Thursday, July 16, 2009

Liberal Racism - The assault on skilled, independent, intelligent blacks

This piece was written in late 2007 and discusses "candidate" Obama but it's interesting to view from the perspective of the free pass the mainly white liberal mainstream media gave The Chosen One during the 2008 election - and continues to give him no matter how awful his performance as POTUS. This "special" black, an "acceptable" black is untouchable for he resides within the gates of the Left's La La Land but any Right thinking black who goes against the grain is not so fortunate.

By Bruce Thornton

When Barack Obama accused Hillary Clinton of “playing the gender card,” the hypocrisy that typically defines our public discourse on race descended into the surreal. Obama’s whole career has been created by and has exploited the perception that he — son of a white mother and an African father, raised in Hawaii, graduate of Columbia and Harvard — is “black,” that is, a victim of America’s incorrigible racism and oppression. In other words, Obama has gotten to where he is by subtly playing, or allowing others to play for him, the most powerful trump card in the game of social and political power.

The rules of this game state that all blacks, no matter how privileged, are victims, all whites are racist oppressors who just don’t “get it,” all black cultural dysfunction is a consequence of white racism, and only whites who loudly and repeatedly acknowledge their guilt can redeem themselves by distributing social, economic, and political reparations. The Amarillo Slims of this game are the Democrats and racial hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Cornel West. But even some Republicans these days have accepted the rigged rules. Just look at how easily the whole Katrina disaster, a consequence of an entrenched, inept black city government, was laid at the feet of the Bush administration.

But there is a more insidious consequence of this racial narrative — the institutionalizing of black inferiority and dependence. Behind the guilt of white liberals lurks a smug assertion of power: we who have the power to oppress also have the power to redress. As the African proverb has it, the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives. To be a victim is to be inferior, always to be looking up at one’s oppressor and one’s deliverer.

Which is another way of saying, as Jim Sleeper, Thomas Sowell, and Shelby Steele have said, that liberal racial attitudes are indeed racist: they categorize millions of people as inferior. That the inferiority is explained as a consequence of environment or history rather than genes doesn’t make that much difference in the end. History has changed, and the environment has changed, but despite the vast improvement in the lives of black Americans, the presumption of victimhood, and perforce of inferiority, persists, as though there is no difference between being passed up by a cabbie and being lynched by the Klan. If this presumption were not so, the other Democrats in the primary race by now would have demolished the lightweight Obama’s preposterous candidacy by ridiculing his pretensions to “blackness.” Wouldn’t you love to see Hillary run an ad in which Obama’s nerdy little dance with Ellen Degeneres was set to the tune of Tower of Power’s “You Got to Funkifize”?

The most disgusting expression of liberal racism, however, is seen in the demonization of any black person who strays off the liberal plantation and challenges this racial narrative. There’s a sort of Fugitive Slave Law in America’s public culture that allows white liberals to pursue and hound blacks who dare to think for themselves and challenge the imposition of a demeaning identity based on stereotypes. Exhibit number one, of course, is the continuing vilification of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

As his recently published memoirs show, here is a genuine story of black achievement in the teeth of prejudice, a tale of character and virtue overcoming harsh circumstances, a parable illustrating the power of the human spirit to transcend environment.

Yet rather than being an inspiring model for black Americans and an example of an empowering self-reliance, Justice Thomas has been viciously scorned and marginalized, for no other reason than the fact that his life and philosophy challenge the dominant liberal narrative of black inferiority and dependence on white largesse. He has committed the greatest crime a black man can commit in the liberal Decalogue: he thinks for himself and challenges received wisdom. White liberals will idolize illiterate rappers who glorify violence and demean women rather than respect a freethinking black man.

Once again we see how modern liberalism betrays its own principles. People are supposed to be individuals, judged by their own character and merits rather than by pigmentation or hair texture; yet blacks are lumped together and defined by stereotypes and generalizations that obscure individual particularity. Discrimination is the most heinous crime; yet liberals endorse programs like affirmative action that literally discriminate on the basis of those same stereotypes and generalizations. Liberals are eager to celebrate “black culture”; yet they think that a people who survived 300 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and racism are still so weak and fragile that white people have to whisper the ludicrous euphemism “n-word” lest blacks become terminally traumatized.

