Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 26, 2016, 10:24:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95523 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print
Author Topic: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.  (Read 129250 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #600 on: December 29, 2015, 05:41:32 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/james.frazier.399/videos/757867674246941/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #601 on: January 03, 2016, 03:00:07 PM »

A Christmas inspired column by Walter Russel Mead well worth your time to read, IMHO, embodying the largest issues humankind faces today.  (read it all)

One for All
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
The Christmas story suggests that we can somehow try both to be loyal members of our nations, our families, our tribes—and also to reach out to the broader human community of which we are also a part.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/01/one-for-all-4/

... People seem pulled in two directions. On the one hand, we form strong group identities and these identities are the basis of our political loyalties; on the other, we recognize universal values and acknowledge a duty, at least in the abstract, to help people everywhere regardless of their race, language, color, or creed.
It’s a puzzle. Human beings need roots in a particular culture and family and those roots shape them; at the same time, human beings have values (like freedom and democracy) and ideas (like the Pythagorean theorem and the laws of thermodynamics) that demand to be recognized as universal. ...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #602 on: January 05, 2016, 02:48:22 PM »

Very good article.  Please post in the Organized and Unorganized Religion thread as well.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #603 on: January 08, 2016, 01:26:47 PM »

. . . to other blacks:

http://www.city-journal.org/2016/bc0106jr.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #604 on: January 13, 2016, 09:48:13 AM »

http://takimag.com/article/smashing_through_the_glass_coffin_jim_goad/print#ixzz3x8fENGbj
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #605 on: January 17, 2016, 11:38:13 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47Y6VHc3Ms
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #606 on: January 20, 2016, 01:33:28 PM »

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/collateral-damage-same-sex-marriage-private-religious-schools-and-parental/17474
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #607 on: February 09, 2016, 12:24:07 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/rosieroyjr/videos/1036195299740607/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #608 on: February 09, 2016, 01:15:38 PM »

These recordings are a national treasure.  

I never knew these existed.

Thanks CD for the post.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2016, 09:58:23 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #609 on: February 16, 2016, 11:03:31 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/shockwave1/videos/10156471502290627/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #610 on: February 18, 2016, 10:54:16 AM »

Jason Riley on Powerline, commercial-free interview, well worth a listen. Blacks were making way more progress before modern civil rights http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/the-power-line-show-episode-33-with-jason-riley.php

Early minimum wage laws were designed to keep blacks out of good jobs.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 10:56:33 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #611 on: February 18, 2016, 08:47:47 PM »

Jason Riley on Powerline, commercial-free interview, well worth a listen. Blacks were making way more progress before modern civil rights http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/the-power-line-show-episode-33-with-jason-riley.php

Early minimum wage laws were designed to keep blacks out of good jobs.

The dems need an underclass.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #612 on: February 18, 2016, 10:04:04 PM »

The dems need an underclass.

Yes, but does the underclass reallyneed its oppressors?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #613 on: February 22, 2016, 08:34:35 AM »

Founder of Nation of Islam was a rather mysterious character.

Appears to have left his first wife and child and then evidence he had 3 other "wives" at least.

Was arrested a number of times and used aliasis and changed his name multiple times.  Sounds like a con man basically.

Seems to have gotten the idea for NOI from a guy named Drew Ali who founded the Moorish American Society in the 1920s.  He may have gotten his idea to some extent from Marcus Garvey.

Fard or Ford or whatever his real name was mysteriously disappears off the face of the Earth in 1934.  At that time his student Elijah Mohammed takes over.

Whatever happens to Fard is unknown.  Even the FBI could not figure it out.  He either changed his name and identity or I suspect he was murdered.  I  don't know if Elijah was responsible but it seems plausible knowing that he was likely behind or at least aware of the murder of Malcom X.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #614 on: February 29, 2016, 12:36:04 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/lucy.wanjiku.18/videos/10154434081347662/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #615 on: March 16, 2016, 08:07:08 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/firstbtnomb/videos/979847208730765/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #616 on: March 17, 2016, 01:44:38 PM »

http://takimag.com/article/did_africans_sell_africans_into_slavery_lets_ask_some_africans_jim_goad

Not PC.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 327


« Reply #617 on: March 17, 2016, 02:21:23 PM »


Also funny.....

"The always interesting Nation of Islam argues that these treacherous go-betweens weren’t truly “African” anyway—they were instead Portuguese Jewish half-breeds known as lancados who’d DELIBERATELY interbred with indigenous Africans in order to swindle and kidnap them before handing them over to Jewish slave traders who’d shlep them to the Americas."

Just wow.... I ever tell you about the time I got into a fight with three of them (NOI)? If we're ever enjoying a glass of ice tea, I'll do that.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #618 on: March 21, 2016, 12:50:03 PM »

Just a point of curiosity.  This could go under constitution but someone should mention it somewhere.  If Merrick Garland is confirmed, the U.S. Supreme Court will have 5 Catholics and 4 Jewish Justices and no other religions represented.  No big deal except that the current regime is SO consumed with people being part of a demographic sub-group.

I like Jewish people  smiley , some of my best liberal and conservative friends are Jewish.  I find it mostly irrelevant in my dealings, friendships, politics, even dating.

That said, doesn't the over-representation of these groups that have histories of being discriminated against and of being blamed for disproportionate control (banks, networks, etc.), on a Court with a history of wrongly decided cases, risk the future possibility that a future bad decision will incite blame and inflame future anti-Semitism?

