We’ve all heard the story “The boy who cried wolf” about the boy who falsely cried out so often that when the wolf finally appeared none of the townsfolk came to his assistance because they assumed he was once again lying. The same thing has been happening in the United States with the charge of racism. The problem is, when the word racism is used so often by so many people in such patently absurd contexts the charge and the word cease to have any value.
Of course, what many people often refer to as racism is in reality racial discrimination, and in most cases the activity charged as racism is neither.
Racism is a belief in an inherent difference in the cognitive and physical abilities of members of different groups based on race, which manifest themselves in social and economic achievement. Such differences are usually organized in hierarchical manner putting the proponent of the theory’s race in the superior position.
Racial discrimination is the treatment or making a distinction, gift or punishment for or against, a person or group based on the race to which that person or persons belong rather than on individual / group merit.
The dilution of the charge of racism has been going on in the United States for decades. The housing crisis that brought about the economic meltdown in which we find ourselves today was the direct result of federal regulations intended to counteract false claims of racist / discriminatory practices on the part of mortgage lenders.
More recently the cries of racism have been thrown around like rice at a wedding since Barack Obama became a candidate for President. From individuals to Tea Party activists to radio talk show hosts, every disagreement with the policies of Barack Obama is at some point reduced to the simple charge of racism. It does not even appear as if race itself is a defense against such claims as can be seen by the denunciations of Herman Cain.
Is it possible that by 2012 the overuse of the charge of racism has finally contributed to its own demise? Perhaps two absurd events from last week will be a sign of the false charge’s swan song.
The first comes from Dallas and has to do with Microsoft’s purported “Avoid the Ghetto” app for smartphones – a name suggested by critics rather than the company. The app, which is said to use crime statistic data, is supposed to offer drivers and pedestrians the opportunity to set routes to their destination that avoid high crime areas.
Dallas NAACP President Juanita Wallace seems to be unhappy about the as of yet unavailable product: “It’s almost like gerrymandering,” she said. “It’s stereotyping for sure and without a doubt; I can’t emphasize enough, it’s discriminatory.” However, the app will not label communities based on race. It is not going to tell users to avoid minorities or minority communities. It is is rather simply going to inform users about neighborhoods where a high number of crimes have been reported and offer them alternative routes to getting to their destinations. Certainly James Cooper and James Kouzaris could have used it.
Whatever the demographics of the neighborhoods drivers or pedestrians avoid as a result of Microsoft’s app, claims of racism or racial discrimination are absurd. Crime is crime, regardless of who perpetrates it. Indeed, it is President Wallace who has suggested the connection between crime and minority communities, not Microsoft.
The second story comes from Burlington, Vermont. At a time when consumers are put off by many bank’s limited hours and increasingly automated services, TD Bank sees an opportunity to distinguish itself from its competitors by opening for business every day other than Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter Sunday and New Years Day. In the highly competitive marketplace the bank is seeking to succeed by providing more services to attract more customers. The result? The branch in Burlington, Vermont was picketed for being open and serving its customers on the MLK holiday. Protesters printed flyers suggesting the bank was racist: “Dear TD Bank, you are defying the King holiday. Shame, Shame, Shame. This is a racist act. Shame, Shame, Shame.”
In what universe is a company seeking to provide its clients – all clients, regardless of race – with better service acting in a racist, or more accurately, a racially discriminatory manner? Only in a leftist, victim mentality universe fueled by the Democratic Party.
As we approach the battle for the White House those of us who disagree with the policies of President Obama should be prepared to be labeled racists for virtually every utterance. Of course it is possible that the false charge of racism has jumped the shark and will finally be disregarded by citizens as just another Democratic tool of intimidation and slander. Possible, but unfortunately… unlikely.
I’m afraid it’s more likely to be another Hollywood creation, Freddy from the Friday the 13th franchise that more accurately characterizes the future of the false charge of racism. Even when it is so widely seen as debased and hollow, when it should be dead after so many false utterances, the charge of racism is likely to once again be an instrument of the left with which it seeks to intimidate conservatives and distract voters from the abject failure of decades of Democratic policies – whose victims are both black and white. That’s unfortunate because real examples of racism and racial discrimination do indeed exist, but because the left has purloined the charge for its insidious ends those real examples are far less likely to be taken seriously. And for that we are less well off.
John Galt and Mata I’m sure you know how much I respect and enjoy your presentation of Conservative views and principles.
