Even as many on the left rush to defend the NCAA decision to ban the scourge of “hostile and abusive” Native-American nicknames and mascots (against the will of the overwhelming majority of Native Americans, mind—but no matter, it makes a few elitist whites feel better about themselves, and it solidifies, in perpetuity, professional grievance-mongers as the official spokesmen of certain identity groups, a welcomed simplification for both the NCAA and the press), these same self-righteous champions of identity politics—so often the most vocal critics of American hegemony and the loudest defenders of the rights of the Other to self-define (provided that self-definition creates a static, “marginalized” voting bloc that consistently leans Democratic) —see no irony in attacking those persons of color who wander off the progressivist plantation and voice opinions that dare to challenge the leftist orthodoxy.
Case in point: the recent “Conservative Blogger Taxonomy” posted by Mithras (and heartily endorsed by a series of high profile leftist bloggers) that had this to say about Michelle Malkin:
Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she’d arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn’t have tits, she’d be stuck writing at Townhall.com.
What’s notable about this bit of viciousness is twofold—first, how rather unremarkable the sentiments are, and second, the number of failures in the progressive social agenda it inadvertantly betrays.
Critics of race-based affirmative action have for a long time suggested that preference programs based on color reinforce racialist stereotypes, perpetuate a culture of victimization, strengthen racial balkinization, and taint all achievers of color with the implicit suggestion that their success is owed in large part to programs that eschew merit for cosmetic diversity. Progressives respond that critics of affirmative action are likely closet racists who use code words like “fair” and “merit” to hide their hatred of minorities behind a construct that inherently preferences whites. Unstated in all this—but increasingly obvious in posts like Mithras’—is the sense of ownership over minorities progressives who support affirmative action assert whenever they criticize non-whites who break with a leftist orthodoxy they implicitly credit for that individual’s success.
But race isn’t Malkin’s only advantage, as Mithras makes clear; her sex, too, has gotten her ahead– the very fact of her womanhood, he implies, standing in for a deficit of talent. Of course, one would presume that those on the left who so adamantly support the gender feminist agenda of aggressive numbers-based sex hires would laud Malkin’s achievements—she is, after all, an example of a successful woman who made the most of the opportunities given her—but then, in their minds, Michelle is a race and sex traitor, having exploited the largesse of their system to better herself, only to return the favor with crass ingratitude, refusing to champion the ideology of perpetual grievance politics that keeps minorities as indentured servants to the so-called progressivist cause.
Writes the Volokh Conspiracy’s David Bernstein:
Is it suddenly (or maybe not so suddenly, if I recall the attacks on figures ranging from Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice) okay to denigrate someone based on their race and sex if they happen to be conservative?
The answer, clearly, is yes. Because for progressives, Malkin’s popularity is not a testament to the depth of her advocacy and/or the rhetorical force of her arguments—hell, it’s not even a product of her willingness (in their minds, and appealing to the soft totalitarianism of identity politics) to speak against what they presume to be her “best interests”; instead, Malkin’s popularity is a direct affront to their patronage—and nothing is more unforgivable to the progressive than looking a gift horse in the mouth. After all, that’s just so…uppity.
I only wish Malkin was a Native American, so that the irony might penetrate even the thick skulls of those self-styled champions of the oppressed…
*****
others commenting: Sister Toldjah, Sue Bob’s Diary, Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil, The Moderate Voice, Wizbang, and Rick Moran.
Also, make sure you read through the comments at Volokh’s place—and check the trackbacks at Mithras’ site—to see the number of people who unabashedly continue the attacks on Malkin.
****
update: At least a couple of left-leaning sites are coming to Malkin’s defense. With the usual qualifications (h/t Robert Hayes).
****
update 2: added this post to Basil’s Brunch roundup, where it didn’t quite make the original cut.
****
update 3: More, from Half the Sins of Mankind.
****
update 4: TalkLeft’s Jeralyn Merritt reacts; ditto Bill INDC and Dean Esmay
****
update 5: Mithras says he’s sorry….that conservatives are so humorless and stupid:
If I could have it all to do over again, I would want to graft a sense of humor onto all of you before you were subjected to my insensitive, caustic, mildly amusing wit. Unfortunately, medical science has not yet progressed to the point that liberals can donate a sense of humor to you directly. For you to develop a sense of humor organically, you would first have to have a certain amount of intelligence, ability to keep things in perspective and emotional health – but then, you wouldn’t be conservatives anymore, would you?
If I were Mithras, I’d be less concerned with the kind of advanced medical procedure he’s describing and concentrate more on the kind of local procedure that will help him pull his head out of his ass.
How are we supposed to be a Voice For The Voiceless when the ungrateful shits refuse to shut up?
I should’ve had you edit my post, Paul. Because that sums it up rather nicely.
This is the same logic used against homosexuals who refuse to stay on the reservation.
What I find hilarious is how well it backfires. I remember when Page Six outed a gay adult star as an employee working at that California enclave where conservatives play in the woods (name escapes me). They quoted the guy’s manager who basically said, “Big deal. He’s a good worker.”
I get the impression a lot of what passes for thought on the far left is at the third grade level.
Well, when you’re basing your thought on a “reality-based” universe, any evidence that your reality leaves something to be desired is pretty much anathema. “Facts? We doan’ need no esteeenkin’ facts!”
An honest lefty, my friend Amp over at Alas.
a leftist orthodoxy they implicitly credit for that individual’s success.
Or in this case, explicitly:
“Far-right affirmative action hire”
Can you really blame them for hating her so viciously, though? After all the Left’s done for her, the ungrateful little yellow bitch stabs them in the back!
And don’t even get them started on that traitor Clarence Thomas…
Hi Jeff….
I’m not sure how this fits into this whole situation, but what the hell. Here you go.
http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite
Jeff –
Does Oliver Willis’s wardrobe change from a Redskins shirt to a shirt and tie represent:
Hmmm. I wonder if Malkin wants to be Native American? If yes, she could pull a Churchill and presto/chango she is.
Perhaps all the readers of Protein Wisdom can band together and declare ourselves a Tribe. Maybe we can build a casino, or condemn Souter’s home for a reservation. Maybe an armadillo for a mascot? Looks like we’ll have to be careful about picking a mascot.
Dang. Identity politics gets complicated when the players can self identify. I think I’ll wait and see which protected group has the best protections before I stake out my claim.
Your trackback is gone screwy, so I’m posting an elaboration of why I think the perspectives of conservative minorities are valuable in the comments instead. From your post, I couldn’t quite tell what you thought of my original musing on the subject–so here’s round two, new and improved.
Thanks. I’ve commented on your site, David, but I’ll repeat the comment here:
You write:
…Assuming, of course, minorities speak with some unified voice representative of their particular identity group—or that “racial issues” is an area of study we wish to perpetuate, given the dubious hard science behind “race” designations, as they are routinely understood.
And support for diversity in academia is fine so long as it what it is after is not some cosmetic accomplishment fulfilled once a school’s yearbook looks like a crayon box. Diversity of ideas is what is important, and from my perspective, so-called standpoint theory is only valuable when the “standpoint” in question isn’t simply assumed based on pigmentation.
In fact, I’ll go so far as to disagree even with your most seemingly innocuous assertion—that “it is facile to say that we can gather a comprehensive perspective on racial issues only from talking to white folk.” Theoretically, at least, there is no reason to assume that a roomful of white race scholars couldn’t represent every conceivable contemprary academic viewpoint on racial issues—or that a group of mixed-race scholars couldn’t all agree on a single racial perspective.