Just a thought that I might point back to someday...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #619 on: March 21, 2016, 01:00:58 PM »

Charles Murray was co-author of The Bell Curve, a very long scientific book that became a landmine for a small point in it that exposed differences in intelligence between races, therefore author is a racist...  His co-author died about when this was published so he has owned the work over the two decades since it was published.  

Intelligence is 40%-80% inherited, a wide range that is nowhere near zero or 100%.

People tend to marry near their own intelligence making the difference grow rather than equalize over time.  He predicted this would have societal effects that have most certainly become true.

Being called a racist for publishing scientific data is nothing new, but Charles Murray has received more than his share of it.  What he could of or should have done is cover up the real results to fit what people like to hear, like the climate scientists do.  He didn't.

Most recently his work received a public rebuke from the President of Virginia Tech.

His response to that is a bit long but quite a worthwhile read that will save you the time of reading his 3-4 inch thick hardcover book if you haven't already read this important work.

https://www.aei.org/publication/an-open-letter-to-the-virginia-tech-community/

Charles Murray
March 17, 2016 9:00 am

An open letter to the Virginia Tech community

Last week, the president of Virginia Tech, Tim Sands, published an “open letter to the Virginia Tech community” defending lectures delivered by deplorable people like me (I’m speaking on the themes of Coming Apart on March 25). Bravo for President Sands’s defense of intellectual freedom. But I confess that I was not entirely satisfied with his characterization of my work. So I’m writing an open letter of my own.

Dear Virginia Tech community,

Since President Sands has just published an open letter making a serious allegation against me, it seems appropriate to respond. The allegation: “Dr. Murray is well known for his controversial and largely discredited work linking measures of intelligence to heredity, and specifically to race and ethnicity — a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.”

Let me make an allegation of my own. President Sands is unfamiliar either with the actual content of The Bell Curve — the book I wrote with Richard J. Herrnstein to which he alludes — or with the state of knowledge in psychometrics.

The Bell Curve and Charles Murray
I should begin by pointing out that the topic of the The Bell Curve was not race, but, as the book’s subtitle says, “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” Our thesis was that over the last half of the 20th century, American society has become cognitively stratified. At the beginning of the penultimate chapter, Herrnstein and I summarized our message:

Predicting the course of society is chancy, but certain tendencies seem strong enough to worry about:
An increasingly isolated cognitive elite.
A merging of the cognitive elite with the affluent.
A deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive distribution.
Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired ever more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose. [p. 509].
It is obvious that these conclusions have not been discredited in the twenty-two years since they were written. They may be more accurately described as prescient.

Now to the substance of President Sands’s allegation.

The heritability of intelligence

Richard Herrnstein and I wrote that cognitive ability as measured by IQ tests is heritable, somewhere in the range of 40% to 80% [pp. 105–110], and that heritability tends to rise as people get older. This was not a scientifically controversial statement when we wrote it; that President Sands thinks it has been discredited as of 2016 is amazing.

You needn’t take my word for it. In the wake of the uproar over The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) assembled a Task Force on Intelligence consisting of eleven of the most distinguished psychometricians in the United States. Their report, titled “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” was published in the February 1996 issue of the APA’s peer-reviewed journal, American Psychologist. Regarding the magnitude of heritability (represented by h2), here is the Task Force’s relevant paragraph. For purposes of readability, I have omitted the citations embedded in the original paragraph:

If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (c2) to about .25. These overall figures are misleading, however, because most of the relevant studies have been done with children. We now know that the heritability of IQ changes with age: h2 goes up and c2 goes down from infancy to adulthood. In childhood h2 and c2 for IQ are of the order of .45 and .35; by late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies) [p. 85].
The position we took on heritability was squarely within the consensus state of knowledge. Since The Bell Curve was published, the range of estimates has narrowed somewhat, tending toward modestly higher estimates of heritability.

Intelligence and race

There’s no doubt that discussing intelligence and race was asking for trouble in 1994, as it still is in 2016. But that’s for political reasons, not scientific ones.

There’s no doubt that discussing intelligence and race was asking for trouble in 1994, as it still is in 2016. But that’s for political reasons, not scientific ones. Once again, the state of knowledge about the basics is not particularly controversial. The mean scores for all kinds of mental tests vary by ethnicity. No one familiar with the data disputes that most elemental statement. Regarding the most sensitive difference, between Blacks and Whites, Herrnstein and I followed the usual estimate of one standard deviation (15 IQ points), but pointed out that the magnitude varied depending on the test, sample, and where and how it was administered. What did the APA Task Force conclude? “Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites. The difference is largest on those tests (verbal or nonverbal) that best represent the general intelligence factor g” [p. 93].

Is the Black/White differential diminishing? In The Bell Curve, we discussed at length the evidence that the Black/White differential has narrowed [pp. 289–295], concluding that “The answer is yes with (as usual) some qualifications.” The Task Force’s treatment of the question paralleled ours, concluding with “[l]arger and more definitive studies are needed before this trend can be regarded as established” [p. 93].

Can the Black/White differential be explained by test bias? In a long discussion [pp. 280–286], Herrnstein and I presented the massive evidence that the predictive validity of mental tests is similar for Blacks and Whites and that cultural bias in the test items or their administration do not explain the Black/White differential. The Task Force’s conclusions regarding predictive validity: “Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans” [p. 93]. Regarding cultural bias and testing conditions:  “Controlled studies [of these potential sources of bias] have shown, however, that none of them contributes substantially to the Black/White differential under discussion here” [p. 94].

