The difference

[Taz]

Tim Wise: ‘White America’ does not understand the racial realities of America

Is this a racist rant?

Your whole life is a racist rant.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Right, we're talking about white violence. But, in order to gain a proper perspective on white violence, it behooves us to honestly look at human violence objectively and cite violence of other races and cultures.

You assumed wrongly that all gun manufacturers are white but now that you are better informed than you were a day ago, you have a wider perspective on the issue and can approach the matter with a more objective eye. If you so choose.

We've got that view many, many, many, many times in these threads. So now it's time to focus only on white violence and white crime as well as different perspectives on white racism that exist among whites other that those expressed by many whites here.

What you mean is that it's time for white people to focus on white violence, white crime and white racism like you do. You've never focused on anything else.

That's how this is going to be approached.

Not by me it isn't.

I am not better informed by you telling me there is 1 black gun manufacturer in the US.

If you didn't know before I told you, you are better informed. It would be more accurate to say "I am not more open minded by you telling me there is 1 black gun manufacturer in the US."

My perspective has not widened when the fact remains that whites control the gun manufacturing industry. You need the objective eye, not me.

Has your perspective widened enough for you to see that the predominately white gun industry is not the reason or cause of black and Hispanic gang members slaughtering each other?

My perspective is wide enough to see that yours is not wide enough to accept how this thread isn't abut Hispanic or black gangs. It is about what whites have done.

I thought we were talking about violence.

Let me just give you a little info in case you haven't realized it by now: I'm a Big Picture type person and look at things from a wider perspective. Meaning that, if you're going to talk about white racism, I'm going to let you know there's black racism. If you talk about white violence, I'm going to point out minority violence. This is the way I am and will always be. I will never get roped into a one-sided conversation about how awful I am because I'm white because it's a jaundiced and unrealistic view. Just so you know.

However, I am curious to know one thing. If I agree with you one hundred percent on your views of white racism and whatnot, what do you expect me to do about it? What comes after that?

This thread is about the different ways whites look at the issue of white racism. Certainly you don't want to talk about violence because you want to dismiss 241 years of white murder, violence and genocide to claim how everyone else is violent.

I never said anything one way or the other about the "241 years of white murder, violence and genocide" because slavery and racial oppression are a fact of history and everyone knows this. My contention is, and always has been, that not all whites are guilty of slavery and oppression and that blacks are just as capable as whites of being racist and violent.

If you had just said that it was whites who were responsible for slavery and oppression that would be one thing. But you are saying that ALL whites are and were responsible and that ALL whites should be held accountable. THIS is what whites are arguing against in this and other discussions you've started on the matter and is why you see such resistance. I for one will not be held accountable for slavery, racism or oppression because I am not guilty of any of them.

You don't look any big picture. Because if you did the you understand why I say that what you call black racism is not racism an how I can say that whites have created the dislike and mistrust because if thier continuing racism. You would understand that I'm not just talking about a white person calling me a name on a job and equating that to a SYSTEM.

Dislike and mistrust of an entire race is racism. If Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks and other black Civil Rights luminaries did not fight to be viewed as equal individuals regardless of their skin color then what the fuck were they fighting for? They fought to be treated as equals, not to hate whites.

Whites like you ask a lot of questions but rarely answer any asked of you. Most of the time its a question that you ask in order to use against the person to deny the issue you ask the question about. So to your question, it cannot be answered until you can admit how white racism might cause the lack of trust, dislike and even hatred some people of color have towards whites.

I have no problem admitting that some blacks are angry and frustrated by racism and discrimination. I do however have a problem with blacks like you not giving me the benefit that you demand of whites of showing that I am not racist or untrustworthy or that I'm a liar simply because I'm white.

You participate in the one sided conversations telling us as blacks how awful we are all the time. So you will look at problems whites have, or leave the thread.

That is a lie. I've never said anything about how awful blacks are. I've only pointed out that some blacks are guilty of the same things you accuse whites of.

As for questions, I believe I've answered every question you have ever posed to me. The thing is, you almost never ask questions because you're not interested in an exchange of information or other viewpoints. You're only interested in letting whites know they are guilty, guilty, and guilty!

I will happily answer any questions you might have so fire away. I can't promise you'll like the answers but I will answer. So go for it.

