Skip to comments.White Guilt = Black Power
Posted on 01/07/2002 8:35:06 PM PST by VinnyTexEdited on 04/22/2004 11:45:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
click here to read article
You had previously written: "..Cute. The WSJ attempts to avoid the racism charge by getting a black to write the article."
Cute. Are you saying that you know the WSJ had the motive of wanting an article like that to print and specifically hired a black, telling him what to write?
Odd. I will admit that I assumed you were also attributing motives to Shelby Steele and attacking what he wrote. Please accept my apology for extrapolating your negative remarks about the motives of the WSJ on out to include Steele and his article.
Did you write this?:
In #10 you told atafak:"I see your point. Any number of white conservative thinkers could have written this same column. But the WSJ chose to publish the formulations of a black man, as if his color lends his words even more authority."
Look, I subscribe to just about everything Steele wrote. The issue is that we have an atmosphere where only black men are considered qualified to speak out on these matters. Steele will surely be accused of being a sell-out and an Uncle Tom, but -- to a publisher -- that's probably preferable to having one of your white columnists accused of being a racist.
And that is the point!
Well let's see...........oh yeah, we have kwanzaa now.
No, you don't get my point.
As I said before, I disagree with you two as to what you consider to be the "motives" of the WSJ.
What makes you think that the WSJ doesn't think it is refreshing, and rare to see a black man with that point of view, and would want to print what he writes to prove that Jesse Jackson, et.al. doesn't speak for ALL blacks?
But let's just drop it, since you haven't been able to see that the WSJ could have another "motive" other than the one you two want it to be. Thank you.
Dammit, I am not questioning the motives of the WSJ.
I am questioning the atmosphere in which they -- and all the rest of us -- have to operate.
Observe that I wrote "as if", not "as", in the post #10 that you're hung up on.
If I've misled you, as I apparently have, I apologize. But I need some help here.
However, none of the foregoing detracts from your point. Americans these days are not the heroic nation they once were. Consider how much of war planning involves avoiding situations in which American boys might end up in body bags.
I agree with damn near everything you've said to the extent of post #71, but this assertion is bunk. It's akin to postulating that it makes sense that even though you own a gun, you'd show up at a fight where you knew the other dude had a knife without it. In other words, of course we are averse to taking any unnecessary risks. We don't need to. We possess ample technology and resources whereby we can pound the living hell out of our enemies. What do you expect us to do? Airdrop 30,000 troops into battlezones before we bomb 'em back to the age o' rock chunking?
Your posts are valid and cogent, but this single point is certainly spurious.
I'll just quote atafak in #73: "No apology needed. The quick and blitterforth of conversation on the net evoke multiple misunderstandings. They pass."
Looks like we finally got it straightened out. Carry on!! :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.