One of my regular readers on the left side of the blogosphere said something in a private email about an individual who “worshipped at the altar of the white man”. I haven’t responded and I don’t plan to. It wasn’t so much that it didn’t deserve a reply – it’s just that when I read sentences like that, it signals that there’s probably little use. It was a statement steeped in the segregationist politics of the left, where “people of colour” are not yet free to hold opposing political views.
Ruben Navarrette Jr., says it well in this item about Michael Steele;
Then there are black liberals, including some who don’t even live in Maryland but have made it their mission to try to torpedo Steele’s Senate bid. They include a left-wing blogger in New York who posted a doctored photo of Steele depicting him as a minstrel in blackface. Amid criticism, the photo was pulled. What remains, however, is a photo of Steele with an equally offensive caption calling him “Simple Sambo.”
Lastly, there are those liberals and Democratic operatives who, while claiming not to defend such blatantly vulgar and distasteful tactics, go on to, well, defend them.
Maryland state Sen. Lisa A. Gladden says Steele should accept whatever personal attacks come his way. She also says that black voters are likely to be Steele’s harshest critics because, as she puts it, “party trumps race.”
Wow. Someone finally said it out loud. I’m sure Democratic Party national Chairman Howard Dean and other Democrats will be delighted to hear it. Imagine all the outreach dollars earmarked for the black community that might now be spent pursuing white suburban soccer moms.
Party trumps race — not to mention, common sense. Some African-American leaders complain that black people aren’t getting anywhere politically. They’re right. That’s because they’ve perfected the recipe for how to become politically irrelevant — allow yourselves to be taken for granted by one party and written off by another.
(Emphasis mine – for my First Nations friends and detractors who lurk here.)
[…] Breakthroughs such as the Steele candidacy threaten the party’s monopoly by showing black voters that they don’t need to fall in line with the Democratic Party to be successful in politics or life.
Liberals want none of that. They’re all for people making history — as long as those people are on their side of the aisle. They’re all for minorities succeeding — as long as they can claim credit for the success. They’re all for minorities becoming involved politically and voting — as long as they continue to vote Democratic in perpetuity.
If any of this doesn’t go according to plan, then it’s open season on anyone who gums up the works. Liberals think nothing of portraying blacks and other minorities who defect to the Republican Party as defective in some way.
“Oreo cookie”. “Uncle Tom”. “Worshipping at the altar of the white man”.
I wonder how it feels to wake up each morning believing that there are in this world categories of human beings who are disqualified from holding certain political views on the singular basis of their race?
I know there’s a word for that. I’m sure it will come to me.
Racists.
Perfect analysis.
For the record, this moonbat liberal thinks this rightwing-like swarming on Steele is appalling. Unequivocally. From a race point of view and from a free speech/free association point of view. It smacks of all of the kind of straight-jacket thinking, political correctness spewing authoritarianism that I oppose strongly from all points on the political spectrum. And these groups have done the far right swarmers one worse with their “white sambo”.
And Kate, you are absolutely right, in terms of their moral authority and plain old political strategy. The Democrats used to be able to count on churches for support because the New Deal and anti-war campaigns aligned with Christian ideals. But they took that support for granted and now thirty years later look where they are. These groups are making themselves irrelevant. And, as I’m sure your core readers here are happy to note, bringing down liberalism, progressivism and the Democratic Party with them as well.
TB
Cerberus
As a white person I wouldn’t want to risk opprobrium by appearing to speak for people of color so I’ll just mention three white folks. Schwerner, Goodwin and Chaney. As I recall they died so that people of color could vote for anyone they wanted to vote for. Not just for one political party.
The Milwaukee Sentinal, in an editorial, referred to Clarence Thomas as having an asterisk next to his name, because ‘he wasn’t really black, becasuse he didn’t reflect the politics of the black community.’