 

[IM2]

Dislike and mistrust of an entire race is racism. If Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks and other black Civil Rights luminaries did not fight to be viewed as equal individuals regardless of their skin color then what the fuck were they fighting for? They fought to be treated as equals, not to hate whites.

You have a real problem understanding the depths of what whites have done to others that created these things. If one just felt these things only because of your color then you'd be right. But the distrust of whites has nothing to do with color and everything to di with what whites have done.

I have no problem admitting that some blacks are angry and frustrated by racism and discrimination. I do however have a problem with blacks like you not giving me the benefit that you demand of whites of showing that I am not racist or untrustworthy or that I'm a liar simply because I'm white.

Stop whining. You are not being treated as you are because you are white. You are being treated as you are because you are white and racist. You don't get any benefit of the doubt until you can discuss things done by whites that have negatively impacted blacks. This thread is about the different ways whites look at white racism. Instead of discussing that you are always here whining about backs which have nothing to do with the topic. So start talking about the topic if you want to be given the benefit you say you should get.

 

[IM2]

If you had just said that it was whites who were responsible for slavery and oppression that would be one thing. But you are saying that ALL whites are and were responsible and that ALL whites should be held accountable. THIS is what whites are arguing against in this and other discussions you've started on the matter and is why you see such resistance. I for one will not be held accountable for slavery, racism or oppression because I am not guilty of any of them.

Boo! hoo! hoo!

You will be held accountable because you are. Just as I am for things that happen in the black community even as I am not guilty of them. I've spent most of my life working to change those things. I have not ever committed a crime. I have not ever been a gang member. I have never fathered a child out of wedlock. Went to college earned a undergrad and grad degree so I am not responsible for not taking education seriously. I have worked to make my own money since age 9, not one day ever on welfare. But I am being held accountable as are all blacks for these things by you racists. So you will be held accountable for all those things you are crying about. I don't give a damn what whites here are arguing or resisting. You no good racists post up all manner of racist garbage then yo want to say what you wont be held accountable for. So here's what I think abut that: and man up.

Because I said what I did and I mean what I say.

 

[IM2]

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

Side note: On this blog, unless it is otherwise clear, “white” mostly means just White Americans, though most of what I say seems to apply to English-speaking whites in general.

Since the “all whites” thing is not in any grammar book I wonder where it comes from. The best reason I have heard so far is that many White Americans use dichotomous thinking, seeing things as either-or. That means it is easy for them to think of whites as either being all the same or all Unique Individuals Unaffected by Race or Culture, leaving little middle ground between the two extremes.

So if I say “whites are racist” it is taken to mean that all whites are racist and racist in the same way. As if I said, “All whites are skinhead racists.” But what is in my head is a range:

• from skinhead racists
• to Jim Crow racists
• to scientific racists
• to “The Bell Curve” sorts
• to black pathologists
• to white Republicans
• to ordinary colour-blind racists
• to white liberal racists
• to white anti-racist racists
• to those souls who are not racist at all
• to those who fought against the slave trade
• to the white Freedom Riders
• to John Brown

– and much more besides.

I know whites are individuals. I live in a country that is mostly white. I have to deal with whites at work. I watch American film and television where whites are given whole story lines complete with a love life, where they are almost never reduced to stereotypes as whites.

So I expect them to be individuals. Which makes it all the more surprising and interesting to me when they do seem to act from a hive mind.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Dislike and mistrust of an entire race is racism. If Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks and other black Civil Rights luminaries did not fight to be viewed as equal individuals regardless of their skin color then what the fuck were they fighting for? They fought to be treated as equals, not to hate whites.

You have a real problem understanding the depths of what whites have done to others that created these things. If one just felt these things only because of your color then you'd be right. But the distrust of whites has nothing to do with color and everything to di with what whites have done.

If not all whites are guilty then it is irrelevant. The whites that are guilty of slavery, racism and oppression should be held accountable, not the ones that had nothing to do with it.

I have no problem admitting that some blacks are angry and frustrated by racism and discrimination. I do however have a problem with blacks like you not giving me the benefit that you demand of whites of showing that I am not racist or untrustworthy or that I'm a liar simply because I'm white.

Stop whining. You are not being treated as you are because you are white.

Bullshit. When I related my experience with black racism you accused me of concocting the story from the start. Why? Because I'm white.

You are being treated as you are because you are white and racist.

