Posted on 08/04/2018 1:44:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
It appears the most recent New York Times editorial board hire, Sarah Jeong, has sparked one of those "difficult national conversations" regarding racism due to her tweets haranguing white people. But like most of these so-called conversations, national discourse has devolved into the left dismissing any concern from conservatives about racism.
This dismissal stems from the left's definition of racism. Jeong one time tweeted, "Theoretically you can’t be racist against white people." This theory is predicated on the belief that white people in America benefit from an unequal power structure. Government discrimination against minorities exists to keep this inequality of the races present. Ergo, in order to be racist, you have to have power they argue. The left believes white people have all the power in American society. So if a minority attacks an entire group of white people, they are doing so honorably in order to dismantle the white patriarchy according to the left.
To be clear, white people in America have benefited from advantageous government policies. This has created many different problems for various minority groups that persist today. But, leftists believe that that power structure is so pervasive in American society that only white people can be racist.
Jeong has also tweeted remarks such as "White men are f*cking bulsh*t,” and "Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and much more. CARTOONS | Steve Breen View Cartoon
Conservatives pointed out that Jeong was denigrating an entire group of people, even dehumanizing whites by calling them goblins in one tweet. Yet the left defended her tweets as satire and not actually racist.
Why? Because of their belief that "racism depends upon societal power structure, therefore only whites can be racist." This idea goes out the window when a white person is attacked simply for his skin color. Whatever supposed structure exists comes crumbling down in this instance. This happened just this week in New York City. The suspect in this case, a black man, was being racist by attacking a white man for being white.
Does the left ignore this kind of racism because they view members of society as collective units, not individuals each endowed with rights from God? If so, the left's idea that "power" equates to governmental action could arguably be tied to their tendency to disbelieve in God.
However, for the true conservative, we believe in God and tend to believe in the dictionary's definition of racism. It is defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." To a true conservative, racism is incredibly stupid and hateful because we are all God's children and therefore no race is more superior than the other.
Our equality and human dignity come from divine power, not our fellow man. All humans have equal rights found in nature. And each person is granted these rights from God, not the government granting rights to groups.
Leftists may argue that belief in God has been used to justify various atrocities. But this ignores the fact that God was the guiding source of inspiration for civil rights hero Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. "We must keep God in the forefront. Let us be Christian in all our actions," Rev. King once said regarding protests for equal rights.
Furthermore, King's definition of racism is inherently different from modern liberals. Rev. King's viewpoint was essentially the same as the dictionary's. King said racism was "a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission. It is the absurd dogma that one race is responsible for all the progress of history and alone can assure the progress of the future. Racism is total estrangement. It separates not only bodies, but minds and spirits. Inevitably it descends to inflicting spiritual and physical homicide upon the out-group.”
If the left truly wants to progress society, we should stick to Dr. King's definition. If there is one thing we should be able to agree upon it is that it is wrong for one to judge or mistreat an individual based on that individual's race.
We must also recognize that historically those in charge with vast amounts of power will use their personal biases and hate to advance their collective group and suppress others. That is not unique to America's past alone. It is not unique to white people. It is an abuse of power that has been the norm for most of world history across all cultures. This does not excuse it in America. It indicates that the oppression of one group over another is a problem that can be found in every society. Each of us, regardless of race, can do our part to solve this problem by viewing each other as individuals.
That is why conservatives advocate limited government, the belief in individual freedom, and against collectivist thinking. But, under leftist thought and their view of racism, we regress towards rigid collectivist group think and massive government power which makes hatred against the individual possible.
Whatever the sincerity of the left's desire to combat hatred, it is clear that conservatives are operating with one definition of racism while leftists view it as something completely different. This is problematic for society. It indicates that even the way in which the right and left use words is growing more polarized due to politics. Words matters. If we do not have the same understanding of language as critical as "racism" there is no chance of a meaningful dialogue for genuine progress. No true "difficult national conversation" can be had under this paradigm.
SOMEBODY needs to back-hand this bitch - I now volunteer...
“To be clear, white people in America have benefited from advantageous government policies.”
Since 1965? How?
The most prosperous ethnic group in the “racist” USA?
Hint: It’s not whites.
A: Indians (the ones from India)
Ignore it all. It works for me.
This thing is racist. The nyt doesn’t think so, but the nyt is incompetent, insane, and racist.
You didn’t believe me, or you laughed, when I said that the left wants to eliminate Whites and/or Christians. Believe it now?
Racism is NOT the dislike or even hatred of another person based on skin color. That is prejudice.
Racism is the BELIEF that one’s own ethnicity is physically, mentally, and/or spiritually SUPERIOR to all other groups.
