American Conservative reportedly to publish far-right columnist's baseless, racially charged claims about "wigger" Obama
In a March 11 entry to his weblog, columnist and film critic Steve Sailer -- who has written that African-Americans "tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups" -- posted excerpts of an article about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) that Sailer claimed will be published in full in the March 26 edition of The American Conservative, a magazine co-founded by MSNBC political analyst Patrick J. Buchanan in 2002. Sailer has launched race-based attacks on Obama in the past and has drawn criticism for racist claims about African-Americans in general. The excerpts of Sailer's piece for The American Conservative are rife with baseless allegations, name-calling, and racial stereotypes.
Sailer, whose columns appear on VDARE.com, wrote on January 2: "The brutal truth: Obama is a 'wigger'. He's a remarkably exotic variety of the faux African-American, but a wigger nonetheless." Sailer's column linked to a Wikipedia entry on the word "wigger," which, at the time (as well as currently) read: "Wigger (alternatively spelled wigga or whigger or whigga) is a slang term that refers to a white person who emulates mannerisms, slangs and fashions stereotypically associated with urban African Americans; especially in relation to hip hop culture."
Following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Sailer wrote in a September 3, 2005, VDARE.com column that the "unofficial state motto" of Lousiana, "Let the good times roll," is "an especially risky message for African-Americans," adding: "The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society." Sailer also wrote that "there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan -- because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks." Later, he stated: "Poor black people seldom cooperate well with each other because they don't trust other blacks much, for the perfectly rational reason that they commit large numbers of crimes against each other."
New York Post columnist John Podhoretz, writing on National Review Online's The Corner weblog, condemned Sailer's "shockingly racist" September 3, 2005, column as containing "The Most Disgusting Sentence Yet Written About Katrina." Podhoretz added: "Nobody with the unspeakable gall and tastelessness to write such sentences should be suggesting that any other person on earth requires 'stricter moral guidance.' " VDARE.com was described by the Rocky Mountain News on July 15, 2006, as a "white nationalist Web site." Peter Brimelow, who operates the site through his nonprofit organization the Center for American Unity, wrote that "VDARE.COM is obviously not a 'White Supremacist' site, if for no other reason than that it publishes non-whites. We do publish writers who could fairly be described as 'white nationalists,' in that they explicitly defend the interests of American whites."
As Media Matters has noted, Sailer has written in defense of the Pioneer Fund, an organization designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its support of the work of white supremacists, eugenicists, and others dedicated to proving the genetic superiority of certain races. Sailer additionally describes himself on his website as "founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute," which claims that it "promotes the study of biological differences among humans and their impact on society." The SPLC has described the institute as a "neo-eugenics outfit."
In the excerpts of his article for The American Conservative, Sailer offered a critique of Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Three Rivers Press, 1995). Sailer wrote:
Beneath this bland Good Obama lies a more interesting character, one that I like far better -- the Bad Obama, a close student of other people's weaknesses, a literary artist of considerable power in plumbing his deep reservoirs of self-pity and resentment, an unfunny Evelyn Waugh. This Bad Obama, consumed by indignation toward his own mother's people, has been hiding out on the bestseller lists for the last two years in his enormously revealing, but little understood, 1995 "autobiography" -- a more accurate term might be "autobiographical novel" -- Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
Sailer also offered several baseless and racially charged claims about Obama and Dreams From My Father:
There is the confusing contrast between the confident, suave master politician we see on television and the tormented narrator of Dreams, who is an updated Black Pride version of the old "tragic mulatto" stereotype found in "Show Boat" and "Imitation of Life."
Which Obama is real? Or is that a naïve question to ask of such a formidable identity artist? William Finnegan wrote in the New Yorker of Obama's campaigning: "... it was possible to see him slipping subtly into the idiom of his interlocutor -- the blushing, polysyllabic grad student, the hefty black church-pillar lady, the hip-hop autoshop guy." Like Madonna or David Bowie, he has spent his life trying on different personalities, but while theirs are, in Camille Paglia's phrase, sexual personae, his specialty is racial personae.
[...]
Even his celebrated acceptance of Christianity in his mid-20s turns out to be an affirmation of African-American emotional separatism. As I was reading Dreams, I assumed that his ending would be adapted from the favorite book of his youth, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which climaxes with Malcolm's visit to Mecca and heartwarming conversion from the racism of the Black Muslims to the universalism of orthodox Islam. I expected that Obama would analogously forgive whites and ask forgiveness for his own racial antagonism as he accepts Jesus.
Instead, Obama falls under the spell of a leftist black nationalist preacher, Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites. Rev. Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate. (The title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, is borrowed from one of Wright's sermons.) Ben Wallace-Wells notes in Rolling Stone: "This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr."
According to The American Conservative's website, the magazine was founded in 2002 by Buchanan, editor Scott McConnell, and right-wing journalist Taki Theodoracopulos in order to "ignite the conversation that conservatives ought to have engaged in since the end of the Cold War, but didn't."
It's unfortunate that these sorts of personal attacks are leveled in political discourse. Why can't Sailer and his ilk just stick to the issues?
Exactly. These red meat inflammatory articles serve only to muddy up the real debates, which should be about issues, qualifications and positions candidates hold.
Instead they wallow in personal attacks.......and then complain when someone they don't like gets elected by not addressing issues. Yeech.
If anything, this only helps Obama if it gets enough press.
You're probably right, but it shouldn't help or hinder him........it should be irrelevant.
...and Dick Cheney shouldn't be able to summon storm clouds with the power of the darkside.
sorry had to.
Something, something, something.... Dark Side.
Something, something, something.... Complete.
(I apologize, but I was not willing to resist)
no jokes allowed I see. Maybe I should have just said that it would be nice if it was completely irrelevant, but that is not the world we live in.
Better?
I actually hope the American Conservative runs his piece. Folks like he and Anne Coulter do nothing but help the Democrats get out the vote. Feed them more red meat, I say.
Exactly so. I mean that IS the question isnt it?
Wow. Isn't it odd that the crackpots are coming out of the woodwork and making all these outrageous remarks? Call me a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but I am convinced that these cretins operate in concert. It leads one to ponder: from what, exactly, are they trying to distract us? Could it be that Congress is picking at the scabs which threaten to reveal the vast criminal activities of the Bush administration?
"Wigger" use notwithstanding...
Can anyone explain to me WHY the RW is so obsessed with racially categorizing Barack Obama? OK, so he's biracial. The fact remains that African-American voters have been voting for DECIDEDLY "non-black" Presidential candidates for over one hundred and forty years. Voting in the 90+ percentile for recent candidates like John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, I think they're capable of perceiving that those gentlemen are all somewhat "less" black than Barack Obama is. I know I am.
So, WHO, exactly, is this obsession FOR? Their party-ideology faithful who are still in a crying jag over the civil rights legislation of the 1960s? What difference does it make to them as to whether Barack Obama is "black enough" to be considered a "black man"? They won't vote for candidates who are CLEARLY "not black" if they perceive that candidate as being too much on the "side" of persons who are quite definitively black.
Is it for Dem voters and liberals, who do not read their Buzzword Racism laden columns or watch their Buzzword Racism laden editorialists on Fox News? This white liberal won't be voting for any Republican in the general election against Barak Obama - should that be the line up - no matter what these RW pinheads decide as to the legitmacy of Obama's geneaology.
So, who exactly are they trying to convince with this business?
And furthermore, though I know this is WAY too deep and insightful for any regular consumer of these editorialists - aren't they answering their OWN question when they obsess to this degree on Obama's purported quasi-blackness? If they're obsessing on whether or not he's black at all, then clearly they perceive him as a black man.
Or are they digging far back into John Edwards and Hillary Clinton's geneaology to find evidence of their respective "non-blackness"?
How insipid IS this argument going to get?
It would seem that the Troglodytes are still trying to lure the black vote away from the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh has been hammering at this for years with his fairy tales about compassionate conservatism and how liberalism causes poverty, etc. They also like to play fast and loose with the numbers to try and make it look like it was really the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act. This is also part of the push for school vouchers, which has been quiet lately. Many black students are stuck in failing schools, and Republicans want them to think that if they vote Republican, they'll get a free ticket to a wonderful private school. This is cynical manipulation on so many levels that I wouldn't know where to start.