My question Is the Conservative tent large enough to include the likes of Hard Right? This is a serious concern to me and your answers will help me evaluate my continuing to evolve political beliefs.
Pls refrain from speaking about the far left.I know plenty about that wing.
Thanks much Semper Fi
Lorie, it’s interesting that you chose to use the word “insinuating”… which, of course, indicates that it’s a perception you choose to accept as truth as opposed to researching the program that Newt specifically advocates for the disadvantaged youth of all races. Now that may be because you happen to read publications that project that “insinuation”, but it would behoove you to read more about this long standing issue for Gingrich instead of taking a single sentence and screaming “racist”.
First of all, you say you have no problem with kids who “are old enough to work” getting work. It’s interesting that when Newt suggests that the child labor laws (generally 16+ years) actually constricts developing work ethic at an early age, it results in the predictable assault that Newt wants to exploit child labor. Hyperbole much? That’s absolutely absurd. I worked prior to the age of 16… anything from babysitting to yard work, chores, house cleaning. And once I turned 16 I went to work as a cashier at a grocery part time while still in high school. I don’t think it’s exploitative for kids to work earlier than the federal government deems the minimum age. And it’s not akin to suggesting a sweat shop either.
Do you object to kids having jobs prior to that age? And why? It would be far more healthy endeavor than joining gangs (no, that’s not a “black” thing… so don’t even go there), or sitting for hours playing video games, or tweeting.
As to the perception of him presenting this only to black youth, let me widen your horizons. From ABC News, hardly a conservative news outlet:
As I pointed out, if Newt was before the NAACP – obviously an organization dedicated to the issues of black Americans – he’s not going to be catering his presentation of his program to financially challenged whites or Hispanics. He’s going to address the demographics of the audience.
He was not confining his presentation to only the black community, as you see to prefer to believe. However since unemployment rate is 43% among African-American teenagers, the program to offer an early path to work is obviously a benefit to that disproportionately large demographic.
Had you read the article I linked to Hispanic activist, Ruben Navarrette, you would see that not all minorities, with high percentage of poverty and less returns from Social Security at retirement for lower wages during their work life, find such a program objectionable.
What I find amazing is that you choose to make this program… which is not confined to race, but certainly is best pitched to those who are most in need of help… an example of race baiting when it is actually you, and leftist and/or black punditry/organizations that are playing the race card. Fact is, as I told you and Newt said himself, he’d go into any minority neighborhood of any ethnicity, and say the same. But he used the NAACP as an example because their 43% youth unemployment is the most staggering… and therefore, the best example of who can benefit. But certainly not the only example of who could benefit.
Now you say this “stereotypes” the black family. You may, or may not have had a similar childhood as those Newt wishes to aid. But it’s absurd for you to pretend that statistics of poverty, single parent, and unemployment opportunities for black youth don’t exist. You can call that racist if you want. I would call it sticking your head in the sand and avoiding the dilemma. One that none of us wants to exist.
Even Bill Cosby, Walter Williams and Ward Connerly deplore this unhealthy hypersensitivity and avoidance, saying this type of attitude further depresses improving the situation.
Now, I see you refused to answer @my two simple questions above. I’m not sure why, and maybe you can try again. So I’ll repeat them, plus add one more.
1: Are you suggesting that Newt should go to the NAACP convention, and tell them that white people should demand a paycheck instead of food stamps? Because he was speaking to the audience (black), and also to those that are most affected by the lack of jobs.
2: Are you also suggesting that blacks would *prefer* food stamps to a job?
3: Are you aware that the program suggests not only janitorial positions, but office, cafeteria or any department (i.e. a phys ed department that could assist a coach with equipment, rather like a ball boy in baseball.) And do you feel any of these jobs are “beneath” any youth of any race?
@Lorie Robinson:
So now you are assuming that because I’ve posted on FA before that I don’t have a life? Project much? I was simply asking you to provide proof of your claim that “The te party went out of their way with racis and disciminatory remarks”. Of course, you have restated that differently now, saying that “only some are”. You also stated that signs during the last Presidential election help prove this. Really? You do realize that the TEA Party essentially started one Feb. 19, 2009, AFTER Obama was sworn in as President, don’t you?
And your links? Those are hardly worthy of being some kind of “proof” of TEA Party racism. Unless, of course, you are one of those people who consider any criticism of Obama as being racist-driven.
