Wattree's picture

    Black People Can’t Be Racists?

    Beneath the Spin*Eric L. Wattree
     

    Black People Can’t Be Racists?
    .
    .
      Bro. Dyson,
    .
    While I fully embrace the overall point you're trying to make, you’re misinforming our people with respect to Blacks not being able to be racists, in order to make it. As result, when these Black people run around quoting you, they’re making themselves look like unthinking idiots.

    You enjoy much respect in the Black community, and along with that respect comes responsibility. So please use your position in the community to help teach our people to think efficiently, and with precision. Here’s the position I recently took with one of your adherents:
    .

    Being a racist is a state of mind, so it doesn't require control, all it requires is ignorance. According to your logic we also have to say that a Black person can't be a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, or an asshole either, because he doesn't control the system.
    .
    The point that you SEEM to be TRYING to make is that Black people don't have the power to EXPRESS their racism as effectively as White people, because we don't have the power to employ INSTITUTIONAL racism. But to extend that to say that Black people can't be racist AT ALL, is not only a gross corruption of common sense, but it defies the very definition of the word. It’s what’s called a "factoid" - a lie that’s been told so often that people began to accept it as fact.
    .
    It’s one thing to express your views, but when you do that, you should make every effort to express them with precision. Don’t try to redefine the English language to mean what you want it to mean; the only thing you accomplish in that way is, instead of helping people to understand your point of view, you cause them to dismiss you as an idiot, so you’re defeating your own purpose.
    .
    Now, I said that I was done with this discussion, but the only reason that I decided to make this final comment is because I love Black people, so I hate to see them make a damn fool of themselves. Personally, I don’t care what you believe, but I hate it when Black people make comments like the one under discussion and I have to look at the smirks of satisfaction on the faces of White bigots. Because whenever Black people make ridiculous statements like the one above, it tends to reinforce the position of White bigots that Black people are just a bunch of ignorant and undereducated fools. 
    .
    Have you ever noticed how when the news media wants to interview a Black person they often seem to look around for the most ignorant, inarticulate, uneducated Black person they can find? Well, they’re looking for people who will say EXACTLY the kind of thing that we’re discussing here. They’re looking around for someone who will validate their position that Black people are stupid. 
    .
    I don’t like seeing that, and I don’t like seeing Black people being used in that way. That’s the one and only reason that I’ve wasted even one brain cell on this silly-ass discussion. But now I’ve done my part, so the rest is up to you. I’m done with this.

    QUESTION
     

    "Eric, who is responsible for crafting the dictionary definition of racism? As you correctly state Eric, bullshit in, bullshit out. Dr. Neely Fuller's stance regarding what constitutes a racist/racism closely mirrors that of Dr. Dyson and Dr. Anderson. Do you submit they too are full of lies?"

    .

    The handful of so-called "learned" individuals who are going around spewing the message that Black people can’t be racist is doing much more harm to the Black community than good. First, their position is a corruption of common sense and defies the very definition of the word, and secondly, it antagonizes potential allies by sowing division during a time when the poor and middle-class, of every stripe, are in dire need of unity to fight off the neo-fascist agenda of the corpo-Republican alliance.
    .

    The English language is what it is, and so is the definition of racism. As for who compiled the definitions in the dictionary, that’s irrelevant, because the dictionary doesn't DETERMINE what the English language is, it merely INFORMS us of how the English language is used. So the fact is, the "learned" gentlemen that you cite are not only either lying, or grossly out of touch with reality, but again, they're doing the Black community a horrible disservice.
    .
    This nation is currently knee-deep in a CLASS WAR in which the enemy's most potent weapon is division. So by running around spewing this nonsense, they're lending comfort to the enemy by helping to keep people of normally good will, who SHOULD be allies in this war against corporate feudalism, antagonistic and throwing spitballs at one another.
    .
    During WWII, even the United States and the Soviet Union had sense enough to put their differences aside long enough to fight off Nazi fascism, but these so-called learned individuals have obviously learned absolutely nothing from history. The current GOP represents nothing short of creeping fascism. They don’t care any more about poor and middle-class White people than they do Black people. So instead of people like Dyson stirring division among the poor and middle-class, they should be educating the public to the dire need for us to come together to fight off a common and insidious foe.
    .
    So the bottom line is, by going around spewing the myth that Black people can’t be racist, they’re placing they’re desire to gain personal street creds above what’s in the best interest of the Black community. How do I know their motivation? Because the message they’re spreading has absolutely no remedial value to current conditions in the Black community. It goes a long way towards hurting us, while on the other side of the ledger, it serves no useful purpose. What benefit do we derive by saying that Black people can't be racist? The only purpose it serves is to turn off potential, and badly needed, allies.