I guess they think that they can paint Obama as an "Uncle Tom" and drive black voters away from him. To drive the white voters away, they'll try to use the Obama/Osama nonsense.
I know Nerzog, it would make SENSE to think that they're trying to capture a larger segment of the black vote with this nonsense. But their wholly racist arguments in doing so are absolutely absurd in light of that goal.
The idiotic argument of "Democrats keep the black vote by keeping welfare alive" is so racist at its core, I can't understand how they think it will ATTRACT black voters to the Republican Party.
As you said, many black voters do share the position on school vouchers that the Republicans posit, but even THAT winds up down the Racism Sewer when you listen to the RW long enough. While many black parents in urban areas are disgusted with mismangement of the schools themselves, the RW panderers of "school vouchers" inevitably descend into an argument about the KIDS in the schools that these RW's presumably want their kids away from.
Again, for the RW, it's not about quality of education. It's about racial segregation that many of the RW faithful can't afford on their own through the "escape" they think lies in the venue of private schools. Once again, they alienate black voters on an issue they COULD have shared with them.
And this obsession with Obama's racial categorization? What is it but yet MORE race obsession from the RW? How can that possibly GAIN black voter confidence?
Sometimes I think this garbage from them is not to try to attract black voters at all, but WHITE voters who hold many of these racist priorities, but don't want to be perceived as voting for or supporting an overtly racist party.
Good questions. This white man does not have the answers to any of them. Their obession with Obama's race seems bizarre to me as well. I really do not care if he's half-black, full black, 1/16th black, African black but not African-American black, not "black enough", etc.
To me, it's like focusing on whether Hillary Clinton had both Anglo and Irish ancestry, whether Rudy Giuliani is 100% Italian, whether John Edwards has Prostetant or Catholic ancestry, etc.
Why does it matter? As Americans living in the "great melting pot", we should be above all of that in this day and age.
And, have you ever noticed Brian, that they DO obsess on the ethnic backgrounds of other Dem candidates?
Didn't we hear about the "Kerry is really Jewish, trying to 'pose' as Irish" argument from them? Huh? OK, so John Kerry had Jewish ancestors in Europe somewhere, the dude was born to the name "Kerry". He didn't make it up to "sound" Irish. Who obsesses on this stuff other than RW's?
Joe Lieberman IS Jewish in both ethnic identification and religious practice. If John Kerry was as well, why would he seek to "hide" it when a clearly Jewish man was the Dem nominee for VP in the immediately previous Presidential election? Are they arguing that people won't vote for a Jewish candidate, so that's why Kerry was "lying"? If so, then it follows that such persons go to the REPUBLICAN side, then. What's that saying?
I've run into this bizarre argument from RW's on the net before in discussion or chat room convo. If you're from New York City and you're white and liberal, it is inevitable that you will run into anti-Semitism regardless of your actually being Jewish. Immediately upon hearing that I am a white liberal woman from NYC, they will say "So you're Jewish, aren't you?"
Well, no, I'm of a lot of Northern European descent, but I was raised Protestant. INEVITABLY this garners an accusation of "lying" and "hiding" the "fact" that I really am Jewish. Why would I DENY being Jewish if I were? Do they immediately perceive that it's something people seek to hide in this day and age? I'm not fleeing for my life from some central European police state regime out to literally kill me. What reason do >I< have to lie about being Jewish or not?
Oh, that's right. THEY think it's something to hide and lie about, ala George Allen's mother and father did about his mother.
Don't they see their own prejudice in such absurd accusations and argument?
I know this does represent everyone on the "right", but this is just another example of why the vast majority of Black Americans will never be comfortable or trust the right wing.
Having people like this (as well as weiner) as self proclaimed cons only do "good conservatives" (and I know you are out there) a terrible injustice.
My Goodness Me,
I can't wait to see how the MMFA resident wingers interprets this opinion piece, their spin is always interesting and entertaining I might add. Wow, I never knew that I lacked "native judgment" and that I need "stricter moral guidance from society." I also agree with the above poster assesment that these pests are coming out of the woodwork now. Obama has shaken them. Obama flys in the face of the stereoypes that want to be accepted as fact about Blacks, thus they allege he isn't really Black. They don't like him because he doesn't fit the mold they have decided is representative of people like me.
PS,
I told you these guys view Obama's very close connection with the Black community as somehow being disrespectul to White people, it's amazing. He's indignant against his mother's people???
Lynn,
It should be interesting and entertaining that so far myself and IO, the resident "wingers", have both condemned this piece. I imagine your entertainment will have to wait for someone else.
I don't think Lynn considers us "wingers" because she said "I can't wait to see..." meaning that whoever they are, they haven't posted yet. You Tommy have somewhat of a guilty conscience to assume that Lynn was referring to us as the "resident wingers" (that is assuming a "resident winger" means you're guilty of anything).
I cant speak for Lynn but I personally dont consider either of you resident wingnuts. Tommy can be stubborn but is often amenable to factual reality and regardless how often you and I are at odds you have consistantly shown yourself to be reasonable and reasoned.
Tommy,
You may condemn the thread but I personally don't consider you one of the best arbiters with regards to issues of race and ethnicity when those topics have come up on MMFA.
(Something about lacking historical perspective comes to mind)
Just making an observation.
Huh? When has Tommy claimed to be the "best arbiter" of anything? Go back to sleep.
He may not say it, but the implication is there.
Exactly. To paraphrase Michael Crichton:
When you say something explicitly, you are also saying something implicitly -- that is, you are the one to say it.
If you referring to the fact that I don't race bait, or play the race card, or treat others based on their race as opposed to their character, placate, patronize or pander.........then I thank you for the compliment.
If you could give a context where the terms "race bait," "play the race card," and "pander" have any significance other than "discussing race in a way I feel uncomfortable with," it might be instructive.
Otherwise this is rhetorical Miller Lite.
Just as a matter of definition, even though it's off topic......whenever race is brought up as a relevancy when there exists no racial component whatsoever is "race baiting". When race is relevant or an injustice is perpetrated, by all means it should be discussed and exposed. It has nothing to do with some "comfort" level.
However, when it is not relevant or material to a particular situation, and is used to further some political or social agenda from any spectrum, it then demeans and cheapens real racial injustice.
That sounds great in theory, but what others are alluding to here is that in the past you've taken it upon yourself to declare what is and what isn't relevant. And in nearly every article on a race-related issue, you've declared race to be irrelevant.
Race IS irrelevant. Unless you're a racist.
DVD, Let me spare you the next post from CC........he will call me a racist (again) and probably his posts will get deleted (again) for doing so. His continual lying about me will eventually get him banned, most likely.........(I will miss him though)
Still waiting on you to show even just one example of me lying about something you did or didn't say. Each post you make without backing up that claim is just making it increasingly apparent that you can't back up your baseless charges. But I suppose you think if you just say "liar" enough times, people will start to believe it?
This is the same familiar argument that we hear again and again from right wingers who claim to be "colorblind," and say that proudly as if it's a good thing. You're wrong, race isn't irrelevant and making that observation does not make one a racist. That's absurd.
Also DVD,
You see the same ridiculous "colorblind" charge brought up again, when I have never claimed that, ever........another of Clams lies (again).
I am very aware of people's race, and their height, and their weight, and their sex, and their hair color, etc......but I do not judge them, give them a pass, or treat them any differently because of it. It is their character that determines my actions toward everybody, not their skin color. I treat people with respect and dignity, their race is irrlevant to that.
However, those that haul out the racist charge with no proof only to be inflammatory and prop up weak arguments, do so for whatever nefarious reasons of their own - some are guilt ridden, some live off playing the victim, some are just nasty - and some probably all three, such as Clams, perhaps.
His posts get deleted when he lies and calls me a racist, and then wonders why? But classless individuals get desperate and lie when cornered - that explains alot.
Show me where I've ever said that you claim colorblindness.
You just did........look above. Or were you speaking of some other "rightwinger" who uses the familiar argument and claims to be colorblind?
We both you know your accusation was directed, baselessly, at me. Anybody that has read our exchanges are quite familiar with you calling me a racist - if they're not deleted first.
Everything isn't about you, Tommy. My "colorblind" comment was directed toward DVD. I don't think I've ever even discussed the colorblind issue with you, let alone accused you of playing that card. Your narcissism is getting the better of you. Anything that I have to say to you, I say it directly and plainly.
