Archive for the ‘Racism?’ Category
Retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the media have been racist in their coverage of the Israeli-Hamas coverage.
During an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Dershowitz said the media have totally ignored the far greater casualties that have occurred in Muslim-on-Muslim violence in the Arab world.
“Seven hundred people were killed in two days last week — there wasn’t a word about it in the media,” Dershowitz told this writer, who has been guest hosting Hugh Hewitt’s radio show all this week. “But a few dozen Palestinians were killed and the body count was prominent.”
“And I think it is racism — implicit racism on the part of the media,” he continued. “And that is, when an Arab and Muslim kills another Arab and Muslim, it is not news. But when an Israeli Jew in self defense kills an Arab Muslim, that becomes front-page news.”
During two days last week, more Syrians were killed than in the entire flare up between Israel and Hamas over the last two weeks. In total, more Arabs have died in the current Syrian civil war than in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict by nearly a factor of two.
Censorship, once a very dirty word in liberal circles, has undergone a makeover of sorts and, in its new guise of social responsibility, it is making an unfortunate comeback.
Let’s be clear: Chan is not saying “‘The Mikado’ offends me so I won’t go see it.” She is saying, “‘The Mikado’ is offensive so nobody should see it.” Is the offense taken by Chan regarding “The Mikado” really more genuine or reasonable than that of some Muslims regarding the work of Salman Rushdie? Why? What makes the offense she takes more objectively actual? Why should her ideas about what is and isn’t offensive be foisted upon everyone? In fact, there is no objective standard anywhere that can transform her opinion on this matter into a fact.
Ultimately, what makes the proposal of simply not performing or reading old works of racist art so insidious is that no generation is the sole caretaker of the canon. The influential works of the past helped to create our culture, whether we like it or not. Erasing them from our history books, or stages, or syllabi, cannot reverse their impact. The original impetus for the liberal program of historical and cultural revision was to highlight the complexity of our past—to expose the fact that some founding fathers held slaves, or that westward expansion came with a horrific toll on native populations, or that the heroic Franklin Delano Roosevelt interred Japanese citizens. It is precisely this critical lens with which we now teach Western Culture that prepares us to see works like “The Mikado,” or “The Merchant of Venice,” and place them in context. Studying Western culture is like putting a puzzle together and, frankly, we cannot do it without all the pieces.
We need to stop pretending that Western culture is the villain in human history. This is the story being told in every graduate Master of Fine Arts program in America; it is a story widely accepted by the artists and administrators running the cultural ground game. “The Mikado” is not a threat to anything. In fact, it has served as an inspiration to several generations of musical theater artists. Do we share Gilbert and Sullivan’s opinions and commentary on race? Of course we don’t. Can we appreciate their contribution to art without condoning racist attitudes? Yes, we can. Liberals who find themselves compelled by the siren call of censorship should wake up. And conservatives who think these subtle intrusions are a mere distraction should wake up, too. This is exactly where culture is won or lost.
The largest newspaper in Nevada is taking the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task, saying that the Democrat’s recent comments about Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas highlight a pattern of race card rhetoric.
“Harry Reid is the da Vinci of distraction,” reads the editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which was posted online Friday.
“The moment any scandal, policy failure or political defeat crashes down on him — and there have been plenty the past few years — the Senate majority leader unleashes outrageous rhetoric,” the editorial continues, adding that Reid “has become especially fond of slinging race cards just to crank up the outrage.”
The trigger for the Review-Journal was a comment Reid made earlier this week after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.
Forget the IRS Scandal, the Benghazi Scandal, and the VA Scandal–
The Holder Justice Department is investigating the Obama outhouse float at the Norfolk, Nebraska 4th of July Parade.
The float depicted an outhouse with the sign, “Obama Presidential Library.”
Angry Democrats in Nebraska said the Obama Outhouse float in the 4th of July parade may have been racist.
So now Eric Holder is looking into it.
Good job there, Lou…
Eric Holder has turned America’s Department of Justice into “a politicized hotbed of left-wing legal activism.”
People would be shocked at just how much of an ideologue he is. I think they would [also] be surprised at just how far back this goes, and in particular, the way he has completely politicized the department throughout all the different divisions, and how that now drives the decision-making, which is a very bad thing for the Justice Department, given its ability to abuse the law.
You say in your book that Holder has lied under oath numerous times. Can you tell us specifically what you’re referring to?
We give some very specific examples[in the book]. One example is, on Operation Fast and Furious, he misinformed Congress as to when he found out about it and knew about it. In fact, he changed his story on that with two different committees, telling a House committee one thing, and telling a Senate committee something else. He also clearly lied to Congress when he said there were no political appointees involved in the decision to dismiss the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. We now know that is not true.
How did Holder get so powerful and how is he able to get away with this?
For two reasons: One, he has the complete support of the president. The president likes what he’s doing, has no objections to anything he is doing, and in fact, it’s a team effort between the two of them to ignore the laws they don’t like, to change laws they don’t like, and to carry out what the president considers to be his priorities in the public policy arena, even when it’s against the law.
Also, he’s able to get away with this because it’s very clear that Democrats in the Senate and Democrats in the House also completely support everything he’s doing. They have absolutely no objections to his breaking the law, and so he’s got their full support, and he’s got the president’s full support.
HBCU’s have always enrolled students of all races, but they are increasingly becoming less black. At some, like Bluefield, blacks now comprise less than half of the student body. At Lincoln University in Missouri, African-Americans account for 40 percent of enrollment while at Alabama’s Gadsden State Community College, 71 percent of the students are white and just 21 percent are black. The enrollment at St. Philip’s College in Texas is half Hispanic and 13 percent black, according to 2011 enrollment data from the U.S. Department of Education. Nationwide, an average of one in four HBCU students is a different race than the one the school was intended to serve, according to research conducted at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.
