hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> I agree with Harvey that the article was strongly racist, but I think
> he somewhat missed the point of the essay. A few quotes for the benefit
> of those who have lost it:
>
> > You can pay me reparations, Johnny.
> >
> > To start with, I figure you owe me for three bicycles.
>
> The implication is that the bicycles were stolen by black people,
> and that Johnny Cochran is therefore responsible because he is black,
> a racist claim.
If Johnny Cochran is speaking publicly as a representative of his
'race', then he is accepting responsibility for all of the acts of
african americans, not just the labor of slave african americans 150+
years ago. As such, he is accepting responsiblity for Fred's three
stolen bicycles (if they were, in fact, stolen by african americans).
>
> > A few years back, my middle-school daughter brought home a horrendously
> > misspelled science hand-out. Now, Johnny: You and I both know that it's easy
> > to make a typo, and write "phenylkeetone" instead of "phenylketone." But
> > "feemelkeebome" is stretching it. The errors were of this sort. An
> > understanding of chemistry clearly had never rippled the serene surface of the
> > woman's mind.
> >
> > Without thinking, I asked, "What color is your teacher?"
>
> His first unthinking reaction at seeing a bad misspelling was suspicion
> that the teacher was black. This is a racist reaction.
Not necessarily. Anyone familiar with african american dialects could
recognise this as a conceivably 'ebonic' interpretation of the word in
an onomatopeoiac basis. Since non-blacks, by definition, do not practice
ebonic dialects, it therefore follows that this word was misspelled by a
black person.
>
> > But here's a large ravage of slavery, Johnny: Fear.
> >
> > What price do we put on looking over our shoulders? On watching to be sure we
> > don't go one subway stop too far? Warning our girlfriends not to drive on
> > certain streets? Checking the clientele of Seven-Eleven before going in at
> > night?
> >
> > People in, say, Switzerland can walk their streets after dark. We can't. Why?
> > What have we got that they don't, that might cause fear?
>
> The implication is that blacks are dangerous criminals, a racist claim.
What we have that the Swiss don't is a nationwide patchwork of fascist
gun control laws passed by white governments and structured primarily to
disarm law abiding citizens, especially law abiding poor and african
american citizens. Many of these laws were passed as Jim Crow laws, but
they all are generally supported by african american leaders as a
cynical tactic to keep their constituents trapped in high crime ghettos,
living in fear and voting the party line.
>
> > The white guy beaten to death 100 yards from my door last year - they never
> > caught the killers, but - what you reckon, Johnny? Do you figure it was white
> > Presbyterian women from the old-ladies' home?
>
> The implication is that black people are more likely to beat someone to
> death than white people, a racist claim.
Not if it is based on fact. It is a FACT, for example, that a huge
majority of all crime is committed by african americans, despite the
fact that they make up only 10% of the population. Thus, statistically,
blacks ARE more likely to beat someone to death than a white person.
Refusing to acknowledge this statistical truth is, itself, racist. Stop
being a racist.
>
> > As a result of slavery, you have been using our civilization without a
> > license.
>
> The implication is that black people are undeserving of the benefits of
> actions of previous generations purely because of their skin color, a
> racist claim.
No, what the implication is, is that a slave doesn't accept the same
responsibilities of citizenship that a non-slave does, doesn't pay
taxes, and therefore gets a 'free ride'. This is rather obviously
ignoring the fact that the slave surely doesn't enjoy the benefits that
a non-slave does.
>
> Anyway, the essay is so obviously drenched in racism that there is hardly
> any need in pointing out further examples.
>
> The real issue is that the essay is also intended to be read ironically.
> It is meant to be a satire on racist attitudes. It aims to mirror some
> of the claims made by those calling for reparations in order to show
> how racist those claims are when the racial roles are inverted.
I've lived with, worked with, been shot at with, and hung out with
hundreds of black people while in the Air Force, which was a very
positive experience in eliminating my youthful ignorance of african
americans, having grown up in one of the 'whitest' areas of the country.
However, I can say that a significant number of the african americans I
met and befreinded in the service were themselves racist to such a high
level that they would have been driven out of the service for their
opinions if they had been white spouting similar opinions.
Racism is not an exclusively white phenomenon, it is a standard human
response, that is common all over the world. Ask any Japanese or Chinese
person about their attitudes of other races, for example. Do the same in
ANY society in the world and you will find people are racist to one
degree or another, primarily depending on their education and degree of
exposure to other cultures.
The essay referenced IS a satire on racist attitudes. It also calls into
question the politically correct attitudes about which wrongs are
acceptable, and which are being brushed under the rug out of liberal
'sensitivity' to the 'plight' of 'discriminated' minorities. Too many
whites suffer from liberal guilt programmed into them by ignorant
sociologists at liberal arts colleges that are full of propaganda and
half truths.
For those who think they know what 'racism' is, ask someone like Chris
Rock.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT