Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Black bigotry, white racism differ
Editorial, presumably syndicated ^ | Jan. 10, 2002 | Leonard Pitts, Jr.

Posted on 01/12/2002 10:05:34 AM PST by IronJack

"Black people cannot be racist."

It's been maybe 20 years since the first time I heard some member of the black intelligentsia say that on an afternoon talk show. Naturally, all hell broke loose.

Years later, all hell still awaits repair.

I base that assessment on the response to something I did in a recent column. Namely, I defined racism as "this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin."

Man, what'd I want to go and say that for? The flood of letters has been unrelenting, dozens of aggrieved Caucasians wanting your poor, benighted correspondent to know that racism, thank you very much, is also felt by those whose skin is not dark at all. Several folks figured I must be one o' them black folk who considers black folk incapable of racism. One individual went so far as to contend that your truly, like most blacks, hasn't a clue what racism really is.

Well, golly, where to begin?

First, my take on the "blacks can't be racist" argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric.

People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist.

I get impatient with people who make the argument in those terms, terms that seem, frankly, calibrated to produce more confrontation than insight. Most people who hear the point framed in that way are, understandably, unable to get past those first inflammatory words: "Blacks can't be racist."

So let's frame it another way. Let's allow that black folks can, indeed, be racist. Or prejudiced, intolerant, biased, bigoted, or any other word that floats your boat. Blacks people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset.

But with that established, let's also say this: It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite. This is the point the black intelligentsia's rhetoric has obscured and people like my correspondents have denied, avoided, and ignored. As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa. They also have less history of doing so. These are incontrovertible facts that render hollow the yowling demands that the racism of blacks be accorded a place in the national consciousness commensurate with that of white people.

Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. I don't care. Just don't pretend the transgression is what it is not. Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large.

Because if it represents such a threat, then where are the statistics demonstrating how black bias against whites translates to the mass denial of housing, bank loans, education, employment opportunities, voting rights, medical care, or justice? And, please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school, or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action.

Not the same. Not even close. There are, inf fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds, and Keshias -- in the African-American community. And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks. Yet even with those bona fides, some people find evidence of white racism's power dishearteningly easy to ignore.

They have to, I suppose. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to continue pretending an equivalency that does not exist. And somewhere inside, even THEY must recognize that fact.

Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.

I bet every one of my correspondents does too.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last
First of all, it occurs to me that Mr. Pitts hasn't heard from enough FReepers regarding this transparent apology for reverse discrimination. If he thinks he was inundated before, we need to waken a tidal wave.

Secondly, his stale complaints about "institutionalized racism" carry little weight when those statistics he cites so readily (and vaguely) are scrutinized. Let's look for example at the statistics regarding violent crime. Black-on-white crime occurs several times as frequently as white-on-black crime, a distortion even more skewed when the relative proportions of the races are taken into account. Receipt of welfare and social entitlement programs favor blacks far out of proportion to their representation in the population. Single parenthood, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, drug abuse, domestic violence -- all swell in the "African-American community" beyond what the relative numbers would dictate.

It is illegal for anyone to deny a black person housing, employment, the vote, medical care, or justice based on their race. It has been for decades. The think tanks and governmental studies that find an endless procession of institutionalized racism may very well be justifying their own existence as much as uncovering any empirical reality.

To the claim that "As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa," I would ask how well Nicole Simpson is faring these days. How about Lt. Daniel Faulkner, murdered 20 years ago by a maggot who's become a darling of the bored glitterati? How about the countless victims of the Rodney King riots and Al Sharpton's runaway rampages? Seen a lot of suburbanites running through East St. Louis trashing the Projects? How's that for "power to injure?"

Finally, bigotry, regardless of its victim, is still bigotry. Discard the "anecdotes" about Joe and Jane if you will, Mr. Pitts. But sharing the misery only results in more misery, not a solution. And the "significant threat to the quality of life of white America" is that, in some misguided attempt to redeem the sins of the fathers, the sons willingly enslave themselves to the same oppression that robbed another race of its dignity for so many years.