****
Having said all that, I recognize that what we’re arguing over here is certainly legitimate ground for debate; and though I disagree with your position—for instance, I don’t think that a voice of color, by virtue of it’s “color”, necessarily provides “an opinion which breaks new ground, gives us a more nuanced perspective on a existing issue, or otherwise causes the listener to think and analyze in a new or novel way,” and so is de facto meritorious—that argument nevertheless differs in tone and intent from what Mithras wrote originally.
What can possibly be more “racist” than insisting a minority that doesn’t live up to the stereotype is whoring themselves out to “the man”?
This is why I only briefly flirted with (oxymoron alert) “progressive thought”. Such hypocrites. I work in academia and as a libertarian I was considered a political jerk. When they found out I am 5-10% more Cherokee than Ward Churchill I became a race traitor. Is that a promotion?
Unstated in all thisâ€â€but increasingly obvious in posts like Mithras’â€â€is the sense of ownership over minorities progressives who support affirmative action assert whenever they criticize non-whites who break with a leftist orthodoxy they implicitly credit for that individual’s success.
Progressive Plantation… has a ring to it…
While they could represent every academic viewpoint on the issues, they presumably couldn’t represent the viewpoint of someone who actually had been discriminated against for being non-white. Despite all my sympathy to the situation, I wouldn’t claim to be able to represent the viewpoint of someone who had been kicked in the balls, because I’m just not equipped for the experience and only can empathize and imagine my way into it using other people’s narratives. I would be annoyed if an all-male conference claimed to be able to represent women’s viewpoints on pregnancy. Etc. There are limitations on what we know because of the limitations on what we have and ever can experience for ourselves.
Sure. But the point is, the color does not necessitate the worldview (in this case, experiencing racism), just as having a uterus doesn’t mean a woman who has never been pregnant would have a better perspective on pregnancy than a male OBGYN.
Diversity based solely on cosmetic considerations is a sham, unless what we are after is perpetuating a cosmetic—and group-driven—notion of diversity.
I responded to your comments on my own blog–but frankly, PG summed it up nicely. I tend to be (just a bit) longwinded, so if you don’t feel like wading through it all, PG’s comment gets the core.
Jeff,
Who says solely? Liberals advocate color-CONSCIOUSNESS, not color-EXCLUSIVITY–the latter is just a caricature. Everybody brings a valuable perspective to the table. I’m sure a male Ob-Gyn would provide a valuable perspective on pregancy–I daresay one that could not be duplicated by a pregnant woman (who has no medical background, anyway). But the converse is as true–the pregnant woman still brings a perspective the Ob-Gyn doesn’t have.
It’s simple: there’s Dicks, Pussies and Assholes…
Again, sure. But if, as we’re now arguing, each individual offers a unique individual perspective, then Color-CONSCIOUSNESS, in that it still privileges an arbitrary, cosmetic trait, is nothing we should be giving extra weight to—unless it is our goal to continue reinforcing race as a special-needs category.
It depends, really, on what you’re after.
But, even if viewpoints can’t be represented by someone that hasn’t been discriminated against, they can still be represented in a MUCH better way than through “diversity.” Through texts.
This is how every other “viewpoint of someone who actually has experienced something that the students have not†is taught. For example, my university teaches a class called the history of baseball, and yet doesn’t have any affirmative action mechanism to make sure that actual baseball players are recruited into the class. Why should racial categories be any different? In fact, one would think that the negative connotations usually associated with racial discrimination would make us hesitate to discrimate to ensure racial proportionality (is that a word?) in classes.
For example, why not have students read Frederick Douglass’s autobiography and other, more modern, texts about discrimination? This is superior to teaching through “diversity†for a few reasons:
1)Texts are more authoritative. They are superior to anecdotes on racial discrimination from 20-year olds. Texts are also (provided you pick the right ones) much more eloquent and can speak to the universal truths involved.
2)Texts won’t force people of color to act as spokespeople for their race.
3)And, uh, some other reasons but I don’t have the time to type. Basically all the negative effects that diversity has on individual autonomy, and the underlying cultural relativism can be obviated by teaching from texts instead of relying on students.
Also, Jeff have you read Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “The Ethics of Identity”? If not, you should pick it up. Excellent, excellent, excellent.
I think there are SOME differences between Race and Baseball, allowing for a sensible allocation of resources that focuses on race but not baseball. I do think that in a world of unlimited resources, it would be best if the school got the Baseball Player (/textbook author) to teach the course, and got the perspective of actual baseball players. Of course, we don’t have unlimited resources, so we substitute texts. It’s not a perfect substitute, but given competing values I think it’s acceptable for a university to spend its money on other things.
Race, on the other hand is a HUGE deal, (with all due respect to our national pastime) far more important than Baseball. And of course, there is far more controversy associated with race, deeper moral implications, etc etc, all which would seem to suggest the university should splurge and get the 1st hand perspective.
Texts have advantages of course, but also plenty of shortcomings. They can be monolithic (even anthologies have selection biases), they rapidly become out of date, they tend to draw from academics (in other words, persons whose experience with some of the hardships they talk about is distant, if present at all), you can’t “dialogue” with a text, the supposed authoritativeness can often intimidate students with contrasting experiences from speaking up, etc.. I’m not saying abandon texts, they’re obviously quite useful for the reasons you suggest. But I think that a more holistic approach is superior than all or nothing, either with regard to only having happy-feely talk sessions or going straight-by-the-book.
If the Native American logo’s of all sports are removed the Native American will be a forgotten race in 10 years. That truly will be a shame, but if that’s what the racist that are pushing this want, so be it. Part Native American and they can’t change that….
But the fact that there are deeper moral implications with race would seems to indicate that we should hesitate before using it as a basis of discrimination to ensure a certain class makeup.
And baseball was just a ready example (although, even here, baseball is EXTREMELY important to those that specialize in it–should universities choose which of their subject areas are “more important” or should they leave evaluating subject areas up to the students?)
What if an entomology class wants to ensure it has a distribution of students that have dealt with lots of bugs? Should it purposefully admit students from certain areas?
Or an architecture class, should it inquire as to what type of house a person has lived in, or in what area the student is from to ensure that students from a “diverse” range of architectural locales can be represented?
Or in a nuclear engineering class, should it admit students from areas that have nuclear power plants in a certain proportion so they can share their experiences with it?
Maybe these examples still aren’t the best, but I hope you can see what I’m getting at. Once we accept that merit can be discarded in favor of allowing a certain population to be represented, why should we restrict these representations to race and gender? Surely other classes would benefit from consciously bringing in certain viewpoints, no?
But the mention of these classes raises another point: why should racial diversity even matter in science or math classes? A racial perspective is not needed when the truth is discernible through an objective process, like a math equation.
I dunno. It just seems like texts would be far superior to putting students in a position where they have to act as racial spokesperson, with all of the attendant negative effects. Diversity perpetuates racist attitudes. I wrote a couple of columns in my university’s paper against diversity and I was casually dismissed as another “white male, complaining about diversity.” Explicitly, in those words. My argument wasn’t addressed on its merits. Rather, it was assigned a race and gender and so categorized.
Texts are a MUCH better way to teach, than perpetuating an invidious ideology of diversity.
Oh, david, re-reading your post, I want to make clear that I was talking about students that had played baseball in their past (the more, the better), just as african american students are expected to have experienced racism (er… the more, the better?), not bringing in professional athletes (which, yeah, would unreasonably pricey.)