As far as I’m concerned, johngalt, you never comment enough… LOL
I’m not sure what you are asking, rich wheeler. Are you asking me to pass judgment on whether I find HR a worthy member of a party I don’t belong to? And why would I do that?
And simultaneously, you want any one to avoid any references to any extreme leftist.
??? Is this a set up and for what? LOL
I don’t know what has got you all up in arms about HR. Sounds like a personal problem there, guy. But I have no intention of rating the personal human value of any commenter, or their worthiness, at your bidding.
Mata #Roger that. You reiterate you are an Independant and not a “large C” Conservative/ Party. Correct?
My problem with folks like Hard Right who declare themselves Conservatives should be obvious to anyone who can read. I’ve never seen you hold back from criticising those with whom you disagree. Therefore 82 and clear in So.Cal Enjoy the debate WATCH RUBIO over next few days.His actions will determine the winner.
Sorry Mata. It appears he is “downgrading” you because you won’t rebuke me. You know, the very thing he has made it a point not to do to his fellow leftists. Case in point, the Tucson shooting of Giffords and how the left smeared the GOP/Conservatives with it.
@Lorie Robinson, first let me apologize because I didn’t see your answer to my two questions.
As to your response to #1, repeated below:
Lorie, that statement makes no sense. Were Newt attempting to “play to the more racist element to his base”… ergo KKK types that would prefer a society cleansed of all blacks…. he certainly wouldn’t be doing so by suggesting that there be incentive programs to help them acquire entry level jobs. Most especially by taking away some cushy union jobs. If anything, such proposal would turn off the racial bigots in any party. (and you have more than a few in your party as well… including a former Klan leader)
In fact, if this supposed racist base believed it was a racially motivated program, they’d be shouting it from the mountain tops as being a form of affirmative action.
What most of us understand is that the program is not geared to race, but to entry level opportunity for anyone that wants to take advantage of it. Perhaps you don’t know much of Newt’s background, but as a former teacher, and one still involved in education, he has made the poor and students… of all races… an issue for years. For those to twist this program, and the context of that remark, as racist is simply the shoe on the other foot. The accuser is, in fact, the one playing the race card. This has been the point I’ve been trying to make… but I suspect you will resist despite all facts and history of that candidate. You insist upon hearing exactly what you want to hear, and close your eyes to anything else.
sigh… I’m not exactly sure how to present to those of the lib/prog bent that I find attempts to pigeon hole, categorize, and place people into classes so very offensive. I am, like every one else, a potpourri of political leanings, and individuals just don’t fit into little labels.
So frankly, I haven’t got a clue how to answer your question. I’m not a “party” anything. I’m an individual who decides on issues for sundry reasons.
I haven’t got a clue as to why I’m *supposed* to be rebuking you, HR. If it’s your direct, unedited opinions of Lorie’s commentary, I’m afraid I can’t let Lorie off the hook for her own participation in playing the race card. We all respond negative to such false charges. The only difference between your responses and mine is the approach and delivery…. not the meat of the disagreement. Or perhaps because I’m demonstrating more patience for what I truly will admit is a likely lost cause.
I grew up the daughter of first generation Americans, and have heard more than a few bigoted insults tossed at my parents. But none of us seethe with rooted resentment. It was a different era than today.
I also still know a few bigots to this day… most of which I have absolutely no patience with, and will not associate with unless forced to for business. Then I simply deal with business alone, and never broach any other subjects.
But I will also say that I have met just as many black bigots as white bigots. Racism is not a trait that is owned only by Caucasians.
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, I will state this again, albeit a little differently. Hopefully you understand after it.
Being an “Independent” does not have anything whatsoever to do with being a liberal, conservative, or even a moderate. All it means is that a person does not affiliate him or her -self with any particular party. I believe that you are confusing the terms “Independent” and “moderate”, and attempting to use them somewhat interchangeably.
I am an Independent, as I do not affiliate myself with the GOP, or the Democrats. However, I am a conservative, so subsequently, tend to vote more for the GOP candidate, and especially in a national political race.
Please quit confusing the terms, Rich. You are smarter than that.
@MataHarley:
Mata, I would comment more often, but I have this little thing called work that at times, leaves me with very little free time to even read the postings, let alone comment on them or others’ comments. I did find it quite funny that Lori assumed that because I had commented a few times, up to that point, and directed them at her, that it meant that I didn’t have a life away from the computer. And what is even funnier, is that somehow my few comments mean that I have no life, yet she was responding to several different people, and with quite a few interactions with those people.