AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

It would honestly depend. If Bush or McCain had automatically assumed 'racism' in the Gates incident, without knowing any of the details involved, I would consider that a 'racist' view as much as Beck considered Obama's reaction to be 'racist'. And, when it is offered for public consumption, I don't think it would be wrong for anybody to point that out.

I think it may be time to get the dictionary out. Perceiving racism is not itself racist. You'll note I did not accuse Beck of racism for the same.

Quote:

It would be wrong to conclude any kind of deep seated racism, however, without more history than one off-the-cuff remark. So again, you have to add in all the other stuff like the book passages, phrases from speeches, background, and relationships in order to form a better informed opinion.

Yeah, I read that paragraph in Audacity of Hope where he said white people are monkeys destined to have their inferior intellects ruled by black people and professing surprise upon learning that whites use soap. You're on to something there.

Quote:

So, was Jesse Jackson demonstrating racism when he said this?:
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

This has got to be among the most irrelevant questions ever asked. I'm not the one making accusations of racism, Glenn Beck is. Why don't you ask Glenn Beck whether Jesse Jackson is racist?

Perceiving racism where no racism is logically involved is racist. Automatically assuming racism without knowing he facts of a matter is racist.

"My understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house and, at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped," Obama said.

Police dispute the extent of Gates' cooperation, saying he didn't initially provide identification when asked and berated the police.

However, Obama continued, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case]. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

Perceiving racism where no racism is logically involved is racist. Automatically assuming racism without knowing he facts of a matter is racist.

If you wish to be in a state of denial like all the other Obama worshippers and believe he has never said or written anything re race that would raise eyebrows or there is nothing in his history that relates to the issue, that is your prerogative too.

Because I am not having a discussion about race with Glenn Beck. The question is entirely relevent as an illustration of perceptions of race and racism and what should or should not be acceptable to say in the public arena.

Uncomfortable question though huh? No wonder you chose to dodge it.

So, basically, instead of just not watching Beck these people have decided they do not like his use of the first amendment and want to shut him down. . . . Couldn't they just watch something else instead of trying to push their own views on others?

A person not fixated on race would say that he didn't have the facts and couldn't comment until he did. Period end. The fact that he automatically related the incident as a racial matter and presumed to deliver a lecture about it speaks volumes.

McGentrix wrote:

So, basically, instead of just not watching Beck these people have decided they do not like his use of the first amendment and want to shut him down.

The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Nobody is lobbying Congress to pass a law taking Glenn Beck off the air.

All people are doing is telling companies that they don't appreciate their support of Glenn Beck by advertising on his show, and that they will take their business elsewhere. It's the free market at work.

let's contemplate for a moment the likely effects of this Glenn Beck boycott:
(1) More attention, and thus, possibly more viewers for Glenn Beck.
(2) A sympathy backlash (like this column) from people who normally wouldn't dream of defending Glenn Beck, but who will almost always defend free speech.
(3) A backlash boycott against Olbermann, or whomever, on the part of angered conservatives.
(4) The spreading perception that some liberals are often willing to employ tactics that are quite illiberal when it comes to those with whom they disagree.
(5) More opportunity on Beck's show for him to spew goofy opinions, precisely because the advertisers have fled, leaving him with more time to fill.

All I have my feet planted behind is the fact that Beck has some justification for seeing racism in this President, and he is not alone in that peception.

The larger principle here is whether Beck can be allowed to express that opinion without the Left descending upon him and attempting to destroy him.

So, should Jesse Jackson have been criticized for saying this?:
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

You didn't even listen to the clip did you, and you're not going to acknowledge how much you misrepresented it are you.

All I have my feet planted behind is the fact that Beck has some justification for seeing racism in this President, and he is not alone in that peception.

The larger principle here is whether Beck can be allowed to express that opinion without the Left descending upon him and attempting to destroy him.

The larger principle here is your perception of the kind of people that Beck's comments would 'feed'--a perception that I in fact see as prejudiced, bigoted, ideologically unprincipled, and racist. Does that make you a prejudiced, bigoted, ideologically unprinicipled racist? Not necessarily.

The fact that he automatically related the incident as a racial matter and presumed to deliver a lecture about it speaks volumes.

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact that he automatically related the incident as a racial matter and presumed to deliver a lecture about it speaks volumes.

He was answering a question that asked "what does [the incident] say about race relations in America?"

Quote:

So, should Jesse Jackson have been criticized for saying this?:
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

I will address this, even though it has nothing to do with the topic, just so you'll stop with the stupid smirking about how people are 'afraid' to talk about it.

I do not believe Jackson is being racist in any way saying this; he describes the feeling of relief as 'painful.' Having spent a lot of time in black neighborhoods, he probably deplores the level of street violence perpetrated by Black folks on others of their race and knows just how common it is. Unless he is somehow claiming that blacks are inferior, it's hard to see how you could claim this is racism.

I think it is the exact opposite, in fact; an honest assessment of his own inner feelings re: blacks and street crime.

Cycloptichorn

The fact that he automatically related the incident as a racial matter and presumed to deliver a lecture about it speaks volumes.