Mithras’ post is mild compared to some of the e-mail she has posted in the past. The race/gender traitor thing has always bothered me as just stereotyping in another way.
I think we can all agree though that the history of race has deeper moral tropes attached to it than the history of baseball or bugs. Nobody has been enslaved because they liked the wrong species of ant. Deep as the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry was, there has yet to be a genocide sparked by Baseball. Race has a totally different context backgrounding it than these other subjects. It’s not about prioritizing importance, per se, it’s about the relative impacts of rooting for the wrong baseball team versus a history of murder, rape, mayham, lynching, economic deprivation, slander, and subjugation.
Which reveals a second distinction–unlike, say, Nuclear Engineering, racial issues are uniquely experience driven. That is, race is discussed based on the narratives of those who’ve experienced it. As you say, this is far different than in a Math class. There, the need for diversity is weaker (basically, the “role model” and “anti-stereotyping” arguments, which I also find persuasive but certainly less so than on issues specifically linked to race).
I’ll agree that racial dialectics are poisoned in America–indeed, that’s why I’m so quick to defend conservative minorities blasted as Uncle Toms. But bad compared to when? The slave eras? The “color-blind” period of the 70s and 80s, before the rise of the PC crowd in the early 90s? Racism has proven itself to be a phenomonally adaptable foe–its false nostalgia to pine for a good old day where it wasn’t happening.
I don’t see the relevance of the “deep moral tropes” attached to race, except as a reason for deciding we shouldn’t use it as a legitimate factor to discern a person’s viewpoint. If race is possessed of such a deep, abiding moral import, then I don’t believe it should be used as a basis for discrimination when teaching according to texts would be adequate. On this point I guess we differ.
Also, I think you’re misinterpreting my examples, so let me strip them down to the underlying principels: Once you say that bringing in people to represent certain viewpoints is something that is more important than merit, and something that needs to be done in addition to relevant texts, then I don’t see how you can limit this to just race and gender.
Every subject is important to those learning it, and we pay to get the best education in every subject, not just the best education in race matters or on moral matters. So if, as you say, we can get a better education in classes by bringing in racial viewpoints, I don’t see why ensuring other viewpoints in other classes wouldn’t be equally, if not more, important.
But I might be misunderstanding your position.
“let me strip them down to the underlying principels”
That’s the kicker, ain’t it? Once you get down to the abstract level, of COURSE it all looks the same. The whole point of my advocacy (indeed, the whole point of departure for post-modernists from modernists) is that I think the context matters. Just as two deaths via stab wounds are treated differently when one is in a dark alley in the process of committing a robbery, and the other is self-defense from same, the different contexts that Race operates from compared to other subjects mandates a separate treatment. This isn’t a rejection of merit, it’s a redefinition of what constitutes merit (see the examples in my post–Lieutenants at the prisoner boot camp, creating an effective interracial dialogue organization for just two examples).
No. The suggestion that it requires separate treatment is an advocacy position based on a belief that giving Race special accomodation is the proper way to address racial issues (specifically, perceived racial inequity) in this country.
My position is that what is required to disentangle ourselves from racialism is exactly the opposite maneuver—to decide, politically, that privileging race and “redefining merit” to mean, simply, “a breadth of voices meritorious for their difference from other voices,” is wrongheaded, anti-individualistic, and reinforcing of racial divisions by necessarily legitimizing race as a critical distinguishing factor in determining the value of experience.
This isn’t a rejection of merit, it’s a redefinition of what constitutes merit…
That’s the “tell” for those of you who play poker.
Good discussion.
By trying to get to the heart of the matter, I’m not denying that context will matter. Of course, if you make a movie about Mohammed Ali he should probably be black (although whether he should be played by Will Smith is an entirely different matter).
But I don’t see why, in most other circumstances, the context is really that important. I’m looking at it specifically in the university context, within classes. Here, I’ve asserted my belief that whatever needs to be taught about race (and I think you overestimate of teaching in this regard) can be adequately done with texts, in order to obviate the need for racial discrimination, ie aff axn.
I benefit most when the people in my classes are the smartest and most qualified people, ie when they are picked solely on conditions of merit. It is also my experience that the smartest and most qualified people often have the most complex and interesting “viewpoints” to share.
Also, I think you might be defending a view of “diversity” different than as it is applied on campuses today (if you want to see the view I attack, check out Dinesh D’Souza’s “Illiberal Education,” Peter Wood’s “diversity: the invention of a concept” or Richard Bernsteins “A Dictatorship of Virtue”).
Either way, we probably still just fundamentally disagree at the heart of it, and will have to leave it at that. Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion though.
The individual is the smallest possible minority on the planet. Every one of us has a completely different life experience and outlook.
That and a dollar will get you a Junior Bacon Cheeseburger.
F#@K YEAH, Mojo!
Hey, I can see the tags in the comment boxes now! Did you change anything for us Mac/Safari guys?
Jesus … you people …. FEEL THE LOVE!
Oh, and prepare for assimilation into the Canadian culture. Y’all just don’t know what yer missin’.
Oh … that war of 1812 … GOTCHA!
Hmmmm.
@ Paul
“How are we supposed to be a Voice For The Voiceless when the ungrateful shits refuse to shut up?”
ROFLAMO! Ok. I bow to the master.
Funny how Vikings, Raiders, Berzerkers, Norsemen and Axeman are OK even though they ‘exploit’ my Norwegian heritage…
Funny how Celtics and Fighting Irish are OK even though they ‘exploit’ my Irish heritage…
Funny how Scots and Highlanders are OK even though they ‘exploit’ my Scottish heritage…
I’m just expected to be ashamed of my ‘Indian’ great-grandfather and my ‘Indian’ great-great-grandmother.
When in fact I’m rather proud of the Redskin-Chief-Brave-Warrior-Indians.
I’m thinking about suing Notre Dame. Racist bastards with their Nast-y leprechaun.
On the other hand when it comes to the Irish I have to defer to Ned Flanders: “We don’t use the ‘I’ word in the house.”
I’d like to have a discussion about nasty animal stereotypes in athletics…
You can strip away all the nuance and subtlety – for me it comes down to: Someone trashes Mrs. Malkin better be willing to stay awake 24 hours a day.
That sense of thwarted ownership probably applies to more than just race. I think a lot of the outrage over Bush v. Gore may owe to a feeling on the part of the left that the judiciary is theirs: a mechanism for getting them the outcomes they want when the electoral process lets them down. When it fails to deliver you’d get a sense of betrayal on top of the normal disappointment.
P.S. Any male OB-GYN who wants to be taken seriously should have the operation and become a woman, or he’s nothing but a Chickendoc. Because of the HYPOCRISY!
It’s particularly obnoxious when a tribe goes out of its way to condone the use of its name, as the Seminoles have, enters into a business arrangement with a university, and then has its revenue threatened by a PC organization trying to do what’s “best” for it. That really offends my capitalist sensibilities.
Defending Michelle Malkin – a woman who not-so-subtly suggested that the Muslims better watch it, or we’ll “start a discussion” about putting them in camps – by accusing her critics of being the real racists.
Yeah, I’d say that pretty much sums up the modern Republican party.
P.S.:
blah blah blah so that the irony might penetrate even the thick skulls of yada yada yada
ELITIST! SNOB! INTELLECTUALIST!