See this:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PRMainstreamBlack1105.html
This may be provacative, but I think the Democratic Party WANT blacks to remain as “niggers”. Like natives in Canada, “the plight of blacks” in the US is an entire market sector like agriculture, natural resources, defense et al. (Canadian content: 9 BILLION per year for Native Affairs + provincial programs-the figure is probably closer to 15 or 20 billion, IMHO)
This is exactly why people like Steele, Clarence Thomas and Condeleeza Rice are labelled as “house niggers” for the Right: they threaten the very stereotype of “black America” whereby the left feeds off their apparant “downtroddeness” as it fuels the left’s party coffers. Somehow they aren’t “black enough” because they don’t march lock step with the “we shall overcome” wussies like Rymin’ Man “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Orca Whinfrey.
The only way “equality” will ever be acheived will be by comlete 100% ASSIMILATION, both north and south of the 49th.
It will NEVER happen.
That must be why some many black just LOVE the Republican party and hate the Democrat party..
Heh
Thought of the day
Kate writes:
I wonder how it feels to wake up each morning believing that there are in this world categories of human beings who are disqualified from holding certain political views on the singular basis of their race?
I would ask some of our progr…
“his rightwing- like swarming”
Hold on. Please cite an example where Republicans have openly assaulted a Democrat with food items and denigrating caricatures because their politics was considered “racially inappropriate”.
(Though I do find the rest of your comment refreshing. The left needs more like you.)
This strikes me as more about ‘group-think’ than anything else. There have always been power-lusting opportunists ready to leverage group-think for their own purposes however and whenever it can be mustered… whether it’s national socialism, fascism, Quest for Umma, or racism…
Change the settings in the storyline a bit, exchanging religion for race, or labor unions for race, and you’ll see what I mean. Race is a red herring. Am I allowed to say that?
Thanks for the compliment, Kate. You’ve actually underscored what I meant by “taking them one worse”. They’ve gone well past the line with this.
I think certain groups feel extremely threatened by their own members finding success in politics/life otherwise than through the channels they have established. It means they aren’t as important as they want to think themselves. Same thing applies to a whole bunch of “groups” trying to protect their own power and turf, but this is quite beyond the pale.
TB
Cerberus
Kate, no problem quoting out of context to make a rhetorical point, I guess, but let’s add a bit to the record, shall we?
Here was more of my missive to you:
“[Name omitted] understands very little. He worships at the altar of the white man:
‘European white men have written the greatest stories, painted and sculpted the best artworks and composed the greatest music in the history of civilization.’ ”
Statements like that can be found on any old white supremacist site you want to look at. They’re silly when a white person utters them: they’re silly and a little sad, too, when someone of another “race” utters them.
As to the “oreo cookie” episode(s), am I wrong in thinking that it is Black people who are primarily engaged in this? And that they are calling particular attention to the policies espoused by the man in question, and the effect of those policies on themselves?
More dirty tricks as Democratic operatives have illegally obtained the credit report of Michael Steele.
I think each side has blind extremists, who make us cringe.
Even IndyMedia is against this outrage
Dawg – I didn’t mention your name or the rest of the email, because I wanted to use that sentence to underline the main point – which I fear, you still are unable to grasp.
Kate: In context, my remark has a specific meaning. Out of context, it makes another point entirely, one which I had no intention of making.
People of whatever “race” can believe whatever they like. But that doesn’t mean their beliefs shouldn’t be criticized. Go back and read the statement that I was criticizing. Are you suggesting that, because a Native person uttered it, he is immune from criticism? Are we seeing a bit of political affirmative action, right here on SDA?
On the main point, which seems to be the current troubles of a Black politician south of the border, I think some of what I have read about is certainly excessive. I would never defend blackface caricature, nor a white person using words like “oreo”: whites should not be deciding who is, or who is not, an “authentic” Black person.
But I think you ought to try to be fair about this. Many Blacks feel a certain sense of betrayal when someone identified as Black espouses policies that are seen to be harmful to them. And politics in the US, as you know, has a different style about it–witness the Willie Horton affair. The Black racialized minority certainly includes people like Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele, but the latter can surely expect to be called on opinions and beliefs that appear to affect the group as a whole–no?