And there it is right from your own mouth: I'm being treated as I am not because I'm racist but because I'm white and racist. And you accuse me of being racist in the first place because I'm white. Why? Because I point out that some blacks are racist or that some whites fought to end slavery or that some whites fought for civil rights.

You don't get any benefit of the doubt until you can discuss things done by whites that have negatively impacted blacks. This thread is about the different ways whites look at white racism. Instead of discussing that you are always here whining about backs which have nothing to do with the topic. So start talking about the topic if you want to be given the benefit you say you should get.

You mean all I have to do is discuss things done by whites that have negatively impacted blacks and I won't be a racist and a liar anymore? Well, why didn't you say so!

Tell you what, when we're finished discussing the history of white racism and oppression, will you then discuss how some whites are not racist; that some whites are not responsible for slavery and oppression; that some whites fought to end slavery; that some whites fought for civil rights and that some blacks are racist?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If you had just said that it was whites who were responsible for slavery and oppression that would be one thing. But you are saying that ALL whites are and were responsible and that ALL whites should be held accountable. THIS is what whites are arguing against in this and other discussions you've started on the matter and is why you see such resistance. I for one will not be held accountable for slavery, racism or oppression because I am not guilty of any of them.

Boo! hoo! hoo!

You will be held accountable because you are. Just as I am for things that happen in the black community even as I am not guilty of them. I've spent most of my life working to change those things. I have not ever committed a crime. I have not ever been a gang member. I have never fathered a child out of wedlock. Went to college earned a undergrad and grad degree so I am not responsible for not taking education seriously. I have worked to make my own money since age 9, not one day ever on welfare. But I am being held accountable as are all blacks for these things by you racists. So you will be held accountable for all those things you are crying about. I don't give a damn what whites here are arguing or resisting. You no good racists post up all manner of racist garbage then yo want to say what you wont be held accountable for. So here's what I think abut that: and man up.

Because I said what I did and I mean what I say.

Who said you did any of these things or that you are guilty by race association?

 

[IM2]

“My family never owned slaves” is something you hear White Americans say. Although not racist in itself it has the effect of turning a blind eye towards racism.

The statement by itself is true for most whites: even back in slave days in 1860 fewer than 2% of whites owned slaves! Slaves cost way too much for most people and in half the country it was against the law. On top of that millions of whites came to America long after the slaves were freed, like most Italians and Jews.

The trouble with the statement is not its truth but how it is used: to cut white people off from history. When they say black people live in the past and need to give the slave thing a rest, they are making the very same argument: history does not matter, it somehow magically does not affect anyone alive now. If we are affected at all by history it is only through our families, nothing else.

That is wishful thinking. America’s slave past still profoundly affects its present. Most white people, it seems, refuse to see that: it makes them uncomfortable. By saying “My family never owned slaves” they are trying to buy themselves a pass from American history, both past and present. As if their family had been living on some Robinson Crusoe island all these years – and still does.

Your ancestors did not have to own slaves to benefit – either then or now. If anything the opposite seems to be true: most descendants of slave owners seem to be black, not white, like the descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Most blacks are part white and most of that white comes from slave owners.

A white American saying “My family never owned slaves” is like the daughter of a Mafia boss wearing her diamonds and pearls and saying she never murdered anyone or shook anyone down for money. As if the diamonds and pearls fell from the sky.

America grew rich on the red man’s land worked by black slaves. For a long time cotton was the main thing America sold to other countries. Profits from cotton (made mainly in the North and in Britain, not in the South) in turn helped to underwrite the growth of the country’s industry. The racism that grew out of slavery kept most blacks at the bottom as a supply of cheap labour. That benefited all whites through lower prices.

Even today whites continue to benefit from racism in the form of better education, higher incomes, longer lives and all the other unearned benefits of white privilege that have grown out of slave days.

Whites want to benefit from their ugly past – and their less ugly present – but they do not want to face up to it and set things right. Two attempts were made – the civil war and the civil rights movement – but both were incomplete. “My family never owned slaves” becomes an excuse not to do anything more.

 

[IM2]

The white racist guide to black pathologies

Black pathologies are those things that hold Black Americans back, like crime, drugs, illegitimacy and dropping out of high school. These are things they are doing to themselves. Racism is dead. They need to stop whining about white people and face up to the problems in their own communities.