1 posted on 01/12/2002 10:05:34 AM PST by IronJack (sfs01@home.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: IronJack
Black can't be racist. Just ask a Korean shop owner in LA.
4 posted on 01/12/2002 10:38:24 AM PST by G-Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks. Yet even with those bona fides, some people find evidence of white racism's power dishearteningly easy to ignore.

This guy's english seems a little confused. "but rather" usually implies that phrase to follow will be contrasted with the phrase before. And unless the definition of "bona fide" changed overnight--and no one told me--the author's use of the word seems funny. Like... the exact opposite.

5 posted on 01/12/2002 10:41:09 AM PST by zeromus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeromus
Bookmarked for later reading and comment.
6 posted on 01/12/2002 10:43:14 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Blacks are far and away more racist then whites. We're reduced to self censorship calling it "The 'N' word" They just out and out call each other Niggers. I often wondered why if a white man says the word nigger he is considered to be racist, but if a black man says it in say a rap song, he's considered an artist?
7 posted on 01/12/2002 10:53:07 AM PST by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
First of all, it occurs to me that Mr. Pitts hasn't heard from enough FReepers regarding this transparent apology for reverse discrimination. If he thinks he was inundated before, we need to waken a tidal wave.

This is a disappointment, after Mr. Pitts's great column of 9/12/01.

Let me humbly suggest that FReeper responses, however firm, be kept polite.

8 posted on 01/12/2002 11:04:13 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Namely, I defined racism as "this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin."

Up until and even after this statement, I thought I was going to agree with the author. The phrase "darkness of skin", after all, allows for all possibilities. A black person discriminating against a white person is denying based on the darkness of that person's skin. (It just so happens that a white person's skin is not very dark, but that's irrelevant.) Thus, this is a perfectly reasonable definition of racism.

Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric. [...] People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power.

Then it's not unassailable logic. You see Mr. Pitts, the term "racist" does not have to involve "systematic oppression". You can look up the word in a dictionary and not see such things mentioned. And if the logic was "unassailable" one would think that it would use English words according to their plain meaning. But as it stands we now see that the phrase "blacks can't be racist" relies essentially on a very odd definition of the word "racist". This definition is designed to exclude blacks, of course. In other words, it's true that blacks can't be "racist" if you define the term "racist" cleverly enough. But what has been accomplish? (Oh right - propaganda.)

So let's frame it another way. Let's allow that black folks can, indeed, be racist. Or prejudiced, intolerant, biased, bigoted, or any other word that floats your boat. Blacks people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset.

This is a startling admission, one which is rare to hear from a black racism apologist. I'm almost content to accept this victory and call it a day.

It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite.

This is a very problematic statement, that depends heavily on how he is using the word "equivalence". What sort of equivalence? He doesn't say. But I can tell he's now starting to a construct a very loaded argument.

As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa.

What is an "aggregate"? How is this "power" measured? How depressing. I thought maybe he had a fresh perspective, but this is the tired old argument, "blacks can't be racist because they have no 'power'". But who says that blacks "have no power"? Are there black CEOs? Yes. Are there black wealthy people? Yes. Are there black politicians? Yes.

So now Mr. Pitts is backed into arguing, "well yes, all those things are true, but the sum of that 'power' is still less than for white folk." Well, that is a very interesting statement which requires documentary evidence, definitions, calculations. As it stands all we have is the stereotype, "blacks have no power". The ironic thing is you hear this stereotype mostly from black people. The phrase "self-hating" comes to mind.

Finally my main complaint is one that I usually have when I hear leftist rhetoric: there are no individuals to be found in this discussion. Instead we hear about something called an "aggregate". But discrimination and the like happen at the level of individuals. It matters not to a white individual passed over for a job, or for a college slot, if the situation is different "on average" or "aggregated". It just doesn't matter. Individuals matter, aggregates don't. (Except to Marxists.)

Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. [...] Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large.

