Slashdot Mirror
Internet Responds To Racist Article, Gets Author Fired
In the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy in February, many publications posted articles about "the talk" — a phrase denoting the conversation many black parents have at some point with their children to explain the realities of racism. Last Thursday, writer John Derbyshire penned an article titled "The Talk: Nonblack Version," which codified a similar set of lessons he had given to his children over the years. Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves. "The remarkably long list of how to teach children to stay safe by avoiding black people goes on for two pages and Derbyshire contends is a true lifesaver. There is no irony or clarification that, perhaps, this is a joke, no matter how much you may want to find a disclaimer after you’re done reading." Reader concealment writes to point out that the internet and the media vocalized their disgust quickly and at length, and now Derbyshire has been fired from his position at the conservative National Review magazine (the offending article appeared in a different publication called Taki's Magazine).
When I was a kid, I had a liberal stepdad and a conservative dad. I always thought my dad was just a racist who didn't know what he was talking about. At one point we had it out and so I left my lilly-white hometown to to live with my mom and stepdad in what happened to be a predominantly black school district (which my liberal stepdad considered a great opportunity for me to learn a valuable cultural lesson). After I got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school, I realized that dad may not be so stupid after all and moved back with in him. It was one of those hard lessons in life about the difference between how things *should* be and how they actually *are*. It's not that my dad wanted to teach me to be some racist cross-burner or something, he just wanted to teach me that racism cuts BOTH ways--and that walking into the wrong school/neighborhood/bar with white skin can be just as dangerous as the vice versa. And it's a lot easier to learn that lesson the easy way than the hard way, believe me.
I like to think that maybe things have changed since I was a kid. I'm not sure, as I learned to avoid these situations altogether by keeping my dumb ass out of where I wasn't wanted.
Of course, no one is ever going to say any of that publicly. You're more likely in the modern world to encounter the Loch Ness monster than any truly honest dialogue on race.
It happens on both sides. Some black parents tell their kids to segregate themselves and establish identity. One question though: If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I wasn't aware of "The Talk" before reading about it in the summary.
As a (white) father of two young boys, I can't imagine a harder conversation. "Remember all that talk about how you have unlimited potential? Yeah, it's all bullshit. Fight the power (but dont' get killed)."
I can't imagine how it looks to have the hope in their eyes die in front of you.
--
$tar -xvf
Discovering that John Derbyshire is a racist is somewhat akin to discovering that the sun rises in the east. The man's been quite candid about his views for years.
Kudos to National Review for finally discovering this fact and taking the blindingly obvious course of action, though.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Like a lot of these types of things, it's really a CLASS issue, not a race issue. There's plenty of predominantly white if not totally white neighborhoods that other white people don't go into because either the neighborhood is a lot more poor than "you," and you're in danger, or the neighborhood is too rich for you, and you'll get the cops called on you. You don't have to have a different color skin if you drive the wrong kind of car, or aren't dressed appropriately. Humans are tribal, and trival societies aren't known for their inclusive nature.
One warns about the existence of racism in general, not "all white people". The other said to avoid area where black people live or govern, and to avoid conversation with unknown black people. They're not remotely the same thing with the races reversed, despite many many attempts to pretend they are.
One talk says "Be careful, because racist people will treat you poorly, and bad things can happen because of it". The other one says "Be careful, because this other race is much worse than your race, so stay away from members of that race or bad things can happen. (oh but make one black friend so you don't look racist, although there's so few "good" black people that you'll have heavy competition among whites looking for a black friend)". Do you see the difference now? Seriously, that was the most racist fucking thing I've ever read. I feel dirty.
I dunno, could be you're just an asshole.
I'm white, but went to a predominantly black High School in a major metro. I had a few altercations, but I never had my ass kicked.
As one of my (black) friends so eloquently put it to me: "You know when they're talking about the N*****s up at G******d, they're talking 'bout you, too."
--
$tar -xvf
Here's a quote:
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved".
Who said that? Oh yeah...Jesse Jackson. It's not like white people are the only ones who don't want to walk by a 6'3" black teenager in a hoodie at night. Black people don't want to walk by them as well.
Internet Anthropomorphized, Is Mildly Amused
This guy gets fired, Tyler Perry gets a pass for describing how his mother always taught him how to act if he got held up by white cops and then suing for discrimination basically because 2 white cops didn't know he was famous. All in the same week, and with no incredulity about the double standard. I love our media. And by love, i mean despise.
"Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves."
Be that as it may. It would be worthwhile to provide an item-by-item refutation to the article, than simply scream "racism" and leave it at that.
Humans are as tribal as they want to be. In Ireland there has been a HUGE influx of immigrants from places like Eastern Europe and sub Saharan Africa, something like one in six people were born outside the country according to the most recent census. And this is just in the last ten or so years. Backlash? None. Rise of right wing groups? None. Race riots such as have graced the streets of most European countries and the UK? Zero. And if there's one thing guaranteed to bring out any latent xenophobia its a sudden massive influx of foreigners.
Its a very open and inclusive society. So much for the stereotypes.
... (and I suppose everyone has these kinds of stories) but when I was a teenager I used to live in this really dumpy run-down apartment block. We had befriended a black family that lived downstairs and I used to play basketball frequently with the two boys. They were quite a bit younger than me - I was 16-17 at the time and they were 10-12. Anyway, one day we're playing basketball at the elementary school playground across the street and I said, just joking around, "blah blah blah, my brother" and the youngest kid said to me, almost angrily, "you AIN'T my brother." That really threw me. Here was just a little black kid hanging around with this older white boy from the neighborhood and it was all fun and games up to a point but when I referred to him as "my brother" it was like everything hateful he'd been indoctrinated in - and, yes, it was clear he'd been carefully indoctrinated - about whites came up. I learned reverse-racism was alive and while and I must say it shocked me. One can think everything is hunky-dory and that one is being all culturally enlightened by regularly hanging out with black people, but there is a whole separate side to the culture that is never revealed to you and certainly nothing about how they really tend to feel about whites (which, admittedly, is often justified by narrow-minded and racist whites which an average white kid doesn't ever experience). The racial divide still has a very, very long way to go.
I have to second that. There were a lot of problems with gang violence at my highshool. I treated everyone with dignity and respect, and they did the same to me. Only assholes got jumped.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded". NPR is no BBC.
--
$tar -xvf
I was right there with him until I sensed the twist in the logic right at the end of paragraph 5. Then paragraph 6 took the left turn at Albuquerque and it all when horribly wrong culminating in paragraph 15 identifying "desirable" black people as trophies for powerful/rich white people. At that point I was left open mouthed, not so much at what he said as at the fact he seemed to genuinely believe this was not a racist viewpoint because it was backed up by "facts" of some sort and qualified by "personal experience." Glenn Beck, you've met your match!
1. NPR receives very little funding from the government. A high estimate would be about 16% for any individual station. By contrast, Catholic Charities USA claims 67% of its funding is through the government.
2. Juan Williams didn't just say something "NPR did not like," he said something incredibly and unapologetically racist. If he had instead said "the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are helping the world and the US in particular because it's stabilizing oil production for US consumption and the count of US soldiers injured and killed is a totally acceptable cost" he probably wouldn't have been fired despite the fact that NPR doesn't usually have people say stuff like that on the air.
3. Juan Williams wasn't just some one-time-guest on Fox, he was consistently an analyst for Fox for three years prior to joining NPR.
Now, if you were to say his conservative views and appearances on Fox News were a factor in his firing, that may hold some merit, but the implication that NPR disagreeing with him was a raw cause is rather inflammatory and not quite accurate.
There is two levels of warnings that parents can give. One is "Don't go to the poor (=black) neighborhoods alone at night" which might be at times unjust generalization but I wouldn't try to crucify anyone for giving that kind of advice. The other level is what this guy wrote... None of the quotes are taken out of context here:
Those aren't necessarily even the most outrageous instructions but there were just so many to choose from...
I recall the government-funded NPR recently fired a black reporter after he made a guest appearance on FOX and said some things NPR did not like. So to answer your question: Yes.
You're referring to Juan Williams, and the remarks he made on Fox had nothing to do with blacks vs. whites. Williams made remarks to the effect that he feared for his safety when he saw someone who looked (to him) like a Muslim board an airplane, and that anyone who wears "Muslim garb" obviously identifies themselves as a Muslim first and an American second (if they are American at all). He was fired because these espoused beliefs were in conflict with his role as an NPR news analyst, where he was regularly called upon to comment on the Middle East conflict, terrorism, immigration, and other issues that concern Muslims and Muslim Americans.
Breakfast served all day!