...btw, still waiting for you to show me when I've lied about you...
C,
I am done with you. You know where you've lied about me. You have repeatedly called me a racist and now your slanderous posts are being deleted as a result. You obviously don't have the class to apologize for such a heinous and scurrilous accusation, that is incredibly sad. But predictable, for reasons I have already mentioned.
So go ahead and squirm out of the woodwork, slithering in and haul out the racist charge anytime you want too - I could care less anymore. Just know that they will probably be deleted again and again for they are baseless, unscrupulous and a lie.
Two posts have been deleted for undisclosed reasons, and both have been rephrased and reposted without blunting my point about your ignorant commentary on issues of race. Obviously you can't come up with a single example of me lying about anything you've said, so once again I'll just refer you back to a few of your own choice words (in their full context):
[link to mediamatters.org] is a presidential candidate who belongs to a church that espouses a separatist doctrine."
"[W]hen the white community looks out for the white community, the same standards apply. Or is this a double standard?"
"If you want to reach back for historical context or oppression or some other victim-laden excuse for bad behavior, be my guest[...]To lessen a racist act on the part of a minority because of some extraneuous or historical wrong is nothing more than an excuse, and I don't buy it."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090009
"If Obama were a white candidate and there was a statement called "White Value System" within that person's church, there would be a major outcry."
"Look at the [church's] entire statement and substitute "white" for "blacK' and then tell me if you still think it's still all inclusive."
"A little newsflash, if the unequal footing that exists in your life today is the fault of circumstances from Abraham Lincoln's time - then I suggest you emancipate yourself."
"There are plenty of inequalities in our society. So what? The point is, for the last time, people can overcome them through their hard work. They don't blame them for their lot in life."
"Oh I get it. The way, in your view, to stop discrimination against one group, is to swing the pendulum the other way and direct it towards another.......the very definition of affirmative action."
[link to mediamatters.org] civil rights leaders] have a vested interest in promoting the "us vs. them" victim mentality, because it keeps them relevant and furthers their agendas, both financially and otherwise."
"Face it, anytime anyone other than a black liberal offers up any mention of race you somehow feel you have some moral authority to speak to it better than anyone. But you do not." (directed at Lynn)
[link to mediamatters.org] is no race relevance in this whatsoever. I don't do patronizing pats on the head like some guilt ridden liberals in saying 'poor thing, aren't you offended by this!!!???'"
Thank you, I had forgotten how well said and spot on my recent posts were - your saving them up and posting them again for a reminder is much appreciated. I stand by them 100%.
If you could keep doing this without lying repeatedly by calling me a racist, perhaps more of your posts won't get thrown into the "obscene content" file and trashed.
"Obscene content file"? Now you're just making things up whole cloth. Whatever.
You stand by your comments, and I stand by my opinion that those comments show you to be an ignorant racist who routinely dismisses the historical oppression of black people as an irrelevant excuse offered up by people who like to play the victim. That isn't the baseless namecalling that you routinely practice, and it certainly isn't "obscene." I have no idea why you think that gives you cause to call me a liar, but at this point your lack of a single citation of a lie I've told is sufficient enough rebuttal, I think.
Would t'were that it were so. Then again back on Planet Earth Obama was just called a wigger.
No, you don't do that - You've expressed yourself in this forum at times (or at least given the impression) that history is irrelevant with regard to the position that Blacks and other minorities have been in in this country.
I personally feel the past is something to be watched because throughout history we humans tend to repeat our mistakes. We live in this supposedly free country where we are allowed to express ourselves as we see fit. I don't have any issues with that although I find myself often disgusted with commentary that supposedly passes as "insightful opinion". Just don't tell me that i'm not supposed to react to it (this article is especially vile). As has been highlighted by MMFA, just ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
It would be nice if some conservatives would denounce this kind of bile from the perspective of having some small shred of human decency and respect for everyone.
I'm sorry, this is just kind of tough for me because I can't find the right words to express myself without sounding inflammatory.
Spin, First off - I have denounced this article in my first post. Secondly, I have never said that history is irrelevant with regard to blacks or anyone.....if that was the impression you got, it was not accurate.
The context in which you are referring to is the apology that some want from our country for slavery. I stated my opinions on that already. It goes without saying that slavery will forever be a stain on our country's history, thankfully it was abolished and eliminated to our credit. As for an apology, who would apologize? Nobody alive today is qualified to apologize for something that had no part in - and that's where the disingenuousness comes in it for me. I would not want some bureacratic apology to me from someone who had no part in what they are apologizing for.......I would view as a patronizing gesture.
But that's off topic.........I appreciate your opinions.
Tommy -
I don't think i've ever advocated for some sort of an apology for slavery on here. (I may have wondered aloud about such being addressed - I think someone from here told me that Clinton adressed something relating to slavery before too..) Not wanting to go too far off-topic. I'll have to make an effort to re-read some of the past topics with regards to what was discussed in the realm of racial issues.
I find your opinions challenging - and I mean that in a good way. It's nice to talk to someone (even though i don't necessarily agree with what you say) that makes you think about things. Lets me know that thankfully my opinions and ideas are not set in stone.
Just wish it were the case with the media pundit-sphere...
Spin,We recently had a lengthy debate about Obama's church's mission statement. Tommy thought that since the church specifically stated they were working to uplift the Black community that this was espousing a racially separatists agenda. I and many argued that the mission statement to be completely understood and not misconstrued had to be considered in a historical context when it was conceived. That may be what your referring to. Tommy held his ground because he's a stubborn mule, but I really think we gave him food for thought. Now of course he won't admit that.
PS,
I was the one who advocated an official national commemorative ceremony for slavery.
Thanks Lynn, your posts are always food for thought, even if we disagree at times......I appreciate and respect your opinions.
I am completely responsible for my opinions and my posts on this website........I am not so threatened by any one poster that I lurk in the shadows, trolling and lying about someone else's position with scurilous accusations and false summarizations. Those that do, specifically one poster, have no class.
Thanks for the exchanges.
And here we are once again with the obligatory call for you to back that up. For the umpteenth time I'll ask you to point out where I've misrepresented or lied about anything you've posted, and for the umpteenth time you will fail to come up with anything. I've lost count of how many times I've written these words: Show me where I've lied or stop calling me a liar.
(when you lie, then your posts accusing me of being a racist get deleted).
Nice dodge, but that's a complete lie. In the year or so that I've been posting here I've had exactly one post deleted. Let me repeat that--one post. I rephrased that post in less aggressive terms and it stood.
Actually, I'll correct that. I've had only one post deleted that was due to the content of that particular post. There are a couple other posts of mine that were deleted as a result of an entire strand of a thread being purged, but those deletions were not due to the content of my posts.
So are you lying now or in the post immediately before this one? Just kidding. I couldn't resist.
Um...neither. I corrected myself as quickly as I could.
So are you an idiot or just a troll doing what trolls gotta do?
Really? Look below.....you lied, you called me a racist - poof! - your slanderous post is history.
(make that at least two posts deleted then, right?)
Gee, I wonder who flagged that one? You're right, it's gone, but it wasn't a lie and it didn't violate any of MMFA's posting guidelines. I have no idea why it was deleted.
(delusional liar clean up - aisle 1)
The fact that my post was deleted doesn't hide the fact that you still can't back up your repeated claims that I've lied about anything you've posted. Back it up or shut up.
And as a matter of fact, I'll repeat what I wrote in the deleted post: Your post above is an attempt to whitewash your comments on race and make it appear as though your comments were confined to the Coulter/slavery apology thread. Maybe not so coincidentally, literally dozens of your posts were purged from that particular thread, so you appear to be steering the curious back to a thread where there is no record of your routine "double standard" argument about race. Unfortunately for you, there are countless other threads where your m.o. is plain to see. Your double standard argument is always some variation of "But if a white person said it, you'd cry racism." And as has been pointed out to you dozens of times, this argument only holds water if you choose to ignore the historical oppression of black people. This is what others in this thread were pointing to. But, as I also wrote in the deleted post, you get your credit for condemning Sailers comments, even though that condemnation was in the context of "personal attacks" and not racism.
