A Personal Rant: On Hate

"But I will tell you that, without any question, the most bitter anti-white diatribes that I have ever heard have come from "passing" Negroes, living as whites, among whites, exposed every day to what white people say among themselves regarding Negroes -- things that a recognized Negro never would hear." -Malcolm X

Welcome to my world. My previous two posts are videos highlighting the sick, sad, and residual racism still embedded in this country. Many will dismiss them as non-representative of our country (or white people generally) and that people who think this way live on the margins of society.

Hardly.

Sentiments such as those exposed in the clips are indeed still very much a part of American culture. They are the sort of ideas which lead many blacks in America--not to endorse but-- to sympathize with Rev. Jeremiah Wright when he screams "God Damn America!" The people interviewed are exemplars of why, contrary to widely-held belief, racism continues to be a pervasive societal ill that should be addressed for what it is, instead of treating it as some sort of antiquated idea that has been relegated to the fringe of the collective American mind.

I know it exists, because I've heard it. From fellow classmates back in grade school, to employees and patrons at bars and restaurants I worked at or frequented as an adult--I've heard it all. From innocuous ignorant comments about athletic ability to jokes about hunting black people like animals--I've heard more racist tripe than I care to remember.

I am that "passing Negro."

And I have done my best not to become too bitter over the aggregated dehumanizing jokes, slurs, and insults that I have heard and witnessed over the course of my life. But when I see videos that show a man selling t-shirts with a picture of a monkey on it to represent United States Senator Barack Obama's run at the presidency--and that he sold out of them--I am filled with such contempt that it is all I can muster not to write an "anti-white diatribe."

But I will say this: I HATE.

I hate that man for what he did. I hate all the people who make excuses for him and his putrid ilk. I hate the fact that the free speech that I cherish and literally work to protect is used by backwater trash like him to degrade a black man--and by logical extension, all black people.

And I hate that most of the people who'll read this just won't "get it."

Some will undoubtedly say to me "If you let it get to you, he's won. Don't give him that pleasure." But life is not a game-- and there is no doubt that he and his despicable kind are losers. But more to the point, black people have been taking crap like this for years...and it wears on us.

It wears because, to most people, being seriously considered less-than-human is unimaginable to the point that such a suggestion is laughable--but it isn't for us. There is an entire lexicon of sub-human pejoratives for black people that simply don't exist for other people. (There are racist terms for everyone, sure, but the sheer number of debasing terms is unmatched among the other races in the American context.) Caricatures of asinine minstrels and violent, raping savages permeated the entertainment culture for years (e.g., the film "classic" Birth of a Nation, Hattie McDaniel's disturbing performance in Gone with the Wind, Al Jolson and Bugs Bunny in black face, the Mammy housekeeper on Tom & Jerry, etc.). Even now that our full humanity has been granted by law and in the minds of most Americans, we're still not quite as good as white, now are we?

No, we're physically gifted; we have an animalistic sexual prowess; we're less intelligent; we're violent and very possibly criminal. This was and is our stereotype-- and everybody knows this.

And I HATE that.

Makes Me Want to Wear A Sherman T-Shirt in GA

More racist BS from the campaign here.

Race and the Race

"Post-racial" my black...

I Missed This When I Saw Them in '96

Hat tip: Radley

It's the Liberty, Stupid!

As is the norm amongst the neo-con right, David Brooks' newest column puts politics above principle:

The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”

That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.” In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”

...

As such, the Conservative Party has spent a lot of time thinking about how government should connect with citizens. Basically, everything should be smaller, decentralized and interactive.

While--unlike many of my libertarian colleagues and friends--I do actually have reservations relying solely on economics to guide our lives, I find that a dedication to the free market principles of Hayekian economics is the best thing politicians can do for the economy. (i.e., stay out of it!) Government "connect[ing] with citizens" is antithetical to that end and what Brooks proposes is to revert to failed policies in order to win over the electorate. I think we tried that already -- it was called "compassionate conservatism"-- and it's made an unholy mess of the country while undercutting the economic principles of the Republican party.

Way to go, Rove.

But beyond economics, I am foremost a civil libertarian. Benevolent government exists only in the minds of its proponents-- lest we forget that communism wasn't created as a tool of oppression. Its entire purpose was to help the poor and address the needs of the whole. In the course of moving toward that goal, individual freedoms and liberties were curbed and stripped.

Without a fundamental respect for the independence and freedom of the individual, the government--as an entity of concentrated power--will seek only to increase its role in the lives of its citizens: demanding more money, more liberty, and thus, more power from them.