What are "white Americans at large"? More "aggregates", more groupings. If black bigotry hurts a white individual (there's that word again), it hurts a white individual. Who cares whether it hurts "white Americans at large", whatever that means? If a black man murders a white man, even that doesn't hurt "white Americans at large", I suppose. Does that make it okay?

And, please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school, or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action.

He doesn't like anecdotes because they are about individuals. But when someone like me makes a comment about the immorality of discrimination, because it hurts someone like (say) Jane, then I am talking about individuals. All he is saying here is that he doesn't care about individuals, only "aggregates" and average effects. Which we already knew. But it does nothing to rebut my basic complaint: that discrimination against Jane is wrong morally, and hurts Jane unfairly. No amount of discussion of "aggregates" or "white Americans at large" can change this. He's not even responding to the basic complaint.

There are, inf fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds, and Keshias -- in the African-American community.

No doubt. That, too, is wrong. And?

Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.

He'd change the color of his skin, given the chance. Fascinating! His self-loathing is just too depressing to read. No surprise, though, because this sort of identity politics encouraging nothing but fatalistic self-loathing among the "oppressed" groups it pretends to help.

9 posted on 01/12/2002 11:08:50 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her...one on one and take a life or death chance?

No thanks.

10 posted on 01/12/2002 11:15:51 AM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Which racist is more in a position of "power>? More able to harm American society? David Duke, who publishes tracts and runs a measly website? Or Jesse Jackson, who has a large operation and extorts money from major corporations and from the government to finance his racism?

How much "power" does a black thug who specializes in killing whites, possess? Is the power of life and death sufficient?

This is a garbage argument. Always was, Always would be.

Congressman Billybob

Click & bookmark for Phil & Billybob in the morning.

11 posted on 01/12/2002 11:20:43 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Excellent points. How many bigots to an aggregate? How many offenses to a "class action?" How many individual cases to an "institutionalized racism?"

Furthermore, are we talking about true racism here, or are we talking about peoples' inherent right to discriminate, to associate with those individuals they find desirable? If I refuse to rent an apartment to you because you're a lowlife gang-banging crack dealer with zero credit and no job, and you happen to be black, am I a bigot or a cautious landlord? You can go into all the apologies about WHY you're a lowlife gang-banger crackhead, but I'm not running a social agency; I'm running an apartment building. If I refuse to hire you because you have no marketable skill because you chose to drop out of junior high so you could steal cars, am I a bigot or am I a responsible agent of my company?

Recognizing the false protection of the race argument would force blacks to accept responsiblity for their own shortcomings. With "black folk" like Mr. Pitt enabling their continued failure, continued failure is inevitable.

12 posted on 01/12/2002 11:39:55 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Correction: The author's name is "Pitts," not "Pitt."
13 posted on 01/12/2002 11:40:29 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: IronJack
the wielding of power...as in rape or murder or extortion? If yes, then blacks are as racist as they come.
15 posted on 01/12/2002 12:02:02 PM PST by RWG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
I agree, much of this must be laid at the feet of politicans and the news media. However a 75% out of wedlock birthrate, crime statistics, and low academic scores they can blame themselves for.

There will always be failures and whiners that just can't cut it, that expect every other person in Amercia to provide them with, not only support but, fodder for hatred of their own self inflicted misery that they will not take responsibility for, and we have to learn to ignore them instead of promote them.

There are a great number of people of African American descent that are middle class, upper class, have good jobs, live the American dream, but in every race there is the no class, and they get far too much press as far as I am concerned.

Despite what they have been told, or what daydream they are living in, being born in America does not guarantee one's life long support with no effort exerted on their part. It is not the job or the responsibility of the rest of society to make each individuals dreams come true. It is our responsibility to make sure we are not in the way of the individuals ability to make his own dreams come true and society is not standing in anyones way. People like this are losers that need to get over themselves.

16 posted on 01/12/2002 12:06:21 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
First, my take on the "blacks can't be racist" argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric. People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not "racist," because racism involves systematic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist.

Mr. Steele finds this logic unassailable? Then let him stand aside, while I do it for him.