PG wrote (8/7, 6:42 pm) that whites “presumably couldn’t represent the viewpoint of someone who actually had been discriminated against for being non-white”. That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Ward Churchill is a white man who has quite likely been discriminated against on occasion for being (apparently) an Indian. Many Italians (officially white) can be mistaken for Hispanics (officially non-white). I’m sure examples could be multiplied.
It’s not quite the same thing, but I’ve been threatened on two different occasions by carloads of frat boys shouting “Faggot”, though I’m not in fact gay. (Once in Berkeley, of all places, the other time in Charlottesville.) So anyone who says a straight man couldn’t possibly imagine what it’s like to be gay-bashed is also full of it.
What about the Appalachian State University Mountaineers and other mascots of the like?
OK. I LIVE on a reservation – have for 24 of my 29 years. At least here in MN, here with the Ojibwe people, those “offensive” college nicknames are, well, non-offensive.
I play in a softball league in which about half the teams are Native. Want to know whose baseball caps they’re wearing at the games? Cleveland Indians. Atlanta Braves. Washington Redskins. Not only are they not offended, they actually kinda (gasp!) like it! The fellow who has the best man in my wedding (who is, of course, Ojibwe) is a RABID Indians fan, and loves sporting a Chief Wahoo hat or shirt at ball games.
Red Lake, more recently (in)famous for the school massacre, was our chief rival in high school. Red Lake is a “closed” rez – only Natives live there. Their mascot? The WARRIOR. Which was, y’know, their choice.
But evidently, many on the furrrrrrr left think them to be ignorant jackpine savages who have nary a clue about what ought and ought not offend them. Screw the preferences of the ACTUAL Natives – the overeducated liberal elite knows better than they what’s offensive.
Oy, it makes my head spin.
“Screw the preferences of the ACTUAL Natives – the overeducated liberal elite knows better than they what’s offensive.”
Actually, it’s not just you guys – the elite knows better than all of us unedamacated idjits, particularly in the red states. See “Vision of the Annointed,” Thomas Sowell.
Hey, it could be worse – you could be a traditional Christian, who the elite view as some sort of evolutionary link between man and apes, which should be isolated and studied.
If non-white opponents of AA are “race traitors”, ostensibly because they are against something that will benefit their race (say admissions to elite colleges), then aren’t white proponents of AA also “race traitors”? Inasmuch as they are reducing the racial spoils? Are some race traitors worse than others?
Also, it has been shown that when preferential admissions are removed Asian American enrollment increases dramatically. That means that Asian American opponents of AA are actually in alignment with their racial benefits and aren’t therefor “race traitors”.
I think I’m confused.
As I posited above, what about mascots like the Mountaineers? Or the Tarheels? Using the same logic here, these mascots would be supporting the stereotype that white folks living in the mountains are axe weilding, overall wearing, long bearded maniacs and that people from North Carolina are just a bunch of barefooted tobacco farmers; so shouldn’t the NCAA take them away? I’d like to see them try. This whole thing is completely retarded,, and they fact that they only go after some of the schools and not all is proof positive that what they’re doing here is idiotic. I just hit ebay and bought myself an FSU t-shirt, assuming they won’tbe for sale anymore. Not a big fan of the school, but my grandfather was a Seminole. Go ‘Noles!
CJ,
This wasn’t even a defense of Malkin, it was a critique of the nature of the attacks. Get it now?
Paying attention to the “progressive” opinions of drooling idiots is usually a complete waste of time, boys and girls.
Just a hint.
This wasn’t even a defense of Malkin, it was a critique of the nature of the attacks.
Oh, how very nuanced of you. If it suits you, you can read my comment as “[Critiquing the nature of the attacks against Michelle Malkin]…”
The point still stands. The notion that the criticisms of her by progressives are racially-motivated is one of the more preposterous bits of disingenuousness I’ve seen in a while. People don’t like her because she’s a snarling anti-liberal wingnut who thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to “start a discussion” (her justification for writing the book) about using fucking concentration camps in the WOT.
You want moral clarity? Here’s some moral clarity for you: anyone who blithely suggests that it might not be a bad idea to think about “interning” people in the name of security, knowing what we know about 20th-century history, deserves whatever criticism he or she gets. If, because of the emotional nature of the subject, some of that person’s critics go overboard in their characterizations, that is not indicative of either the merits of the criticism nor the ideology of the critics as a whole. Those who cross the line, as Mithras (who, by the way, is an absolutely impossible asshole with few friends even on the left) did, should be criticized for their individual behavior, and not used to smear all “progressives”.
That is my objection to this post. I actually agree with the criticism of the silly campaign against Indian team nicknames… it’s PC taken to a ridiculous extreme, and deserves across-the-board criticism. But I’m sick and tired of seeing the substantive criticisms of Malkin deflected by hyperfocusing on the emotional outbursts of a few jerks on the left. She wants concentration camps, people. Why is that not the issue under discussion?
Stop pretending Mithras’ post represents a fringe element on the left. All you have to do is look at the Technorati link, or scroll the comments at any one of the dozens of sites that linked to the taxonomy.
Michelle is routinely attacked racially by lefty bloggers. Save your faux outrage for another day, CJ. You don’t like me using a racial attack on Malkin to point out the racialist thinking of the left? Work on getting public representatives of the left—and those who read them and comment on their cites regularly—from making racialist comments.
If you want to criticize my analysis, go for it. But this morally exasperated pose ain’t cutting it.
Oh, I’m actually insufficiently nuanced as a general rule. But I’m working on it.
Your wikipedia link was ill-chosen, as you introduced the red herring. The subject of the day is whether the nature of the criticism was valid, not whether Malkin’s arguments are valid.
Perhaps if you’re sick of the “deflection,” you should spend your energy fighting against the emotive oubtbursts (which seem to be the rule rather than the exception) against Malkin, so the substantive criticism would get more notice. I’m pretty damn far from a fan of Malkin and disagree with her more often than I agree with her, but it’s hard to find a post or comment thread criticizing her without the “Asian whore” factor, which makes me lose interest before I get to thinking about the “substantive” part. I generally don’t agree with Al Sharpton, but a post calling him a “n***er” would be a sufficient topic for discussion and condemnation, without a response of “but his beliefs are _________!”
Hmm. Very interesting discussions here – glad I clicked this link back when [a href=”http://www.pharyngula.org” target=”_blank”]Pharyngula[/a] did the Bush/ID-speech round-up.
I wish I was smarter, better informed, and more eloquent, but anyway:
Claiming (or even actually having) liberal or leftish views is no guarantee of any sort of enlightenment regarding race or gender matters. Bloggers on the left have stood up against attacks against Malkin and others based on race, gender, etc. Your missing how Mithras’ post is of course meant humorously and ironically (all in fun! – sound familar?), but even so, that’s pushing it.
I laud Makin’s schievement, proving that Asian-American women can write inaccurate, intolerant, poorly constructed screeds – hackery should be an equal-opportunity field!
But you do get near an analysis of the response, even if you veer away at the last moment. After all, it’s kinda cruddy for people to benefit from various programs, practices, etc., and then turn around and try to pull that ladder up behind them, no? Same goes for aging white guys who rail against the kind of government involvement that got them (or their daddies) a GI Bill education and a postwar house in the ‘burbs. Isn’t that hypocritical of those lefties who are actually privilaged to call for outright class-traitorism (tax hikes for the wealthy!) and an end to policies that unfairly benefit white guys? Maybe. I guess saying that I don’t need another pile of money is equivalent to attacking attempts to ensure basic fairness (however imperfect they might be, in an imperfect world.