I think your smart and civil compared to many of the people that post opposing arguments on this site, having said that....
I was just reading this thread...
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703130004
This is classic "Tommy"
I missed that one the first time around. Hilarious!
Lynn - Oh, i remember that discussion!
Tommy,
I have never called you a winger. There's a huge difference between wingers and mainstream conservatives. There are miles between say a David Brooks and a Michael Savage. I do know the difference.
I realize that Lynn, I may have jumped the gun unneccesarily - I apologize.
"I can't wait to see how the MMFA resident wingers interprets this opinion piece, their spin is always interesting and entertaining"
I'll take a crack at this one, "He was just joking" or how about "He was intentionally being absurd to tweak the media" or how about "He's not a journalist, he's an entertainer. Get over it."
These people just love dancing closer and closer to the edge. It's only a matter of time, before one of them slips over and says what they want to say.
How long before someone comes to this ignorant bastard Sailer's defense?
I think many have. The problem is--Conservatives defend them. They spin to be 'Freedom of speech, Different viewpoint,' or whatever seems to work for them at the moment. They do this because they can't stand behind the merits of their beliefs.
Lookie me! Lookie me! Lookie, lookie, lookie!
I find it almost exhilarating when idiots and those who gladly publish them go out of their way to so loudly proclaim their idiocy.
VDare.com - isn't that the web site Michelle Malkin plugs on her site?
Does that make her a PHaucasian?
Why the obsession with Senator Obama's ancestory and racial makeup? That's easy. What was the one sport where white folks almost always won? Golf. Then that Tiger fella, half this and half something else, but clearly too dark to be called caucasian started winning, and winning and winning. See, what if Senator Obama starts winning, and winning and winning? Best to make sure everyone knows, he aint white enough.
Coming up on Fox News:
Obama a wigger?
Or maybe he's NIGHT.
Good to see that American Racist magazine is living up to the True American Values of conservative America.
Oh, and: "Rev. Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate"? Yeah. The Pope had a stranglehold on the White House while JFK was alive, too.
These people and their wee-in-your-pants fear of black Americans who show any kind of single-mindedness and opinion is astoundingly hilarious. To compare Obama, who is a centrist that's taken a leeeeeeeeetle step Left, to a dynamic, charismatic and radical figure like Malcolm X is ludicrous.
"The brutal truth: Obama is a 'wigger'. He's a remarkably exotic variety of the faux African-American, but a wigger nonetheless"
Is this what qualifies as "the brutal truth" to this dude? LOL. Sounds like a slanted opinion to me.
Keep tryin', dude.
I've never heard of the term "wigger" before (the sound of it is disturbing) but if MMFA's definition of the word is accurate, it sounds an awful lot like Hillary Clinton.
and why would you say that?
Yeah, OK.
"Wigger" essentially means a white n*gger. At least that is how I understand it to be used. And it's not what anyone would call a "nice" word at all.
That's my understanding of the word, too.
I'm sure Ann Coulter won't be far behind to try to top this.
Me too.
DVD just called Hillary a White n***** and then gave nothing to support his/her claim. I would like to know why he/she would imply that term to anyone.
"Wigger (alternatively spelled wigga or whigger or whigga) is a slang term that refers to a white person who emulates mannerisms, slangs and fashions stereotypically associated with urban African Americans; especially in relation to hip hop culture."- MMFA
"An' you KNOW what I'm talkin' 'bout."- Hillary Clinton
But is that something black person woould say or a southern person would say?
It's still highly offensive and doesn't apply in this instance unless you think all white southerners with southeren dialects are "wiggas".
It's something Hillary said. You'd need to discuss the reasons with her handlers.
You said "An' you KNOW what I'm talkin' 'bout." is grounds to refer to Hillary as a wigger.
In what way does this statement emulate the mannerisms, slangs and fashions stereotypically associated with urban African Americans?
On what grounds do you find it justifiable to call Hillary a White N*****?
Are mannerisms, slangs and fashions stereotypically associated with urban African Americans N***** traits in your opinion?
Settle down, MONKNJ80. Take a deep breath, count to 10 and go back and read my posts. Then read your reactions to them. You're acting hysterically.
and you've failed to answer one question. Thanks.
PS is GWB a wigger? He often brings out a southern dialect when it suites him.
That's exactly what it means and it is usually used in regards to White kids that have embraced Hip Hop culture like Eminiem. I find the term offensive and I don't care where it originated. An assumption has to be made that Blacks are indeed n-words and if your a White person embracing something that is associated with any aspect of the Black community than you are a Wigger. This is exactly how the above poster interpreted this since he decided that Hilary Clinton was trying to act Black last week and therefore she was acting like a White N-word. The term is inherently racist.
Good point Lynn. We basically just posted the exact same thing, but I think you came across a little better.
I have.
I think of Mark Wahlberg (Marky Mark during his "Good Vibrations" days.) It's basically a white boy who adopts all the hip-hop slang and swagger. Obama is not a "wigger." He's just not black enough for some and certainly not white enough for American Conservative.
I never understood why wigger became an acceptable thing to call someone. I always take it as someone saying that a white person is acting like a "n****". If someone is so quick to apply this label to a someone who is acting like a black person (whatever that is) do they they feel comfortable calling black people "n*****s" as well?
I don't like either word and would prefer if people didn't use them at all, but that just me. People can and will say what they want.
When someone appears to be acting inauthentically it arouses suspicion as to what that person is up to, what will they do next. It's a natural reaction not confined to racial distinctions. If a guy was raised in a blue collar neighborhood and had all the typical characteristics of Archie Bunker, and then say he moves away and comes back in ten years talking like William F. Buckley, the homeys are going to look askance at him.
Wouldn't you say questioning someones authenticity and calling someone a white n***** are two very different things?
Usage of the term "wigger" usually implies inauthenticity. The word provides a short way of so doing in the particular circumstance of a White with the manner of an African American. The taboo for use of the word n***** most aptly applies to a non-Black's use of the word. However "wigger" refers tacitly to the word "n*****", so I do take your point.
It shouldn't be an acceptable term at all. As you and Lynn pointed out, if someone says "wigger" then we should respond as if they said the n-word.
What kind of crowd do you associate with, MONKJ80, that you would even be familiar with the word "wigger"? I'd never even heard of it until MMFA brought it up.
So you learn a new racial slur and immediately jumped at the chance to use it, knowing full well that any thinking person considers it to be highly offensive?
Boy, Clams. I was joking before but now I think Tommy is correct; you do have a tendency to lie.
This is what you wrote: "I've never heard of the term 'wigger' before (the sound of it is disturbing) but if MMFA's definition of the word is accurate, it sounds an awful lot like Hillary Clinton."
Now please explain how where the "lie" is. Was that some other DVDBooker1959 who just called Hillary a "wigger"?
I hang out with a wide range of people, I even hang out with people who aren't terribly PC. That fact that I know the word and you've never heard of it just tells me you are sheltered or blissfully ignorant of certain things in life.
BTW it seems I am not the only who knows of the word. Unless your a 10 year old you seem to be in the minority on this one.
Makes me weep a little bit when I see writings like this, because it is apparent that not everyone has realized yet that people are people no matter what race and or color. As a few others have said though, this might actually help Obama a little more, because it really is nothing more than a cruel and hate riddled piece of fiction. Makes me think that this guy has a sheet and a hood in the closet somewhere.
The sheet and hood are no longer mandatory in 2007. These days they just hide behind free speech or just deny the bigotry of their statements outright.
You know, the worst part is that we knew this kind of stuff would happen with Sen. Obama entering the race and being considered a "viable" candidate. You expect and anticipate this sort of thing and when it happens its still dissapointing to see.
I know, I know.. It's a "free" country.
Most of my fiends are white (some even republicans heaven forbid) and we often talk about politics. Many of them see that Obama has this incredible potential to do some good for this country and believe his race won't be an issue at all. I just shake my head because many of them honestly ust don't have the same perspective I have as a 27 year old black man. I'm not saying that racism in this country is holding me back, but I damn sure have experienced it first hand too many times to be as naive to think it won't be brought up for Obama in a negative way.
Your comments hit close to home here as well. Monk, I've got 15 years on you and also being Black, I just feel sometimes that no matter what you do, someone is going to remind you of it (most of the time in a negative way). It's just more evidence to me that our country has a LONG way to go with regards to how it deals with issues of race and ethnicity.
