other disputants. I never claimed that racism plays a central part of left-wing thought – you see, I try hard to avoid foolish generalizations like that.
If, however, you believe that the absence of proof that the left is racist must, ipso facto, prove that the right is racist, you are falling victim to a false dilemma.
As I would hope you recognize, racism can and does exist in pockets on either side of the political fence. Specific and limited instances of racism on either part of the spectrum do not in any way justify an indictment against all fellow holders of that political philosophy.
Even if one can find more cases, or even all cases, on one side, it is still not valid to infer that all other members are similarly tainted…or, in fact, that all members of the opposing side are therefore clean (as I think you found during your recent outing on wonkette.com.)
Unfortunately, that seems to be your methodology. First, you find pockets of racism, usually by going and looking for them. (I swear you must spend more time on stormfront.org than most of its adherents.) Then, because the proponents in question claim membership on the right, you declare all conservatives are racist. I assume this is made more palatable by your easy conflation of “the right” and “the radical right”.
Unless you have a serious misunderstanding of statistical sampling methods (which I’m sure you do not), you’ll appreciate that finding instances of some characteristic in a population via a biased, non-random sample does not allow you to extrapolate to the entire population – but that is exactly what you are doing.
(continued below…)
Here are other examples where similar types of inferences are clearly wrong:
- if you happen to find a criminal element among a particular culture, that doesn’t mean all members of that culture are criminals.
- if you happen to find some paedophiles that are white males, that doesn’t mean all white males are paedophiles.
- if you happen to find some communistic lesbians that are left-wing bloggers, that doesn’t mean all left-wing bloggers are communistic lesbians. (Er, does it?)
As a result, finding racists among conservatives does not mean all, most, or even a sizeable minority of conservatives are racist. It’s simply flawed thinking.
Plus, since the fault in logic is so evident, I have to conclude that it therefore takes a truly jaundiced perspective to breezily accept the proposition that conservatives are inherently racist.
(continued below…)
Since I’m not a student of history, I’m not able to, nor frankly interested in, conducting the roll-call of racists from the past to determine their political affiliation. From what I’ve seen, that usually degenerates into a childish game of Internet tag, typified by arguments about the Nazis. (“Hitler was a socialist!” “No, Hitler was a capitalist!” “Tag, you’re the most ee-vil!”)
Besides, a quick look at, for example, the founders of the Louisiana White Citizens’ Councils, reveals healthy representation from Democrats Rainach, Waggonner, and Perez. (Sorry, I only know what Wikipedia tells me.) And I’m sure you’re tired of hearing that the first incarnation of the KKK was crushed by President Grant, a Republican, while the second was supported by President Wilson, a Democrat. And who was it that freed those slaves?
So I believe those arguments are as futile as they are unconvincing. Instead, let’s personalize this a bit by bringing it to the present day.
Your statement is that “racism is an ugly reality among conservatives, with some honourable exceptions.” (How generous of you, acquiescing to exceptions.) That is a serious condemnation, not just of some historical figures or philosophies, but of me, many of my family members, many of my friends and associates, and anyone else who happens to be politically right-leaning.
You are also, therefore, suggesting that currently around 30% to 40%…approximately one-in-three…of your fellow citizens are racist. (And obviously I’m talking about a serious, commonly accepted definition of the term, not the watered-down redefinition popular among some on the left – please see my previous aside.)
I’m assuming you wouldn’t make such a horrible accusation about all conservatives, including those in the present day, based only on your view of historical wrongs, or some fringe comments sought out from here and there. So of course you must have some factual basis and current examples for such a confident and sweeping negative assertion.
Statements by mainstream conservative parties advocating policies based on racial superiority, for example? Perhaps some statistically valid polls of conservatives demonstrating that a substantial number are racially intolerant, or that they desire discriminatory practices based on race? Maybe some widespread instances (remember, 30% to 40% are racist, so this must be pretty common) of truly abusive behaviour by conservatives directed towards members of another race?
If not, I’m afraid all I still see is crude stereotyping based on a few examples, your trajectories notwithstanding. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t prostrate myself before your blog and beg forgiveness for my own inherent racism as well as that of my ilk.
During the Russian revolution, certain Mensheviks and members of the Revolutionary Socialist Party were considered to be rightists. And they were, in that context. But outside of a far-left context, these people are seen to be on the left side of the political spectrum.
Likewise, in an American context, which encompasses a very limited segment of the right end of the political spectrum, the Democratic Party appears to be "the Left". But outside of that context, the American Democratic Party is - clearly - a party of the Right.
Yup. I was preparing a more comprehensive response to 2Sheds, but it's worth noting at this point that nothing, nothing at all about the Dixiecrats was "left" or "progressive" by any commonsense use of those terms.
My point, though, may have been overstated. I do happen to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that racism is a core component of conservative ideology. But that doesn't mean that every conservative is a conscious racist. It's fair to say, though, that the blatant racism displayed in the blogosphere during Katrina and National Aboriginal Day fell entirely on the starboard side. That simply can't be coincidence.