How to argue black pathologies:

1. Make it about comparative rates. Because blacks are only 13% of the country, stuff like rape or illegitimacy will be largely white. So instead make it about the rate. It does not matter how bad the white rate is. All that matters is if the black rate is worse.
2. Whites are normal. Whites do not have pathologies because their behaviour, no matter how extreme, always counts as “normal”. Whites commit genocide? Everyone does it. It is human nature. Blacks rob a 7-Eleven? Something is wrong with black people. They have criminal tendencies. The crime rate proves it!
3. Make it a black thing. Put the word “black” in front of it: Black crime. Black illegitimacy. Black fatherlessness. Black gangs. Black high school drop-outs. See how that works? Do not talk about crime in general, just black crime. As if it is mainly a black thing. As if the black sort is somehow strangely different.
4. Correlation is cause. If those born out of wedlock are more likely to wind up in prison, then make black illegitimacy the cause of crime. Even though it is hardly the main cause. Likewise, if those who are married are less likely to fall below the poverty line, then make “the breakdown of the black family” the cause of poverty, not the other way round. Be sure to make it about what black people do, nothing else. If someone makes it about what white people do, say that making general statements about whites is racist and anti-white.
5. Internal v external causes. When coal mines shut down in West Virginia and crime and poverty among whites go through the roof, it is called “bad times”. When steel mills shut down in Chicago and crime and poverty among blacks go through the roof, it is called “a tangle of pathologies”. Know the difference! Whites can blame the economy, the government, social trends, food additives, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks and even reverse racism. Blacks are only allowed to blame themselves – otherwise it is called “whining” and “not taking responsibility”. Tell the author of this blog post that he is “letting blacks off the hook.”
6. Statistics and charts – use them! They are so easy to twist! If others come up with counter statistics, twist them too! Or give a long, confusing explanation about why they are wrong.
7. Studies. Find studies that support your point. There is bound to be one. A good study is hard to understand but has simple charts.
8. Inconvenient truth. When black people say you are twisting numbers, that it is not like that and blah, blah, blah, just tell them that they do not want to face up to the hard truths.

 

[IM2]

“Black People: The Republican User’s Guide” (2009, 3rd edition) has, so far as I know, never been written, but it is not hard to guess some of what would be in it:

Introduction:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to pass laws that favour the rich and block those that do them harm. This is done mainly by:

1. Keeping taxes low
2. Slowing change in society

To achieve this requires the votes of millions of Americans on election day who will be harmed by such policies. Fortunately, most voters are white racists. Take advantage of that:

Chapter 1: Divide and conquer:

The main trick is to get Americans to think race is more important than class so that they vote against their class interests.

The only thing that most voters have in common with the rich is a white skin colour. Use that to make them feel like they are on the same side as the rich. Strengthen that feeling by telling them that they too can be rich one day (even though most never will).

This divides the working- and middle-class vote, weakening it as a serious threat to Republican policy.

Chapter 2: At least I’m not black:

Paint black people as completely screwed up: poverty, drugs, crime, broken homes, bad manners, low morals, etc. Since most whites already look down on blacks and since most know so few of them, this will be easy.

You want them to feel that no matter how bad things get, “at least I’m not black”. This allows them to accept things the way they are and not demand policies that would hurt the rich.

Chapter 3: Racialize social problems:

Crime, gun violence, drugs, poverty, failing schools, absent fathers and all the other ills of American society must either be blamed on blacks or be seen as mainly affecting blacks. That way little will be done about them, keeping taxes low.

Chapter 4: Black pathologies:

Blacks must be blamed for their own troubles.

This is extremely important. It goes beyond excusing government inaction and keeping taxes low: Blacks are the single biggest threat to keeping American society the way it is, as shown by the civil war and the civil rights movement.

Therefore black leaders must be killed, imprisoned, driven out of the country or made to look laughable.

Chapter 5: Rented Negroes:

Right-wing think tanks and news organizations should hire articulate, well-dressed blacks who are willing to:

1. Make white people feel glad that at least they are not black.
2. Racialize social problems.
3. Push the idea of black pathologies.

A black face makes these much more believable and harder to argue against.

Chapter 6: Fear of a black president:

If the president is black paint him as a enemy who is out to destroy the country. Even if you have to destroy the country to do it.