I would like to add a point to Eskimo’s assessment of the cost of keeping the Natives segregated from the main stream.
He says when you include the many provincial programs the cost of supporting this fiasco could be as high as 15 or 20 Billion. ….. consider this.
How much of the law enforment budgets everywhere in Canada is spent chasing down and dealing with native outlaws, gang members, prostitutes, druggies, alcoholics, domestic abusers etc.
Also when you consider their life-style … how many health care and pharmicare dollars go into keeping them from visiting Manitou.
I think you can safelty double it Eskimo. This is a horrendous waste of resources not to mention the countless wasted native lives. This is worse than the slavery in the Southern USA or what South Africa is still trying unsuccessfully to recover from with the very same policies.
Canada should be ashamed of it’s reluctance to allow Natives to assimulate. Too many jobs for white administrators, lawyers, and political footballs at stake to let anything like human decency to interfere with.
Yes indeed the scum rises to the surface doesn’t it.
I suppose you have a point – if your worldview places individuals into groups defined – and divided – by criteria like race and ethnicity.
Mine doesn’t.
Let’s turn one of your statements on its head, though and see where it leads us… –
” Many Whites feel a certain sense of betrayal when someone identified as White espouses policies that are seen to be harmful to them.”
In my experience, when such a thing happens, the “whites” are wearing white sheets. Yet, it’s legitimate political action when taken by other racial groups.
Kate: People are divided into “racial” groups by power relations. There’s no such thing as “race,” but there are racialized people.
Since I don’t see whites as racially oppressed, your argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. We are racialized in quite a different fashion, and, if you care to look at the quotation that got all of this started, you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Wow Kate, that was such a jump with switching white for black that I don’t even know where to begin. It’s great that in your universe equality reigns and the colour of one’s skin doesn’t matter, but most of us live in a very different place.
It true that the phrase “Many Whites feel a certain sense of betrayal when someone identified as White espouses policies that are seen to be harmful to them” is ludicrous. But it’s ludicrous because whites are still a majority in the States and have a disporportionate level of power. NOT because it is anathema for people to have similar political aspirations based on their experiences as seen through the lens of their race. You can’t just replace black with white in a phrase about race and then say “see, when you insert white the phrase is ludicrous, so therefore it was a ludicrous phrase when it was about black people originally”. That is such a leap of logic that I’m not even qualified to explain all the reasons it’s wrong.
An analogous error would be your saying that since white people don’t have a political organization specifically designed to look to protect their interests, that it’s wrong for the NAACP to exist. Or bemoaning the fact that if we’re going to stop the racial profiling of black citizens we have to investigate the racial profiling of white citizens as well. It’s certainly true that white people talking about protecting the interests of their community is insane, and these people are often wearing sheets, but that’s because their WHITE.
You know why white people don’t (generally) protect their poolitical interests the way black people do? Well here’s a hint:
The President (and every President ever)
The Vice President (and every….)
Congress
It’s not really true that white people have no defined interest groups protecting their rights. It’s just that, in most Western nations, and in the U.S. in particular, the group that protects the rights of white citizens is called the GOVERNMENT.
Duke,
The trouble with “the native issue” is that while we’re free to discuss it in a forum such as this, the minute you breathe a whisper of any suggestion of assimilation in public, you’ve got a full blown case of “rasist”, “hate speach” allegations to deal with. It would be political suicide.
In the early 90’s Alberta provincial Conservative cabinet minister, Mike Cardinal (a native) wrote a guest column in, I beleive the Edmonton Journal. In it he all but concluded that life on the Calling Lake Indian reserve in northern Alberta during the early 50’s wasn’t so bad. They made a meager yet happy living hunting, fishing and trapping. Then came the guilt cheques and those from the big city citing, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” and as they say, it was all down hill from there. The cycle of dependancy and self destruction had begun.
Assimilation will…I should say WOULD be a bitter pill to swallow because it involves a subliminal “get off your ass or you’ll starve” mantra. After all, anything less than that and nothing’s changed.
I just thought of this…about the same time of Cardinal’s story (the mid 50’s) my wife’s father and neighbours decided they needed to build a Church. It took them several years. They cut all the wood in the winter and after long days of volunteer back breaking labour (in addition to their farm work!) built a tiny Ukrainian Catholic Church, WITHOUT ANY GOV’T. MONEY!!! Imagine that!
Now we can’t seem to build so called “cultural facilities”, “first nations interpretive centres” and the like quick enough. And all layers of government are quick to pony up “heritage” grants and get their pictures taken during the sweetgrass/ribbon cutting ceremonies. Good Lord, there are even architects who specialize in “first nations architecture” Give me a $ucking break. (Excuse my francais.)
You want to keep your culture alive? Do it on your own dime please. But spare me the “broken treaties” broken record.
Curious also how an abused/neglected/fill in the blanks native child will be returned to scum parents in child welfare cases as the government fears the child would lose it’s “identity” if given to a white family. Better to keep them abused, impoverished and in ignorance than to do the right thing. And the cycle continues.
You’re absolutely right Eskimo.
You should keep talk like that in forums like this. Speaking like that in public really would be political suicide.
Hell, where I’m from, speaking like that would be SOCIAL suicide. No one would ever talk to you again.
So, keep talk like that in private, and modify your speech when in public.
I promise never to claim you have a “hidden agenda” just because you say one thing in private and another in public. That wouldn’t be fair.
Lord and Eski.
Thanks for the input.
Nobody talks to me now. I have nothing to lose. My curse has alwasy been that I speak my mind. I was foolishly brought up to belive that that was called honesty.
I believe that if we cannot articulate a problem. A solution is only a fantasy.
That is why consider this country not real, but a fantasy .. a joke … run by jokers for suckers.
And I don’t care if anyone talks to me. I don’t want to hear bullshit anyway. I have plenty to keep me amused.
Best
D
For me, I would just like to state my analysis of the left: the left is racist or race-minded. They can’t seem to stop seeing the world through the filter of “race”. It keeps them from thinking clearly.
Dawg, don’t you agree that, for all intents and purposes, “race” shouldn’t matter at all; that it’s completely irrelevant? Do you believe we’re equal regardless of whatever characteristics or dogmatically-imposed “social constructs” make up any differences we may or may not possess that could be considered “racial”?
The left frightens me to no end. I wish they’d stop talking so much about things that really shouldn’t matter, like race, gender, religion, how people have sex in private, or whether one is “left” or “right”. I wish leftists would instead think and talk about things that really matter, like economics, health care, etc. This is the main problem of the left, aside from its socialistic economic idealogy.
And please don’t bother to ask “what is race?” I don’t care, because whatever you or I think is the definition is irrelevant because I don’t care what race anyone is, period. You don’t either, I’m sure.
“Dawg, don’t you agree that, for all intents and purposes, “race” shouldn’t matter at all; that it’s completely irrelevant? Do you believe we’re equal regardless of whatever characteristics or dogmatically-imposed “social constructs” make up any differences we may or may not possess that could be considered “racial”?”
Well, first of all I don’t believe that “race” is anything but a social construct. There’s simply no scientific basis for the concept. So the notion that I see things through a racial filter is simply not so.
Should “race” not matter a damn? Of course. I wish this invidious concept would disappear from the face of the earth. But the problem is this. That “social construct” you speak of isn’t “dogmatically-imposed” [I’m sure no pun was intended here] but socially imposed, in a structure of unequal power relations.
Consider this finding, quoted in a letter to today’s Globe and Mail: a 2003 study by MIT and the Unoversity of Chicago foind that applicants with “white-sounding” names had a 50% better chance of getting a response. I like “white-sounding,” necause it makes the whole notion of “white” look foolish and empty. Which it is, of course.
So, if the groups have a certain social reality, we might agree that people will be placed into them, perhaps identify with them, and experience social and economic consequences as a result.
My involvement in this came about, I repeat, because Kate took something I said privately to her out of its context, making it sound as though someone had been making judgements about who is or is not a good “Native” based upon their political orientation. If you go back and check the quote I was referring to, you’ll see that my response was much more specific. And I don’t take it back, by the way–in that context.
Hmm… I’m beginning to see your point wrt the “social construct” phrase.
Case in point: so many “Aboriginals” look as “white” as any “white” can be. So how is it proven to the state or decided by the state that someone is “Aboriginal”? It doesn’t make sense. If skin color or other distinguishing physical characteristics puts people at a disadvantage sometimes, then how is one disadvantaged if they don’t look and aren’t going to be perceived as a minority, in this context as “Aboriginal”, unless the state for whatever reason it chooses, deems an individual “Aboriginal” and has them live on a reserve, subject to band politicians’ whims, having precious few, if any, economic opportunities and third-world living conditions, all despite eight billion dollars being transferred to “Aboriginals”?
Think about this: regardless of a person’s appearance and regardless of ancestry, Aboriginal or not, genuine or fraudulent, the question is this:
Does “identifying” people as “Aboriginal”, therefore doom them to a less-fortunate existence? Why does it matter what “race” a person is? Why do officially “Aboriginal” people often find themselves trapped in certain communities in often hopeless conditions? Why, if the state transfers an estimated $70,000 per Aboriginal household, do the majority of people living on reserves live in far-less-than equal conditions?
These are questions that have to be asked. Transferring more money has not ever improved the living standard for those on reservations. It only gets worse. While water infrastructure and quality, for example, in cities and towns is treated as a priority, why has the water system on reserves been virtually ignored? It’s not the money, apparently– the money flows very well, but nothing gets done. WHY? Whose fault is it? We need to determine why. But if we ask why, we get defamed as racist, as we’ve seen happen to someone we know by a certain MWW.
Another question: do you think that Aboriginals are being treated equally by the Liberal state or can you see, too, that they’re being segregated geographically, economically, politically and socially, ruled over by their own politicians who aren’t any more accountable than those in Ottawa and the provincial capitals, and could even be less accountable? Don’t denounce me for asking, please, for if no one ever asks these questions, then no one really cares. And that would be a very bad thing, because thousands are suffering in Canada because of state-deemed “race” status and segregation.
If it can be proven that none of the questions I just asked above are valid, then let it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
Politically-correct fascism prevents people from asking important questions to help people who need help.
The true right has no need for racism, whereas the left feeds off of it politically and professionally. They have multi-billion dollar claims based on it’s continued existence. That’s why some letists turn into poverty pimps who make their living throwing race into every situation. If simply invoking the “R” card turns the most reasonable opponent into a straw man, all the better for them, just like it doesn’t matter to them that the free western world is the greatest bastion of ethnic tolerance and diversity that the world has ever known.
I don’t think it’s possible to have a dialogue with people who won’t put “race” down, who make a push for constant racial awareness, while simultaneously complaining about the fact that race is still an issue. There’s just no point. If you say to someone on the left that race is irrelevent or unimportant, i.e. that it doesn’t matter, you will likely be chided for your ignorance of racism. If you say that race does matter, or that there are racial differences, you are immediately placed alongside genocidal murderers in the moral spectrum of humanity.
I think that the unknown offender’s quote that Dawg referred to — about the greatness of European civilization — is an observation, or an opinion, and it certainly is in no way a betrayal of aboriginal peoples. Native people are not immune to criticism, as Dawg pointed out, but they shouldn’t be criticized because of their “race”, which is what Dawg did when he said that a white person uttering a certain reasoned opinion is “silly”, but when someone of “another race” utters that same opinion that it’s also “a little sad, too”.
If some Chinese student studied and recognized and appreciated European history and achievements, or was a bit of an Anglophile, I doubt that Dawg would feel judge such interest unsightly or sad. The Doctor is mostly reasonable, if on his own terms. Lord Kitchener, on the other hand is a dog’s breakfast of scrambled state victim-speak combined with ivory tower chin tugging and a bunch of other stuff you don’t want to know ’cause it just adds up to agitation.
To each his own. If some old Scottish guy starts bragging that the Scots have the best stories, and the best food, and that Scottish fiddle music is the greatest music in the history of civilization, take no offense. And if a Nigerian guy says it, don’t think of it as silly or sad, just think, what a great, crazy world.
I wonder how university applications with “redneck” names like Bobby Wayne Johnson and Billy Bob Smith would fare against those “black-sounding” names (which the recipients may have interpreted as “ghetto” names).
The MSM is guilty of encouraging the left to go around making pretty much everything a racial issue and automatically labelling their non-left opponents’ opinions as “racist” by granting them explosive coverage.
Remember Elinor Caplan’s 2000 election defamation of the Canadian Alliance in a similar fashion? She did it knowing fully well that the MSM would make sure Canadians heard her and gave her neutral coverage to make it seem she had a legitimate point to make which she didn’t. Her only objective was to hurt a political opponent with malicious, dishonest defamation in order to guarantee her party victory in the election. She lied, lied, lied to the people of Canada and the MSM is an accomplice in this terrible offence. And of course, the Liberals had to approve of it all as they gladly let it happen without any consequences for Minister Caplan.
The MSM is itself, as Senator Anne Cools coined the term, “race-minded”. The Liberals, NDP and the left are “race-minded”, and this incessant, brainless knee-jerk reactive “race-mindedness” is extremely hurtful to all and must be stopped for the good of humanity. It’s hurting everyone and helping no one.
The left must be made to be ashamed of itself for the harm it’s doing to everyone with its race-mindedness.
To the left: race does not matter. Stop making it matter. Don’t be hurtful anymore.
Senor Dawg,
Kate’s key point is that there can be no excuse for racist slurs. You don’t get a mulligan based on the person’s on party affliation.
In your explanations (various and many), you have managed to dance around long enough to completely NOT answer this.
Yet you came victim’s status because she called you on it. Personally I applaud her clarity.
What say you?
Seems like many have missed the basic point. If out of one corner of your mouth you are espousing that “racism must end – be blind to race”, you cannot espouse out of the other corner of your mouth “unless you a member of an oppressed race”. Either you sincerely believe that race should be completely ignored, or you don’t. Ah, the left argues, but we must establish equilibrium, make reparations, etc etc etc. OK, fine. Let’s use a bit of racism, say, against the oppressive whites, to fix racism. Interesting methodology. Now, tell me, how do you know when you have fixed the problem, and the fix of more racism no longer needs to be applied? I have never heard any proposals from the left on the means by which one objectively measures the ‘equilibrium’ we so wish to achieve.
And right there, we get to the core issue of why the left cannot be trusted. Nobody should be racist, unless it’s a member of an oppressed race, in which case racism is justified. But, it’s logically inconsistent – when is a position justified if it’s illogical? When we say it is. So, you decide the criteria by which you justify actions? Yes. Does that include deciding that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a useful tool for ‘restoring equilibrium’?
I saw throught this line of reasoning long, long ago. There is an investment on the left in maintaining racism, because it creates employment for a whole class of people that otherwise don’t want to get callouses on their hands.
Get down off the damn soapboxes, already, and drop race from your consideration of the worthiness of an individual. Thereby, racism ends. Period.
I wish some of you people would get the point. It’s a rather obvious one, I would have thought. “Race” is a social construct. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Racialized minorities are put in racial categories and come to identify with them. The racial categories are certainly real enough to them.
Canadian Sentinel raises the matter of who is, or is not, Aboriginal. Interesting question. The government has splintered this concept to the max: status Indians, non-status Indians, Metis, Inuit, etc. In fact he raises a number of other good questions, too, and I think they are entirely appropriate ones. I’d be the last person to call him or anyone else a “racist” for looking openly and honestly at a major problem in Canadian society.
“The true right has no need for racism,” says EBD. The true right invented racism, for crying out loud. Go make a comment like that to David Duke, or Aryan Nations, or, for that matter, Jim Pankiw.
How did I enter this scene? Why, during the course of a rather long email to Kate, in which I indicated that I do not have a simple-minded notion of Aboriginal peoples, know something about the subject, and have little liking for DIAND’s policies, past and present.
I happened to mention (since she had brought the man’s name up as somehow knowledgeable on the subject, which he may well be)that he “grovelled at the shrine of the white man,” providing a quotation from him that backs that point up to a fare-thee-well. She omitted the quotation, and used the bald statement as an “illustration” of behaviour I don’t actually happen to approve of: white people questioning the authenticity of members of racialized minorities because of their political opinions.
I repeat: I think that’s dirty pool. I don’t get to call a Black person an “oreo,” nor do I get to call a Native person an “apple” or, indeed, a New Zealand Maori a “riwai” [potato]. It’s up to members of those racialized minorities to make that sort of judgement. But I do get to criticize opinions uttered by anyone: no one gets a pass because they are a member of a racialized minority. And if they utter comments that show a certain degree of mental colonization, I get to say that, too, in those terms. Clear enough?
Nigerians are not oppressed by Scotsmen, EBD, so I’d be rather charmed to hear a Nigerian extolling the haggis as the supreme world delicacy. But Aboriginal people in Canada have encountered and continue to encounter a long, sorry history of racism and exclusion that no one outside a sensory deprivation tank could deny. When a member of that minority claims that “the white man” is just simply the best, while expressing at the same time what appears to me to be loathing and contempt for Aboriginal people, “his people” as he puts it, that’s quite a different kettle of fish. Do I not get to remark on that as “sad?” I think it is.
In the case at hand, the quotation I referred to says it all. And yes, EBT, if a Chinese person said such a thing, I’d respond in exactly the same way, and question him further on his knowledge of his own rich heritage.
Just to conclude: I do wish that people would simply look at what I say rather than imagining what I must believe, filtered through their own preconceptions of “the Left.” But I suspect that this is a vain hope on my part.
“Race is a social construct”. WTF?
“Culture” is a social construct. How’s that? Do we now have a deeper grasp of “culture”?
Speaking of “culture”, why, isn’t that what our Liberals have poured billions into – creating a “culture”, which is to provide us with our own identity. When I hear “unique Canadian culture”, I hear “differentiate us” from everyone else. Same process – segregation.
There is no need to create a “Canadian Identity”. That will emerge of its own accord, through a selection process that disposes of the junk. If a cultural product (“social construct”) has merit, it will survive.
To create a “Canadian Identity” plants the seeds for “racism” – i.e. establish a brand, be it good or bad, on an individual, so the contents can be judged by its cover.
“Social construct”. So is my driveway.
Inasmuch as European culture encompasses an unprecedentedly wide range of ethnic groups — just look at the various tribes who over several thousand years inhabited and shaped England — if the quoter whose aboriginal roots are an issue to Dawg appreciates the accomplishments of European culture — sciences, the arts, democracy or whatever — isn’t he also then by Dawg’s definition worshipping at the altar of the Jews (Einstein, for example) and the Arabs (who predominated peninsular Spain and beyond for many years and whose cultural mark remains) and the Italians (Scarlatti) and the Greeks (Aristotle, Plato) and on and on?
And BTW, Dawg, you said that the right invented racism; that’s not an argument that can ever be solved, racism undoubtedly predates state politics. But wasn’t Hitler’s party called the National Socialist party, or something? And isn’t racism collectivism? I think of the right as being meritocratic, and that therefore race doesn’t matter, even if racism does, for being anti-meritocratic.
Apologies about the “EBT”–must be a nervous tic.
Surely we’re not going to raise the “Hitler was really a leftist” meme, are we? In any case, the earliest racialist discourses emphasized European purity and eugenics. Gobineau, I guess, was the earliest exponent of a “scientific” racialism. I don’t think he was regarded as a dangerous radical. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobineau)
As for the Right being meritocratic, that’s an interesting proposition. You aren’t entirely wrong about this, bu the way. The problem is with the definition of “merit.” For example, stating the “the white man” created the “best art” is a value-judgement, not an empirical statement.
In the past, and in the present for some, races themselves have been/are defined, and various labels of “merit” are attached. The other difficulty with “merit” in the Right’s hands is that it is applied as though all people were on a level playing field. But that simply isn’t the case.
“The other difficulty with “merit” in the Right’s hands is that it is applied as though all people were on a level playing field. But that simply isn’t the case.”
Ok, Dawg, that’s your contention. But I can assure you that as “merit” is currently in the hands of the left, in the form of the “Liberal” state, “merit” is taken to mean whomever the Liberal apparatchiks deem worthy of being hired or otherwise enriched with taxpayer dollars. Trust me… I’m certain of this. I’ve seen it for myself in person in the real world. It’s not what you know or what you’ve proven you can do; it’s who you are and who you know that gets you ahead in Liberal-controlled circles, which are plentiful and gigantic. Oh, and, yes, it’s also up to oneself in terms of demonstrated willingness to submit to the fascistic political correctness imperatives and requirements as dictated by the Liberal state. This is the left’s definition of merit, and that’s my contention based on what I’ve seen and my intellectually-honest analysis thereof.
As a so-called “right”-type of person, my definition (and it’s shared by my fellow “righties”) of merit is what you know (education) and what you can do. Also included in the definition is proven performance, be it productivity, speed, quality or whatever measurement that has only to do with performance of duties as observed by one’s employer.
You raised the “playing field” concept in terms of “levelness”. I do understand this concept. But it’s admittedly a subjective thing. Too often I’ve seen the leftist-oriented state declare bizarre things that make no sense in the real world just to allow some folks to get into certain jobs for which they may or may not be suited as an individual. Case in point: firefighting. The left declared that there must be two standards of physical performance for male and female firefighter applicants. The belief is that the standards were deliberately or ignorantly set with a view to the hiring of males as firefighters. But it was never, never proven as such. Think of this: many, many male applicants fail the physical tests for various reasons, such as they never went to the gym in their life and are therefore out of shape and not strong enough to be firefighters. Same applies to women. We know that the average woman can train herself to achieve the physical performance levels required to be firefighters. Why not advise potential applicants of this, both male and female, and provide appropriate training in a sort of school for aspiring firefighters, like in a karate school? Why have separate standards simply because some leftists declared they be implemented? I argue the playing field is level wrt the requirements to be able to actually be a firefighter in the real world of fires and not simply in the minds of leftists. I say, if standards will be lowered to let more women in, then lower the standards for men so as not to discriminate against them. The argument would then be made by leftists that the men would then become mediocre firefighters as they don’t have the physical ability to perform their job. But then what of the women? Same performance standard then, therefore both genders will be incapable of being effective firefighters. Therefore, don’t lower the standards at all- we want capable firefighters, men and women, to be there to save our lives if need be, and not some politically-correct pawn in a raincoat and rubber boots who can’t lift a ladder or hose.
It’s too complicated to talk about the “level playing field”. We must try to reduce complication as it often makes understanding impossible by muddying the real issues.
If a person can do the job, then… but if not, then… and it needn’t be more complicated than that. And don’t worry, I’m not implying that “adaptive aids” can’t be used, as they certainly can and are very common, actually. I’m sure you get the picture.
One of my closest friends was from the Morley reserve, between Banff and Calgary, and he used to delight in calling me a stupid white man. The part that upset me was he was right, he was referring to the doling out of money and the reasoning behind it. He would go into his chopped Indian English routine and say it took you 50 years to defeat us and you have been paying us for a hundred years or so, not bad for some bush Indians is it and then laugh like hell. Not much I could say. In the later years before he passed away the laughter about dumb white men took on a whole different meaning. He was quite bitter about how anyone could be so stupid as to give money to a bunch of crooked Chiefs and councils and not demand an accounting while most lived in poverty. Again, what the hell do you say?
Politicians today are nothing but a bunch of race hustling poverty pimps that have made an Industry out of Indian Affairs.
Well-put.