    
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Well I had to look up the words bigot and racism to be clear about what Mr. Dyson was saying and for the most part I agree with him...   I don't think that most black people, even if they feel they hate white people... actually believe that black people are superior to white people.  There does seem to be an inherent resentment of oppression however subtle. 

    When I went to that 98% black school for 5th grade in Gulfport Mississippi, even though I was hated and threatened for being white... I never felt that there was an attitude of black superiority that accompanied it.  I did feel it was more of a resentment... even though I didn't fully understand it.  And I didn't feel anger in return... only the need to protect myself.  I never fought, or called names.  I just did not allow myself to be abused in the situation.

    While I do believe it is possible for some black people to be racist in the world at large, I feel that I understand the point Mr. Dyson was making and I would for the most part agree with him.  It is the element of truly believing your race is 'superior' that I don't think most black Americans feel or express though clearly white Americans in history have grossly demonstrated this belief of superiority and racism to the extreme of making slaves of a race of people.


    Synchronicity, look at definition #two. Racism is also an attitude. I've pointed out to several Black friends that to merely suggest that White people suffer exclusively from any negative character trait that we don't share is a racist argument.  And by the way. I question was submitted to me, so I updated the article to respond to it, so now the article is twice as long. 

    rac·ist

    [rey-sist]  Show IPA

    noun
    1.
    a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
    adjective
    2.
    of or like racists or racism: racist policies; racist ATTITUDES.

    I believe that we can chalk this dispute up to ambiguous language. The word racism can mean racial intolerance or racial supremacy. Contrast I hate you because of your race with I am better than you because of your race.

    African-Americans are quite capable of hating white people, so they can obviously be racially intolerant. But because of historical black oppression in the U.S., I agree with you that there aren't too many black supremacists in this country. In that sense, Dyson is right.


    Michael,

    He’s splitting hairs, and his contention that Black people can’t be racist is ridiculous on it’s face. I just posted an article on the issue (About Truth, Knowledge, Racists, and Power) arguing that his position is logically inconsistent.


    He's splitting hairs, but the funniest thing about it is he's not doing it with some narrow technical difference between the definitions of racism, bigotry, and prejudice. He's doing it by redefining racism. By claiming one cannot be racist if one lacks the power to create and enforce racist institutions or laws. If one was actually enough of a linguist to care about the subtle differences between those three synonyms they would surely care about the dictionary definition of the words.


    By claiming one cannot be racist if one lacks the power to create and enforce racist institutions or laws.

    Leaving the semantics and definitions aside for the moment, this is the key point. A person without power can hate anyone whom he wants. He can believe that any number of groups are inherently or biologically inferior to his own. But so what? His soul may be rotting, but his beliefs are inconsequential.

    If all that ever happened in American was that white people thought black people were inferior, but they had had no power to enslave them, impose Jim Crow, lynch, segregate and otherwise oppress them--and black folks had flourished on this continent--then the charge of racism would be sort of quaint.

    "Can you imagine some white folks actually believe THAT?"

    But that isn't what happened, as we know. White folks had the power and did create and enforce racist institutions and laws, which had huge consequences for black people and the whole country.

    In fact, I'd argue that racism isn't so much a set of attitudes or beliefs or thoughts, but those attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts ACTED OUT and institutionalized. IOW, racism is more about the relations BETWEEN groups of people than about what happens inside a person's head and heart, though they aren't disconnected.

    This is why some white people are perplexed about discussions on racism. They don't FEEL hatred toward black people, so how is it that this society can still be called racist? Or how can they be said to hold racist views when they don't feel hatred toward blacks, or any one group for that matter?

    (A lot of stuff just floats around in the cultural air. I have a good friend who grew up a Catholic in NE and never knew a Jew until he came east as a young man. When he arrived in DC, he was surprised to learn, I kid you not, that Jews didn't have horns and various other characteristics. My friend no more hated Jews than I did, but his head was still filled with a lot of anti-Semitic garbage that was just floating around in the culture.)