Appendix:

Here put all those twisted numbers and misleading charts from right-wing think tank “studies”.

I leave “Black People: The White Liberal User’s Guide” as an exercise for the reader.

 

[IM2]

White paternalism is the belief that whites know what is best for people of other races, viewing them pretty much as overgrown children. It is racist since it assumes that whites know better than other races.

Examples:

• White man’s burden – the duty of whites to help the lesser races. Used in the early 1900s to excuse imperialism.
• White saviour films – where a white hero saves people of colour. “The Blind Side” (2009), “Dangerous Minds” (1995), etc
• Western imperialism – which seeks not just control of land, trade and taxes like most empires, but goes beyond that to remaking subjects in its own image – Westernization.
• American and Australian policy on natives – separating children from their parents to make them white; controlling what little land they have left.
• Whites adopting African children – like Madonna and Angelina Jolie.
• White allies – when they go beyond merely helping anti-racist causes to telling people of colour what to do, trying to take over.

White paternalists love to:

1. Point out the success of whites and the failures of blacks – Mugabe, Detroit, white inventions.
2. See blacks screw up or act like fools.
3. Talk down to blacks.
4. Tell blacks that they treat them better than anyone else would.
5. Tell blacks, in so many words, that they “saved” them from Africa.

White paternalists hate it when:

1. Blacks are not grateful to them.
2. Blacks get angry or say anything bad about whites.

You see that not just from white commenters on this blog, you see it in how they show blacks on American television. Black crime. Black buffoons. Black pathologies. Screwed-up or helpless black countries.

White paternalists do not see:

1. Their failed record at handling the affairs of people of colour: genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid, taking their land, taking their children, screwing up their countries – Vietnam, El Salvador, Chile, Gaza, Congo and on and on. They do not see that the most successful non-white country was one of the few countries they were not able to screw up: Japan, which shut out the West for hundreds of years.
2. That much of their “success” was based on screwing up the very people they are now supposedly trying to “help”. America was built on Indian land and black slave labour. The West was built on robbing the world through the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires. They do not see that they got to where they are through the barrel of a gun. They think it was through “values” or “institutions” or culture or genes.
3. That just as whites know what is in their own best interest, so do blacks and Indians and Vietnamese and everyone else. There is nothing special about white people. They point to Mugabe but not to Hitler or Stalin. They point to the black illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%, but not to the white illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%. They point to black street crime but not to Wall Street crime. Etc.

Whites say, “Where would you be without us?” Wrong: where would they be without us!

Mod Edit -- copyright violation -- no link or credit. IM2

 

[Taz]

“Black People: The Republican User’s Guide” (2009, 3rd edition) has, so far as I know, never been written, but it is not hard to guess some of what would be in it:

Introduction:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to pass laws that favour the rich and block those that do them harm. This is done mainly by:

1. Keeping taxes low
2. Slowing change in society

To achieve this requires the votes of millions of Americans on election day who will be harmed by such policies. Fortunately, most voters are white racists. Take advantage of that:

Chapter 1: Divide and conquer:

The main trick is to get Americans to think race is more important than class so that they vote against their class interests.

The only thing that most voters have in common with the rich is a white skin colour. Use that to make them feel like they are on the same side as the rich. Strengthen that feeling by telling them that they too can be rich one day (even though most never will).

This divides the working- and middle-class vote, weakening it as a serious threat to Republican policy.

Chapter 2: At least I’m not black:

Paint black people as completely screwed up: poverty, drugs, crime, broken homes, bad manners, low morals, etc. Since most whites already look down on blacks and since most know so few of them, this will be easy.

You want them to feel that no matter how bad things get, “at least I’m not black”. This allows them to accept things the way they are and not demand policies that would hurt the rich.

Chapter 3: Racialize social problems:

Crime, gun violence, drugs, poverty, failing schools, absent fathers and all the other ills of American society must either be blamed on blacks or be seen as mainly affecting blacks. That way little will be done about them, keeping taxes low.

Chapter 4: Black pathologies:

Blacks must be blamed for their own troubles.

This is extremely important. It goes beyond excusing government inaction and keeping taxes low: Blacks are the single biggest threat to keeping American society the way it is, as shown by the civil war and the civil rights movement.

Therefore black leaders must be killed, imprisoned, driven out of the country or made to look laughable.

