Soft White Supremacy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

    Soft White Supremacy

    By: James Taranto


    As inevitably happens when the U.S. Supreme Court closes its term by deciding a case involving racial discrimination, white liberals are scorning Clarence Thomas for failing to conform to their expectations of how a black man should think. Among them is Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, last seen trivializing the Holocaust in the name of global warmism:

    A special shout-out to Clarence Thomas, who may embark on his annual road trip in his 40-foot motor home knowing that he's accomplished one life goal. The justice is now talked about even less in terms of race--less as the profligate successor to Thurgood Marshall than as a certified member of the court's right wing. Color him conservative. . . .

    Thomas's psyche still intrigues those who search for the biography in his opinions. We know Thomas as a man who benefited from the affirmative action he scorns. He attended Holy Cross with a scholarship established for blacks after the death of Martin Luther King Jr. He was accepted to Yale Law School, where a program committed 10 percent of the seats to minorities. . . .

    I have no doubt that Thomas sees himself as the victim of racism and the "racism lite" experienced by many black professionals tagged as "affirmative action babies." He's kept the pile of rejection letters received after graduating from law school. At his searing confirmation hearings, he froze the senators in their tracks by consciously describing himself as the victim of a "high-tech lynching." He also knows that many people questioned his credentials for the Supreme Court.

    Let's focus on one of Goodman's tropes: "We know Thomas as a man who benefited from the affirmative action he scorns." Goodman implies, and others among his critics have stated directly, that because Thomas (purportedly) "benefited from affirmative action"--that is, from racial discrimination in favor of blacks--he is morally obliged to favor such discrimination, and to hold it constitutional.

    Ellen Goodman is a person of pallor, and her bio tells us that she finished college in 1963, the year before the Civil Rights Act became law. Thus she is old enough (sorry, Ellen) to have benefited from discrimination because she is white. Would anyone suggest that therefore she is morally obliged to support discrimination in favor of whites? Of course not.

    In the white liberal's worldview, if a white past beneficiary of discrimination favors racial equality or even discrimination against whites, that is an act of atonement or principle. But if a black past beneficiary of discrimination favors equality, white liberals view him as a traitor to his race. To put it another way, white liberals expect blacks to act out of self-interest based on race, while they expect whites to act altruistically. They attack blacks like Thomas who rise above racial self-interest--and they do so in explicitly racial terms--while faulting whites who fail to do so.

    This may be the most invidious racial view to remain respectable in 21st century America. The idea that whites are on a higher moral plane than blacks is a form of white supremacy; and the attacks on Thomas and other blacks who embrace equality and reject racial self-interest are an attempt to keep black people in their place.

    White liberals often claim that racism is everywhere, "just beneath the surface." Given the intensity with which they target blacks who reject liberal orthodoxy on race, one suspects they are telling the truth--about themselves.
     
  2. MrJim

    MrJim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...person of pallor...heheheheheh

    "Racism" is a strange business~amazing how some make a living off it:laugh:
     
  3. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my view, affirmative action was an altruistic action by whites to correct racial injustices in the past. Racial equality is quite another thing. It's a level playing field which should be the ultimate objective. This WSJ writer doesn't seem to understand the difference. Personally, I feel that affirmative should be the law for a relatively short period of time. I think its been long enough and that racial equality should now be the law of the land.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Affirmative action should never ever have been adopted.

    Racial discrimination can never be eliminated by creating more of it, as affirmative action did. Anyone should be able to recognize that simple fact.
     
  5. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    So true, but even if one adopts this viewpoint:
    it should have ended long ago.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Agreed, but here is one of the root problems:

    "The fact is that, while they present themselves as the party that looks out for the interests of minorities and women, Democrats are only concerned about the plight of these constituencies if they are willing to toe the liberal line. Blacks and Hispanics and women who have ignored Democratic pleas to see themselves as victims and who have gone on to realize significant professional accomplishments and rise to positions of prominence through personal initiative are no longer representative of what the term "minority" has come to stand for in the Democrat lexicon."


    Greg Lewis
     
  7. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know there are some people who hate my wife, and a few don't even personally know her.

    This came up because I was sitting around the camp at the fire with some other people and the subject came up about the court ruling that said that people cannot be forced to join a union if it violates their religious principles. Well, the ones of us who said "good!" were in the minority. (It also made the union members mad that those of us who were non-union make siginificantly more money than they do, plus we don't have to pay union dues, but that's another story.) I simply stated that I am opposed to them based on my religious views.

    Well, they started crying about how racism and sexism must be fought.

    Well, my Puerto Rican wife, who is obviously female, and a "soft" female at that (she's a girly girl, unlike the women who I was talking to) makes more money now than the two of us together has ever made. No affirmative action involved, because her employer didn't even know that she was "hispanic" until recently. (She also makes about double what the women I was talking to make.)

    This makes her the object of hatred of those who don't even know her because she made it all on her own, without the help of Big Brother government and Big Daddy union.
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that all unions should be abolished too. There was a time when they were necessary to protect the rights of workers but that time has passed. It's ridiculous when unions get better benefits and have more job security than professionals. Unions are one big reason why America is no longer as comperitive as it used to be in the world market.
     
  9. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I don't think they should be banned, I think that their actions should be curtailed drastically. For example, here they can make it a closed shop so that you're forced to join a union to get a job. Then, to be made exempt for religious reasons, you have to jump through hoops.

    If things are so unfair, when a union goes on strike, the company won't be able to replace the workers. Pretty simple.

    Going on strike and getting an illegitimate pay increase simply increases the monetary inflation in the area (or nationally, in some cases), which is detrimental to all. It forces companies to move offshore. Etc.

    But, I think it's hilarious that my wife, who is not only female, but is a minority, has a non-union job that pays so much more than her union counterparts who have their jobs through affirmative action, so it makes them mad at her.
     

Share This Page

Loading...