What's 'G******d'? You've completely lost me there :)
If the influx has only been happening for the past 10 years, then it's far too early to make those sorts of claims. Unemployment in Ireland has been steadily rising and they're just now starting to implement the types of austerity measures that have tipped Greece into chaos. When economic times get tough and people start losing their jobs, they start to look for people to blame. Foreign immigrants are an easy target.
You may be right that Ireland will be able to escape the rampant racism and ethnic conflicts that usually occur in situations like that when the economy goes south, but I think it's too early to tell how it will pan out.
I recall the government-funded NPR recently fired a black reporter after he made a guest appearance on FOX and said some things NPR did not like. So to answer your question: Yes.
The ideal would be no censorship but of course that doesn't apply to private organizations. They censor things all the time.
Honestly, SHUT UP about "government-funded" already. Combined federal, state and local gov't contributions make up about 5.8% according to their latest figures. The vast majority of their funding comes from individuals, businesses, and universities (amongst others). Your phrasing seems to suggest you think that gov't funding is holding the purse strings... puh-leeze. Would you also say Dunkin' Donuts gov't funded? Or would that be a deliberate misrepresentation of the complete body of facts?
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Concentrated poverty produces high crime rates. News at 11.
Bingo. When talking heads prattle on about "post-racial America," they unwittingly raise the specter of classism in America, and therefore come perilously close to talking about class struggle. Class struggle is far more taboo than racism. Far, far more. We pretend it doesn't exist because if it does then all sorts of left wing contentions are automatically validated. In America, that is implicitly forbidden. That would be tantamount to validating Marxism.
If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
I don't know if they'd get fired, but I'd be interested in reading the article. Between the bailouts and the wars, white men have quite a few hands in my pockets.
This is pretty much Citzenship 101 -- you are free to say whatever the hell crazy bullshit you want. The government will not arrest you or hold you hostage for your views.
I, however, as an individual citizen can hate you for what you say. I can exile you from my home, my office and my life. That is my freedom, I can choose not to associate with you, and I can choose not to allow your crazy into the places I control. I cannot, however, call a cop and have you thrown out of the public park where your ranting is bothering me.
See the difference?
-GiH
The white preachers wouldn't need to jump into the fray because the black volunteer would have been arrested.
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
You know you're attacking the victim, right? And making generalizations about him? And notice how he didn't agree with his father and moved out over it, and yet you're claiming he towed the line? Nice.
Fact: Racism cuts both ways.
You're again missing the problem entirely. Everyone is aware that there a nutjobs out there who will shoot someone if they thing someone is looking at them funny. The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense. You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.
That's the difference, and that's why all your attempts at moral equivocation are absolutely laughable: in the words of Token Black, "You just don't get it."
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Possibly not. In Bristol, UK, there was a City Councillor (herself of African descent, and oddly, spending most of her time in Florida) who accused another councillor of being a "coconut", which is a racist slur meaning someone who is "black/brown on the outside, and white on the inside". This happened in session (on the official public record). After having several firings of caucasians over implicit racist slurs, this one was practically ignored. It took a big backlash in the public to get the politicians to even begin an investigation. The councillor herself stated "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".
In the end, she got a slap on the wrist.
Yes, racism does cut both ways. However, by and large, you don't get to claim racism unless your skin is non-white.
Studies confirm that there is a general racial bias in everyone (succinctly put in Avenue Q's "Everyone's a little bit Racist"). However, being adults, we should pretty much be trying to accept that we're flawed individuals, and get on with making everyone's life a bit better as long as they live up to society's expectations (if you're arrogant, violent and antisocial, don't expect people to like you whatever the colour of your skin).
In the article, there are some actual truths. Basically, in any given social segment of any size, you'll meet all kinds of people. Nice and nasty and everything in between. Treat people as people, because that's who they are.
Having grown up in Detroit, I know very well the perils of being the wrong race in the wrong area. I have been the victim, and know many people who were also victims of simply being white in the wrong neighborhood (car broke down, made a wrong turn down the wrong block, etc...). A real problem is, that you can't talk about that problem (racism against whites) without being declared a racist. Minorities that have been the victims of legal racism seem to want retribution much more than equality?
Now with that said, I read through the article. Some statements match the way things are, street wise, for a guy that grew up in a city that is largely anti-white. Other statements seem to be something from a Klan rally. I can see why he was canned and why there was backlash.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think it's the content of the end of the list, 10f-h, and the specific calling-out of black people in events where any person should be considered a threat (10i).