Seems like these days its the bloviators for the right-wing that have no trouble trying to tell us "where our place is".
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume "fiend" wasn't a Fruedian slip when you really meant "friend." I'm sorry but skin color DOESN'T MATTER and the sooner the world get's it, the better off we all will be.
Skin color doesn't matter to you. You say that like there is no such thing as racist on this planet.
Speak to me again when you see a group of grown men screaming racist statement to a bunch of kids in public. Speak to me when you experience racisim or a race related hate crime.
Do you condone what Sailer is saying? Do you agree with him?
I'm having trouble following you since you don't seem to elaborate on your very broad and generic statements.
You're getting hysterical again, MONKNJ80. Take a second to remove the chip from your shoulder. It will do you good.
What chip? You've yet to explain yourself or make a point what are you afraid of?
BTW go back and read all my posts, I've done nothing but ask you fair questions within the context of the discussion that you simply refuse to answer.
If there has been any incidence of hostility towards you please point it out to me and I will apologize.
(I won't pretend that I have never resorted to name calling, but I haven't really called you any names.)
Hey MOn,
When they pull out the get the chip off your shoulder thing you can guess where these guys are coming from, and if your like me you will find that conversing with people like this guy who thinks the word Wigger is cute to be a complete waste of energy.
Lynn, You seem to share MONKNJ80's inate ability to read things into others' posts that aren't there. Please tell me where I said the word whigger was "cute" or even condoned the use of the word (which I never even knew of until seeing it on this site). I'm waiting, Lynn...
Are you saying that even though you just used the word to describe Hillary Clinton, you don't condone using it?
Thanks Clam, you said it all.
I know Lynn, I'm trying.
I never get the context of that statement when people pull that out of no where. I'm not sure where I gave any indication that I had a chip on my shoulder.
I'm sorry but skin color DOESN'T MATTER and the sooner the world get's it, the better off we all will be.
You should be posting your comments at American Conservative, then. They are the ones for whom it seems to be a vital issue.
First, NAMECALL, based on a racist definition.
Then, it's time for the WEASEL: he's a "wigger", but not in the accepted definition, or even in a stretched and tortured definition. Obama is a "wigger" to this rightwing columnist, of a "remarkably exotic variety".
With this particular WEASEL, it is possible for me to claim that my potted petunia is, in fact, an OAK TREE, but of a "remarkably exotic variety". And vice versa.
In other words, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE COMPARISON. Except, of course, this racist rightwing author wishes to make a racist comment about Obama, to hopefully deflect voter support.
This extended campaign period is cause for some real hand-wringing in rightwing circles. Every Democrat must, of course, be smeared, characterized with evil attributes, belittled, ridiculed, namecalled, and assigned endless evil motives. However, what if a calculated smear on Obama has the result of sending some voters over to Hillary? What THEN? Oh, the angst, the angst ...
Trailer trash punditry
This is solely about maintaining a fear factor among self-denying racists who might not otherwise vote. (Psst, don't look now but that "wigger" could get elected.)
Which Obama is real? Or is that a naïve question to ask of such a formidable identity artist? William Finnegan wrote in the New Yorker of Obama's campaigning: "... it was possible to see him slipping subtly into the idiom of his interlocutor -- the blushing, polysyllabic grad student, the hefty black church-pillar lady, the hip-hop autoshop guy."
Man, I've been missing a lot of Obama's act.
Now if you'll excuse me, with St. Patrick's day coming up, I've got to put on my tweed coat and buckled leprechaun shoes, tune up me fiddle, get drunk and start some fights.
I think you covered it all dear!!! Are you really Irish or are you just trying to act like one, What are really???
I'm second generation Irish/Danish American, so I'll throw in a Viking helmet and an apple pie. ;o)
...but then you would have to rape and pillage. You’re going to be really tired after that night.
The next day's Sunday- the vestigial Catholic part of me can stumble into the confessional after a good nights sleep. (not likely-har)
You forgot the dancing. I'm embarrassed whenever I see other Irish people getting loaded and thinking that they can step dance. It is not a pretty sight.
I have no problem with the getting loaded part.
10-4, King. I bust out the step dancing only to get a laugh out of the little woman when she's in a bad mood, and never beyond my front door.I have that little shred of dignity.
After reading an excerpt from Steve Sailer's upcoming article the part I found most interesting was this:
[Obama]....was raised mostly by his loving liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where America’s normal race rules never applied
Hawaii, along with all it's other outstanding attributes, sounds like an idyllic place...doesn't it?
Kind of sad really that in the year 2007 there are some who still cling to worn out sterotypes.
Disgustingly Racist. That is all I am going to say.
This is classic Steve Sailer, the so-called film critic and journalist. He has written about the biological inferiority of blacks and our self-destructive culture for years, and this type of rhetoric doesn't surprise me at all. It agitates Sailer that Obama doesn't fit into the bastardized Hip Hop stereotype that's dominating the entertainment industry and Pop culture. Obama has the ability to reach the urban youth without using affectation and calculation as a way of winning their acceptance. It sickens him that Obama is so multifaceted he can walk into a Southern Baptist Church, galvanizing an all-black congregation, preaching self-reliance and personal responsibility, without possessing a shred of condescension. (Funny how Hannity, Tucker, Buchanan and others enjoy highlighting that part of his speech in Selma as if that's the first time since Bill Cosby a black leader has advocated to their people in breaking the psychological chains of slavery. Anyone with a firm grasp in history can tell you that scholars from W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, Phillip Randolph, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, etc., have all preached the same thing to black youth. Even Cornel West, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others have all stressed the importance of education and self-reliance—assimilating into the mainstream while keeping your racial pride and dignity in check—so why does the Right continue to ignore these other figures who advocated the same thing while finding comfort in Cosby's and Obama's speeches as if they “broke the silence”?) Then Sailer went on to say that Obama is the classic case of the “tragic mulatto” because he discarded many facades in his youth. But how is this so uniquely different than other African-Americans since the process of assimilating is a complex process in itself? As W.E.B. DuBois said:“The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife, —this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He would not Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face.”
Am I a "tragic mulatto" too despite the fact both of my parents are black and I found difficulty fitting in with certain groups of people, friends and college classmates? Sadly, Sailer's articles gives comfort to many whites who already hold these disgusting beliefs about blacks but have a difficult time articulating them. Along with his contemporary Jared Taylor, Sailer uses stylish prose in a way to disguise the racist doctrine of inferioration and apathy so his stance can appear intellectual convincing and magisterial. If the Republican Party continues down road of Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancrado—with no room for moderation—then the party is most likely doomed.
I love reading your post Preston. You’re very expressive and eloquent.
Thank you, Lynn. I just hate the fact when I add spaces in my paragraphs it doesn't show up in my posts. Argh.
Preston, BRAVO!
Lynn, thanks for the explanation of "wigger". I must admit that in 72 years, I've never heard of that term.
Preston -
Thank you as well for expressing such!
PRESTON:
Is it not explicit in this author's contention that the blacks are a socially flawed race, for whatever reasons he concocts, that by comparison the pure white race is SUPERIOR?
Indeed, it is. And such white supremacy, no matter how "intellectually disguised" as insightful social commentary cleverly worded, is the soul of RACISM. This man is a RACIST. (You can bet he's a big fan of the pseudo-"scientific" BELL CURVE.)
Oh, I agree Sailer is unabashed with his beliefs when you suss through the grandiloquence of his writing; he's definitely from the Charles Murray school of racist indoctrination. However, the thing I'm scared of is to people who are oblivious to this type of covert propaganda -- being in awe of his commanding prose -- will actually pass this article off as a scholarly exegesis. To a well-read person that's politically astute, it's easy to discern Sailer's tactics, but I'm worried about those who are impressionable -- those who maybe unconscious of their antipathy towards blacks, and this pseudo-scholarship will give them comfort and justification of rationalizing their racism.
People like Sailer are dangerous in my opinion because he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. His style of writing is so inviting and engaging if not careful one can become bewitched by his mere mastery of the craft.
Thankfully Media Matters and others who post here can read straight through his bull and see his true intent.