    AFAIK, no amount of black racism or bigotry on these shores has had even close to the kind of impact on our country that white racism towards blacks has had. And this is because, regardless of how blacks felt about whites, the relationships between the "races," the rules of interaction, were set by whites (rich whites, more accurately) for their own perceived benefit.

    (It also gets tricky in other ways. If A hates B and beats up B constantly, at a certain point, B is going to start hating A back. In fact, B's going to come to expect A treatment from every A he meets--and often, his expectations will be fulfilled. Are A's and B's two hatreds equally bad and bigoted? Well yes, in a way. But in an important way, they are not. Even if it wasn't exactly good for his soul, B had a right to hate A for a very long time.)

    So I think Dyson's point stands, unless we're going to get tangled up in semantics and play "gotcha" with him--purposely NOT understand him in order to defeat his point. As far as I can tell, he reserves the word "racism" for institutionalized relations and the word "bigotry" for the feelings and thoughts people have.

     


    It may be misleading, but it's not logically inconsistent. Think about it--he says that black people can be bigoted and prejudiced but not racist. How is that possible? Only if he means something different by "racist" than what you mean by "racist."

    People rhetorically redefine words all the time. There are good reasons to do it and bad reasons to do it. I think Dyson's redefinition is not helping his cause in this case because it's confusing. His idiosyncratic use of the word "racism" makes listeners think he's saying that black people can't be bigots, which is problematic for the reasons you present.

    But that's not actually what he means. If you're going to criticize him for his choice of words, it's important to first understand what he's trying to say. 


    He’s splitting hairs, and his contention that Black people can’t be racist is ridiculous on it’s face.

    I would argue that you're splitting hairs, Eric, by focusing on the semantics. His point has to do with the relations between the "races." He makes that clear.

    You're talking about whether black people can hate other groups irrationally. Of course, they can; he admits that.

    I do agree that he could be misleading to others in that most people don't distinguish between bigotry and racism in the way he's speaking about these terms. So he could be interpreted to mean that black people can't hate other groups irrationally. Clearly, they can. Everyone can, and many, many people do.

    It's been argued, and I'd tend to agree, that racist attitudes emerged from racist relations instead of predating them. White slave owners were racist because they owned slaves; they didn't own slaves because they were racist. The attitude came after the reality of slavery as a rationale or a support for the institution.

    If, for example, slavers had been unable to conquer and capture Africans and bring them to America on ships...if the Africans had fought off the slavers, killed many of them, captured others, and sunk their ships...I'd wager that white views about black people would have evolved very differently than they did.


    You’re right, Peter,

    I am arguing semantics, because semantics is the study of meaning, and we think in words and pictures. My primary motive in life is to promote clear thinking on this, and every subject. Because clarity of thought is antithetical to ignorance, and ignorance is the nursery of social maladjustment.

    Black people will never be able to out-scream or out-fight social bigots, nor can they rely on bigots having a spontaneous flash of enlightenment. The one, and only, way that Black people are going to improve their current condition is through efficient thinking, so you can always depend on me to point out every instance of inefficient thinking or stupidity that I come across. That's my way of helping to educate my people.  That's the only thing I have to offer. So, in essence, I’m just a former marine on bullshit patrol.


    I would never disagree that words are important.

    And like I said, I think Dyson's meaning could be easily be misinterpreted by sloppy or unreflective word users. So you're right about that.

    But it's also pretty clear what he meant because he laid it out.

    Perhaps he should have spent more time on distinctions between what he meant by "racism" and "bigotry."

    Back before Dr. Dyson became a host, I used to marvel at his eloquence, the way words poured from his mouth and did acrobatics in the air. It was dazzling.

    I think he's toned it down a bit since he's become a TV host.

    As a lover of words and how they can move people, he would or should appreciate your critique. But I think you'd have to first establish and agree on what he was trying to say and its validity (or not) before you could sort out the semantics with him.