Let's start by accepting the terms (in defiance of the dictionary and history of the word "racism"). We'll allow that racism truly does involve wielding of power rather than just bigotry based on race.

Power cannot be wielded by someone who doesn't posess it. A white person, by virtue of being white, posesses no power at all. A penniless white person with no connections cannot reasonably be said to posess more power than a successful black businessman. Therefore, by the "power" definition alone, he could not be racist.

But there is another element of the argument used to make such a powerless white person guilty by association - changing the meaning of racism from individual to collective behavior. This is done by invoking control of "the system."

"The system," the argument notes, is not run by black people. Fair enough. I'd agree.

This also seems to imply that it is run by white people. I suppose one could make this case: the President of the U. S., CEO's of major companies, that sort of thing. This demonstrates that some white people control "the system".

But what has not been demonstrated is that white people as a collective group control anything at all. So if the power to be racist must come from control of "the system," one must be able to demonstrate that any person accused of racism is part of "the system." Otherwise, they simply look like someone with power. They're not the genuine article. Yet this distinction is ignored.

The principle this argument must rest upon is an illogical premise: that an attribute posessed by any member of a group, can be presumed to be posessed by all members of that group. It literally presumes that the white skin of someone like the President of the United States makes the poorest, most powerless white person more "powerful" than Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, or Jesse Jackson. Since this is demonstrably false, it is absurd to pretend otherwise. Yet without this premise, the argument collapses into a relativist mess - there could be no such thing as racism by any race anymore.

So basically what we have here is a case of redefining the word racism into a collective, rather than individual trait, so it doesn't apply to black people. Then selectively applying an attribute (control of "the system") posessed by a tiny minority within the "white" group to the group as a whole, because otherwise the term wouldn't apply to white people either.

If Mr. Steele finds that unassailable, I'll have to either assume he's a bit dim, or that he's not trying very hard.

17 posted on 01/12/2002 12:15:45 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
Oops. I called Mr. Pitts "Mr. Steele" in my post above.

I hearby apologize to anyone named "Mr. Steele," officially redirect my comments to Mr. Pitts, and begin the search for a proof reader.

18 posted on 01/12/2002 12:18:02 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Blacks hurt themselves more than anyone with their bigotry. Like it or not, whites are around 80% of the population, so the so-called "white power structure" will always be there. Refusal to intergrate in any way with the white community is a sure way to remain on the margins of American society.
19 posted on 01/12/2002 12:45:00 PM PST by HoustonG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud patriot
There is virtually no more white racism but the blacks still hate us.

Utter nonsense. I'm black, and I don't hate anyone. When I say that I hate Democrats, it's their ideology that I hate, not the people.

Your across-the-board broad-brushing remark is just as offensive as when I hear another black person spouting anti-white nonsense.

If you want to be treated as an individual, do likewise and treat others as individuals, and enjoin yourself from tainting everyone.

20 posted on 01/12/2002 12:54:42 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
The crux of the contention is the notion that since blacks suffer certain disenfranchisements at a greater proportion than whites, and since the only difference is the color of their skin, the color of their skin must be the root of the difference. In other words, racism must lie at the root of any disparity between the relative stations of all blacks and all whites. To put in it Marxist terms, all struggles are race struggles.

The fallacy here is in the minor premise: the only difference is the color of their skin. Other factors enter in: the culture of failure that has been foisted on blacks, originally by whites but perpetuated by the very black "leaders" who purport to guide their race from the desert to the Promised Land; a collective resentment that remains unresolved generation after generation, and whose smoldering coals are an inferno to be exploited by hustlers and false prophets; those two factors combine to create a minimal culture that sets itself in perpetual opposition to white culture, and determines at the outset that its victory lies in white culture's defeat, and that any victory of white culture comes at its expense.

21 posted on 01/12/2002 1:20:00 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
Good job!

Anyone who claims that their opinion is "unassailable" logic knows not the meaning of either word.

22 posted on 01/12/2002 1:27:01 PM PST by SemperFidelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Mr Pitts thinking and logic are the pitts.