Can the Black/White differential be explained by socioeconomic status? We pointed out that the question has two answers: Statistically controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) narrows the gap. But the gap does not narrow as SES goes up — i.e., measured in standard deviations, the differential between Blacks and Whites with high SES is not narrower than the differential between those with low SES [pp. 286–289]. Here’s the APA Task Force on this topic:

Several considerations suggest that [SES] cannot be the whole explanation. For one thing, the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES. Moreover, the data reviewed in Section 4 suggest that—if we exclude extreme conditions—nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores [p. 94].
The notion that Herrnstein and I made claims about ethnic differences in IQ that have been scientifically rejected is simply wrong.

And so on. The notion that Herrnstein and I made claims about ethnic differences in IQ that have been scientifically rejected is simply wrong. We deliberately remained well within the mainstream of what was confidently known when we wrote. None of those descriptions have changed much in the subsequent twenty-two years, except to be reinforced as more has been learned. I have no idea what countervailing evidence President Sands could have in mind.

At this point, some readers may be saying to themselves, “But wasn’t The Bell Curve the book that tried to prove blacks were genetically inferior to whites?” I gather that was President Sands’ impression as well. It has no basis in fact. Knowing that people are preoccupied with genes and race (it was always the first topic that came up when we told people we were writing a book about IQ), Herrnstein and I offered a seventeen-page discussion of genes, race, and IQ [pp. 295–311]. The first five pages were devoted to explaining the context of the issue — why, for example, the heritability of IQ among humans does not necessarily mean that differences between groups are also heritable. Four pages were devoted to the technical literature arguing that genes were implicated in the Black/White differential. Eight pages were devoted to arguments that the causes were environmental. Then we wrote:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. [p. 311].
That’s it—the sum total of every wild-eyed claim that The Bell Curve makes about genes and race. There’s nothing else. Herrnstein and I were guilty of refusing to say that the evidence justified a conclusion that the differential had to be entirely environmental. On this issue, I have a minor quibble with the APA Task Force, which wrote “There is not much direct evidence on [a genetic component], but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis” [p. 95]. Actually there was no direct evidence at all as of the mid-1990s, but the Task Force chose not to mention a considerable body of indirect evidence that did in fact support the genetic hypothesis. No matter. The Task Force did not reject the possibility of a genetic component. As of 2016, geneticists are within a few years of knowing the answer for sure, and I am content to wait for their findings.

But I cannot leave the issue of genes without mentioning how strongly Herrnstein and I rejected the importance of whether genes are involved. This passage from The Bell Curve reveals how very, very different the book is from the characterization of it that has become so widespread:

In sum: If tomorrow you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the cognitive differences between races were 100 percent genetic in origin, nothing of any significance should change. The knowledge would give you no reason to treat individuals differently than if ethnic differences were 100 percent environmental. By the same token, knowing that the differences are 100 percent environmental in origin would not suggest a single program or policy that is not already being tried. It would justify no optimism about the time it will take to narrow the existing gaps. It would not even justify confidence that genetically based differences will not be upon us within a few generations. The impulse to think that environmental sources of difference are less threatening than genetic ones is natural but illusory.
In any case, you are not going to learn tomorrow that all the cognitive differences between races are 100 percent genetic in origin, because the scientific state of knowledge, unfinished as it is, already gives ample evidence that environment is part of the story. But the evidence eventually may become unequivocal that genes are also part of the story. We are worried that the elite wisdom on this issue, for years almost hysterically in denial about that possibility, will snap too far in the other direction. It is possible to face all the facts on ethnic and race differences on intelligence and not run screaming from the room. That is the essential message [pp. 314-315].
I have been reluctant to spend so much space discussing The Bell Curve’s treatment of race and intelligence because it was such an ancillary topic in the book. Focusing on it in this letter has probably made it sound as if it was as important as President Sands’s open letter implied.

But I had to do it. For two decades, I have had to put up with misrepresentations of The Bell Curve. It is annoying. After so long, when so many of the book’s main arguments have been so dramatically vindicated by events, and when our presentations of the meaning and role of IQ have been so steadily reinforced by subsequent research in the social sciences, not to mention developments in neuroscience and genetics, President Sands’s casual accusation that our work has been “largely discredited” was especially exasperating. The president of a distinguished university should take more care.

It is in that context that I came to the end of President Sands’s indictment, accusing me of promulgating “a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.” At that point, President Sands went beyond the kind of statement that merely reflects his unfamiliarity with The Bell Curve and/or psychometrics. He engaged in intellectual McCarthyism.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 01:04:02 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #620 on: March 21, 2016, 05:51:27 PM »

I read parts of the book 20 yrs ago.

I notice this discussion does not mention that Asians were found to have IQs higher then whites who were higher then blacks.  I don't know if that has anything to do with so many Vietnamese and Indian valedictorians or not.

In forensic anthropology we used to call the races, mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid (1970s).

I guess using those terms now would get me shot.

We all know the fact that something like only one white has ever run a sub 10 second 100 meters, a race dominated by those of West African descent and East Africans dominate the long distance races is because they work harder at those respective endeavors.

Thank God for progress.  Science is not science when not politically correct.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #621 on: March 21, 2016, 06:00:32 PM »

"Thank God for progress."   - Agree.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker / billboard seen recently:

I am color blind.   - God
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #622 on: March 23, 2016, 11:01:36 AM »

Doug:

Thank you for posting Charles Murray's open letter.  It was very good!