Worse yet, liberals are supposed to prize free speech, the independent thinker, the “dissident” who challenges received wisdom and fossilized orthodoxy, the intellectual who is “edgy” and provocative and shakes up the “establishment.” Yet black thinkers who do just that — Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele, for example — are marginalized, vilified, and turned into “invisible men” by a liberal establishment clinging to outworn orthodoxies, all the while that postmodern minstrels like Cornel West are courted by Princeton and Harvard. So why marvel that a laughable tyro like Barack Obama, with no experience in the scruffy real world of performance, consequence, and accountability, is taken seriously as a contender for the presidency solely on the basis of his constructed “blackness”?

17 Opinion(s):

Ranger Tom said...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Black Coffee said...

Doberman - being one of literally a handful of whites among mostly blacks at Howard University, I can say that most blacks there have a problem with Clarence Thomas, but it is not because to paraphrase this article "he thinks for himself." It is because he and other black conservatives, such as Walter Williams whose article you or VI posted, themselves benefited from affirmative action but now oppose affirmative action programs as unconstitutional (according to them) and as if it perpetrates "reverse discrimination."

Ranger Tom said...

@BC. You mean he's an "Uncle Tom".

Anonymous said...

@ BC, so your "evidence" that Clarence Thomas benefited from AA is...? Your thought process involves a lot of hearsay doesn't it, general comments like, well, a lot of people say this or that so they must ALL feel like that - so they must be right. Most blacks also thought OJ was innocent when he wasn't.

How about listening to other voices other than those in your head?

Is EVERYBODY who does not follow the Left's mantra of "poor blacks, we must help them" assumed to have benefited from AA? Are you Mr Liberal saying that blacks can't think for themselves unless they are sprouting shit deemed acceptable to the Left. If Obama had been conservative, and we know he's a AA beneficiary, would he be president today? Not a fu*k and you know it. It's like this: blacks must think like the liberals say they must think, even those that may or may not have benefited from AA, and if they don't then they are "conservative", "freethinkers" and ripe for attack. Your whole Leftist ideology is such bullcrap, can't you see it?

Anonymous said...

Hey RT, see how some of your countrymen think - re: BC? You have your work cut out, like us.

Black Coffee said...

How do you know OJ was not innocent? Unlike South Africa we have trial by jury here, and a jury found him not guilty after hearing all the evidence in 1995. That should have ended the discussion about it then. The man was tried and right or wrong, the jury acquitted him.

Ranger Tom said...

@Doberman. Don't I know it. The ironic thing about this is, if BC had met me on the street, learned that I hold a Bachelor's of Science from the University of Pennsylvania (which I do) he'd automatically assume (wrongly) that I must think like him and believe in the liberal mantra, because it's the ionly those elite in the ivory walls of academia who know what's best for the unwashed masses.

I get it all the time.

Being raised Catholic I've had far to much guilt shoved down my throat, which I don't buy into anymore, haven't for quite some time now... 10 years on a major metropolitain police department (where I was passed over for promotion 7 times because of AA, I score a 98% on the test continually but other "men of color" with scores as low as 75% get promoted over me) and five years as a deputy sheriff in a western state have left a stale and bitter taste in my mouth, and no matter what argument they use about so called white racism, I won't buy it a bit. I could write a book on the racism thrown at me for the last 20 years, but you know what, I couldn't get it published because I'd be a racist, because we all know the black man is totally incapable of racism because he has no power.

Jesse Jackson said so himself, and we all know what an upstanding person he is, don't we?

So what do we do? For it's us, the white person who really has no power anymore. We haven't for quite some time.

We're powerless to actually do anything, and that, my newly founds friends, is what I find most frustrating.

I'll stick to running my railroad locomotive and continue to stockpile ammo.