Chapter 5: Rented Negroes:

Right-wing think tanks and news organizations should hire articulate, well-dressed blacks who are willing to:

1. Make white people feel glad that at least they are not black.
2. Racialize social problems.
3. Push the idea of black pathologies.

A black face makes these much more believable and harder to argue against.

Chapter 6: Fear of a black president:

If the president is black paint him as a enemy who is out to destroy the country. Even if you have to destroy the country to do it.

Appendix:

Here put all those twisted numbers and misleading charts from right-wing think tank “studies”.

I leave “Black People: The White Liberal User’s Guide” as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not glad that I'm not Black, I'm glad that I'm not you.

 

[IM2]

“Black People: The Republican User’s Guide” (2009, 3rd edition) has, so far as I know, never been written, but it is not hard to guess some of what would be in it:

Introduction:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to pass laws that favour the rich and block those that do them harm. This is done mainly by:

1. Keeping taxes low
2. Slowing change in society

To achieve this requires the votes of millions of Americans on election day who will be harmed by such policies. Fortunately, most voters are white racists. Take advantage of that:

Chapter 1: Divide and conquer:

The main trick is to get Americans to think race is more important than class so that they vote against their class interests.

The only thing that most voters have in common with the rich is a white skin colour. Use that to make them feel like they are on the same side as the rich. Strengthen that feeling by telling them that they too can be rich one day (even though most never will).

This divides the working- and middle-class vote, weakening it as a serious threat to Republican policy.

Chapter 2: At least I’m not black:

Paint black people as completely screwed up: poverty, drugs, crime, broken homes, bad manners, low morals, etc. Since most whites already look down on blacks and since most know so few of them, this will be easy.

You want them to feel that no matter how bad things get, “at least I’m not black”. This allows them to accept things the way they are and not demand policies that would hurt the rich.

Chapter 3: Racialize social problems:

Crime, gun violence, drugs, poverty, failing schools, absent fathers and all the other ills of American society must either be blamed on blacks or be seen as mainly affecting blacks. That way little will be done about them, keeping taxes low.

Chapter 4: Black pathologies:

Blacks must be blamed for their own troubles.

This is extremely important. It goes beyond excusing government inaction and keeping taxes low: Blacks are the single biggest threat to keeping American society the way it is, as shown by the civil war and the civil rights movement.

Therefore black leaders must be killed, imprisoned, driven out of the country or made to look laughable.

Chapter 5: Rented Negroes:

Right-wing think tanks and news organizations should hire articulate, well-dressed blacks who are willing to:

1. Make white people feel glad that at least they are not black.
2. Racialize social problems.
3. Push the idea of black pathologies.

A black face makes these much more believable and harder to argue against.

Chapter 6: Fear of a black president:

If the president is black paint him as a enemy who is out to destroy the country. Even if you have to destroy the country to do it.

Appendix:

Here put all those twisted numbers and misleading charts from right-wing think tank “studies”.

I leave “Black People: The White Liberal User’s Guide” as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not glad that I'm not Black, I'm glad that I'm not you.

You're too soft to be black punk.

 

[fncceo]

black punk

No way ... you stole Punk Rock from White People.

 

[IM2]

black punk

No way ... you stole Punk Rock from White People.

Too bad I wasn't talking about punk rock.

"You're too soft to be black punk."

That's what I said.

 

[fncceo]

black punk

No way ... you stole Punk Rock from White People.

Too bad I wasn't talking about punk rock.

"You're too soft to be black punk."

That's what I said.

Then you're missing a comma, punk.

Or, is grammar and punctuation a tool of the Man to keep the brother man down?

 

[Taz]

“Black People: The Republican User’s Guide” (2009, 3rd edition) has, so far as I know, never been written, but it is not hard to guess some of what would be in it:

Introduction:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to pass laws that favour the rich and block those that do them harm. This is done mainly by:

1. Keeping taxes low
2. Slowing change in society

To achieve this requires the votes of millions of Americans on election day who will be harmed by such policies. Fortunately, most voters are white racists. Take advantage of that:

Chapter 1: Divide and conquer:

The main trick is to get Americans to think race is more important than class so that they vote against their class interests.

The only thing that most voters have in common with the rich is a white skin colour. Use that to make them feel like they are on the same side as the rich. Strengthen that feeling by telling them that they too can be rich one day (even though most never will).