Would you please post it on the Intelligence thread as well?

TIA,
Marc
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #623 on: March 23, 2016, 12:16:45 PM »

One followup point on the topic:

If you had in front of you the overlapping bell curves from sample data showing the intelligence range of 3 different race-ethnic groups studied for white, black and Asian for example, and you had in front of you 3 applicants, one each black, white and Asian, the group data would tell you nothing about the individuals.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #624 on: March 23, 2016, 07:36:06 PM »

I don't know if it is a word but "babyfication" seems to fit nicely:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506491/Emory-president-Students-scared-Trump-2016-chalk-signs.html

For a group that is not afraid of chlamydia gonorrhea or human papilloma virus, which are crazy rampant on campus they sure are wimps otherwise.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #625 on: March 30, 2016, 02:38:59 PM »

...for a self defense killing.

A couple of self appointed activists took over the county attorney's press conference trying to say all the things that might set off the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore. 

Note to activists:  He wasn't shot because he was black.  He was shot because he went for the officer's gun and a reasonable person would conclude he was about to kill them and endanger others.

[This occurred 2 blocks from a property of mine.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/jamar-clark-shooting-minneapolis.html?_r=0

It took the DA 31 hours to read through the evidence that is now posted for the public to see.  Forensic evidence proves he got to the officer's gun and that he was not handcuffed when shot, as 'eyewitnesses' had said.  Activists were able to reach their conclusion without the delay or burden of seeing evidence.

Let the looting begin.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #626 on: March 30, 2016, 04:00:51 PM »

"Let the looting begin."

Lets hear the comment from the White House.  Also lets hear that Sharpton is visiting him 2 x a week now instead of every week.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #627 on: March 31, 2016, 12:20:46 PM »

"Let the looting begin."

Lets hear the comment from the White House.  Also lets hear that Sharpton is visiting him 2 x a week now instead of every week.


It seems quiet after the no charges decision in the Minneapolis police shooting.  The D.A. is a Dem; happened to be competent and thorough.  The police didn't do anything wrong.  The forensic evidence straightened out the contradictions of the people present.  The victimhood crowd was left with just saying the system's all wrong, police abuse etc except this wasn't a case of that.  The lead speaker was a professor who is the NAACP chapter president.

(He was shot because he was fighting to take one officer's gun, not for skin color.)

The so-called (black) community protest against police just extends the problem that no qualified blacks want to join the police and do that job.  These guys (white I presume) were hired with experience from some other town, not from the Northside 'community'.

Like the Sharpton reference by ccp, this is another case of self appointed activists trying to stir something up and elevate themselves, not a general feeling from people in their homes, living their lives, that police are out committing crimes where none previously existed.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #628 on: April 01, 2016, 06:26:58 AM »

Doug ,
Did you see this yet on the greatest civil rights leader of our day.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/al-sharpton-civil-rights-politics

rich famous goes to the white house frequently and probably whenever he wants
"everything is on the line" now with this election.
Whatever that means.  I suppose if someone other than Hillary is in , he is out?

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #629 on: April 26, 2016, 03:10:20 PM »

Anti-White Racism

This pretty much sums up Obama and the left:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/26/anti-white-racism-hate-dares-not-speak-name-2/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


KKK
« Reply #630 on: May 03, 2016, 06:01:49 PM »

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/02/hoodies-and-hearts-another-klan-wizard-endorses-trump/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160503GlennBeckDailyv4_FINAL&utm_term=Smart%20List%20-%20Responsive%20Group%20Control
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #631 on: May 04, 2016, 07:44:46 AM »


Will he invite them to the White House as often as Obama has invited Al Sharpton?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #632 on: May 08, 2016, 07:41:40 AM »

Its all about race, ethnicity.  Basically get white anglos.  And peel off the with gays to their side too.  I am not surprised a state school in New Jersey would reward identity politics violent demonstrations with awards, and a scholarship to a tax funded university:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/07/blood-smearing-protestor-milo-yiannopoulos-rutgers-talk-given-human-dignity-award/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #633 on: May 13, 2016, 12:37:17 PM »

This is so wrong.  So 99.999% of people have to be uncomfortable for the problems of somewhere in the range 0.001 % of people?
This is not a civil right for God's sake.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-obama-issues-historic-declaration-123200234.html?nhp=1
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #634 on: May 13, 2016, 01:40:09 PM »

This totally explains the fanatical nature of the darn trans bathroom garbage being shoved down our throats from the left.  It is all about getting rid of the concept of gender.  No 'his" or "her, "he" or "she" "girl or boy" or "male or female" . Isn't this what the loons sn some of the Scandinavian countries have done?

I think the title of this Breitbart article has it exactly right:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/12/mediagetshb2wrong/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8010


« Reply #635 on: May 13, 2016, 02:00:37 PM »

This is so wrong.  So 99.999% of people have to be uncomfortable for the problems of somewhere in the range 0.001 % of people?
This is not a civil right for God's sake.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-obama-issues-historic-declaration-123200234.html?nhp=1

Crossdresser rights.  Good grief.  If you can't figure out your gender, you might expect some public bathroom issues.  A person with penis shouldn't be in the little girls' room.  It's bad enough letting crazies into the little boys room.  If it's a matter of privacy, keep your personal issues private.  Have thousands been arrested for going into the wrong room?  Or blocked from entering?  What is the problem?