    Peter,

    Don’t get me wrong, I know exactly what you’re saying, and I’m also impressed with Dyson, although I find him to be a bit of an entertainer. But like you said, he seems to be toning that down a bit, so I’m pulling for him to choose to be a serious intellectual instead of a self-serving, glory-seeking, pop pundit like Cornel West. But regardless to how we stretch and contort the issue to accommodate him, and to give him the benefit of a doubt, to say that "Black people can’t be racist" is a reckless and inaccurate statement - and especially coming from someone who’s supposed to be an intellectual and educator. In addition, it’s needlessly divisive and serves no useful purpose, other than giving the true Black racists among us ammunition to further divide the poor and middle class at a time when we need unity the most.

    But I want you to know that I didn’t just have a knee-jerk reaction to his comment. I was shocked to hear it coming from his mouth, but I considered many of the things that you’ve brought up here. But I came to the conclusion that his comment not only misinformed the people - or misled them, at the very least - but it served no useful purpose, so he needed to be called on it. People like Dyson have to be made to understand that they can’t just go around saying anything that feels good rolling off their tongue. People are listening to them and assessing what they say, and if they say something stupid they’re going to be held accountable for it. Once they understand that, they’ll think before they speak.

    And by the way, I’m not holding him to a standard that I don’t adhere to myself. I make it a point to refuse most media requests, because I don’t want to say anything off the top of my head before I’ve had the opportunity to think it through. We all have a tendency to want to perform before the camera or mic, and I’m no better than anyone else in that regard. So I decided not to give myself the chance to start thinking that I’m more important than my message. It’s the message that’s important, not the messenger, and when the messenger forgets that, we get comments like the one we’re discussing.


    Peter,

    I contend that it was a racist mind-set that sent slave traders to Africa to gather slaves in the first place. It may not have been identical in character to what we consider racist today, but it was racist, nevertheless.


    You may be right, Eric.

    I'm speculating based on what I took Genovese's thesis to be in Roll, Jordan, Roll.

    That racism was an emergent factor.

    I would be interesting to look into why the slavers went to Africa instead of other places. Might have been proximity to Europe and hence some knowledge of the continent and its peoples.


    Peter,

    If it didn’t have anything to do with racism, why didn’t they pull slaves right out of Europe?


    Slavery is not necessarily racist but as practiced in America is was racist both in origin and practice imo.White Americans owned black slaves because they convinced themselves they were inferior. During the French and Indian war no one gathered up the conquered French and enslaved them. The idea of whites enslaving whites had become unthinkable. One did not enslave an equal. The Romans would have. Their version of slavery was not color based, not racist. It was simply the fruits of war. They may have considered some races inferior but that wasn't the basis for slavery. In fact some slaves, educated Greeks for example, were in many ways considered superior to Romans and prized as slaves for that very reason.


    Hey Wattree, I watched the video of Dyson. I haven't read your whole article through so please forgive me if this comment ends up half empty. He just said so much so fast I had to respond. 

    Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior.

    The President of the United States is black. His father was from Kenya - he has a really African name. He has alot of power. Black people have also been relatively in control of most of Africa for the last few decades. So to say that black people haven't had the chance to be racist because they haven't been in power is ignant.

    Racism is a sort of madness and I have met plenty of black people who have fallen in to the spell of madness. I have experienced the madness a bit more in white people - which I see as pathologically seeing things in a racial frame. I have a sibling like this - I have not hung out with her for even a day without her going off on Mexicans, blacks or how everyone hates her because she is "too white." Many people live whole, healthy lives without that sort of madness - it really is a mental illness.


    Orion, I agree, .


    smiley


    We are all racist, we are all tribalists, we are all nationalists....

    It is us vs. them.

    I am reviewing Louie CK again and his series.

    In Season 2, Episode 5 Louie decides to take his two angels to visit his Grandma.

    And Grandma, we discover, has a love for the 'n' word. hahahahahah

    Then, following this debacle, Louie does a stand-up talking about his children and how he reads to them every night.

    Well he picks M. Twain and the 'n' word is all over the place. hahahah

    Then I recalled a Truman TV replay where he loves to use the 'n' word.

    Nobody, and I mean nobody did more in my tiny mind up until 1950 or so to advance Equal Rights than Twain or Truman.

    With one stroke of the pen, as they say, Truman said:

    All soldiers are created equal and endowed by their government with rights of equal protection.

    Finally, Curly Rand Paul's chief in command finally resigned due to a history of comments like:

    John Wilkes Booth had a good heart.

    Lincoln was a totalitarian (communist?) prick.

    etc...etc...etc...