The United States was not founded on the ideal of 'helping people'; it was founded on the ideal that gives the people (read individuals) the freedom to shape their own destiny. Brooks' 'what your politicians can do for you' notion flies squarely in the face of the guiding principles on which this nation was established.

Individual liberty--the concept which guided Thatcher, Reagan, and the Founders--should never take a back seat to political pandering. Otherwise, the debate between the American 'right' and 'left' will no longer be between individual liberty and the 'common good,' but simply how quickly we lose our liberties and which poisoned party will be most responsible.

UPDATE: Over at reason, Michael Moynihan takes a more intelligent and ideologically consistent approach to how the GOP could adopt the Conservative Party's more socially tolerant views here.

Message to HRC and DNC: Beware the 'New N***** Rule'

In spite of her defeat in the North Carolina primary Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton is staying in the race for the Democratic nomination. At this point, her only hope is to convince the remaining uncommitted "Superdelegates" to give her the edge over Barack Obama. However unlikely this may be, it is not impossible. The Clinton political machine is formidable and if it can be done, they can do it. If they accomplish the feat, it would be the most devastating blow to the Democratic party in generations.

Without question, the most loyal demographic constituency for the Democrats are blacks. Democrats have enjoyed overwhelming black support starting back in the 'New Deal' and they then solidified their hold on the black vote when the GOP openly courted disaffected southern Democrats after the Civil Rights Movement. That said, the relationship is not a permanent one.

If the Democratic Party were to appoint Senator Clinton over the democratically-elected Obama, many black people would view it (as what is called in some circles) as a 'new nigger rule.'
A NNR is a legal or administrative procedure which is enforced with benign pretense, yet has the demonstrable effect of abetting racism, prejudice, or otherwise just screwing the black guy. Historical examples include, but are not limited to, the Grandfather Clause, poll taxes, and literacy/constitutional knowledge tests to vote. (Notice how all of these are forms of disenfranchisement.)

Stripping away an otherwise rightfully won party election by established yet questionable means when it just HAPPENS to prevent the first major party nomination of a black candidate in our nation's history, more than a couple black people in this country are going to be enraged.

And understandably so.

If she were to snag the nomination from Obama, many black people would turn on the Democratic Party. Of this, I have little doubt. Does this mean blacks will come back to the GOP? Certainly not right away. The Republicans have a lot to answer for, and outreach is needed on their part. (Although, if McCain picks a well-respected black VP in the event of Clinton's nomination, I would imagine it would have a significant impact.)

But a--shall we say "disenchanted?"-- black electorate may stay home instead of voting for a party that so blatantly screwed Obama. Losing even part of such a solid voting base would be disastrous for the Democrats and, in all likelihood, would amount to throwing away a second consecutive Presidential election they should have won easily.

This election is the Democrats' to lose. If they choose Hillary, they will manage to alienate their most loyal supporters while simultaneously electrifying the conservative base by nominating perhaps the greatest Republican fund raiser in the nation.

Only they could be this stupid.

Radley on Race

A thoughtful libertarian perspective on modern race relations in the U.S. here.

Excerpt:

This isn't ancient history. My dad grew up through all of this.

It seems to me that it's a bit premature, then, for us to insist — as one conservative pundit suggested to me last month over dinner — that black Americans "just get over the whole racism thing." That pundit was referring to the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama, and the intemperate and ugly statements made by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I have no interest in defending the substance of what Wright has said over the last week, or of the passages that have been pulled from his sermons and played over the Internet and cable television. There are a few things he has said that I would defend. There are many, many things he has said that I find objectionable, abhorrent, and twelve kinds of crazy.

But it's worth keeping in mind that for 200 years, hundreds of thousands of black people were imprisoned in this country as slaves. For another 100 years, in most of the country, they were second-class citizens, subject to rapes, lynchings and beatings; denied the right to vote; forced into segregated buses, schools, parks, and public facilities; and denied due process in the criminal justice system.

Bizarre as some of Rev. Wright's conspiracy theories may sound, there actually have been some pretty bizarre conspiracies against black Americans over the years.

I can't begrudge black Americans if for three hours on Sunday they want to indulge in a bit of righteous indignation within the walls of their places of worship. Even if that indignation sometimes expresses itself in hateful or nutty ways, or in ways I'll never quite understand.

America has come a long way with respect to race, but it would be foolish to say that the remnants of racism aren't still with us, or that — as I've heard some commenters suggest — that the only discrimination that matters any more is the kind of elitist reverse discrimination we sometimes see in affirmative action programs (for the record, I'm opposed to state-sanctioned affirmative action).