Monthly Archives: June 2011
This method of deception can be seen throughout almost all of the racialists evidence. This is when a racialist is faced with information and simply interprets it wrong or collects the information dishonestly. One of the most embarrassing examples of this, which is worth examining in detail, is the following written by Tim Wise:
Tim Wise’s fundamental prejudice is revealed in his recent attack on Herman Cain and his supporters:
“thinks it’s funny how so many white folks who hate Obama love Herman Cain. He’s like their “black friend.” In this case, one who is incredibly Stepin Fetchit-like in demeanor–a walking, talking stereotype from the past–and thus, one they can respect, because he doesn’t challenge their position. They want a black person to whom they can feel superior, and in Cain, they have found it. No Harvard degree here, by God!”
This is a funny example of how people like Matthews will witness something and interpret it as if it means conservatives are racist. At one convention “black folk are hang’n together” collected in groups, and at the other convention black folks are dispersed and spread out, hanging out with different people almost as if skin color didn’t matter. Matthews interprets this as “being told [not to] bunch up” because it might frighten whites.
And here’s another example of Matthews looking for race in places that don’t have anything to do with race (the definition of racialism).
One of the most widely reported and talked about studies in recent years has been that of an MIT/University of Chicago experiment that sought to find racism in employment. The name of the study is titled: “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” The provocative title is very important, as we will discover later, and for goodness sake MIT did it, so it must be bulletproof. The study in their own words does the following:
There could be a whole website dedicated to documenting all the insane hatred towards Clarence Thomas. It is as clear an example as there ever will be of which side in America is hate filled. If half the things said about Clarence Thomas were said about Barack Obama it would be a national outrage.
Here is a great example:
The Root posted a list of 21 “Black folks [they would] remove from history.” The list is composed of mass murderers, notorious criminals, moronic celebrities, and Clarence Thomas. It is sad that some people who share Clarence Thomas’s skin color want him removed from their history. Since ideas are more important than skin color, I’m proud to have him as a part of my history.
“[Andrew Breitbart]…I want that bastard destroyed. Now.[...] when I say I want him destroyed I am not kidding. I want to see him penniless, homeless, begging on the street for money to buy food[...] he can die on the street so far as I’m concerned[...] let you and your rich ass Brentwood family suffer” – Tim Wise (May 31, 2011)
Michelle Alexander is a law professor and former lawyer who has written the very popular book “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” Alexander believes that due to the targeted mass incarceration of people of color, we are now living in a “New Jim Crow.” Alexander explains that because so many young black men have been through the prison system, they are legally being discriminated against in employment, housing, education, public benefits, and jury service, just as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents once were under slavery and Jim Crow laws. Alexander describes the black community as being in a “caste” system, helpless to further their status as long as this “New Jim Crow” system is in place. Her solution is to build a “major social movement” to dismantle the “caste” system. Alexander however, is wrong in this strangely worded, hyperbolic, and confused book.
In the last few years people who are paid to interpret events in terms of race have struck out against the idea of colorblindness, from Tim Wise’s Colorblind to Michelle Alexander’s most recent book. Oddly enough there hasn’t been a substantial amount of work in support of colorblindness. Instead the racialists have defined colorblindness based on their vague interpretations of an unspoken belief by most Americans. Like most intellectual light weights, they are sure to define an opposing position so that it is easily defeated. So part of defending colorblindness will be a constant effort to explain what is meant when I use the term.