Re: texts vs. people, and that whole thing?
Ok, imagine a women’s study class. You probably imagined a room full of women. Now, imagine some guys in there too. They might well have insights that would add to the conversation, right? Now imagine one that was all guys. Now imagine we lived in a society that was far more sex-segregated than currently – where boys left their mothers at a young, single-digit age, and went off to all-male boarding schools, coming into contact with the cafeteria ladies, maybe a low percentage of token girls following deseg lawsuits, and media depictions of what women were like. Now imagine that in fact we practiced gender-based residential segregation, where boy babies went to live with the men in all or largely all male enclaves, and vice versa.
But they’ll have texts, right?
Now this is to some degree a cartoonish and exagerrated image for some places re: race (though not that much in some other cases). But I hope the basic point comes through. Now, texts are extremely important, and there is the problem of the “you’re a x, explain your group!” thingy. But that misses the point a little – for classes where you want not just memorization and regurgitation of texts, but critical discussion.
You can have a discussion with a text, but it’s hard. Classroom give and take – and walking from class give-and-take, and late-night dormroom give-and-take – it’s a very different kind of relationship, both in terms of authority and human interactivity. When everyone has similar experiences, there are certain conversations that will happen, certain challenges and contrasts and attempts at resolution -ideally – things so important to education – that won’t happen.
And undeniably, experience is shaped by various complex interacting factors, from temperment to parenting styles to geographical location to gender, race and class positions (with are dependent in part on specific contingencies) . . . and I’m losing the thread of what I’m saying, so let me hit that little submit button now . . .
But remember – if somebody named Goldstein tells a Jewish joke, it might* be funny. If someone named Smith does, maybe not so much. Isn’t that weird?
*insofar as you can rely on “Jewish” names, which isn’t always all that much . . .
The turning word for this turns out to be “point.” Good that there’s one involved in this comment somewhere . . .
your = you’re. arggh!
oh, and I meant to add – the limited amount of meaningful diversity on college campuses, and the lack of pressure to actually engage with racist/sexist presumptions, rather than just spit up pc-ness – that helps explain the supposed “progressives” who turn up in comments sections ranting about “Asian whores.”
Or maybe it’s just that they’re assholes.
Q: What does Michelle Malkin share with the Imperial Japanese government?
A: Support for Nazis.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/08/minutemen-home-for-extremists_08.html
(And no, one may not invoke Godwin’s law on this one, since Michelle’s fellow travelers proudly bear the Swastika).
We wish you were too.
For those of you who don’t want to waste your time reading through Geek, Esq’s link, the long and the short of it is that in a pic taken of some in the Minutemen project, one of the participants looks to be a skinhead toting a Nazi flag.
Malkin supports the efforts of the Minutemen project, which of course means she is responsible for what’s in the heart of every one of those who likewise support the effort.
Which, were we to extrapolate that argument out on the left, we’d be able to write a provocative teaser like Geek, Esq’s, that suggests, say, Geek supports Al Qaeda.
But why bother? We’re all grown-ups here, right?
(Well, except me, of course).
Jeff:
Why is everyone in that picture giving the old HH salute?
The Minutemen, in the presence of both Neo-Nazis and Mexicans, decided to befriend the Nazis and berate the Mexicans.
But don’t call them racist!
Howsabout I just call the racists racist.
RACISTS!
There. And I mean that, too.
But to try to extrapolate that out to suggest that all those involved in the Minutemen project—or who support its aims—are Nazi sympathizers or closet racists, is simply absurd. And you know it.
Geek, the only person who’s a bigger jackass than you is the aforementioned David Neiwert. I heard funny noises outside last night while in bed; if I were Neiwert I would have been on the phone to the Southern Poverty Law Center jabbering about how neo-Nazis were parading around my backyard.
In my 20 years of reading political argumentation on the Internet I have not seen _one_ Republican, conservative, or libertarian who used the swastika as a symbol. One does run across Nazis on occasion, but they spend their efforts defending Hitler and denigrating the Holocaust; they do not identify themselves as conservatives.
against the will of the overwhelming majority of Native Americans
While the survey referred to in that article exists ([a href=”http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf” target=”_blank”]here[/a]), the actual article you linked to is a preposterous pile of gibberish that only an idiot or a small child would beleive was legitimate news. It has extensive quotes from a person named “Kathy Wall Jamestownson”, clearly a misreading of the well-known scholar “Kathleen Hall Jamieson”. The quotes include such doozies as “They love to be called Redskins”, which is of course not what the survey about the football team was even asking about. It describes Charleton Heston as a Native American—by that token, 1/3 of all Americans would be Native Americans.
(To learn more about the clear flaws in the survey’s methodology, and to read about a dozen other surveys that dispute it, [a href=”http://people.ku.edu/~tyeeme/mascots_files/annenberg.html” target=”_blank”]click here[/a].)
But good lord, that article looks like it was written by an inmate at a looney bin. I Googled the author, here’s his biography:
Todd S. Appleman is a real Cherokee Indian from Kentucky. His great-great grandmother, a Cherokee princess named Pocahontas, refused to go on the Trail of Tears. His columns about the American Indian culture appear every Friday in the Daily Wannabeillini.
I love it! Pocahontas (who the author assumes we’ve never heard of) wasn’t a Cherokee. And if she refused to go on the Trail of Tears she would have been 130+ years old when she did so. Boy, those Redskins sure live long lives, huh? Must be all the football they play.
You are a humongous fool for posting that link. You will apparently eat up any old garbage that you can, swallow it whole, and then, like a mother bird regurgitating worms, feed the same garbage back to the kids.
Everyone reading this blog should discount everything this guy says, since he obviously can’t distinguish from the fraudulent ramblings of an idiot from real legitimate news.
Are you suggesting I’m an idiot or small child, askrom? I just posted the link because it referenced the poll data, and I wanted something shorter than the Annenberg poll itself, linked to in this post. Who reported the poll data didn’t concern me so much as the summarizing.
Annenberg is a respected polling agency. And the methodology of both it and the SI poll are perfectly fine.
You base that on a single link use for purposes different than you describe (namely, that I was looking for a different link to the Annenberg survey and grabbed that one)? I question both your methodology and your intelligence.
What a fucking tool.
I’m merely applying the same techniques that Ms. Malkin applies to disfavored ethnic minorities. She wrote a book endorsing guilt-by-association. Goose, gander, sauce.
Tu, quo(, )que.
This dedication goes out to Floyd McWilliams, hailing from the great state of Denial.
http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2696650p-9133919c.html
I guess that link would have been more devastating if it had contained the word “Nazi” or “swastika” rather than “white supremacist.”
Spamword “does,” as in “When someone tells Geek he does not know his ass from a hole in the ground, does he link the Wikipedia article for ‘donkey’?”
Geek, Esq. —You see, we here in the NEOCON branch of the PARTY routinely call out assholes like Justin Raimondo or David Duke or Pat Buchanan, et al. Paleocons, as I’ve pointed out on several occasions on this site, are closer in policy prescriptions to today’s lefties, though they come at if from a different angle. But, yknow—goose, gander, sauce.
Speaking of which, is it fair to say that Michelle Malkin’s study of Japnanese Internment, whether you agree with it or not (my wife’s family was interned and she studied the camps, so I’m eager to see what she says), addresses the wisdom of a wartime policy under specific circumstances—and so is clearly different from the corrolation you are trying to draw?