Anonymous said...

@ BC, yes, and we all know how right juries always are. Not that it may matter but you might recall the book he was about to publish in which he recounted how he "may" have done it but that was scuppered after a public outcry. There's one thing consistent about liberals, inconsistency. You are really an ethnomasochist in the fullest sense. Somebody could do a thesis on you. You are the antithesis of Michael Jackson, he wanted to be white, you want to be black.

Ranger Tom said...

@BC. You're shitting me right? OJ was guilty as sin, and the only sad part about it was it took ten years for justice to be finally had. Pull your head out for your ass and look around outside of your university walls and go out into the real world.

Viking said...

It sounds like Howard University is a very racially unrepresentative place. I insist I be admitted immediately as part of an affirmative action programme.
I am after all from a country that did not have its own government until 1920, and am from an ethnic minority (20%).
I am also white, and therefore of an ethnic minority on that count too (16% of the planet???)
O, and I grew up religiously oppressed (1% of population) as well.

Anonymous said...

@ Viking, quite right, time for whitey to start his "demands". As an oppressed minority, my first demand is autonomy or my own colony on land my people first inhabited which includes large chunks of SA.

Viking said...

It's definitely the way forward - the only way to get rid of this nonsense is for all of us to find a way in which we're a minority and make a fuss!
Lots of anti-AA lawsuits in the States should make the bullies think twice...

Black Coffee said...

Ah Viking - nice try but no cigar. AA programs look not only at who is a minority, but at who has been a discriminated against minority, at least that's how it works in US. Howard University has always been a predominantly black school with a small minority of white students. With Sotomayor likely to be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, the balance on America's highest court will shift in favor of AA. Therefore I doubt that those suits will succeed in future. Just recently, before she got confirmed of course, the Court gave a victory to some white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. I actually have not followed all details of that case, but as I understand it in New Haven, a mostly black and Hispanic city, the fire department administered a test to determine who gets promoted. White firefighters passed the test, most black and Latino firefighters did not. The city then threw test out on grounds that test was biased (just like I have said that IQ tests are likely to be). Firefighters took their case to courts, a federal court on which Sotomayor served ruled against them. Supreme Court just recently reversed that decision. However, once Sotomayor is confirmed I would not count on a repeat of such a decision for some time.

Anonymous said...

@BC. So, once again, whitey cheated. He rigged the test so that only whites would pass, at the expense of blacks and latinos; because we know whitey can't do it without cheating. Pity there were no east asian firemen. Also, confirmation that Sotomayor is a racist. You acknowledge that she will ensure that there isn't a repeat of the New Haven ruling. Time will tell.

Ranger Tom said...

@BC. You talk, like my father used to say, "Like a man with a paper asshole".

You have no concept of what the real world is like, never have been outside of your ivory tower and just spout the left's propaganda.

Quote all the slanted statistics you want. I've been out in the real world since 1983 and know the system is now slanted markedly against the white male.

How is it, On a generalized police detective's exam, one that I had taken over 7 times, I could score in the 98% range, and a black, who scored 75% gets promoted over me?

If that's not reverse descrimination I don't know what is. Considering the exam's content was 100% my city's police procedures, local and state laws.

I'm begining to think that arguing the point with you is a little like winning at the Special Olympics. Even if you win at the end of the day, you're still retarted.

Grow up little boy, and go out into the real world.

Anonymous said...

@RT. We have a long sordid history with BC, but never mind. The reason you scored in the 98 percentile, according to BC, will be because the test was biased. Whitey cheated, and because slavery subjected your black peers to oppression of the kind that takes 5,000 years to overcome. Plus, of course, the public schooling was prejudicial because the teachers were white.

Ranger Tom said...

@VI. So true. I forgot about that. I guess I shouldn't tell BC that 80% of my teachers in high school were black.

I guess they were Uncle Toms too, and slanted the exams I had to take just to favor us whities. They were the same Uncle Toms who rigged a law exams to favor us whities to...

Bell Curve... Bell Curve...