Try common core.  How many genders are there, as we teach it to our young people?  Parents might be surprised at the answer.  It wasn't just a liberal takeover of our schools, like Truman Democrats, it was a liberal leftist wacko takeover.  A birth certificate and a federal student loan application no longer can use terms like mother and father.  We were mocked for warning about this.

http://commoncoresuccess.eleducation.org/curriculum/ela/grade-7/module-2b/unit-1/lesson-2
"In this lesson, students deepen their working concept of identity by exploring how gender expectations influence identity formation."

http://www.govtslaves.info/virginia-schools-theres-no-such-things-as-boys-or-girls-in-new-gender-idenity-curriculum/

http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/lgbtfafsa.phtml

You can't make this stuff up.

This must be under the category of shiny objects.  The economy is in shambles, world is going to hell, but hey, look at that shiny object over there.  Let's debate that instead.  Can't manage the economy, can't manage foreign affairs, so they made a category where he is comfortable leading, bathroom rights for the 0.001%!  While the liberals slaughter their young, look what neanderthals the conservatives are on the issue of confused-gender urination!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #636 on: May 13, 2016, 02:49:58 PM »

I have dealt with a M to F transgender sex offender. He perp'ed on multiple children. He is currently litigating with my state's Dept. of Corrections to provide him with the big snipola. I have dealt with more than a few sex offenders who certainly have some type of gender dysphoria going on. There are more than a few who who will suddenly decide they feel female to take advantage of our plunge into insanity.

Fundamental change.


This is so wrong.  So 99.999% of people have to be uncomfortable for the problems of somewhere in the range 0.001 % of people?
This is not a civil right for God's sake.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-obama-issues-historic-declaration-123200234.html?nhp=1

Crossdresser rights.  Good grief.  If you can't figure out your gender, you might expect some public bathroom issues.  A person with penis shouldn't be in the little girls' room.  It's bad enough letting crazies into the little boys room.  If it's a matter of privacy, keep your personal issues private.  Have thousands been arrested for going into the wrong room?  Or blocked from entering?  What is the problem?

Try common core.  How many genders are there, as we teach it to our young people?  Parents might be surprised at the answer.  It wasn't just a liberal takeover of our schools, like Truman Democrats, it was a liberal leftist wacko takeover.  A birth certificate and a federal student loan application no longer can use terms like mother and father.  We were mocked for warning about this.

http://commoncoresuccess.eleducation.org/curriculum/ela/grade-7/module-2b/unit-1/lesson-2
"In this lesson, students deepen their working concept of identity by exploring how gender expectations influence identity formation."

http://www.govtslaves.info/virginia-schools-theres-no-such-things-as-boys-or-girls-in-new-gender-idenity-curriculum/

http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/lgbtfafsa.phtml

You can't make this stuff up.

This must be under the category of shiny objects.  The economy is in shambles, world is going to hell, but hey, look at that shiny object over there.  Let's debate that instead.  Can't manage the economy, can't manage foreign affairs, so they made a category where he is comfortable leading, bathroom rights for the 0.001%!  While the liberals slaughter their young, look what neanderthals the conservatives are on the issue of confused-gender urination!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #637 on: May 14, 2016, 10:23:23 PM »




http://i0.wp.com/www.bookwormroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Stupid-liberals-male-female-restrooms-protect-women-and-girls.jpg?resize=300%2C273



http://www.bookwormroom.com/2016/05/13/sex-and-state-power-whats-behind-obamas-transgender-push/

Sex and State Power — What’s Behind Obama’s Transgender Push
MAY 13, 2016 BY BOOKWORM 79 COMMENTS


Stupid liberals male female restrooms protect women and girlsThe Obama administration has announced that from this day forward, all public schools in America must let children choose their bathroom and locker room based upon a child’s feelings about his or her gender on any given day.  This means that, if a male sexual predator (or simply a sexually curious boy) feels that today is a good day to be a girl and watch the girls’ volleyball team strip off in the bathroom, that is his right and the school is obligated to comply:

The guidance from leaders at the departments of Education and Justice says public schools are obligated to treat transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex.

“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement accompanying the directive, which is being sent to school districts Friday.

Because Congress has already allotted funds to the Department of Education, the DOE wields the power of the purse over this issue, and there’s nothing Congress can do to stop it.

If asked why they are forcing this policy onto American public schools, administration figures, from the president on down, would reply that they’re doing it “for the good of the children.”  It’s all about self-actualization, and self-realization, and personal empowerment, right?

Wrong!  This comes from the Left, so there’s good reason to believe that it’s not “for the children” at all.  Indeed, there’s extremely good reason to believe that the transgender movement is very bad for those who identify as transgender, starting with the children and working up to the disproportionate number of transgender adults who commit suicide.  David French as a good breakdown of the heartbreaking numbers behind the suddenly trendy tranny movement:


The evidence of transgender despair is overwhelming. A Swedish study found that trans people were 19 times more likely to die from suicide. An American study found that a horrifying 41 percent of transgender and “gender non-conforming” people had attempted suicide, compared with a national rate of 1.6 percent. In Canada, a study found that each year one in nine transgender people try to commit suicide, compared with the national rate of one out of 167.

So it’s not “for the children.”  Lie Number One is exposed.