This divides the working- and middle-class vote, weakening it as a serious threat to Republican policy.

Chapter 2: At least I’m not black:

Paint black people as completely screwed up: poverty, drugs, crime, broken homes, bad manners, low morals, etc. Since most whites already look down on blacks and since most know so few of them, this will be easy.

You want them to feel that no matter how bad things get, “at least I’m not black”. This allows them to accept things the way they are and not demand policies that would hurt the rich.

Chapter 3: Racialize social problems:

Crime, gun violence, drugs, poverty, failing schools, absent fathers and all the other ills of American society must either be blamed on blacks or be seen as mainly affecting blacks. That way little will be done about them, keeping taxes low.

Chapter 4: Black pathologies:

Blacks must be blamed for their own troubles.

This is extremely important. It goes beyond excusing government inaction and keeping taxes low: Blacks are the single biggest threat to keeping American society the way it is, as shown by the civil war and the civil rights movement.

Therefore black leaders must be killed, imprisoned, driven out of the country or made to look laughable.

Chapter 5: Rented Negroes:

Right-wing think tanks and news organizations should hire articulate, well-dressed blacks who are willing to:

1. Make white people feel glad that at least they are not black.
2. Racialize social problems.
3. Push the idea of black pathologies.

A black face makes these much more believable and harder to argue against.

Chapter 6: Fear of a black president:

If the president is black paint him as a enemy who is out to destroy the country. Even if you have to destroy the country to do it.

Appendix:

Here put all those twisted numbers and misleading charts from right-wing think tank “studies”.

I leave “Black People: The White Liberal User’s Guide” as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not glad that I'm not Black, I'm glad that I'm not you.

You're too soft to be black punk.

So you're a black punk now, ya, I'm way too educated, never smoked crack and worked for a living.

 

[squeeze berry]

White paternalism is the belief that whites know what is best for people of other races, viewing them pretty much as overgrown children. It is racist since it assumes that whites know better than other races.

Examples:

• White man’s burden – the duty of whites to help the lesser races. Used in the early 1900s to excuse imperialism.
• White saviour films – where a white hero saves people of colour. “The Blind Side” (2009), “Dangerous Minds” (1995), etc
• Western imperialism – which seeks not just control of land, trade and taxes like most empires, but goes beyond that to remaking subjects in its own image – Westernization.
• American and Australian policy on natives – separating children from their parents to make them white; controlling what little land they have left.
• Whites adopting African children – like Madonna and Angelina Jolie.
• White allies – when they go beyond merely helping anti-racist causes to telling people of colour what to do, trying to take over.

White paternalists love to:

1. Point out the success of whites and the failures of blacks – Mugabe, Detroit, white inventions.
2. See blacks screw up or act like fools.
3. Talk down to blacks.
4. Tell blacks that they treat them better than anyone else would.
5. Tell blacks, in so many words, that they “saved” them from Africa.

White paternalists hate it when:

1. Blacks are not grateful to them.
2. Blacks get angry or say anything bad about whites.

You see that not just from white commenters on this blog, you see it in how they show blacks on American television. Black crime. Black buffoons. Black pathologies. Screwed-up or helpless black countries.

White paternalists do not see:

1. Their failed record at handling the affairs of people of colour: genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid, taking their land, taking their children, screwing up their countries – Vietnam, El Salvador, Chile, Gaza, Congo and on and on. They do not see that the most successful non-white country was one of the few countries they were not able to screw up: Japan, which shut out the West for hundreds of years.
2. That much of their “success” was based on screwing up the very people they are now supposedly trying to “help”. America was built on Indian land and black slave labour. The West was built on robbing the world through the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires. They do not see that they got to where they are through the barrel of a gun. They think it was through “values” or “institutions” or culture or genes.
3. That just as whites know what is in their own best interest, so do blacks and Indians and Vietnamese and everyone else. There is nothing special about white people. They point to Mugabe but not to Hitler or Stalin. They point to the black illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%, but not to the white illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%. They point to black street crime but not to Wall Street crime. Etc.

Whites say, “Where would you be without us?” Wrong: where would they be without us!

everyone else would be waaaaay better off without you

 

[IM2]

A black ghetto, also known as the hood or the inner city, is a part of an American city where nearly everyone is black. Most ghettos are poor, but not all. Some of the black parts of Queens in New York, for example, are richer than some of the white parts.

