Posted on 11/12/2002 6:18:57 PM PST by slowhandluke
Racism: Back In Style?
By Paul Eastlund,
Published 11/11/2002
Last week, a panel discussion on ethnic-based program houses as racial segregation was held in the RPCC multi-purpose room. Fellow Review columnist Elliott Reed and I were invited to attend as panelists. As we approached the building before the debate, a group of black students crossed paths with us. A female in the group greeted Elliott and invited him to enter with their group; Elliott distanced himself from them. The other students walked on, but the female confronted Elliott about his behavior. Elliott explained, "I don';t even know those people."
"You have this in common with them, Elliott," the girl responded, holding up the back of her hand. "Color."
I was stunned. The idea that people should go out of their way to congregate with others based on skin color is, of course, blatantly racist. Yet this girl suggested it in perfect seriousness. Her intonation even insinuated condescension, as though the racist sentiment should';ve been obvious - how else would one choose one friends, if not by skin tone? Furthermore, the girl did not make the least attempt to lower her voice as she spoke the words. She was unabashed in her racism; frankly, I doubt she realized that what she said might be controversial, much less downright unacceptable.
As I goggled over the exchange, Elliott and I entered and found our seats for the panel discussion. The topic at hand was a racially charged one, but I was hoping to avoid ugly racial divisiveness at the debate. After all, the difference between the two sides is ideological - we conservatives oppose segregation in any form, and would be as adamantly against a white dorm as we are against the current black, Native American, and Latino dorms. The only issue to discuss, as far as I was concerned, was whether "culture-based" dorms equate to segregation.
My naïveté was quickly remedied; one of the opposing panelists based her opening statement on the premise that she, as a black, could not feel safe around whites. Amazingly, not one person in the room took issue with this statement. Instead, the panelist received applause after she finished speaking. Can you imagine a reversal of this situation? Picture whites at a public speech explaining nonchalantly: "The fact is, we just don';t feel safe living around blacks." The whites would be branded as racists and bigots, just as the black panelist should have been.
Another speaker, attempting to justify this earlier statement, explained the stresses inherent in living with whites - a farcical list including, without a hint of jest, a complaint about whites asking why the panelist';s hair is curly. Before I continue, I want to reflect on the sheer lunacy of this: how on earth can "Why is your hair curly?" possibly be construed as a racist remark? Plenty of whites have curly hair. Furthermore, who but a second-grader would conceivably ask such a juvenile question?
More incredible than the panelist';s ability to speak the words with a straight face was the audience';s willingness to take them seriously. No one laughed, chuckled, guffawed, or even snickered to a friend. Instead, people listened in solemn compassion and sympathy for the terrible, lamentable tragedy of hair-related inquiries.
After opening statements, the discussion took the format of a question and answer session with the audience, which was almost entirely composed of program house residents. A few of the questions were actually intelligent, but many exhibited the same racism that the opposition based its arguments on. One audience member asserted that we whites were just afraid of blacks having the same rights that we do. This, of course, is stupid, because whites don';t have University-sponsored dormitories explicitly dedicated to exclusively white culture. Another suggested that the white conservatives on the panel, myself included, couldn';t possibly be sincere in our respect for the black conservative (Elliott); specifically, he insisted that we probably call Elliott racial slurs behind his back. There was virtually no crowd outrage over this despicable ad hominem attack.
My favorite exchange, however, was between a black panelist and a white audience member. The black panelist, speaking to a different question, asserted that whites will always see her as a black first and a person second. When, in response, a white male said, "When I look at you, I don';t see a black first. I see a person," the panelist accused him of attempting to steal her racial identity. The crowd cheered her on.
In hindsight, the event may as well have been named "F___ Whitey," or "Racism: It';s Not Just For Whites Anymore!" As exemplified best by the last exchange, audience members and panelists alike threw logic and rationale to the wind in a stunning display of small-minded bitterness. The audience couldn';t seriously believe that we whites respected Elliott because, as their behavior towards us demonstrated, the idea of respecting anyone of different color was totally foreign to them.
This is the face of ethnic-based program houses: a group of ideologically homogeneous people who spend all their time feeding each others'; paranoia that somewhere, whites are plotting against them. When real evidence of those suspicions doesn';t exist, it is fabricated, such as the infamous chase down Campus Road after the mystery girl and her best friend Mike. When fabrication fails, they resort to lunacy - suddenly "Why is your hair curly?" is egregious oppression by The Man. This stark detachment from reality is dangerous both to them and to others, and is hardly helping racial tensions on campus.
The very fact that the racist sentiments expressed at the debate were not immediately rejected by the crowd as repugnant, disgusting, misanthropic tripe proves the conservative point of view quite nicely: program houses are not about interracial understanding. Instead, they promote disturbing and divisive fringe mentalities. The only "unity" these mentalities support is the kind seen at the debate - blacks, Hispanics, and others gathering together under the all-minority-inclusive unifying factor of anti-white bigotry.
I've been boiling in oil for 10 years now. You are right.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
I wish you were right.
Actually, taking into consideration the difference in the population numbers, black commit 56 times the number of violent crimes against whites, as whites do against blacks.
I haven't been able to locate the specific numbers for murder, as opposed to the total for all violent crimes.
LOL!
The answer in any dialogue would probably be that the "man" covers up most white on black crime by framing black folks.
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.