Lie Number Two is the contention that the transgender movement is the same as the gay rights movement.  In fact, the transgender movement also weirdly homophobic, even though the LGBT movement has embraced it .  The weirdly homophobic aspect comes from the fact that the transgender movement puts the lie to what gay rights activists have been telling us for a good decade or more, which is that when it comes to gay, “Baby, I was born this way.”  Again, David French neatly defines the conundrum:

For the last decade, the American public has been told that sexual orientation is a fixed, immutable characteristic — like skin color. Now we’re told that “gender identity” is much the same. Psychology is fixed. Biology has to adjust.

But observe the lamentation in the video: A transgender boy wants other boys to change, to reject the “born this way” of their own sexuality for the open-mindedness of “getting physical” with a girl with a penis. Claire is desperate for their psychology to change, for their minds to open, and for their sexual identity to change in response to Claire’s allegedly unchangeable desires.

Writing in the Gospel Coalition, Trevin Wax asks: “When a person feels a disjunction between one’s sex at birth and one’s gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person’s psychological state, rather than vice versa?” That’s the course of action for the transitioning person. The course of action for their loved ones is substantially different. In essence, the Caitlyn Jenners are saying to their spouses or paramours, “I’m now a woman, and that makes you a lesbian.”

Wax notes that the declaration of this new reality — with the expectation that spouses comply and conform — “destabilizes some of the foundational elements of LGBT theory on homosexuality.” Well, yes. But the true “foundational element” of LGBT theory isn’t so much “born this way” as it is “I do what I want.”

Even on the Left, saner minds are figuring out what I pointed out some time ago, which is that we laugh at and despair over all forms of body mutilation except for the gender type, which is wrongly celebrated.  Daniel Harris, a hard Left gay man who hates Republicans, wrote a much-talked-about article for The Antioch Review stating the obvious, which I’ll summarize here in my own words:  Body mutilation is always a sign of some sort of mental disability and that the LGBT world and its fellow travelers cannot say “All body mutilation is a tragic joke, except for gender mutilation, which is a wondrous thing.”

Or, to quote from Harris himself:

. . . TGs have ambushed the debate and entangled us in a snare of such trivialities as the proper pronouns with which to address them, protocol as Byzantine and patronizing as the etiquette for addressing royalty. They insult us with the pejorative term “cisgender,” which they use to describe those of us who accept, however unenthusiastically, our birth gender, as opposed to the enlightened few who question their sex. Moreover, they shame us into silence by ridiculing the blunders we make while trying to come to grips with their unique dilemmas, decrying our curiosity about their bodies as prurience and our unwillingness, or even inability, to enter into their own (often unsuccessful) illusion as narrow‑mindedness.

[snip]

While I fervently support TGs’ rights to transition and to do so without fear of reprisal, I believe that the whole phenomenon of switching one’s gender is a mass delusion. For one, the physical manipulation involved in transforming oneself into a man or woman is apparently different in kind—or so the transgender community presumes—from the nips and tucks undertaken by the trophy wife or celebrity, anti‑heroes of a materialistic culture with whom the TG, having taken advantage of the same merchandising of the body promoted by commercialized medicine, bears a strong and unfortunate resemblance. The general public almost universally disapproves of plastic surgery and laughs derisively at celebrities who present a face “different from the one they rode in on,” as  one commentator referred to their futile—and often ruinous—efforts to roll back the hands of time. The obscene trout pout of Donatella Versace, the misshapen nipples and oblong breasts of Tara Reid, the Joker’s grimace of Kim Novak, are all fair game for that most American and democratic of blood sports, the desecration of the rich and famous in tabloids and gossip blogs.

And yet what is the actual difference between Michael Jackson whittling his nose down to a brittle sliver of bone and whitening his skin with alpha hydroxy acid and arsenic in order to efface his blackness and the TG sanding down her brow bone and hacking off a sizeable chunk of her mandible in order to efface her gender? Why is the one decried as a racially reprehensible instance of self‑mutilation, self‑denial, and self‑loathing and the other extolled as a celebratory instance of self‑liberation? Why is it not only okay but valiant for Caitlyn Jenner to liberate her inner woman through rhinoplasties and laryngeal shaves while it is deplorable and pathetic for Michael Jackson to liberate his inner Caucasian through bleaching and cleft chin augmentation? When Rachel Dolezal goes to the Palm Beach tanning salon for her weekly $30 dip, she is committing the unconscionable crime of appropriating blackness (or, in her case, as the Gawker put it, not blackness but “Medium Brown Spray Tan”), but when Laverne Cox, one of the breakout performers on the television show Orange Is the New Black, slaps on a transdermal estrogen patch, she is lauded as a hero and role model. All of the arguments against plastic surgery—that it is dangerous, even fatal, often botched, and symptomatic of either extreme body dysmorphia or a lamentable effort to accommodate Hollywood’s chauvinistic ageism—can be leveled against those who transition from one sex to another. The trophy wife and the TG swim, it seems, in the same surgeon‑infested seas.

Typically, the Social Justice Warriors ran amok when Harris’s piece was published, prompting a craven, groveling apology and distancing from The Antioch Review’s editor, who said (and I paraphrase), “We’re kind of a fiction thing, so don’t take what Harris wrote seriously.  Also, I am crawling on my belly towards you and licking your feet to apologize for the possibility that merely publishing a countervailing view might have hurt your feelings.”  He wasn’t that straightforward, but that’s what Bob Fogarty said:

The Review is a long-standing literary magazine—not a scholarly academic journal—that prints creative fiction, essays and poetry on a wide variety of topics. The views and values espoused in the article represent those of the author, Daniel Harris, and are not those held by the editor, the Antioch Review or Antioch College. However, as the editor, I recognize and acknowledge the criticisms and outrage for the views represented in Harris’s essay. Perhaps more importantly, I sincerely regret any pain and hurt that the publishing of this piece has caused to members of our own community, transgender people, the LGBTQ community, and their families and supporters.