Good to aee Media Matters covering the hate, stupidity, lies, and crap of Steve Sailer. His close association with many right-wing hate groups like VDare shows how much negative influence he has.
I have a site dedicated for him. Please feel free to comment.
http://sailerfraud.blogspot.com
The entire article is now available online at:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/feature.html
May I urge you to read the whole thing?
Yes, it's even more racist, dishonest, presumptuous and condescending in its entirety. Are we expected to be swayed because you resisted the urge to type the word "wigger" this time out?
OK, Steve, I read it. Now what? Are you not a racist? Are you specifically denying the reports of your racist associations or your racist comments? Which ones?
Ditto Robert,
I’m sure the editors decided it best to omit the Wigger term. I read the article in its entirety, the overriding tone of it is contemptuous not just toward Obama but Blacks in general. If I live to be 100 I will never understand the racist mind. They nurture a neurosis and attempt to impart it as normal and healthy human state. The article made me very sad because I realize that after all these lovely words and the beautifully constructed prose Sailes just wishes we Blacks would go away and leave the decent and superior White folks alone. Well Steve we aren’t going away. We are here and we are Americans equal to any other American and entitled to all the rights and charged with all the responsibilities that come with that. There has been one bright spot here; even the wingers didn't step forward to defend Steve’s analysis of what makes this flawed mulatto tick. Hopefully the sentiment of the Sailes' and Taylor's of America is only representative of those at the margins. I heard that Farrakhan recently announced his retirement, I wish Sailes and Jared would join him.Lynn, I think you misunderstood. The "wigger" comment wasn't omitted. MMFA was quoting Sailer from a January 2 VDARE.com article. They didn't say that this current article used the term.
Thanks Clams, I re-read the thread and you are correct.
Now that I've read the entire article (and I'm glad to not see "wigger" in there), I'm afraid I've still got a few problems.
You cite from the work a number of times, mostly pulling quotes about Obama's questions of racial identity. But when you write lines such as "he intended to write a disquisition on race relations, but the puerility of his theorizing discouraged him," suddenly the citations are missing. Does Obama say that his thoughts on race are "puerile," or is that just you? You've got plenty of quotes that you can use to depict Obama as self-loathing but they just suddenly dry up here. The same with "Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites." Where? What does he say? The frequent citations from the book call attention to themselves when they're missing. Shaky.
Your scholarship is also troubling. You write, "Most authors who write about African-Americans’ social problems appear to know nothing—and don’t seem to want to learn anything—about Africans. Our pundits and academics assume that the social history of black Americans traces to that day in 1619 when the first slaves were herded on to that dock in Virginia, but no farther back." What? I'm working on a PhD in a field that involves African American issues, and I've never encountered any scholarship about black history, community, or artistic practice that doesn't enter into West African traditions. Which scholars are you reading?
Lastly, this. "He wouldn’t be a serious candidate for president at age 45 if he weren’t part black." And you know this how ...?
I'm afraid you're only lending credence to his pseudo-scholarly claptrap by even addressing his baseless assertions. And he doesn't deserve a cookie for not calling Obama a "wigger" this time. His faux-literary stylings don't make him any more worthy of a response than the knuckledraggers who make grunting noises on white supremacist message boards.
Nice paternalistic pat on the head towards Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte. You may convince a few people with this piece – those who aren't aware of your racist history – you're being "fair" and "accurate" towards Obama, but as far as I'm concern, your article proved to me that you're worse than I imagined because of your disingenuousness. At least with your contemporary Jared Taylor he doesn’t use such sly maneuvers in his writing to camouflage his White Supremacy.
At first I was thinking about writing a long response, correcting you on each mistake after another, but I felt that would’ve been a waste of my valuable time. No matter how you expurgate your latest article by making it reader-friendly, the verdict is in, Sailer: you’re a sick racist that needs help.
Out of curiosity, Mr. Sailer, how much is American Conservative shelling out for your particular brand of racism, or are you donating your patronizing bigotry for free these days?
b-b-but I thought that the right wing "doesn't see color" and only us lefties "define everything by race and gender . . .
Is Buchanan still involved with "The American Conservative?" Whether he is or not, he should run, not walk, to condemn this Sailer moron. Being an American conservative should not require one to be an American racist. Buchanan should remain the cuddly nativist and apologist for Republican bad behavior he's always been, serving the useful purpose of demonstrating that his "philosophy" has nothing to offer fear and vacuity.
Steve Sailer--you pompus *sswipe.....your comments make me feel like whacking you with a baseball bat but that would only lower me to that level where you currently exist which is beneath the pig manure that festers inside your brain.
Don't feel bad, Jinxer . . . after all, Crazy Annie once suggested that liberals should be talked to "with a baseball bat" . . . I say what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander . . .
Oh my...I have never seen so much moralistic stupidity in my life. The idea that there are functionally important genetic differences between individuals, the sexes, and biogeographic ancestries (popularly known as races or ethnic groups) is shocking to many, but this is little more than crypto-fascist, crypto-Lysenkoist/Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Stalinist nonsense. I'm tired of people being so shocked by things that should really not be shocking. I'm tired of Leftists being shocked about frank discussion of race the way social right-wingers are shocked by frank discussion about sex and drugs, especially "soft" drugs like pot and over-the counter/prescription drugs that can be used for euphoric psychological effect.
Yes, grasshopper, people do vary by geographic ancestry. Not every group has the same distribution of intelligence or personality traits--how could it? For example, Africans and non-Africans evolved separately for something like 100,000 years, Asians and Europeans for about 40,000, and Asians and Amerinds/"Latinos" [primarily American Indian descent] for about 20,000 years, with a considerable bottleneck between Asians and Amerinds (the bottleneck magnifies genetic differences between the groups due to "founder effects")...and it's supposed to be the last 250-500 years that has defined everything?
frank discussion of race the way social right-wingers are shocked by frank discussion about sex and drugs, especially "soft" drugs like pot and over-the counter/prescription drugs that can be used for euphoric psychological effect.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh yes a frank discussion indeed. A frank race discussion from a RACIST always ends with the conclusion of "my race is better than your race." I don't care how many words and pseudo scientific analyses that precede the phrase. You're a disgusting RIGHT WING RACIST and YOUR breed is slowly vanishing, thank God.Your comment only proves how intolerant and fascist the neo-Lysenkoist, neo-Stalinist Left really is.
Do you even have any knowledge of human evolutionary history, other than dishonest, hateful propaganda (e.g., there is no such thing as race, except as a social construct by eeeeevil Westerners who want to oppress other races)? I think you are the real racist here, with the tribalistic "my gang yay, your gang boo" mentality that is clear from your post.
Of course, if there really are different distributions of ability and personality traits in different groups, the Stalinist/racist/hatemongering idea that whites/America/the West is evil until blacks and Latin American peasant immigrants and their children have the exact same average income, education levels, wealth, etc. as whites and Asians falls away.
BTW Ashkenazi Jews have higher levels of income, wealth, etc. than non-Jewish whites, does that mean that Jews are oppressive cheaters to gentile whites? Of course the Nazis believed this nonsense, and used it to justify unspeakable crimes. I really believe that many left-wing black, Latino, and Muslim leaders are really not that different from the Nazis--they see a group (or groups) doing better than they are (at least on average), become envious and hateful, and start demanding lots of s***. Fortunately, in the United States, unlike in Nazi Germany, and in other parts of the world where pogroms are common (see Amy Chua's "World on Fire"), the better-off groups are the majority, rather than a tiny minority.
Boy are you nuts. Yeah Liberal minorities are JUST like the Nazis who tried to obliterate an entire group of people that they didn't like because in the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT that the racist Nazi leaders created the Jews belonged to a different and inferior race.
Your really believe that someone can't be authoritarian, fascist, or racist just because they are "liberal" or left-wing? I think the Soviets did a pretty good job putting the lie to that one.
And you don't think that lefty NAACP, La Raza, and MALDEF types are arguing that whites are inferior? Just because they don't talk about IQ? (Aside: the Nazis were not big on IQ tests, because Jews did well on them). Certainly minority activist groups are arguing that whites are *morally* inferior since, in their ideological lens, whites are actively keeping minority groups down, to the expense of minority groups and the benefit of themselves. Generally, Nazi propaganda about Jews did not put them down as inferior in the same sense that white nationalist/white supremacist groups put down blacks and Latinos (e.g. stupid, violent, and incapable of any useful achievements). The main Nazi propaganda about Jews was that Jews are greedy, sneaky, and money grubbing...this seems more in line with the left-wing/minority activist view of whites (and views of some whites about Jews and Asians), than the white supremacist and old-time white racist view of blacks and Latinos.