Now, of course, we'll get the indignant response that conservatives are "colour-blind" while the Left is running around supporting race-based affirmative action programs. But that doesn't stand up to analysis.
If a group of people is racialized and oppressed, it isn't "racist" to argue that this situation should be changed. If a person is identified as belonging to a "race," and thereby suffers as a result, then "race" does play a real role in that person's life, and in fact acquires a social reality. And this kind of discrimination, as we know, becomes structural, systemic, institutional.
So the conservatives now change their tune, for the most part, although this can be seen as a merely strategic move. Now they are "colour-blind," so they argue that nothing should be done to help people because of their "race," even though, historically, much was done on that basis to set them back in the first place. It's a bit like a 250lb. bully knocking a 90lb. weakling to the ground, injuring him badly, and then objecting when someone goes to help him up: "Not fair! Two on one! Let him help himself up!"
In essence, "colour-blindness" simply keeps the current socio-economic structure in place, not to mention the dominant ideology. Whereas before conservatives argued that Blacks and Native people and so on were simply inferior to whites, now they argue that their comparatively bad socioeconomic circumstances are their own fault. Either way, the Blacks and Native people are in the same spot. It's just the same-old, same-old, in other words, with the codes suitably upgraded.
(Sorry, I just couldn’t let sleeping dawgs lie…)
“…the American Democratic Party is - clearly - a party of the Right.”
“…nothing, nothing at all about the Dixiecrats was "left" or "progressive" by any commonsense use of those terms.”
Well of course – it’s so obviously clear and commonsensical.
All that’s necessary is to place one’s self on the political continuum such that 90% of the population within your average western democracy (or about 99% of the USA) falls to your starboard side. Then, normal distributions being what they are, the vast majority of nasty things that happen, from racism to sidewalk expectoration, can be attributed to “the right”. Very clever.
Meanwhile, I have to say, a statement like “That simply can’t be coincidence” sounds more like something coming from a defender of Intelligent Design, rather than a person interested in reaching valid conclusions based on sufficient and suitable evidence. I must admit, Dr.Dawg, your apparent faith in the malevolence of conservatives is truly unshakeable.
As for your comments on affirmative action programs, I’ll let that 90 pound straw man remain exactly where you knocked it down.
2Sheds:
Do I have to be on the left 10% of the political spectrum to see the Dixiecrats as conservative? Really?
If I am wrong about the commentary on Katrina and NAD, please provide a counter-example or two. In the meantime, having cruised widely through the blogosphere on both of those occasions, I am simply reporting an observation.
I'm not sure why you consider my comments about affirmative action programs to be a straw man. I'm fully familiar with the conservative take on these programs. I have indeed seen many a conservative commentary that calls them "racist." My reasons for not thinking so are in my previous comments.
Meanwhile, as Ann Coulter continues to tell Muslims encountering difficulties at airports to use flying carpets, as Steve Sailer of VDARE goes on about the racial inferiority of Blacks, as RightGirl tells us that Native men are a bunch of daughter-fuckers while Kathy Shaidle calls them gasoline-huffers instead, as commenters over at Small Dead Animals call for gunning down Native protesters and deporting all Jamaicans, I will take note of your concerns and no doubt in a quiet reflective moment realize that it is I who is at fault.
"All that’s necessary is to place one’s self on the political continuum such that 90% of the population within your average western democracy (or about 99% of the USA) falls to your starboard side."
I don't see why we should confine ourselves to "western democracies". Doesn't the rest of the world count?
And do you really think that the difference between the US and Europe - in terms of the range of political opinion - is so small?
I am employing a standard measure of Left/Right. Classical liberals (and any classical conservatives still existing) fall on the right. Liberals who favour some state intervention are right of centre and social democrats are left of centre. On the far left are socialists of various stripes (marxist and non-marxist as well as most anarchists). By that measure, both Republicans and Democrats are on the right. But social democratic parties are strong in Europe. Even the far left has some strength. So, no, it is not the case that 90% of the population of "your average western democracy" is on the right.
I misplaced a closing bracket. I didn't mean to imply that anarchists are socialists.
Dr Dawg: Muslim, Hindu and Sikh Punjabis are all the same "race". As are Muslim and Christian Arabs. As are Muslim and Buddhist Thais. As are Muslim and Christian Filipino(a)s. I don't see the non-Muslims of those groups complaining about treatment at airports. In any case you know full well Muslims are not a race any more than Christians (fastest growing in Black Africa) are.
Singling out Jamaicans as a major problem in Toronto is not racism, it's reality. No-one is complaining about (black) Guyanese, or Trinidadians, or Bahamians etc. etc.
Mark
Ottawa
“If I am wrong about the commentary on Katrina and NAD, please provide a counter-example or two.”
