100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: False Claims of Racism (RE: USA Today column) | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Mon 09/09/13 05:44 PM
|
|
In an opinion piece published by USA Today, Washington Times columnist Tim Carney writes the following:
But then there's another set of circumstances where the white conservative might disagree with a liberal attributing things to racism or race: when the liberal is just harping on race out of habit, out of dishonesty, out of honest mistake, or out of the first principle that white conservatives are per se racist.
There's an entire genre of journalism dedicated to finding racism in every criticism of Obama. Is there racism in some criticism of Obama? Sure. But consider these, just a few off the top of my head: *Michael Tomasky at Daily Beast said Romney's use of the word "Obamacare" before the NAACP made him a "race-mongering pyromaniac," and a "race-baiter." Yes, for using the word "Obamacare." *MSNBC's Ed Schultz said in 2011 that Rick Perry's reference to "a black cloud of debt" hanging over America was racist. To help him make the point, he edited out Perry saying "debt." *Jack Hitt at Harpers heard a bunch of Republicans chanting "USA! USA!" had no idea why, and so decided it must have been a racist effort to drown out a Republican Hispanic speaker. *Other words,off the top of my head, that are really code-words for Obama's being black, according to liberal journalists: "skinny," "Chicago," and "golf." Once MSNBC asked if there were "racial overtones" to an anti-Obamacare protestor legally bearing arms. They even zoomed in on a holstered gun � so far that you couldn't see that the gun-toting protestor was a black man. NBC famously edited the 911 call of George Zimmerman to make him say "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." They edited out the part where the dispatcher asked what Trayvon's race was. Throw in Joe Biden claiming Republicans want to put black people "back in chains," and most of Al Sharpton's career, and you've got a toxic situation. While some liberals are correctly trying to convince some white conservatives that racism is more present than they think, other liberals are blatantly inventing or unfairly imagining racism where it doesn't exist. Here is a part of Carney's statement that I want to focus on. But then there's another set of circumstances where the white conservative might disagree with a liberal attributing things to racism or race: when the liberal is just harping on race out of habit, out of dishonesty, out of honest mistake, or out of the first principle that white conservatives are per se racist.
An example of what Carney is talking about (in the bold print) is the act of someone automatically assuming that a southern white Republican is a racist. Carney ends his commentary with the following statement: My points: We'd be better off if conservatives stopped believing that we are a color-blind society, and started accepting that life is generally harder for black people than for white people. We'd also be better off if liberals stopped instinctively assigning racist motives to political disagreements.
I personally have been speaking out against anti-black racism for my entire adult life, and I consider it a mistake to assume that institutional racism is now extinct because of laws being changed. I agree with Carney's claim that "life is generally harder for black people than for white people." At the same time, it is a mistake to pretend that no black American has ever made a false claim of racism. Carney starts his piece by saying, "Falsely crying racism for political gain is a good way to make some people believe racism doesn't exist any more." Later he says, "... other liberals are blatantly inventing or unfairly imagining racism where it doesn't exist." These days, so many false claim of racism - claims made against white Americans - have been made that now white Americans are reacting the same way that the villagers reacted in Aesop's fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Also, more and more white Americans are noticing that acts of racism on the part of black Americans don't seem to bother black Americans who complain about racism. The latter are perceived as engaging in hypocrisy. It is as if the latter are saying, "Our racism isn't worthy of condemnation because it is our racism. When it comes to the immorality of racism, ours is a morally superior race." Again, institutional racism still exists, but so many non-racist things have been labeled "racist" that a cry of "Racism!" is now being treated like a cry of "Wolf!" By the way, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism this way: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Notice that oppression doesn't have to exist in order for racism to exist. For what its worth, all racism is worthy of condemnation. Racists, however, don't consider their own racism worthy of condemnation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 09/09/13 06:10 PM
|
|
all racism is worthy of condemnation UNLESS we can title it something else,,,,basically
lol ,,yeah,, but generally the author is right, people do make false claims of rape, of racism , of harassment and any other number of things but the honest truth is ,, its been treated like 'cry wolf' by many white americans throughout Americas history,, even when segregation and discrimination were prevelant,, the majority of white americans just didn't see it , believe it, or perceive it that way,,,, Im not into condemning, but there are actions that have different relevance in different situations for instance, kissing someone that is your wife, is a different context than kissing someone who is a stranger one may be considered more 'acceptable' than the other though they are the same action similarly, having a club that reinforces in young boys their worth and strength (boy scouts) is a positive type of discrimination that exludes girls, but is not condemnable UNLESS it is accompanied by a reinforcing that girls are of less , inferior, worth hitting someone with a right hook who has pushed you is more contextually 'acceptable' than hitting someone with a right hook who was merely passing by even though they are the same action ,,in short CONTECT matters, when condemning people, even when it comes to discrimination or 'racism' |
|
|
|
|