"Your really believe that someone can't be authoritarian, fascist, or racist just because they are "liberal" or left-wing? I think the Soviets did a pretty good job putting the lie to that one." --Birch
Firstly, that is a stawman argument. Lynn said no such thing.
Secondly, give legitimate examples of the NAACP (and the other groups you mentioned if you wish) arguing that whites are inferior. You are simply generalizing to the degree your argument stops making any sense at all.
I don't think the fact that minority activists consider whites to be morally derilict requires citation. A cursory reading of the statements and writings of the likes of minority activists makes this concept quite clear. Just read sites like modelminority.com, or google "NAACP" "La Raza" or the minority activist group of your choice, and you will quickly find that such groups regularly trash whites as morally derilict racists who are out to take away their rights and exploit them. Far left whites like Tim Wise also regularly make such statements. Again, it should be OBVIOUS that anti-white sentiment runs through minority activist groups and far-left groups in general.
The fact you dont think your baseless spewage needs citation screams to me that you pulled the assertion directly out of your ass. Try pulling your head out next time and leave the info in there its where it belongs
Exactly. It would be nice if one of these apparent nutjobs ever supported their assertions with facts. Strangely, it never seems to happen.
"Firstly, that is a stawman argument. Lynn said no such thing."
Re-read what he said: "Yeah Liberal minorities are JUST like the Nazis..."
Lynn clearly implied what I said he did. I don't know what the fancy Latinized term is for the fallacy of "argument by pickiness" but that's all I can see in the entirety of your comment.
I was implying no such thing, but since you want to veer off into yet another unrelated direction I'll play along for a minute. This however will be my last response to you because although I was kidding initially about you being nuts, you do seem unbalanced kind of like the Unabomber. You should read John Dean's “Conservatives Without Conscious”, it includes data from exhaustive studies of people with authoritarian personalities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality . Although Liberals aren't immune to the phenomena and you will find a smattering of these personality types among of the ranks of Progressives, they tend to be concentrated among Conservatives, but of course not all Conservatives have authoritarian personalities. Okay back to you. One of the traits of some of the people with authoritative personalities (all don't possess this) is the belief that some people are naturally superior to others and that therefore the superior people are entitled to more than those they view as inferior. You obviously demonstrate this trait which is coupled with a paranoid and warped perception of what you believe the AGENDA of Liberal minorities is. Let me see If I understand your rant correctly. You are saying that liberal minorities are jealous of the superior racial groups so we want to put them in concentration camps and kill them? Well Birch rest assured if you tally up all the numbers of the ethnic minorities in the US I doubt very seriously if it exceeds 27-28% of the general population and unfortunately all too often we stupidly fight amongst ourselves for positioning in society, so we won't be taking over the government anytime soon. You’re quite safe, no race war and subsequent coup de’ etet is imminent and you have to start stock piling a cache of weapons. Oh yeah and Seek Help!!!
You need to work on your mindreading powers. Your inference was simply not reasonable.
YOUR post shows that rightwing bigoted morons cannot make a cogent point by spewing propagandistic psuedoscientific jargon and PRETENDING that it hides a point. Pushing racist nonsense as IF it were somehow scientific based doesnt hide the FACT it is racist nonsense. You are a bigot and a propaganda parrot. Rightwing bigots are so cute when they THINK they know what they are talking about, of course the fact you DONT is apparant but hey why not parade your ignorannt bigotry for all to see dont hide it under a bushel
The article almost put me to sleep, but then when the writer shut up and quoted Sailer, then things got interesting and stimulating. What a pathetic online magazine that goes after such little fishes. Someone nobody has ever heard of tells us what the bigshots are really like, but he gets the hit piece. Laughable.
Sounds mighty Hitler-ish to me. He had the Jews to blame, now we have the blacks. Wonder when their gonna fire up the ovens???
My,My, haven't we been fed the proverbial "Feces in the punch bowl," on this matter! Seems really comical, watching and reading the "news," on the 'net, and all other means of media dispersion, and seeing first hand, just how warped and stupid some of our citizenry are, when it begins to react to another Black man that is very literate, has sound judgement, a clean record of public service, but has the audacity to mount a serious campaign for the highest elective office in this nation.
And to watch those that have never spent one moment as a Black man in this wonderful nation of ours, attempt to denigrate, and cast in the most obscene light, disparaging remarks, in a blatant racist rant to "put that Ni**er in his proper place!!" What's the matter? Does he speak too White? Does his actions show the world that Black men can and do become respected, upstanding citizens? Or the fact that most, if not all of his detractors, HAVE NO IDEA of the moment-by-moment choices, distractions, and all manner of racist comments, put-downs, and to a certain degree, threats to the lives all Black men faced with, in a fight for survival in this country!
When any of us citizens of this country, begin to realize that God didn't ask US, BEFORE we were born, what race, economic status, wealth and prosperity levels, we would choose, what side of town, village, or city, we would like to live in. Frankly, for those that have been born since Roe v Wade, you should be happy that you weren't "flushed," nor aborted!! This point is intended for those of us that think we had a choice in our beginning place/places, families, material posessions, not to mention race. The old saw about one's " Pulling one's self up by our own boot straps," is even MORE false than it was 30 years ago!!
Senator Obama should be congratulated for even considering to aspire to the Presidency of this country, for most of the excellent citizens that would make a decent Presidential candidate, REFUSE to allow the prying and probing of issues that bear no meaning to one's ABILITY to lead this nation!! It has been proven after years of campaining, and holding elections, who wants the scrutiny, most of it skewed to finding fault, instead of finding one's actual, truthful stands and beliefs, concerning one's ability to lead this multi-ethnic, multi-faceted nation? Or is it just another popularity contest, like; "This President is someone I would like to have a beer with?"
My primary concern and worry about this entire bushwa is, IF Senator Obama will LIVE to see the end of this upcoming Presidential Election? I fear for his life, for there is nothing that will protect him from becoming another victim of racial based asassination!! Remember what happened to President Kennedy, AND his brother, Bobby Kennedy!! Times and situations are more violent presently, than they were in the 60's and 70's, so let's ALL keep a close eye upon what's being said and done, "In the name of our country!!"
Peace!!
I hope with all my heart that nothing bad like that happens to Sen. Obama. I often wonder if those concerns stopped Colin Powell from considering a candidacy as well. I tell you what though (personal opinion disclaimer here), If something like that did happen to him (Obama), that would boldly illustrate to the rest of the world that the United States is no better or worse than the rest of the countries in the world. It would be shameful indeed..
Spin,
I read that Powell's wife was extremely concerned with just such a possibilty and that he didn't want to put her through that. Hopefully Obama is being very very careful.
My problem with Obama is not that he is black, but that he is another part of the political establishment. Hell, I'd vote for a space alien invader if I thought that they would implement realistic policy.
My problem with Obama, Hillary, Rudy, McCain, George W. Bush, and the Washington and mainstream media establishment is essentially the same: they all have wildly unrealistic views of economics and human nature. Each one of these politicians supports large increases in spending (with the Dems being tax-and-spend, and the GOPers being borrow-and-spend), supports loose to open borders (hint: bringing in lots of people who are, on average, poor and low-achieving is *not* the way to build an economy), and has a very politically correct view of human nature (human nature is not good and equal as the Washington establishment seems to believe; it is deeply flawed and varies between individuals, the sexes, and ethnic groups).
Birch_Barlow, you sound like a Sailer apologist with each post. You never outright denied or embraced the ideas that Sailer puts forth in his article, but you're sure hell bent in trying to prove they are genetic and cultural differences among races and that's what holds some back while keeping others in power. Then when someone points out the obvious—that it’s not biologically inferiority or defected cultures, rather stark poverty and institutionalized racism—you pull a Bill O'Reilly/David Horowtiz and call them a Leftist when it's further from the truth. It’s easier to lay the blame on an entire group for their own problems than thoroughly investigate the cause and effect of each problem. You say we’re typical leftist, but you sound like a typical Right Winger with his whole “left-wing minorities have a self-destructive culture that thrives off of anti-Americanism (i.e., anti-white)”.
