THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT
Last night, on some foamy cable news channel (that description narrows the potential channels down to about....12, I guess, Mary Matalin, former George Bush Sr. lackey, former George W. Bush flack, and current Dick Cheney hack, intoned the following about Reverend Lowery, the man who tore Bush a new (newer? newest?) one at Coretta Scott King's funeral, and about others who consider themselves protectors of civil rights:
"I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping... their African-American brothers enslaved." Odd to find a decidedly PC term in such a decidedly un-PC statement.
Of course, every person on this planet is a racist. What puzzles me about Mrs. Matalin's comment is not the hate (not backed up by argument or analysis, of course), but rather the identity, or rather identification crisis, she seems to be experiencing when she makes such statements.
Prominent (in the sense that they are mentioned in conservative circles) conservative authors such as Dinesh D'Souza have long argued that racism (black on white, white on black, minority on minority) in this country is effectively dead. What context, then, do these people, many of whom refused to acknowledge that this country had a very serious race problem before that problem "died," (or who acknowleged it but believed the victims should be blamed or made loving ejaculations about "states' rights), use to frame the arguments that racism is dead?
I don't know. To pronounce death is to implicitly state that life once existed; if one claims racism is dead, one must acknowledge that it once existed. How can one claim something stopped breathing if one is not familiar with what the act of breathing consists of?
Hence, Ms. Matalin's identity crisis. She and those like her may, at one point, have correctly perceived that white racism existed in this country, but she has become so stymied by her own spin that she no longer believes it, and hence cannot recognize its symptoms, past or present. Therefore, when she calls black leaders' commments "racist," her argument fails under its own terms, because she cannot properly identify - or, more to the point, FEEL, what "racism" is. Perhaps by her usage of the word "racist," she seeks to create a new definition of the term. This is unlikely, given the presence of the word "enslaved" in the next sentence. The racism of "enslavement" means to suppress people because of the color of their skin, or their ethnicity, by force of law, custom, tradition, mutual understanding, coercion, intimidation, and fear, such that the "enslaved" group cannot be guaranteed safety even if it were to attempt to escape the enslavement (consider, for example, the case of Dred Scott). For Matalin to use the language of enslavement is for her to state, based upon some constipated white male 19th century professor's history textbook definition of racism and slavery that may know the words but does not know the music, that African-Americans are being suppressed by civil rights leaders because the black people are black, that the suppression is being effected by force of law (odd, considering what political party is in power), custom, tradition, coercion, intimidation and fear, such that the would-be enslaved blacks cannot find safety anywhere. No doubt Matalin would say that the black people could escape the enslavement by voting Republican (this implies that the Diebold machines could somehow be programmed to count black votes as Republican votes without short-circuiting), but this argument still fails, because according to her, the enslavers (as enslavers do) would ultimately reassert control.
And Republicans wonder why, that for all of the legitimate reasons black voters may have to not vote Democratic, there are a thousand more not to vote Republican. I am no fan of Al Sharpton, but I am somewhat fond of a certain statement he made explaining why he believes that the Democratic Party, for all of its flaws, is still the party (that he believes, anyway) that black voters concerned about civil rights should vote for: "Our current problems with the Democratic party are like when a husband gets into an argument with his wife. The Republicans say we should fix these problems by voting for them. That would be like the husband slamming the door, leaving the house, and picking up the first hooker he sees on the street."
Matalin: "I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping ... their African-American brothers enslaved"
"I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping... their African-American brothers enslaved." Odd to find a decidedly PC term in such a decidedly un-PC statement.
Of course, every person on this planet is a racist. What puzzles me about Mrs. Matalin's comment is not the hate (not backed up by argument or analysis, of course), but rather the identity, or rather identification crisis, she seems to be experiencing when she makes such statements.
Prominent (in the sense that they are mentioned in conservative circles) conservative authors such as Dinesh D'Souza have long argued that racism (black on white, white on black, minority on minority) in this country is effectively dead. What context, then, do these people, many of whom refused to acknowledge that this country had a very serious race problem before that problem "died," (or who acknowleged it but believed the victims should be blamed or made loving ejaculations about "states' rights), use to frame the arguments that racism is dead?
I don't know. To pronounce death is to implicitly state that life once existed; if one claims racism is dead, one must acknowledge that it once existed. How can one claim something stopped breathing if one is not familiar with what the act of breathing consists of?
Hence, Ms. Matalin's identity crisis. She and those like her may, at one point, have correctly perceived that white racism existed in this country, but she has become so stymied by her own spin that she no longer believes it, and hence cannot recognize its symptoms, past or present. Therefore, when she calls black leaders' commments "racist," her argument fails under its own terms, because she cannot properly identify - or, more to the point, FEEL, what "racism" is. Perhaps by her usage of the word "racist," she seeks to create a new definition of the term. This is unlikely, given the presence of the word "enslaved" in the next sentence. The racism of "enslavement" means to suppress people because of the color of their skin, or their ethnicity, by force of law, custom, tradition, mutual understanding, coercion, intimidation, and fear, such that the "enslaved" group cannot be guaranteed safety even if it were to attempt to escape the enslavement (consider, for example, the case of Dred Scott). For Matalin to use the language of enslavement is for her to state, based upon some constipated white male 19th century professor's history textbook definition of racism and slavery that may know the words but does not know the music, that African-Americans are being suppressed by civil rights leaders because the black people are black, that the suppression is being effected by force of law (odd, considering what political party is in power), custom, tradition, coercion, intimidation and fear, such that the would-be enslaved blacks cannot find safety anywhere. No doubt Matalin would say that the black people could escape the enslavement by voting Republican (this implies that the Diebold machines could somehow be programmed to count black votes as Republican votes without short-circuiting), but this argument still fails, because according to her, the enslavers (as enslavers do) would ultimately reassert control.
And Republicans wonder why, that for all of the legitimate reasons black voters may have to not vote Democratic, there are a thousand more not to vote Republican. I am no fan of Al Sharpton, but I am somewhat fond of a certain statement he made explaining why he believes that the Democratic Party, for all of its flaws, is still the party (that he believes, anyway) that black voters concerned about civil rights should vote for: "Our current problems with the Democratic party are like when a husband gets into an argument with his wife. The Republicans say we should fix these problems by voting for them. That would be like the husband slamming the door, leaving the house, and picking up the first hooker he sees on the street."
Matalin: "I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping ... their African-American brothers enslaved"
posted by EnterCenter at 2:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home