Mr Pitts uses the generalizations Caucasian and Black and then limits his discussion to America. I would like to expand to other areas where those races are found. How about South Africa, oh heck the whole continent of Africa. Many nations there are examples of racism by whoever is in power at the moment, white or black. This means that racism is a trait of all humans, it is there always in Blacks as much as any other race. According to Mr. Pitts Blacks can't be racist because they are black and have no power. In the African nations model we see that Blacks with no appreciable power commit the racially motivated crimes of theft, looting, rape, murder and possibly even genocide.

If Mr Pitts is so pleased to be white (I assume he is), I suggest he go to South Africa and be white in public, then tell us how it is, if he can.

23 posted on 01/12/2002 1:39:02 PM PST by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
He's welcome to change the color of his skin ..... think he'd be employed as a "writer and social critic" by the intelligentsia of the liberal press if he were white?

Wonder if Black Entertainment TV (there isn't any white entertainment TV!) would employ him if he were white?

24 posted on 01/12/2002 1:50:20 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks.

OH GOOD. Relieved to hear that the data are coming from entities who've proven their objectivity on this issue time and time again.

MM

25 posted on 01/12/2002 1:57:22 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan,all
The 20th century -- especially the second half -- has been a steady march of enfranchisement for blacks. The statistics Mr. Pitts is so fond of would also bear out that the black middle class is steadily expanding, that blacks who were marginalized as little as two generations ago are now corporate officers, judges, mayors, governors, and part of the power elite. It's laughable to listen to Julian Bond or Marion Barry talk about oppression of "their" race. Julian Bond has as less in common with street blacks than most white factory workers. Marion Barry, on the other hand, is an excellent spokesman for street thuggery. Not that that constituency is one that deserves much of a voice.

The point is, the heritage of black social "invisibility" is a myth. But myths are powerful shapers of destiny, and as long as blacks believe they are victims, they will act like victims. And the cycle will never be broken.

26 posted on 01/12/2002 2:31:00 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bommer
Remember the refrain, "Kill Whitey?" Can you imagine if a white singer had a song refrain, "Kill Blackey?"
27 posted on 01/12/2002 2:42:24 PM PST by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Your post #9 is an OUTSTANDING analysis! Very insightful. ;^)
28 posted on 01/12/2002 2:44:08 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
No, Leonard Pitts is a black man.
29 posted on 01/12/2002 3:04:35 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Black bigots like Al Sharpton have caused Jews and Asians to be murdered by mobs. Black bigotry also keeps blacks from working with whites and joining the mainstream. There is a difference between black and white bigotry, however, black bigotry is far more self-destructive.
30 posted on 01/12/2002 3:10:16 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Now that I think about it, is Pitts from Mississippi? I think I've heard him speak at a function before.

MM

31 posted on 01/12/2002 3:17:03 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: proud patriot
And you are still wrong.

You'd come out ahead by issuing your statement where you can name those who alledgely hate you or any other white person.

34 posted on 01/12/2002 5:00:26 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
I think Pitts writes for the Miami Herald.
35 posted on 01/12/2002 5:08:08 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Pitts is black.
36 posted on 01/12/2002 5:09:08 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ruggers
To anyone who says that black people cannot be racists, I have two words for you:

South Africa.

37 posted on 01/12/2002 5:16:39 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
If blacks had treated white people as whites have treated blacks, how forgiving would white people be ? Look at Ireland or the Balkans for your answer.
38 posted on 01/12/2002 5:16:57 PM PST by Tokhtamish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Even if one grants the rather twisted definition of "racism," just how many whites can be racist? If I were prejudiced and had the urge to go oppress someone, what attempts I could make would be pretty laughable. I don't have the power that the "only whites can be racist" people evidently ascribe to me, and if I could get on the phone to, say, Bill Gates and say "Could you please oppress so-and-so for me as a fellow white man?" the response would probably be, to borrow a line from Monty Python, howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Does this definition mean that, say, Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfrey, who have considerable economic power, can be racist but that a poor Appalachian white person can't?