There have been many sociologists who point out the endurance of inherited wealth in this country, where traditionally wealthy families (many from the East Coast) have spread their enterprise around the country and remained dominant among the top 1% of wealth in this country that controls the vast majority of the movement of capital in this country. Let's not pretend that there isn't a distinctly historical imbalance of wealth distribution that makes this one of the most unequal nations in the history of the industrialized world. In Stephen Steinberg’s ground breaking books “Turning Back” and “The Ethnic Myth” he points out these issues. Also, in a recent essay he wrote about why other ethnic immigrants are able to raise above poverty successfully upon their arrival, landing jobs that are equal their white counterparts in this country, while blacks are still at the bottom of the food chain. http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue39/Steinberg39.htm#r16Since you're all using code for race, let's be explicit: African-Americans are a textbook underclass and the arguments for the moral failure (tied to criticisms of academic, economic and criminal behavior) of blacks in this nation are virtually identical to the criticisms of racial minority groups in the history of virtually every colonial experience. The British still attribute the same moral criticisms to Indians and Pakistanis in their nation, who are still considered poor, inferior, morally suspect minorities who live in "slums" in London. Considering the positive reputation which South Asian immigrants have in this country, where they are consistently the most educated immigrants who arrive on our shores, how can the difference in which group becomes the underclass be explained by anything but enduring, socially constructed prejudices and structural discrimination? Indians are the UK's blacks, where the racial slur "Paki" is basically the equivalent of our N-word as one of the most hatefully backwards word in the vernacular. Are we to attribute this to some sort of fundamental moral failing in their home culture, some pseudo-scientific "Darwininan" explanation of their fitness to survive? Or can this be an illustrative example of the unique processes by which socialized discrimination endures? The history of the Irish in the UK is another example.
Yes, class is the problem more than race, but it can't be ignored that the primary focus of economic discrimination in American society has always been racial. You can't talk about poverty without talking about race because blacks and Hispanic immigrants are the poorest and definitely subject to the last hired/first fired phenomenon. Black professionals are to be admired but the statistics overwhelmingly show that educated blacks in business rarely advance beyond mid-level management into the upper reaches of executives. So discrimination isn't just against poor blacks, but the discrimination of most concern is obviously against the poor. It just happens that race is the primary fault line upon which poverty resides in this country.
Considering the positive reputation which South Asian immigrants have in this country, where they are consistently the most educated immigrants who arrive on our shores, how can the difference in which group becomes the underclass be explained by anything but enduring, socially constructed prejudices and structural discrimination?
I think the relative success of South Asians (and Middle Easterners) in the US, compared to those of the UK or South Asia (or the Middle East) itself, is easily explained in 100% heriditarian terms. The U.S. has been quite selective about its immigration policy towards South and West Asia, selecting immigrants who are skilled and educated (and thus high-IQ). Our relatively selective immigration policy towards the Middle East pretty well explains the success and *relative* lack of Islamic fanaticism of Middle Easterners in the U.S., compared to the Middle East or Western Europe (where Middle Eastern immigration has largely been a huge disaster).
Essentially, the U.S. has selected immigrants from the Middle East and South Asia who fall well to the right in their respective IQ bell curves (which the best evidence suggests is similar, if not worse than, that of Latin America i.e. a mean of about IQ 90). If the U.S. had a well-enforced immigration policy towards Latin America, keeping out illegals and choosing only the highest-IQ, Mexicans and other Latin Americans in the U.S. would probably have very much the same reputation as South Asians. Even African immigrants (Somali refugee types not withstanding) to the U.S. are relatively successful, because again, the U.S. has a relatively selective immigration policy towards Africa, if only because generally only the relatively better off Africans can afford to come to the U.S.
Selection effects may even partly explain the success of East Asians in the U.S., though the success of the Japanese and South Koreans, and quickly expanding economy of China suggest that these populations do indeed have a high mean IQ, not just a few high-IQ people who disproportionately come to America (as is the case with the Mideast and S. Asia).
***Full disclosure--I am (if my posts have not already indicated) an ardent believer in the main theses of The Bell Curve (i.e. IQ is meaningful, substantially heritable, varies between ethnic groups, and has sub-components that very between the sexes). Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also a good primer on these issues (though it mostly avoids the inflammatory racial/ethnic issues that are dealt with at length in TBC, it covers sex differences and heritidarian issues besides IQ wheras TBC essentially does not). Besides these books I am a big supporter of the main theses The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins) and Sociobiology (E.O. Wilson).
Huge Bell Curve fan, eh? That figures since you stress so much importance on genetics while ignoring other factors such as history and covert racism. I hope you're aware that many minority scholars from the Right and Left have completely rejected the thesis of "The Bell Curve" and labeled it nonsensical propaganda. "The Bell Curve" analysis stinks so bad Thomas Sowell and Dinish D’Sousa can’t even defend its thesis. "The Bell Curve" is nothing but a “white backlash” to liberal scholars—white and black—who deconstructed Slavery, Jim Crow and Institutionalized Racism and examined how it continues to effect blacks. The same racial stereotypes “The Bell Curve” trumped as scientific validity was nothing more than a new disguise of the old pseudo-science used by White Supremacist to rationalize the “moral failures of the Negro.” As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said in “Where Do We Go from Here:”“There has never been a solid, unified and determined thrust to make justice a reality for Afro-Americans. The step backward has a new name today. It is called the “white backlash.” But the white backlash is nothing new. It is the surfacing of old prejudices, hostilities and ambivalences that has always been there. It was caused neither by the cry of Black Power nor by the unfortunate recent wave of riots in our cities. The white backlash of today is rooted in the same problem that has characterized America ever since the black man landed in chains on the shores of this nation. The white backlash is an expression of the same vacillation, the same search for rationalization, the same lack of commitment that has always characterized white America on the question of race.”First, where did you get this idea that America is very selective of the immigrants they accept? Aren’t you aware that the Naturalization Act of 1790 made ALL European immigrants, regardless of background and IQ, eligible for automatic citizenship with rights above all persons of color? So are you telling me that ALL those European immigrants’ IQ and work drive were higher than Blacks who were systematically subjugated under hundreds and hundreds of years of oppression? Again, read the link I supplied in its entirety to get a true understanding of this issue. The essay is written by a white professor, so no need to disregard it by saying it’s racist antipathy towards whites from a Black Nationalist.Second, I don't think you really get the psychology of oppression. Of course all people should be encouraged to dream the biggest dreams they can, but so many of our people, especially young black minorities, are beaten down by the harsh realities they see around them in everyday life that their dreams don't ever see any encouragement. And I'm not sure it's the best gesture for adults who do have the freedom to make unfettered choices to lecture poor minorities about the failures of "their culture" and "their choices" when our society as a whole has made an awful lot of bad choices and has a lot of cultural prejudices that's either denied or smugly refuse to deal with. Where's your talk of accountability then? Where's your "adult" notion of responsibility toward people who are oppressed by your ignorance or indifference?The fact is the life choices many are afforded and made privy to are VASTLY different than those of a kid who grows up in a failing public school system that doesn't offer basic math/reading skills, much less the AP courses and college prep curriculum most of in "white flight" suburbs could choose from. Not to mention the luxury that many from the suburbs didn't enjoy: the opportunity to choose from private colleges where yearly tuition exceeds the average salary of an American parent. Students in poor schools don't have access to the college board exam prep classes and are particularly disadvantaged in math and science, which hurt their preparation to succeed in these career-track majors in college (not to mention in college admissions). Their teachers and school counselors (they may not have a "college counselor") suggest community colleges or trade schools, if they suggest any further schooling at all based on unfairly low expectations. There are lot who CHOOSE to follow the right path who are continually underestimated, unrewarded, and eventually frustrated by the continual racism in this country that views African-Americans as intellectually and academically inferior.
For anyone who reads the above post, sorry that it's all crammed into one huge paragraph. I added spaces to separate the paragraphs but for some reason it didn't go through properly.
Sailer's "point" seems to be that Obama adjusts his persona, Zelig-like, based on his audience. Are you saying that's genetic, Birch? Or are you just posting off-topic racist claptrap?