Many HBCUs were started under segregation to provide African-Americans with higher education opportunities. After integration, they became seen as places for black students to overcome economic and educational inequities. Indeed, HBCUs have been instrumental in developing the black middle class, graduating substantial numbers of teachers, engineers and other professionals. But as schools that had been predominantly white opened their doors to other races, black students became scarcer at historically black colleges. To survive, the universities have had to market themselves to all students.
Minnesota’s governor recently approved a bill to rename a highly invasive species called ”Asian carp” because the name was deemed offensive to the Asian community. The fish, which have been threatening the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, will now be known as “invasive carp.”
The species’ original name was due to the fact that they were from Asia, having been imported into the U.S. in the 1970s. Because the fish became associated with the harm it was causing the region’s freshwater lakes, however, some found the name to be hurtful.
When the state senate approved the bill to rename the fish back in April, CBS reported that the measure “response to concern by some people that the current term casts people from Asian cultures in a negative light.”
Democratic senator John Hoffman was responsible for sponsoring the bill. “Caucasians brought them to America,” he told the Star Tribune. ”Should we call them ‘Caucasian carp?’ They have names. Let’s call them what they are.”
Ah, how the world throws up their skirts for the tenderhearted Libs…
Don’t hold back, Yasmin, tell us how your little racist-bigot heart feels…
Controversial columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is accused of making a series of racist remarks against white people, even going as far as to say she wants them to be a “lost species”. According to Rod Liddle, when asked in a TV interview what she thought of white people, she responded: “I don’t like them. I want them to be a lost species in a hundred years.”
Writing for the Sun this weekend, Liddle said: “Can you imagine what would happen if you or I said that about black men, or women? The police would get involved, pronto.”
“Oh, and also that I’m not mad on every aspect of Islam, y’know? Not hugely convinced by the general Islamic view of women and homosexuals and Jewish people and so on. So, I’m a bigot, then.”
Liddle also mentions another example of Alihai-Brown’s hatred for the white working class. In a newspaper article in 2009, Alibhai-Brown used the words “stupid”, “vicious” and “scum” to describe white working-class people.
As Liddle points out: “It was white working-class people who fought against fascism and racism in the Second World War, and white working-class people who battled fascism and racism on the streets.”
Rod Liddle concludes: “Truth is, she shouldn’t be punched in the throat. Instead she should be exposed as a hysterical racist and bigot and consigned to oblivion.”
What I am even more strongly opposed to, however, is the ludicrous method by which the Federal Government is attempting to impose orthodoxy on the team by unjustifiably yanking their Trademark.
Liberals and thoughtless conservatives often miss this critical point when discussing matters of public policy. Sometimes – often – the process is more important than the outcome in these fights. Invariably, when purely political decisions are made by policymakers who are sufficiently isolated from the democratic process (most especially the courts), nightmares will inevitably follow. This is a point many conservative supporters of gay marriage have missed – it is one thing to be in favor of gay marriage; being in favor of gay marriage imposed at the fiat of the Supreme Court means that you are either not a conservative or that you are ignorant of legal history and the evil that is wrought when courts set about making laws that are better left to legislatures.
If you want a policy changed, let the free market sort it out. If it bothers you that a certain business engages in what you consider to be discriminatory practices against gays, then don’t patronize that business. The next least bad result is to attempt to convince a legislature to agree with you.
Comes now the latest attempt to piggyback on this fascism disguised not-very-cleverly as anti-racism, a lawsuit threatened against the Cleveland Indians brought by a group of grievance-mongers who have decided that they want a very large slice of the pie.
The Cleveland Indians baseball team is in the process of doing, in what I think is a thoughtful and savvy way, what many of these groups are clamoring for. They are phasing out the most arguably racially insensitive portion of their team identity (Chief Wahoo) voluntarily and under the threat of virtually no pressure – not even measurable fan pressure. And they are doing it in a way that allows their fan base to adjust to the new reality so as not to create public backlash against people who demand that the names be changed.
This, however, is not enough for this group of yahoos. They apparently intend to ask a baseball team to give them redress for 100 yeas worth of unspecified racism damages, asking for nine billion (with a “b”) in damages from a single team in a league of 30 teams that last year set a record for revenue of $8 billion for all 30 teams combined. Native Americans have a rough lot of it in life, but $9 billion is a lot of racism to ask a sports team to be responsible for.
A white professor is suing Alabama State University (ASU) over claims the historically black university discriminated against him and his partner based on their race and sexual orientation.
According to the lawsuit filed in federal court on June 11, Dr. John Garland is suing the ASU and eight current and former employees for racially discriminating against applicants for university positions and subsequently targeting him when he retaliated against those practices.
“[Garland’s supervisor] expressed his opinion, stated or implied, that Dr. Garland did not belong at the University and was not ‘suited to [the University’s] type of students’ because Dr. Garland is not African-American,” the lawsuit states.
Garland, who is a member of the Choctaw Nation but is identified as white by colleagues, was hired by the university in August 2008 as an adjunct professor. In January 2009, Garland was rehired as an assistant professor for the Master of Rehabilitation Counseling Program in the Department of Rehabilitation Studies in the College of Health Sciences (COHS).
His white same-sex partner, Dr. Steven Chesbro, was hired at the university around that time. They legally married in Maryland in February 2013.