Of course it does. But hey, why think through these things honestly when you can just waste my time and play silly gotcha games based on analogies you know to be dubious.
Interesting point.
1. I would first note that advocating absurdly stupid and broad-based guilt-by-assocation is much more dangerous and harmful when done against the backdrop of fear and hysteria or national emergency.
People make unfair broad-based smears all the time. People on the right unfairly smear those on the left as a bunch of Ward Churchills. People on the left smear the right as a bunch of raving fundie wingnuts.
However, you’re not going to be deprived of anything because of such smears coming from the left, and I’m not going to suffer because of smears coming from the right.
However, advocating racist concentration camps at a time when fear and jitters run rampant is not only offensive, it’s dangerous. The internment of Japanese citizens was a massive crime. Repeating such an effort would be an even greater crime. But folks like Malkin seek to enable just that.
2. Malkin and the others on the right have made it a past time to cherry-pick particularly egregious examples of moonbattery from anti-war protests and fringe websites like Democratic Underground. They can hardly complain when the same is done to their cohorts.
Floyd, that’s the point. You conservatives lined up to support the Minutemen without wondering what kind of an American would wait along the borders with guns ready to shoot illegal immigrants. Now we know what kind. Nazis.
It’s not your fault they’re Nazis. In fact, I’m sure that if you or Malkin or Schwarzenneggar or any major conservative who has shown support for this group knew in advance that they were Nazis, that they would have not backed them. But now you know that they are Nazis. The minutemen are Nazis. So now you have to back off from your support for them. If you back off, you will show that you don’t support Nazis. If you continue to back them you will show that you do support Nazis.
The fact that you backed a group in the first place that looked like Nazis, talked like Nazis, and smelled like Nazis, can be forgiven if you recant your support. That’s all you have to do.
Chris Rock said it as only he can:
First of all, not all conservatives “lined up to support the Minutemen” (including the President, first and foremost).
Secondly, calling those who volunteered for the Minuteman project—the vast majority of them unarmed and more concerned about the inherent safety concerns that come with having wide open borders than with miscegenation—“Nazis,” is a sure sign that you are an intellectually unserious ass.
Geek, Esq —
Well, if Chris Rock said it…
Jeff:
Does any group better represent the Pat Buchanan wing of American politics better than the Minutemen?
Maybe you haven’t been reading my recent series of posts on the problems I have with “group identity.” Are there some who represent that wing? Absolutely. Are there others who are simply concerned for the safety concerns that come with unguarded borders? Yes. Are there still others who live in states whose economies are severely strained by the proliferation of illegal immigration? You betcha. Can these groups overlap? Certainly. Must they? No. Am I willing to make the gross generalization that the vast majority of those who volunteer for the Minutemen are Nazi-sympathizers, or even Buchanan-lite?
Why on earth would I do that?
Hope that answers your question.
Because immigrant-bashing and hysteria over immigration has been traditionally the province of xenophobes, racists, and demagogues?
As opposed to those who wish to buy themselves some cheap grace by calling all those concerned about border security “xenophobes, racists, and demagogues,” you mean…?
Jeff…you just did it yourself! (I also read all 3 of your posts on this subject- but skipped most of the comments.) In fact, not just the quote above, but throughout your post by prostelizing about progressives, leftists, and so on! Look, alot of this IS hyper-crap. There is little doubt, however, that programs to elevate people of color out of a situation of vast isolation and pure racism was a absolute necessity in the past. Unfortunately racism still exists. I see it fairly often in the comments posted here and throughout web-world. Continuing the programs relative to percentage hires of ethnicities or in university affirmative action is also reverse discrimination, so is testing below standards for certain disadvantaged groups. Better public school programs and systems could take care of equalizing the educational playing field. It is a conundrum. Taking things too far is also ridiculous. It is unfortunate that there have to be any laws relative to discrimination.
As a woman who has worked through the public and private sector, there have been great changes in the work place for women and people of color. Women and men before me created an atmosphere where women could work professionally, and not just in professions such as some one’s girl friday! People of non-white ethnicities now work in all fields and disciplines, within all levels of the work environment. I have a problem with any female or male that creates atmosphere’s that make it necessary to have any rules, regulations and laws about adult behavior, such as sexual or ethnic discrimination! It infuriates me. Because, those people/companies make it hard for everyone else in the long term. So, ultimately, the majority are penalized for the few jerks and bigots and immature asses in the world.
When you haven’t been discrimiinated against, personally, or witnessed it first hand, it is hard to understand. It is a easy joke. I see it often, even today. It just isn’t as blatant and I’m in a position to stop it in its tracks, at least within my profession. I have personally been discriminated against such as not getting the projects I deserved to handle, treated like a mindless idiot, not paid attention to when I made suggestion to solve problems and a man said the same thing 2 minutes later and ofcourse, then, it was an excellent idea, turned down for a promotion or raise because I was a single woman and the male worker needed the money more than me…….HA!…well, it was a long time ago and I won’t belabor the point…but, I did use my best arguments to change my boss’s mind about that promotion and raise and won. I didn’t need the law to make a point. But, I have used discrimination law & sexual harrassment to help other people who have been dreadfully and trult abused through no fault of their own in the workplace.
I agree that we do go too far on the wrong isolated issues and not far enough on the important vast issues. Basically, if we don’t take care of the forest, the individual tree species won;t matter too much in the long term. I’m not sure what the answer is, except that, you are using “idenity politics” to go after a group of people because of the NCAA ruling: leftist, elitists, uppity, progressives, etc. We all do it to some degree, some alot more than others.
Well…interestingly enough, getting around your descriptive verbiage, I agree with your points <SHOCK!>, except this: I don’t like Malkin. She IS a bigot. I don’t care if she is a green skinned martian with no discernible sexual organs, and metamorphizes herself. The fact is Malkin is a bigot. There is little doubt – just read her book as I have done. Mithras shouldn’t have gone after her tits however….that was tactless and unecessary and surely did nothing to make his point, as well as being mean spirited and non-satiric. You should note that a whole lot of people on the left were not pleased with Mithras over that.
NCAA Redskins/Braves rant: It’s a pointless exercise and one that was debated by the government in the 70’s and 80’s. Naming an organization, of any kind after a group is not a problem as long as it is done with respect. Unfortunately, the US has not had any respect for the native American Indian, particularly when the name Redskins was selected in the past (most of the worst names are long gone). Today, all the name is symbolic of is a bad history of genocide and as far as I am concerned, the name should stay as is in order to act as a reminder of our own perfidy in the destruction of a race of people for our own benefit. The names Braves and Seminoles has no derogatory connotations, so I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that – if they do, its just semantics.
I appreciate the response, but I disagree that I’m proselytizing against progressives and leftists. I’m simple critiquing the thinking that allows the progressive left (and if you’d like me to break that broad category down, let me say the progressive left’s academic agenda) to claim the high ground for racial tolerance by dint of supporting programs that foster the very kind racial tension they claim they’re trying to fight.
Amazing how hard some people will work to rationalize their despicable conduct. So much effort just to be able to avoid feeling guilty over their disgusting name calling of Michelle Malkin.
But they can relax, their work was for naught. We know them for the trash they are.
For the record, it does undercut one’s authority to criticize someone like Malkin by referencing her anatomy. Stupidity and misogyny do not a compelling argument make.
And, Jeff, I’m not saying that every single person concerned about immigration is a racist or bigot or xenophobe.