For many who live in black ghettos, even in some middle-class ones, racism seems like more than just a few bad apples. The police, the courts, the press, the hospitals, the schools, the housing market, all of it, seem to be based on the idea that black life is not all that important. Everything is second-rate or kind of broken.

When whites see a black ghetto they think it is completely the creation of blacks living there: drug dealers, hookers, crackheads, bad fathers, poor people, etc. True enough in so far as it goes, but ghettos are not on the moon – they are part of a larger American society.

For example, you would think that city services would be the same all across the city. Not so. They are way worse in black ghettos. Even in the black middle-class parts of town it is not that great. Things like trash pick-up, ambulance service, street repair but, most of all, schools and police protection. Those things are beyond the control of the ghetto.

Whites think ghettos are dangerous because the people there are poor and black. What they forget is that the police are not all that interested in protecting the lives and property of poor black people. Not as interested as they are in protecting rich white people or even not-all-that-rich white people. They will even protect white foreigners over black Americans. I have seen it with my own eyes.

When middle-class whites see buildings and houses falling apart in black ghettos they think it is because “blacks do not take care of their neighbourhoods”. What they do not know is that it is hard to get a bank loan or insurance for property in a place like that. Because the banks and insurance companies redline black ghettos, refusing to put much money there. You might think they are just being hardheaded businessmen. That would be understandable. But no, it goes beyond that into racism.

Government policies after the Second World War made it easier to get money to build a house in the suburbs than to repair an old house in the city. That is part of why so much of America’s cities began to fall apart. And that was just when blacks began moving to the big cities like New York and Chicago in huge numbers. And just when most whites left those cities – white flight.

Despite all this black ghettos have produced some of the world’s greatest music and some great writers too. Amiri Baraka says it is because people there are still in touch with their hearts. Yes, and they also see the world more clearly, they see through the middle-class lies.

Mod Edit -- copyright violation -- no link or credit. IM2

 

[IM2]

“Race” (1580), in the sense of a stock or breed of living things, goes back to 1580 in English. Its sense as “the races of mankind”, where humans are divided into a few fixed races, came later, in the 1700s.

The word came well after the start the of the Transatlantic slave trade. It came just after the words “Negro” (1555) and “Indian” (middle 1500s in the sense of Native Americans) entered English and just before whites became “whites” (early 1600s).

Far from being as old as human nature, “race” is newer than guns and ocean-going ships, newer than printed books and looking glasses.

It does not even appear in the King James Bible. There every race is a race to run – “the race is not to the swift”, etc. The King James Bible came out in 1611 but its English was old-fashioned even back then as it closely followed that of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.

But you do see the word in Shakespeare: “happy race of kings”, “noble race”, “race of heaven”, etc. He applies it to men and horses. It clearly means a stock or breed, a bloodline, like in “Henry VI, Part 2” (1591):

Thy mother took into her blameful bed
Some stern untutor’d churl, and noble stock
Was graft with crab-tree slip, whose fruit thou art,
And never of the Nevils’ noble race.

Some say the word came from French, some say from Italian. No one knows for sure. Most likely it came from Spanish, which is where the English also got “Indian” and “Negro”. Back then the Spanish word for race would have sounded like “reazza” to the English, of which “race” is a reasonable anglicization. The Spanish word also had the same meaning as in Shakespeare: breeds of horses or men.

In Shakespeare’s time the Spanish applied it mainly to horses. Breeds of horses were known to be different in both appearance and behaviour. They could be crossed or kept apart. But the word was also starting to be applied to people, particularly to Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity – who were one thing by faith, another by “race”. By the early 1700s the Spanish applied it mainly to people, not horses.

In English there are all sorts of words for dividing people one from another: nation, people, kind, variety, etc. Race was just another one of those words, like it is in Shakespeare. It did not become the main word for the divisions of mankind until the 1700s with the rise of scientific racism. That was when the word “Caucasian” (1795) was invented – to divide men into races.

The word “race” caught on because it fit the growing racism of the English-speaking world which, instead of dividing mankind by nation, language or religion like everyone else, divided it, strangely, into breeding stock – as if people (or at least some people) were just animals without soul or speech or country.

Mod Edit -- copyright violation -- no link or credit. IM2