A racist person will undoubtedly demonstrate prejudicial behavior most if not all of the time... but someone who behaves in a prejudicial manor is not necessarily a racist.
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free.
In America, in the Year 1776, a genius group of freedom loving individuals declared a set of principles by which, if accepted, a society of like-minded individuals could enjoy "the pursuit of happiness."
Eleven years later, they "constituted" a form of self-government to assure that the goals of their Constitution's Preamble were to become reality for the nation.
The Preamble began with the words,
The goal, of course, was the expansion, or enlargement, of liberty for individuals in the society--not the enlargement of government!
Perhaps Donald Trump's greatest achievement to this point can be described as one man's effort to "expand liberty" for individuals and to "contract government power," thereby allowing just a little individual freedom to flourish as it did in America both prior to 1776 and thereafter.
By the way, has anyone here read Burke's Speech on Conciliation. . . . lately? If not, please read his description of how the "spirit of liberty" among the colonists, even before 1776, had resulted in the American colonies literally "feeding" the Old World!
The word, "liberty," should, once again become the watchword for American citizens.
Ask a liberal if blacks can be racist against whites when they DO control the power structure, like in Zimbabwe.
I’m betting many libs will try to weasel out.
More than “words”, WHO is focused on “racism” is far more telling.
Obsession takes many forms, but usually when you can’t shut up about a particular subject, and refuse to change the subject, you can bet “obsession” figures into the plot, somewhere.
Those who continually - or continuously - rant about racism are either very bitter about being born a minority, or, trying to use the accusation of “racism” as a tool to elicit a certain action, or results.
Everyone knows that when the “face card” is played on you, the other side has lost the debate on all other fronts. We also know that those using the race card know that using epithets like, “whitey”, “cracker”, “dough boy”, has no effect on most white people, so, they seldom use such terms in accusatory conversation.
But some in the misguided minority absolutely refuse to see any of their failures, shortcomings, ignorance, as someone else’s fault, and white people are easy targets for them to cite.
But, like an old MasterCard, the numbers, letters, and magnetic strips on those “race cards” are worn very thin, and being called a “racist” doesn’t elicit the reaction it once did. Only hard leftists see it as a “crime against mankind”, and feel the need to clamor and apologize.
My answer is, “everybody has their own opinion about something or other, it doesn’t matter to me, at all”. In other words, if calling me a “racist” makes you feel better about yourself, or your own race, it has no effect on me, whatsoever.
We all have little insecurities that need to be salved now and then, but in the long run, we have to buck up, and go on with our life...OUR life - not anyone else’s life.
So, blame it on words if that’s your salve, but words are formed in the brain with a goal of perpetuating feelings and ideas...doesn’t mean they are facts.
Nation of Islam preaches that blacks are superior to whites. By your standard is Farrakhan racist?
What are words for?
Missing Persons - Words
Do you hear me
Do you care
Do you hear me
Do you care
My lips are moving and the sound’s coming out
The words are audible but I have my doubts
That you realize what has been said
You look at me as if you’re in a daze
It’s like the feeling at the end of the page
When you realize you don’t know what you just read
What are words for when no one listens anymore
What are words for when no one listens
What are words for when no one listens it’s no use talkin at all
..................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasCZL072fQ
No. The second and third generations achieve well above average academically. Lots of professionals in medicine, engineering, etc.
“This theory is predicated on the belief that white people in America benefit from an unequal power structure. Government discrimination against minorities exists to keep this inequality of the races present.”
The author is incorrect. The left’s definition of racism is rooted in the belief that white scientists/”natural philosophers” created “race” as an artificial academic construct, and that this was the predicate to “racism”, as a means to justify enslavement of non-whites, western imperialism, and global white supremacy. Next, racism was institutionalized within the US Constitution, State, and local law is used to maintain white power and privilege through Jim Crow laws, denial of voting rights, etc.
There is partial validity to the claim, so long as most of human history is ignored or never known about. Were the Japanese racists when they treated Chinese in Nanking like subhumans (and Koreans in Korea?)? How about the caste system wherein Indian brahmins treat racially different “forest people” like untermenchen? When Han Chinese ethnically cleanse and resettle Sinkiang province and Tibet? Those are contemporary examples, but racism has been with us much longer than the concept or race.
All I know is that in my entire working life of 40 years, blacks have gotten preference in hiring and promoting decisions.
>>> Nation of Islam preaches that blacks are superior to whites. By your standard is Farrakhan racist?
It’s not my standard. It is the definition.
If everyone had their own standard as to what a word means, we would not be able to communicate.
As for Farrakhan, the truth is self evident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.