I wouldn't hold my breath, though. The only reason such people approach credibility is that their statements are published in a medium that allows no discussion or argument. 
Posted on 01/12/2002 10:05:34 AM PST by IronJack
"Black people cannot be racist."
It's been maybe 20 years since the first time I heard some member of the black intelligentsia say that on an afternoon talk show. Naturally, all hell broke loose.
Years later, all hell still awaits repair.
I base that assessment on the response to something I did in a recent column. Namely, I defined racism as "this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin."
Man, what'd I want to go and say that for? The flood of letters has been unrelenting, dozens of aggrieved Caucasians wanting your poor, benighted correspondent to know that racism, thank you very much, is also felt by those whose skin is not dark at all. Several folks figured I must be one o' them black folk who considers black folk incapable of racism. One individual went so far as to contend that your truly, like most blacks, hasn't a clue what racism really is.
Well, golly, where to begin?
First, my take on the "blacks can't be racist" argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric.
People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist.
I get impatient with people who make the argument in those terms, terms that seem, frankly, calibrated to produce more confrontation than insight. Most people who hear the point framed in that way are, understandably, unable to get past those first inflammatory words: "Blacks can't be racist."
So let's frame it another way. Let's allow that black folks can, indeed, be racist. Or prejudiced, intolerant, biased, bigoted, or any other word that floats your boat. Blacks people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset.
But with that established, let's also say this: It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite. This is the point the black intelligentsia's rhetoric has obscured and people like my correspondents have denied, avoided, and ignored. As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa. They also have less history of doing so. These are incontrovertible facts that render hollow the yowling demands that the racism of blacks be accorded a place in the national consciousness commensurate with that of white people.
Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. I don't care. Just don't pretend the transgression is what it is not. Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large.
Because if it represents such a threat, then where are the statistics demonstrating how black bias against whites translates to the mass denial of housing, bank loans, education, employment opportunities, voting rights, medical care, or justice? And, please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school, or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action.
Not the same. Not even close. There are, inf fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds, and Keshias -- in the African-American community. And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks. Yet even with those bona fides, some people find evidence of white racism's power dishearteningly easy to ignore.
They have to, I suppose. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to continue pretending an equivalency that does not exist. And somewhere inside, even THEY must recognize that fact.
Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.
I bet every one of my correspondents does too.
But blacks certainly have their share of innocent blood on their hands. This issue is never going to be resolved if either party insists on claiming moral superiority. This can't be a fight for the high ground; neither race deserves it. But it can be a fight for COMMON ground, an understanding that transfering the sins of one group to another only delays ultimate equity.
OH? What do you call the Jesse Jackson shakedowns if not power. What do you call the President of Harvard crawling on his knees before that pimp Cornel West, if not power? What do you call the rewriting of history in the FDNY "memorial", if not power? Marshalling the forces of government for systematic oppression of whites is what I see here. Not racist? In a pig's eye!
That may have more to do with the transfer of power than blacks' ability to rule themselves. Besides, my statement was meant to describe AMERICAN blacks, a distinction I should have made more clear. Obviously, African blacks were not torn from their homes and culturally brainwashed (although there are those who would claim that the colonization of Africa by European powers accomplished much the same thing).
Now, now. Technically, they use the word "Niggaz" and they truly believe that there is a distinct difference among the two words. I've actually listened to arguments about how "Niggers" is verboten, but "Niggaz" is perfectly A-OK.
However, as a white man, if I was to go about shouting "Niggaz" I am certain that I would be swiftly censured (if not physically assaulted).
But, if whites as a collective were indeed racist, the blacks would not be around to complain about it.
John Singleton ("Boyz in the Hood") has a new film out entitled "Baby Boy". I watched it the other night. I must tell you that my life's experiences are not limited. 55 years old, military vet of 10 years service, well traveled, and educated beyond the average. If the film does indeed typify life in "African-America" (I hate the concept of hyphenated Americans) then we, all of us black, white, yellow, brown, red, etc. are really further down the road towards Gomorra than I thought.
The aggregate of "villages" in our republic are seemingly having less and less in common, which of course was and is the "progressive political" agenda.
United "they" stand; divide "them" and "we" control, seems to be the politics at play in the nation today.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though. The only reason such people approach credibility is that their statements are published in a medium that allows no discussion or argument.
This is very, very true- we had to create our own culture and for the most part, we have. What everyone has to remember is, though, that more than one culture is contained within the black community. The one you have described in this post certainly exists, but it is not the only black culture there is. It may get the most attention from the media, academia, think tanks, and the like, but that doessn't mean it's an accurate descriptor of all 35+ million African Americans. This country would be in much worse shape if it was.
It doesn't- it sure ain't my life story and many, many blacks have distanced themselves from that. Don't take any movie or TV show to be an accurate portrayal of the way most blacks live.
Agreed. But try flirting with a white woman in Tuscaloosa in 1930. Or drinking at the "Whites Only" fountain in Possum Patch. Or not stepping off the sidewalk when the white man came strolling down it in Selma in 1950. I don't know any exact figures, but lynchings of blacks DID happen, and outright bigotry was the order of the day as recently as the 50's.
None of which excuses black bigotry, but all of which helps explain it.
Precisely! Since it is so UNrepresentative of most blacks, it begs the question: WHY does it "get the most attention from the media, academia, think tanks ...?" Why are those institutions so poised to deliver blacks from their cultural banishment instead committed to aggravating the tension and maintaining a debilitating status quo?
Usually because, somehow, it pays.
Kinda like slavery?
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.