However, those who express concerns about immigration really ought to be careful into whose bed they climb. The anti-immigration movement has always been a flame that attracts vile racists.
Malkin is one such bigot. There’s hardly an ethnic group she doesn’t want to target and villify. Japanese? Lock ‘em up! Ay-rabs and Muslims? Lock ‘em up! Messicans? They’re INVADING us.
Malkin is also cozy with the White Supremacists at Vdare.com, as well as Tom “Nuke Mecca” Tancredo.
Vdare.com. Malkin. Tancredo. The Aryans logical members of that coalition of the willing.
By the way, did you miss Malkin pimping the work of notorious racist, Steve Sailer?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000583.htm
Who is Steve Sailer?
Ms. Malkins’ good buddy Mr. Sailer has written such fine articles as this:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm
Vdare is a site so far right, so foul and racist, that linking to it is verboten at The Free Republic.
But that doesn’t stop your buddy Malkin from pimping their racist propaganda.
Y’all can take out the trash, or you can have her stink up your house.
Any site that embraces Malkin can’t be said to reject racism. If you don’t want to be lumped in with the racists, don’t support them.
I actually debated Steve Sailer in the blogosphere’s infancy. Here and here. I can’t speak to his being racist; I can only point to our disagreements.
As to the assertion that “any site that embraces Malkin can’t be said to reject racism”—that’s absurd. Because I embrace her, and I reject racism.
First of all, not all conservatives “lined up to support the Minutemen†(including the President, first and foremost).
I apologize, I should have been clear and said “some conservatives”. I am perfectly aware that a great many conservatives disagree with the Minutemen concept very deeply. There are many Republicans who are smart enough to smell a fascist gang of thugs and principled enough to stand far, far away from them – including, as you point out, President Bush. I feel that a lot of the President’s supporters may write off his stated disapproval of the Minutemen as political pandering to the left, but I actually think he took a higher principled stance against vigilante-ism, recognizing that allowing private citizens to handle border security reflected poorly on our nation’s own armed forces. Moreover, I also think that he could tell that these people were obvious haters of hispanics—I know that the President sincerely values his latino constituency, and would not want to spit in their faces by supporting the Minutemen.
Secondly, calling those who volunteered for the Minuteman projectâ€â€the vast majority of them unarmed and more concerned about the inherent safety concerns that come with having wide open borders than with miscegenationâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nazis,†is a sure sign that you are an intellectually unserious ass.
You seem to sympathise with their “protect the borders” spin on their agenda, but that defies all logic:
1) What are they protecting us against, besides an influx of Mexican people? Terrorists?
2) Haven’t there been several prominent Islamic terrorist suspect arrests along the Canadian border? Are the Minutemen up there?
3) Do you really think they will be able to do a good job of it? Better than the current government forces are? Or do you think that, overall, they’ll make guarding our border more difficult because of their interference with the organized efforts of real professionals.
4) Do you think that the Minutemen movement was one that showed respect for the government and the armed forces of America, or is it more aligned with the anti-American “militia” movements of Timothy McVeigh infamy?
To me, and to the President, the Minutemen’s aims are far more about insurrection than protection.
Now, on to the Nazi thing. Nazis aren’t exclusively concerned with race, of course. Modern Nazis are basically thugs who seek opportunities to wreak mayhem, and who seek to gain attention for their racist, anti-American agenda. This Minutemen project seems tailor-made for their movement. It’s a veritable Nazi magnet, for chrissakes! Maybe some of the Minutemen were angered by the presence of Nazis in their midst, but I haven’t heard from them and I really doubt they’re likely to speak up about it anyway (for reasons I’ll go into below). Anyway, screw them, they knew what they were doing. You get together with a large group of people who fancy themselves a private army, who think that they, not the REAL armed forces of the USA, will be able to secure our borders—well, you’re pretty much asking to meet a lot of Nazis.
If you want to protect yourself against accusations of supporting Nazis, don’t support groups that obviously welcome Nazis. It’s pretty simple.
<i>I can’t speak to [Steve Sailer’s] being racist
He thinks that some races are dumber than others. What is your definition of racist if not that?
I think you’re playing lip service to racists because you’re afraid to be a conservative with very few allies. You don’t want to alienate the Malkin fans so you are blind to her racism. You don’t want to alienate the Minutemen’s supporters so you won’t condemn them.
Its common for partisans to be sensitive about their extreme wings, but ultimately you have to stand up for what’s right and stand against what’s wrong. Otherwise your whole movement gravitates towards the extremists.
Cut Malkin’s rope, cut the Minutemen’s rope, before they sink your whole movement and the good that is within it.
As to the assertion that “any site that embraces Malkin can’t be said to reject racismâ€Ââ€â€that’s absurd. Because I embrace her, and I reject racism.
That’s your logic? Maybe you embraced her before you had been presented with evidence of her racism, and now that you know about her racism you’re afraid to reject her (for fear of contradicting yourself? for fear of facing the fact that you didn’t pick up on her racism at first? for fear of alienating her supporters?).
Your logic is, by the way, a classic example of ”Begging the Question”, a logical fallacy in which “The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises”. It’s a psychological defense mechanism to allow us to fight against internal contradictions. Your statement is a classic example of such a predicament.
Either your embrace of Malkin is in error, or your claim to reject racism is. Write off the racists – forcefully and by name – and you’ll free yourself from the fallacy.
askrom,
There’s some irony in you accusing Jeff of a “Begging the Question” fallacy when the foundation for your allegation is a false dilemma.
Sadly, no.
Anyone who can’t speak to Steve Sailer and Vdare.com’s racism is literally incapable of seeing racism or absolutely unwilling to see it.
And you can’t reject racism if you don’t know or don’t care what racism is.
There’s a term on the right for people like Sailer, Vdare.com, etc:
Evilcons. That’s right: Evilcons.
The bulk of Michelle Malkin’s career has been spent supporting the Evilcon cause. Vdare, Sailer, endorsement of overt governmental racism through dishonest and shoddy ‘scholarship,’ anti-immigrant hysteria.
Michelle Malkin is an Evilcon.
Hubris, care to elaborate? Do you mean to say that there is a grey area between the kind of racism Jeff rejects and the kind of racism Malkin espouses? Or are you saying that I am claiming the existence of racism where there is none whatsoever?
My argument appears (to you) to run afoul of the false dilemma, but that’s because my intent is to argue the existence of an option that many conservatives don’t even realize the existence of. I think that many conservatives choose to willingly overlook racism in order to avoid the dilemma wholly. You call it a “false” dilemma perhaps because you don’t see any racism in Malkin’s positions. Perhaps, in the case of the Minutemen, you also don’t see any problem with aligning oneself with racists knowing full well that they are very likely to be racists.
You call it false, I call it real. It’s an issue of substance, in fact it’s the key issue of the debate here. It’s not a logical fallacy.
Askrom —
Pleas, stop. You’re making a fool of yourself. Anyone who knows me or reads this site on a regular basis knows that your assertion that I’m afraid to be a conservative without allies is the absolute height of idiocy. Do a search on “Schiavo,” or “Kid Rock,” or “Laura Bush,” etc., and you’ll see me quite vociferously at odds with social cons—including, often and forcefully, Michelle Malkin.