    At first Curly Rand defended these previous statements of this racist prick as being a youngster's errant behavior.

    I dunno.

    I do not have much of an idea of how to approach this subject at all, even though at one time I was 'sure'!

    I do know this.

    If I were H. Rap Brown and I was a Black Man in the 60's, I would have detested every goddamnable White Guy I ever met.

    But then there is Frederic Douglas who forgives his previous owner?

    I also know this.

    The Media (whateverthefuck that means) has done a fine job of propagandizing this issue over the last 150 years. 

    We have a Black President who appointed a Black Man as his chief law enforcement leader of our nation.

    We see Cheerios commercials and insurance commercials and all sorts of commercials that include Black Men & Black Women.

    What I think the Tea party and other organizations are attempting to do is to attack this propaganda at every point.

    And the South and the North and the East and the West all include these racist members, of course.

    Janeane Garofolo puts it best:


    Richard, a Black person can hate SOME White people without being a racist - I hate some White people.  But I have the intelligence to recognize the distinction between hating SOME White people, and hating ALL White people. That's the difference between selected animosity and racism.  Racism requires inefficient thinking, blind hatred, and stupidity. In fact, I even give people who are inadvertently racist a pass.  I don't hate them, I simply look upon them as ignorant. Although I must admit being an absolute bigot towards people who allow themselves to remain ignorant, I extend that to Black people as well, so I don't consider it racist in nature.  


    Perhaps Dyson's remarks are not as divisive a you depict them. While your point is well taken that the definitions of words cannot be the property of a single person or group of persons, the distinction Dyson makes between racism and bigotry is not arbitrary but serves the purpose of challenging false equivalencies and specious comparisons. He clearly states that bigots flourish in all groups. In most respects, he seems to be saying what you often say; issues of "race" are entangled in a society wide class struggle. That is what makes the racism "institutional."

    I am reminded of the way Hannah Arendt made a distinction between Antisemitism and the 'religious hatred of Jews'. The point of her distinction was not to create two mutually exclusive sets but to underline qualities that are not explained by simple hatred or preference. She, too, was trying to resist the formation of false equivalencies.


    Moat,

    He’s splitting hairs, and his contention that Black people can’t be racist is ridiculous on it’s face. I just posted an article on the issue (About Truth, Knowledge, Racists, and Power) arguing that it is logically inconsistent.

     


    I understand your objection to Dyson confining the definition of the word to his specific algebra. What is not clear in what you have written is whether you object to the distinction he is trying to make by doing so. And because that is not clear, it is not clear if you include Dyson's definition of the word when you say it is ridiculous to say that 'Black people cannot be racist.'


    Moat,

    I state my position in the first two paragraphs of the article.

        "While I fully embrace the overall point you're trying to make, you’re misinforming our people with respect to Blacks not being able to be racists, in order to make it. As result, when these Black people run around quoting you, they’re making themselves look like unthinking idiots. 
    .
    "You enjoy much respect in the Black community, and along with that respect comes responsibility. So please use your position in the community to help teach our people to think efficiently, and with precision."  


    I read those paragraphs a number of times before replying. You haven't actually given your version of what the 'overall point' is. That absence combined with proclamations that what he is saying is obviously absurd does not give this reader confidence that you are engaged with what Dyson is trying to say.

    The body of your arguments against his thesis do not touch upon the distinctions he made. If your are worried that he will be grossly misunderstood, how would you make the 'overall point' in a manner that would be an improvement upon Dyson's?


    Moat,

    The reason I didn’t address the point that Dyson was trying to make was because it was irrelevant to the point of my discussion. My point of my piece was the following:

    "While I fully embrace the overall point you're trying to make, you’re misinforming our people with respect to Blacks not being able to be racists, in order to make it. As result, when these Black people run around quoting you, they’re making themselves look like unthinking idiots."

    In addition, he didn’t enhance his point by making such a ridiculous statement, he detracted from it. He could have written an entire book on why Black people vote for Black candidates without trying to make the case that Black people can’t be racist. By making that statement he negated his own argument, since the statement itself is racist.

    In the article that I just posted, I pointed out the following:

    "While the opportunity to EXPRESS one’s racism, or bigotry, is enhanced by power, that doesn’t mean that power is NECESSARY for one to BE a racist or bigot. "I THINK, therefore, I am." Thus, thought ALWAYS precedes action. So since a racist society, or INSTITUTIONAL racism itself, is setup by RACISTS, that’s prima facie evidence that racism is a frame of mind, and racist behavior is only a result of that frame of mind.