I strongly agree with this. I felt the exact same way reading the list. It was like "Well, that's reasonable, and that..." followed by "WTF?! You have to be dangerously prejudiced for thinking that."
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I believe the quote from Juan Williams you're looking for is the following:
Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
It may be a bit pedantic, but that statement is definitely not racist. You can argue it's bigoted, but I wouldn't say it's racist at all. Muslim is not a race, and if you take his statement at face value, it's not even Muslims that make him nervous. Only Muslims that choose to wear Muslim garb on a plane. Not to mention that saying he gets worried and nervous doesn't seem to me as if it should be very controversial at all. Even the claim about identifying primarily as Muslims is still just presented as what's going through his mind when he sees them.
I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question. It speaks of an instinctive response that could speak as much of the culture of country and the nature of what our mass media exposes us to that it would have become an instinctive reaction. Nor is such a statement without merit in discussion.
If that sort of reaction is normal, perhaps we need to rethink how the topic is presented in the media. Or maybe that information would actually be appreciated by Muslims who might not even have considered how their choice of clothing could influence people's first impression of them. They would still have the right to choose to wear that garb, but perhaps for some of them, it isn't important and they want to avoid it. Regardless, I think discussion of this level should be encouraged rather than squelched.
Whites are not the minority.
Blacks are a minority and there is a long history or racism against them, especially in the south.
Racism is just as bad -- and inexcusable -- when a minority does it.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".
Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)
Neither receive billions in U.S. Treasury checks. In "total compensation", including tax breaks and indirect funding, NPR receives a greater percentage of its revenue from the Government than the oil industry, but much, much less in total dollars. NPR's total budget last year was about $200M, so it's really an apple-and-oranges comparison, though.
Of course, you're probably thinking NPR includes PBS, PRI, APT, APM, and PRX, or even CPB which it doesn't. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is actually where the Government money goes directly to be redistributed to the other entities, had a budget of around $420M.
So I'm sure they'd very much welcome a Treasury check of billions, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
E pluribus unum
Murdering a murderer isn't the same as murder itself. Stealing from a thief isn't theft. Creating on your cheating wife isn't cheating. A sarcastic response to an intellectually dishonest comment isn't sarcasm.
Black is white, up is down, and east is west, but you and people who agree with you on this still don't know what you're talking about. Either you believe in being tolerant, or you don't. Believing that intolerance is wrong, except when it applies to intolerance is a dangerous kind of doublethink. Someone who is intellectually honest with himself will know that if you believe it's ok to be intolerant of one thing, it may be ok to be intolerant of another.
The reality is you should tolerate some things and not tolerate others. A blanket enthusiasm for tolerance is completely unwarranted and nonsensical. Do you think you should tolerate rape, or murder, or theft, or any number of other things that are almost universally understood as bad? You're simply holding up a principle that makes no sense.
You're using the wrong statistic. You should be giving the odds of someone being arrested given that they're male (1,352 per 100,000) vs. them being arrested given that they're female (126 per 100,000).
Also of note, white male arrest rate (1,775 per 100,000) vs. black male arrest rate (4,347 per 100,000).
Well... looks like the difference is still much greater between men and women, than it is between white and black. As a half-black man, I still wouldn't want to live there, though.
Source
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
I'd venture to guess, that MANY people that are non-muslims feel that same tinge of fear or apprehension when they see someone get on a plane with "muslim garb".
I know I do....just natural these days, especially when this statement was made by Juan not that long after 9/11. I think it was just a few years after 2011 wasn't it?
But on a larger scale...call it racist or what...but there are stereotypes for reasons. They weren't just made out out of the clear blue sky.
Me? Sure, if I'm walking a street alone (especially in New Orleans) and I see some black teen males walking behind me or coming near me...I keep a very wary eye out on them, and often will cross to the other side of the road and keep an eye out for my options to get to safety in case of a mugging.
Why?
Well,young black teens commit an overwhelming amount of muggings down here. They are often caught on the cameras wearing gang-banger clothes. If I see that, I naturally am apprehensive.
If said young black men, were wearing suits, or dressed in a more normal, non-threatening middle class manner, no...I'd not likely be worried for my safety.
Racist? I dunno....I think it is more like knowing the dangers that can occur around you and being aware of the situation.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........