If I were on the Board of The Antioch Review, I’d demand Fogarty’s firing.  The reality, though, is that if I did that, I’d be booted off the board and Fogarty would get a Christmas bonus.  Such is the world in which we live.

I’m satisfied in my own mind that promoting transgenderism is a bad thing for those claiming transgender status.  The statistics David French cites make it clear that transgender people need psychiatric support, not access to the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice.  And Harris’s article nicely hones in on the fact that the LGBT movement and the Left as a whole are hugely hypocritical to support body mutilation of the type that they decry in others.

So what gives?  If the numbers show, and the Left truly knows, that transgenderism is a sign of mental illness, not a sign of self-actualization, self-realization, and self-empowerment, why this huge push to put gender up for grabs, in complete denial of biologic reality right down to the genetic level?

I think I have the answer.  Indeed, I had the answer six years ago, when American Thinker published an article of mine entitled Sex and State Power.  I will quote myself liberally, because the Obama administration’s newest order about public schools reveals that the Left’s motives in exerting control over people’s self-identity, to grab them at the core of their being, is exactly the same as it ever was:

[Note, rather than indent the following long quotation, which creates an endless skinny column, I am setting it off from the body of the text by painting it dark green.]

Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body.

Statist regimes, of course, cannot tolerate self-ownership, which is the natural enemy of government control over the individual. The easiest example one can find of a statist regime using sexuality to deny individuality and dominate its citizens is, of course, Islam.

[I’m snipping the Islam discussion in favor of focusing on the Left’s obsession with sex, but Islam’s sexual obsessions and misogyny are still relevant too, and you might find the discussion interesting to read.]

What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery.

The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:

Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)

The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.

Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:

For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.

Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.

While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda.

Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.”

Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.

Examples abound of supposedly anti-discriminatory programs that, instead of focusing on tolerance, work to direct a child’s sexual development away from the zone of privacy that is a hallmark of Western sexuality. Robin of Berkeley describes a group called “Gender Spectrum,” which has the ostensible goal of allowing “transgender, gender bending, [and] gender nonconforming” children and teens to hang with each other and share their experiences. She rightly sees this not as an effort to promote tolerance, but as a way to make it “cool to dabble in polyamory and gender nonconformism,” thereby “destroy[ing] the West by degrading traditional values.”

Only four years ago, California narrowly escaped a legislative effort to pass a bill that would have required all California textbooks, starting in first grade, to include materials focusing on famous homosexuals — with the focus not on the achievement that made them famous, but simply on the homosexuality itself. A parental outcry forced the legislature to retreat to something more in keeping with a free society, which is the requirement that children may not be exposed to material that is discriminatory to people based on their sexuality.

In Helena, Montana (Montana!), the school board is contemplating a K-12 sex ed program that repeatedly blurs the line between demanding tolerance, which should be an imperative in a free society, and advocating alternative sexuality, which is consistent with the Leftist agenda of separating sexuality from individuality. In Grade 2, children would be taught, appropriately, that “making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.” By Grade 3, however, the focus is on breaking down traditional familial norms, as children are taught that to “nderstand media often presents an unrealistic image of what it means to be male or female, what it means to be in love & what parenthood & marriages are like.” And so it goes, with a proposed curriculum that veers wildly between respect and advocacy.

The relentless Leftist obsession with homosexuality and variations on traditional sexual gender roles is deeply embedded in the Obama administration. Last year, a vigilant blogger exposed the fact that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” as part of his leadership role in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), aggressively promoted child pornography in the classroom. GLSEN’s actions had nothing to do with creating a safe, non-discriminatory environment for young people with different sexual orientations and everything to do with using the government (i.e., public schools) to inculcate in children the notion that their bodies have no boundaries. A body with no boundaries, of course, is a body that can easily be decoupled from the individual’s control and then ceded to the state.

While the gay agenda, which is cloaked in civil rights language that makes it hard to challenge, is the leading edge of the state’s desire to control children’s sexuality, Leftists also use the schools to manipulate heterosexual behaviors so as to destroy a child’s physical boundaries. In England, parents were aghast to learn that a school was requiring its first-grade pupils to massage each other. In Iowa (Iowa!), one middle school has abandoned any pretense of traditional morality and, instead, is teaching its eighth-graders “how to perform female exams and to put a condom on a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ.” The body is a tool, and nothing more.

Freud was right when he speculated that sex, perhaps because it is the least easily satisfied human need, may also be the most powerful physical need driving human beings. Freud, however, viewed sexuality through the spectrum of a given individual’s desires. What the statists understand — and have always understood — is that our bodies are the first line in the battle between statism and individualism. If a person is allowed to develop a sense that his body is his own to control, he will never willingly yield to the demands of the state. Only by convincing its citizens that they have no personal autonomy, beginning with control over their own bodies, can a state completely subsume the individual to the bureaucracy.

