MtPolitics found this. It’s disturbing - especially since these are the enlightened scholars that the Left would love to put in charge of our public and social policy. One of their main points seems to be that only people afflicted with some sort of disease called Whiteness can be racist - which makes me wonder. Exactly how much whiteness does one have to possess before they cross that threshold. Say someone’s 1/16 white - are they safe? What about 1/8? What’s the threshold here? And if we’re really interested in stamping out racism, wouldn’t it make sense to register anyone over that threshold? We can put them in sensitivity camps starting with Fort Missoula (it’s worked before!) - although my guess is for the sake of eliminating racism we’ll just have to kill them.
Anyway, Craig also found this interesting combo:
*38. Racism — A system of privilege based on race**.
**34. Race — An ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.***
***You can’t make this [sic] up.
So racism is thus defined as
“A system of privilege based on an ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.”
Our scholarly friends at the very same tax-funded institution that gave us Ward Churchill have effectively defined as racism:
- a progressive tax system
- welfare
- anti-smoking laws
- medicare
- unemployment benefits
- discounted tickets to Disneyland for residents of California
- any VIP access to any event or activity
- pro-bono legal advice
- government classified information
- …
This list is a bit like the energizer bunny - it could keep going and going and going…
With racism this prevalent, maybe it’s a good thing that Global Warming is going to do all the work of wiping it out via Mass Human Extinction!
Posted in leftist thought, moonbats | | Write a Letter to the Editor
Whiteness isn’t the only problem. I have a friend who’s afflicted with brownness and all he can think about is going to Washington State for the apple harvest. I’ve also heard, out Billings way, there are many people afflicted with redness. All they do every day is go to court, but I don’t think any of them are lawyers. Weird how that works.
You are good writer and have many good insights, but try to take this in - it’s hard to get across something to someone who thinks that they’ve already got it figured out. For example, I was a 22-year subscriber to National Review, voted for Reagan twice, and thought that, as a conservative, I had insights into how things really are that other people lacked. Turned out not to be so.
Here’s an interesting aside - pointed out to me long ago by someone long forgotten - on the left, people imagine they have power, but don’t. On the right, people imagine they are weak, but aren’t.
You address the subject of racism with some contempt under the surface, is if it is not a real phenomenon. I won’t trouble you with analysis of that, since what it took to free me of conservative attitudes won’t likely happen again - I can’t give you insight you lack if you’ve already got it figured out.
I’m only saying that racism is a real phenomenon, and that it affects ordinary people very much. Extraordinary people overcome all hurdles, ordinary people must live with it. It’s there. Put your mind to it, look for it, you will find it.
I think you, and Shane (on Craig’s site) have read far too much into the commentary on one institutions definition of racism. Perhaps this is just a commentary on that microcosm, and not racism in general?
Mark, of course I acknowledge that racism exists. The contempt you notice is directed toward the extremist perspective of racism demonstrated at the University of Colorado - where they claim to be able to identify whether a person is racist by the color of their skin (i.e. a minority can never be racist, while a white person can’t really avoid it).
My post is a little tongue-in-cheek, meant to point out the ludicrous standards that the far-far-left try to impose on society in the name of progress. These clowns think they are enlightened and have a duty to educate the ignorant masses, but the fundamental underpinnings of their argument are insoluble.
They’ve constructed their platform on a foundation of sand.
No, by Craig’s on words, the point of his post was that this was a ‘bullshit premise’
“Race — An ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.“
(his words and emphasis)
The simple fact is that scientists do not agree with Craig’s take on this:
“The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,” according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. “It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race’ has no validity . . . in the human species.”
Lets not let the facts get in the way here people. Oh, and good work pulling in the racists here. Browness and Redness? Good job.
Shane, Craig is quoting the University of Colorado. Those are not his words! His quoting them is specifically to point out how ridiculous they are.
It sounds like everyone’s agreeing here with how ridiculous the University of Colorado is. I’m reading Anonymous in Bozeman as ironic - if you’re offended by “Browness” and “Redness” shouldn’t you also be offended by “Whiteness” - a central premise of the campaign that we’re criticizing?
No - there’s an undertone here. You on the right speak in code to hide your racism - it hasn’t been fashionable to speak openly since National Review’ Buckley did it in the 1950’s. This whole little tempest in a teapot is you guys winking and nodding - you know what it’s about. It’s not about U of C.
So, Mark, just so I can understand you clearly. You are accusing me and “the right” of racism - universally? Do I have that right?
[…] that racism is about white privalege and therefore a racial minority cannot be racist. * Mark T postulates that all right-thinking people are […]
I think Shane Mason might be afflicted with pinkness. I know Mark Trotsky is.
P.U. Did somebody cut a quote from the American Anthropological Association? That’s where Ward Churchill takes his dumps, isn’t it?
Reject the existence of what is real and tangible (race) and accept the existence of what is abstract and intangible (global warming)—that’s what I love about politically correct types.
[…] really missed the point, guys Posted in General, Montana by robfunk on April 21st, 2008 Wiley Cody, over at the enlightened Big Sky Cairn, really missed the point on this one and so did Craig (MT […]
Wiley, those ARE Craig’s words and enphasis that I quoted there. Before you think me stupid, go read the comments of that post. OK? Let’s try and keep up here. K?
Wiley - I accuse the right, in general, as being a safe harbor for racists.