39 posted on 01/12/2002 5:32:10 PM PST by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Then there's Trinidad and Tobago. If memory serves from reading The Story of English, there whites (called "Redlegs") are the oppressed minority. What does Mr. Pitts have to say about that, I wonder?
40 posted on 01/12/2002 5:35:04 PM PST by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tokhtamish
If blacks had treated white people as whites have treated blacks, how forgiving would white people be ?

Blacks HAVE treated whites badly. Not as long, and not as continually, but predatory blacks have stolen millions from the white middle class, both at gun point and by half a century of welfare scams. Add to those predations the disproportionate victimization of whites by blacks in the form of violent crime, and whites become a class of turkeys waiting to be plucked.

Furthermore, our misguided sense of guilt prevents us from even striking back. We're so afraid of being called "racist" that we bear our throats to the vampires and apologize if we're a quart low.

How seriously should whites take black disenfranchisement, when blacks don't seem to take it seriously themselves?

41 posted on 01/12/2002 5:36:28 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
OK, most blacks still hate us!

And you are still wrong.

You'd come out ahead by issuing your statement where you can name those who alledgely hate you or any other white person.

***************************************************************

Easy guys.

It all depends on who "us" is.

As a musician I never felt any black performers didn't like me just because I am white.

Having attended several inter-faith conferences attended 50%by black Baptists, I never felt any animosity.

It also depends (from an anecdotal point of view) where you are. Once I traveled through SC and it seemed the blacks hated me because I was white and the whites hated me because I was not "southern". (I'm from Nebraska).

If, however, "us" means conservative, and 85-90% of blacks mysteriously vote RAT, then proud_patriot may have a point.

42 posted on 01/12/2002 5:38:03 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
so pitts can exercise his right of free speech by calling me a:

'white, mothereffing, honky pig'

and not be a racist?
gee, what a lucky guy!

43 posted on 01/12/2002 5:41:31 PM PST by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER; proud patriot
Okay. As a man of peace, I'll defer to ROCKLOBSTER.

Boy, why am I hungry all of a sudden? Oh, rock lobster sounds good! ;-)

44 posted on 01/12/2002 5:42:15 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tokhtamish
How seriously should whites take black disenfranchisement, when blacks don't seem to take it seriously themselves?

Even worse, how do we go about finding a solution when blacks repeatedly reject any white solutions out of hand, on the presumption that the two races are, and must always remain, enemies? You can't convince me that we couldn't find common ground after a century and a half of emancipation unless there were powers arrayed against such a discovery.

The current power structure isn't interested in solving racial conflicts as much as it is in exploiting a population bloc. That goes for powers on both sides of the racial divide. I suspect that at those levels, that divide is pigmentary only.

45 posted on 01/12/2002 5:44:04 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
(I'm from Nebraska).

Ya got that goin'! I'm a Hoosker too.

46 posted on 01/12/2002 5:46:46 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Blacks people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset.

That was the most intelligent statement in the article.

The rest of it is him proving just that.

47 posted on 01/12/2002 5:49:48 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Joyce
Thank, D.

Here's to next week.

48 posted on 01/12/2002 5:52:31 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Blacks like this will never be happy untill they are the ones wielding the "institutional powers" of racism themselves.
49 posted on 01/12/2002 5:55:54 PM PST by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.

He'd change the color of his skin, given the chance. Fascinating! His self-loathing is just too depressing to read. No surprise, though, because this sort of identity politics encouraging nothing but fatalistic self-loathing among the "oppressed" groups it pretends to help.

At the risk of presuming to speak for Mr. Pitts (I have read many of his columns and have met him so I may be able to speak with a little authority here), I'll say that the above statement is not a wish that he was white but a wish that his life could reflect the sum total of white racism vs. the sum total of black racism. A fine distinction, perhaps, but hopefully you understand the difference.

That being said, I wouldn't make the statement myself because some whites I know have suffered much more from black predudice/racism than I have suffered from white prejudice/racism. Besides, I wouldn't trade being black for anything.

50 posted on 01/12/2002 6:10:19 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson