White Guilt = Black Power

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Shelby Steele

[JZoback]

Bump

[atafak]

Odd. You conflate intellectual honesty with missing the point. An ostrich in your ancestry?

[Orion]

How long before this thread gets pulled?

[Matchett-PI]

"Odd. You conflate intellectual honesty with missing the point. An ostrich in your ancestry?"

You had previously written: "..Cute. The WSJ attempts to avoid the racism charge by getting a black to write the article."

Cute. Are you saying that you know the WSJ had the motive of wanting an article like that to print and specifically hired a black, telling him what to write?

Odd. I will admit that I assumed you were also attributing motives to Shelby Steele and attacking what he wrote. Please accept my apology for extrapolating your negative remarks about the motives of the WSJ on out to include Steele and his article.

[okie01]

Answer me this. What the hell am I doing in the midst of this tepid flame war?

[Matchett-PI]

"Answer me this. What the hell am I doing in the midst of this .....?"

Did you write this?:

In #10 you told atafak:"I see your point. Any number of white conservative thinkers could have written this same column. But the WSJ chose to publish the formulations of a black man, as if his color lends his words even more authority."

That's why.

[okie01]

You don't see the point? And you don't understand the rest of the paragraph?

Look, I subscribe to just about everything Steele wrote. The issue is that we have an atmosphere where only black men are considered qualified to speak out on these matters. Steele will surely be accused of being a sell-out and an Uncle Tom, but -- to a publisher -- that's probably preferable to having one of your white columnists accused of being a racist.

And that is the point!

[Looking4Truth]

Not real familiar with African American Studies, (other than after many years of study it qualifies you to work in an African American Department) but has there every been any serious achievemment in this area.

Well let's see...........oh yeah, we have kwanzaa now.

[Matchett-PI]

"The issue is that we have an atmosphere where only black men are considered qualified to speak out on these matters ... And that is the point!"

No, you don't get my point.

As I said before, I disagree with you two as to what you consider to be the "motives" of the WSJ.

What makes you think that the WSJ doesn't think it is refreshing, and rare to see a black man with that point of view, and would want to print what he writes to prove that Jesse Jackson, et.al. doesn't speak for ALL blacks?

But let's just drop it, since you haven't been able to see that the WSJ could have another "motive" other than the one you two want it to be. Thank you.

[okie01]

"I disagree with you two as to what you consider to be the "motives" of the WSJ."

Dammit, I am not questioning the motives of the WSJ.

I am questioning the atmosphere in which they -- and all the rest of us -- have to operate.

Observe that I wrote "as if", not "as", in the post #10 that you're hung up on.

If I've misled you, as I apparently have, I apologize. But I need some help here.

[cincinnati_Steve]

However, none of the foregoing detracts from your point. Americans these days are not the heroic nation they once were. Consider how much of war planning involves avoiding situations in which American boys might end up in body bags.

I agree with damn near everything you've said to the extent of post #71, but this assertion is bunk. It's akin to postulating that it makes sense that even though you own a gun, you'd show up at a fight where you knew the other dude had a knife without it. In other words, of course we are averse to taking any unnecessary risks. We don't need to. We possess ample technology and resources whereby we can pound the living hell out of our enemies. What do you expect us to do? Airdrop 30,000 troops into battlezones before we bomb 'em back to the age o' rock chunking?

Your posts are valid and cogent, but this single point is certainly spurious.

[atafak]

No apology needed. The quick and blitterforth of conversation on the net evoke multiple misunderstandings. They pass.

[Matchett-PI]

"If I've misled you, as I apparently have, I apologize. But I need some help here."

I'll just quote atafak in #73: "No apology needed. The quick and blitterforth of conversation on the net evoke multiple misunderstandings. They pass."

Looks like we finally got it straightened out. Carry on!! :D

[stainlessbanner]

SuperSize Value Meal Bump!

[stainlessbanner]

You have got to be a lawyer. Your posts remind me of the character played by Damon Wayans on "Living Color" - rember the black guy in prison who always used BIG words...

[not_conservative]

You're right about the fact that students need western civilisation courses first! It's vitally important, especially in today's world, that students know who they are and where they came from- this also includes white students! I'm currently attending college and hoped to study ancient history which is basically western themed. What I found was required black/womens history studies, and virtually NO ancient history or western history department, in fact you can go through high school and college without ever having learned about the Greeks or the Romans-- a far step away from about 30 or 40 years ago when learning the Roman language was a required class. There is only one college in my state where you can learn ancient history, or egyptology, and even swedish! Also, the article states that black man is doing mediocore because of the lack of white mans authority? Why is this? Why should black man need our authority if he is exactly equal to us? Just some thoughts!

[Squantos]

Awww leavin already ?

[Qwinn]

Pinging self for future reading.

Qwinn