Well, here are some examples of the virulent racism exhibited by well-known members of “the right” after Katrina. (Brace yourself, this is a bit sickening.) These vividly illustrate the racist attitudes of “KKKorporate Amerikkka”, which serves as the personification of right-wing attitudes. See:
http://www.redcross.org/sponsors...rs/
helping.html
The Charles Schwab Foundation Pledges $1 Million for U.S. Disaster Relief
AstraZeneca Pledges More Than $1 Million In Contributions And Medicine To Victims Of Hurricane Katrina
Bayer pledges US$ 2 million for flood victims
ExxonMobil Donates $1 Million to Houston Red Cross Chapter and United Way Katrina Relief Fund; Part of Total $7 Million Commitment for Hurricane Assistance
JPMorgan Chase, Employees To Donate Up to $3 Million for Hurricane Katrina Relief
Merrill Lynch has committed $1.5 million to assist the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts
New York Life Donates $1 Million to the American Red Cross
BP America has increased to $10 million its contribution to humanitarian relief efforts
Anheuser-Busch Continues To Supply Water To Victims Of Hurricane Katrina; Company Foundation Donates $1 Million To The American Red Cross For Relief Efforts
Merck Commits $1 Million To Disaster Relief Fund In Wake Of Hurricane Katrina
Merck will also match employee contributions to the American Red Cross.
Chevron Commits $5 Million to Support Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts
No doubt all these heartless capitalists donated as a demonstration of racial superiority over NOLA residents. Or something. (I’m sure one of you will have an explanation.)
But of course, to really feel the hatred and contempt for the poor unfortunates of Katrina, one has to look no further than the sports fans with the very reddest of necks, those good ol’ boys (and girls) that “the left” loves to sneer at, the people of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR). From:
http://www.nascar.com/news/katri...rina/
index.html
Joe Gibbs Racing lends helping hand with hurricane relief efforts
Talladega Superspeedway donates $100,000 towards relief
Johnson "Racing for Relief" this weekend at California Speedway
The Home Deport, Joe Gibbs Racing, Tony Stewart join relief effort
Penske offering support for hurricane victims
Checkers/Rally's donates $135,000 to Red Cross
Alabama Gov. Riley, Talladega, Red Cross thank fans
Fans pitch in more than $180,000 at Fontana
Waltrips, Aaron's give to American Red Cross
Greg Biffle Foundation to help with relief fund
I’m sure you’ll agree…a truly appalling show of their racism towards the hurricane’s victims.
Dr Dawg: Might you be a double agent? Just wondering why these appear just after this:
2Sheds | 08.03.07 - 4:24 pm
"Newt Gingrich Newsletter
Winning The Future - A free weekly email exclusive straight from Newt!WinningTheFuture.net
Ann Coulter Weekly - Free
Be among the first to read Ann weekly column by email - Free!HumanEvents.com"
I have a lot of time for the Newtperson, none for Ms Coulter.
Perhaps even more to the point:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...83645095078449/
"Pity we couldn't close our border to the spread of neo-con dead-brain disease.
agitfact | 08.03.07 - 9:59 am | #
Newt Gingrich Newsletter
Winning The Future - A free weekly email exclusive straight from Newt!WinningTheFuture.net
Ann Coulter Weekly - Free
Be among the first to read Ann weekly column by email - Free!HumanEvents.com"
Covert ops underway?
Mark
Ottawa
Mark:
Covert ops, indeed. None of that shows up on my screen. Perhaps it's user-specific. : )
Of course you are right that Ann Coulter's bigoted remarks about Muslims were not, strictly speaking, racist. Same general affect, though. But to your main point: are you seriously claiming that the comments about Jamaicans that I quoted are not racist? Just what is racism, in your lexicon?
I will agree about OTT comments on Jamaicans and still maintain that focusing on the problems within that particular black community is not itself racist--as with pointing out the problems the LTTE causes within the Sri Lankan community, or Khalistan-supporting Sikhs within the broader Indo-Canadian community.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark:
OK: we're on the same page. Sort of. Perhaps the problems within the Jamaican community have something to do with problems they face outside the community as well. That takes subtler analysis than simply saying "It's their culture."
2Sheds:
A very impressive list of corporations--I recall someone not long ago telling me that corporations aren't right-wing, but no matter. That they are performing good corporate citizenship is not in doubt. But I am at this point longing for examples of racist hatred on the Left to help back up your original assertion that racism is equally distributed across the political spectrum.
Dr Dawg: We went through this some time ago (and I provided the references) but St. Marx himself had a rather racist attitude towards Slavs.
Mark
Ottawa
"Dr Dawg: We went through this some time ago (and I provided the references) but St. Marx himself had a rather racist attitude towards Slavs."
Not just Slavs. (I'm sure Dr. Dawg doesn't require the references - he's an educated man and these things are well known.)
That's your argument? So if I bring up the more systemic racism of Winson Churchill, a racism that had some terrible consequences, is it a draw?
Virtually everyone in the world was racist until reletively recently. Pointing out that Karl Marx shared some of these attitudes - at least in unguarded moments - proves nothing at all.
In any case, most of the people you are talking about don't esteem Marx or identify with him. (I do but I'm part of a very small and almost universally derided minority.)
exile: "...I'm part of a very small and almost universally derided minority." Except perhaps, in many parts of the academy.
Mark
Ottawa
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