    "If one takes the position that a person cannot be a racist without power, the logical extension of that argument would mean that a person cannot be a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, or an asshole unless they control the system, which is patently ridiculous. Any clear thinking person should recognize that the system doesn’t create racists, it is racists that create the racist system. Thus, a racists mind-set must exist prior to racists gaining power, which completely destroys the argument that one cannot be a racist without power. Anyone who disputes that is guilty of convoluted logic, since, again, it takes a racist to create a racist society or institution in the first place.

    "In short, since it takes a racist to build a racist power structure, racists and racism, must exist prior to, and independent of, gaining power."

    So all Dyson did was conjured up his own definition of racism and ran with it. It's a commonly used rhetorical trick. If you accept his premise regarding what constitutes racism, you have to accept his conclusion. But the problem is, his premise was flawed. So his entire argument is based on the assumption that we're so stupid that we don't know racism when we see it.

    Another indication that Dyson was in manipulation mode was the brother was talking exceptionally fast, even for him. That’s what initially got my attention when I glanced at the video. That's a common device used by hustlers in the hood, so just by glancing at the video, and not even knowing what it was about, I knew he was trying to bamboozle someone. So I stopped to watch, because for anyone with the benefit of a ghetto degree, that alone, sends up a red flag. Then came the nonsense. But again, anyone educated in the hood knows that regardless to how fast a hustler says something, and how resolute he sounds when he’s saying it, to a careful listener, idiocy is idiocy, and that’s exactly what that was. 


    A Rule of Thumb About Truth

    A good rule of thumb to distinguish between truth and contrivance is that truth can be stated in one sentence: "A racist is a racial bigot, therefore, a racial bigot is a racist" - period. A contrivance, on the other hand, requires extended explanation.


    I heartily disagree. The truth requires many sentences and a lot of work separating into components what is often presented as one thing.

    To insist that anything worth saying can be boiled down to a few sentences is the mantra of the anti-intellectual.

     


    Moat,

    Are you familiar with syllogistic logic? A syllogism is stated in one sentence, like the one stated above: "A racist is a racial bigot, therefore, a racial bigot is a racist." That’s a logical syllogism - one sentence. That used to be routinely taught in school, and it should be taught in school today. Children should be taught to read, write, calculate, and think. And they shouldn’t be taught WHAT to think, but HOW to think.

    But due to the brutal assault on our educational system over the past 30 years, people no longer know how to think. It's rapidly becoming a lost art.That’s why they fall for the nonsense that people like Dyson and Cornel West go around spewing, and it's also the primary source of most of our societal problems. Today we have far too many people who can be persuaded with just a little bit of rhetorical gymnastics to accept the following: "All dogs have teeth, and my cat has teeth, therefore, my cat is a dog." That's why you have so many people going around saying things like, "Obama is un-American; he's engaged in a socialist plot to protect my family." Or - and I'm sure you remember this - "How dare he try to send my kids to college! What an elitist!"

    It’s one thing to state a truth and then expanding on it - in that case, you can state the truth in one sentence, and then devote a book to its ramifications. But it’s quite another to have to devote a book to justifying your version of the truth - in which case, you’re not expanding on the truth, but trying to contort the truth into conforming to your view of reality. There’s a big difference between the two, and people need to be educated, at least to the point, where they can recognize the difference.


    What is wrong with this syllogism:

    Dyson's premise: "racism presupposes the ability to control a significant segment of the population economically, politically and socially by imposing law, covenant and restriction on their lives"

    The KKK currently has no ability to control a significant segment of the population economically, politically and socially by imposing law, covenant and restriction on their lives.

    The KKK is not currently racist, merely bigoted and/or prejudiced.

     

     


    Emma,

    I started to use that exact same analogy, since the most virulent racists are often the most undereducated and powerless people in our society. But people who subscribe to Dyson’s convoluted logic have very little respect for logic, so they won’t hesitate to contort the truth by saying something like, "Yes, but the racist system supports their efforts, so they are a part of the system," thus, leaving us with yet another ridiculous position to debate.