So if you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulder blades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 10:29:53 PM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #638 on: May 18, 2016, 10:05:58 AM »

https://outofthiscentury.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/the-greatest-african-american-and-afro-american-martial-artists-in-history/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #639 on: May 18, 2016, 10:09:05 AM »

Second post

http://www.myafricanow.com/african-immigrants-lead-with-the-highest-academic-achievements-in-the-us/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37028


« Reply #640 on: May 19, 2016, 01:00:40 PM »

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15608840/native-americans-say-unbothered-redskins-team-name-washington-post-poll
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #641 on: May 23, 2016, 08:56:38 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/22/obama-signs-bill-banning-negro-oriental/

So anyone Black comes from Africa?  What about whites who are from Africa?

What about Blacks who were born here and whose ancestors were born here going back 100s of years?  they are not really from Africa.  Or one can argue we are all descended from Africa.

Why are all people from Asia now "Asian American".  Are Indians the same as Chinese? 

What do we call Australians?

What are all white people called?  Europeans?  Why and why not?

Why are native Americans not Asians?  Isn't the theory that is where they  came from?

Why are hispanics hispanic?  Because they speak Spanish?  If so why are they not European Americans?

These terms do nothing to clarify the mixing of language original origin, ethnicity, race or anything else. 

Just PC bullshit.

And why is the government even keeping track?  shouldn't we either be categorized as American or from some other country?
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 958


« Reply #642 on: May 26, 2016, 09:43:50 PM »

The biggest racial lie

Far from still racist, America is the world’s most inclusive nation

By David Horowitz - - Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Let's begin with two statements on race — one that is offensive and false, the other self-evidently true. Taken together, they illuminate the toxic state of the national dialogue on race.

The false statement is that America is a racist country or, in its unhinged version: America is a "white supremacist" nation. This accusation is one that so-called progressives regularly make against a country that outlaws racial discrimination, has twice elected a black president, two black secretaries of state, three black national security advisers and two successive black attorneys general along with thousands of black elected officials, mayors, police chiefs and congressmen. In addition, blacks play dominant roles in shaping America's popular and sports cultures, and thus in shaping the outlooks and expectations of American youth.

The claim that America is a white supremacist nation is not only deranged and racist against whites, but is an act of hostility toward blacks, who enjoy opportunities and rights as Americans that are greater than those of any other country under the sun, including every African nation and Caribbean country governed by blacks for hundreds and even thousands of years.

The self-evidently true statement about race in America is that America is not a racist country but, in fact, the most tolerant and inclusive nation embracing large ethnic minorities on earth. Yet this true statement cannot be uttered in public without inviting charges of "racism" against the speaker. Consequently, all public figures and most people generally, clear their throats before speaking about race by genuflecting to the claim that racism against blacks is still a prevalent and systemic problem even though there is no credible evidence to sustain either claim.

By contrast, the offensively false statement that America is a racist nation, is one that our current (black) president has endorsed. According to President Obama, "racism is still part of our DNA that's passed on." Variations of the claim are ubiquitous among self-styled liberals, progressives, so-called civil rights leaders and campus protesters. The title of a recent book by a black university professor summarizes this politically correct slander: "Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul." The core claim of the Black Lives Matter movement — which is the chief activist force in advancing this claim, and is "strongly supported" by 46 percent of Democrats, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll — is that America is a white supremacist nation, whose law enforcement agencies regularly gun down innocent blacks.

Contrary to Mr. Obama's malicious assertion about his own country, the DNA of America — unique among the nations of the world — is not racism but the exact opposite. In its very beginnings, America dedicated itself to the proposition that all men are created equal and were endowed by their Creator with the right to be free. Over the next two generations, America made good on that proposition, though this achievement is regularly slighted by "progressives" because it didn't take place overnight.

The historically accurate view of what happened is this: Black Africans were enslaved by other black Africans and sold at slave markets to Western slavers. America inherited this slave system from the British Empire, and once it was independent, ended the slave trade and almost all slavery in the Northern states within 20 years of its birth. America then risked its survival as a nation and sacrificed 350,000 mostly white Union lives, to end slavery in the South as well. In other words, as far as blacks are concerned, America's true legacy is not slavery, but freedom. As noted, American blacks today have more freedom, rights and privileges than blacks in any black nation in the world.

These are important facts that have been obscured in our politically correct university culture and throughout the K-12 systems whose teachers are trained in university schools of education. Our literary culture is itself infected with a crude anti-white racism that beggars belief. The National Book Award this year was given to a poisonous racial tract called "Between the World and Me," written by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the form of a letter to his son. In the book, Mr. Coates explains to his son that cops who murder innocent black teens "are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy." In an all-too-typical "history" lesson, Mr. Coates informs his son: "We did not choose our fences. They were imposed on us by Virginia planters obsessed with enslaving as many Americans as possible."

In fact, Virginia planters did not enslave blacks originally and could not buy more black slaves once America ended the slave trade in 1807. Mr. Coates singles out Virginia planters because some of America's most prominent Founders, in particular the author of the Declaration of Independence, were Virginians and owned slaves. But Mr. Coates and every other black in America and throughout the Western Hemisphere is free because of Virginia planters like Thomas Jefferson. We need to begin our racial discussions with these facts, and treat the claim that America is a "white supremacist" nation, for what it is: anti-American and anti-white racism.

• David Horowitz is the author of the newly published "Progressive Racism" (Encounter Books, 2016).
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 09:45:54 PM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5615


« Reply #643 on: May 31, 2016, 07:12:28 AM »

Black gorilla taken from his homeland in Africa shot and killed to save the life of some stupid white parent's white boy's privilege?  Sounds like racism to some:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/30/black-outrage-gorilla-shot-protect-white-privilege-just-one-problem/

 rolleyes
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!