    The problem with that argument is they’re losing sight of the fact that in contemporary America racism is merely a tactic to keep the people divided. The actual war is a class war. The powers that be don’t care any more about poor and middle-class Whites than they do Black people. They’re goal is to create a corporate feudalist society and enslave us all. That’s why I raised such an objection to Dyson’s ridiculous statement in the first place - it serves to divide the poor and middle class and plays right into the hands of those who seek to subjugate us . . .  ALL.


    The problem with that argument is they’re losing sight of the fact that in contemporary America racism is merely a tactic to keep the people divided. The actual war is a class war. The powers that be don’t care any more about poor and middle-class Whites than they do Black people.

    That's the basic story. If the politician, republican usually, can get just enough whites, doesn't have to many, to vote on their racism against their economic interests they can get into power and pay off their corporate masters. The lower economic classes, both black and white, have forgotten who their enemies are and who their friends are.

     

     

     

    But out at Ford, here's what they found
    And out at Vultee, here's what they found
    And out at Allis-Chalmers, here's what they found
    And down at Bethlehem, here's what they found
    That if you don't let red-baiting break you up
    And if you don't let stoolpigeons break you up
    And if you don't let vigilantes break you up
    And if you don't let race hatred break you up
    You'll win. What I mean, take it easy, but take it


    Regular readers of my blog know that the goal of my writing is to be interesting and nothing else. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, largely because I don't believe humans can be influenced by exposure to better arguments, even if I had some. But I do think people benefit by exposure to ideas that are different from whatever they are hearing, even when the ideas are worse. That's my niche: something different. That approach springs from my observation that brains are like investment portfolios, where diversification is generally a good strategy. I'm not trying to move you to my point of view; I'm trying to add diversity to your portfolio of thoughts. In the short term, I hope it's stimulating enough to be entertaining. Long term, the best ideas probably come from people who have the broadest exposure to different views.

    Which is why outside his blog he's considered a "holocaust-denying creationist who believes psychics are magic and "excuses" rape". Yep, trying to be interesting is fraught with peril.


    outside his blog he's considered a "holocaust-denying creationist who believes psychics are magic and "excuses" rape"

    but only by "godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts


    Being a fan of Dilbert, I was bothered by your (indirect) charges, some of which appear to have little merit. He's said some stupid things, but he's not a creationist (though his understanding of evolution is flawed) and he's not a holocaust denier (though again his understanding of the holocaust is limited). His comments on rape were stupid at best. As for psychics, I'm not sure where that charge is coming from.

    Note that I was unaware of any of these charges prior to you bringing them up (although I've enjoyed Dilbert, I haven't followed Adam's blog), so my research is quite "raw", and I welcome any corrections.


    The only "correction" is that the words I used were a direct quote from Scott Adams, aka Dilbert, and were tongue-in-cheek re: someone else's blog where they were busy burning him in effigy. But as he notes, everything gets screwed up with a tiny loss of context, and the Gods are extremely vindictive towards anyone trying to be interesting.


    OK, good to know.

    I suppose part of the problem is that because he has so many fans, when he says stuff about which he has little knowledge, it can cause an internet-wide shit-storm. Whereas when you or I say stuff about which we have little knowledge, it causes a minor ruckus at dagblog at worst, and frequently just involves others correcting us when we mess up our facts.


    I don't think he found it a "problem" - it's part of his entertainment.

    And few of these things are about anyone having knowledge - it's mostly opinion backed up with gleaning the same blogs or news sources repeating AP and trying to find the proper meme of their tribe to regurgitate quicker than the opposition can. Tastes great vs less filling -  no more complicated than that. Should I be outraged or should I be overjoyed? Peril if you choose door #3.


    Well, I'm no expert on the holocaust, so I'll address his comments on evolution and fossils. (I'm no expert there, either, but I know far more about it than I do about the holocaust.)

    • Strawman #1: No modern paleontologist that I know about has ever claimed that a particular species was a direct ancestor of our own.
    • Strawman #2: We've known that many "ape-people varieties" wandered the Earth at the same time for decades, at least. At least, it was common knowledge when I was in grade school, more than 3 decades ago.
    • Strawman #3: Evolution doesn't "keep to the same conclusion regardless of how many times the evidence for it changes".

    I find it much like people arguing that climate science is bogus because the Earth got hotter in the past before humans existed.


    Latest Comments