You accuse me of begging the question when I was using logic ironically to point up the silliness of this who persist in begging the question when they accuse Malkin of “racism” (not the first time I’ve done it in this thread, mind you)—meanwhile, you then NON-IRONICALLY proceed from the premise that the majority of those interested in border security aren’t really interested in border security—they jus’ hates Messicans—to argue that the majority of those who volunteer for the Minuteman project, well, jus’ hate Messicans.
And yes, Hubris is correct: you conclude with an false dilemma, an either/or statement (“Either your embrace of Malkin is in error, or your claim to reject racism is”) that is itself predicated on a conclusion drawn from your having begged the question to begin with.
As to the motivations you ascribe to the Minutemen…you ignore their proximity to the illegal immigration problem on the southern border, their desire to make a political point that border patrol is undermanned (Minutemen as protest, something you’d think the left would be sympathetic to), etc.
Geek, Esq —
I liked to the extent of my conversations with Steve Sailer. I can’t speak to his being a racist because I can’t see into his soul, and I can only go on the premises he offered in our particular debate. I saw nothing racist in what he said in our exchange; if you find it, let me know, but it seems to me Sailer was working through the genetic implications of current race theory, which in the US is based on the idea of social construction. I critique that here.
If you are trying to intimate that after all the work I’ve done thinking through the problems with race and racialism, I’m somehow racist, well, I pity you. Such accusations don’t much bother me, to be honest with you, because I know my own heart.
I can’t speak to yours, but I can say that folks like you and Askrom who see nothing but the basest, racist motives in any situation that can be construed as racialist, is more a testament to your own indoctrination into a “tolerance” culture that seeks, in effect, to set limits on what we are allowed to debate, and so asserts control over the rules of discourse.
If you don’t think illegal immigration is a problem—an economic drain on many localities, a security risk, etc., make the case. But relying on intellectually lazy arguments that raise the specter of base motivations in order to preempt substantive debate is all too typical nowadays. And I won’t give my time to it.
People are free to follow my links to see my arguments in this regard. You and Askrom have offered nothing but innuendo based on stereotyping.
Jeff:
No one’s asking you to look into Sailer’s soul. Just read his work.
Like this charming work:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/limbaugh.htm
Do you think that people who claim that blacks are genetically prone to trash talking and have genetically-inferior intellects to white people are racists?
That’s what Steve Sailer believes. That’s Michelle Malkin’s buddy.
Sorry, but it defies credibility that you can’t see whether Sailer is a racist.
Vdare IS a white supremacist hate site. Malkin has been a contributor there for years, has endorsed overtly racist policies, and is a xenophobic denouncer of immigration. Malkin also pimps Sailer’s vile racist work.
I don’t know whether you’re a racist or not.
But, I can say that your claim that you’ve rejected the Evilcon monsters in the Republican closet is simply hogwash. Aside from their positions on Israel, Malkin and Buchanan are interchangeable on an ideological and moral level. Vdare.com is a MUCH worse outfit than anything with which Buchanan has been associated.
The folks at Redstate.org have firmly repudiated the racist elements of the right. Why can’t you?
As I say, I’ve linked to my only dealings with Sailer. I haven’t read his other work, so I’m not prepared to make a preemptive judgment. I realize reserving judgment “defies credibility” to people who are so willing and eager to call everyone who disagrees with them “racist,” but hey, what can I say? I’m not a sheep.
I disagreed with Sailer on the facts and on disputed the arguments he presented me with. That’s what honest people do.
As to how Malkin feels about him, perhaps you should be querying her as opposed to simply concluding that everyone has a racist motive.
And yes, I’ve rejected most of the policies of Paleocons (and many social cons), which—as I point out elsewhere—are far too leftist for my tastes.
And honestly? I know I’m not a racist, so what you think is irrelevant to me.
Jeff, first, I never said the word “majorityâ€Â. (you made a “straw manâ€Â!) Perhaps I am stereotyping when I argue that a group of people that hangs out with guns in a place where illegal immigrants are likely to pass, with the stated intention of practicing vigilante justice on said illegal immigrants, does seem likely to be the kind of place where Nazis would gravitate.
And I didn’t say that you are a racist, although I can fully understand why you would assume I was trying to suggest so. I am merely suggesting that you should think a little more about distancing yourself from racists instead of getting reflexively defensive about them. My “false dilemma†had one option that assumed that you were not a racist, and I still think that’s probably the winning bet. That’s all.
Jeff: It’s unfortunate that Geek has found his way over to your site. He makes a habit of wearing out the patience of anyone–host or commenters–who will engage in, what are often, thread hijacks that go on forever, if you contenance him. Any conservative is automaticly stupid, uninformed, wrong, and sleeping with David Duke, or some facsimile of such racist scoundrels, while DU and the commenters at Kos are simply a non-representative fringe crowd, rather than the core of Howard Dean’s constituency, and therefore the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Anyone with that much baggage must have trouble sleeping at night, but he’s able to comment all day long, so keep your valium at the ready, if you take up his bait.
Cheers.
Thanks, Fratboy —
I’ve said about all I’m going to say on the subject of “racism.”
Askrom —
Seriously, man, it’s like I’m arguing with a child: just because you didn’t “say” the word “majority” does not mean it is not implicit in everything you’ve argued. You’ve suggested over and over again that the organization itself is racist at its core. Certainly you wouldn’t be making that claim based on its fringe elements, would you? Or is it suddenly okay for me to tar the majority of the Democratic Party with the words of Cynthia McKinney?
Please. Do more than learn the names of fallacies. Doing so will help you avoid arguing from false premises and begging questions left and right. First, the majority of Minutemen are unarmed, from what I understand. Second, you can only charge them with vigilantism if their actions match your definition of such. Which, if you believe this bit in Wikipedia, doesn’t appear to be the case:
Incidentally, I’m not reflexively defensive of anything. I can think for myself and have made a career doing so. As I noted above, I’ve had major (and very public) disagreements with Malkin and other social cons on number of occasions. Ditto the paleocons. So forgive me if I decline your advice to “think a little more” about something I’ve already thought quite a bit about.
I don’t think Malkin is a racist. I think she believes that we shouldn’t be afraid to ask tough and unpopular questions regarding our internal security. You can disagree with her arguments, but to ascribe to her base motives is simply demeaning, unless you have some proof that doesn’t simply beg the question.
No, I believe the correct animal metaphor for willful blindness is an ostritch.
But, since you can’t be bothered to click on a link:
This is a brave intellectual, not a racist. But wait, he’s just getting warmed up:
Malkin herself has thrown in with a despicable White Supremacist immigrant-bashing hate site.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/brown.htm
http://malkin-watch.blogspot.com/2005/03/who-keeps-company-with-wolves-will.html
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=285
The allegation, sir, is not that all Republicans are racist. The allegation is that far too many Republicans refuse to view racism as a character flaw. This refusal can either be overt–“what’s a little racism between Republicans”–or the willfully blind variety–“just because they advocate racism and write for virulently racist websites and think that blacks are genetically dumber than whites doesn’t mean they’re a racist!”
Michelle Malkin is one, solitary racist scumbag. The real question is not why is she racist and so vile–who cares? The real question is why so many people who claim that the Republican’s don’t have a racism problem embrace such an ogre.
Lie down with racist dogs, and you get their fleas.
You’ve suggested over and over again that the organization itself is racist at its core. Certainly you wouldn’t be making that claim based on its fringe elements, would you?
I’m basing my arguments on common sense. They style themselves like an army. They have guns (why have guns at all?). They’re vociferously anti-immigrant. That’s a Nazi magnet in the same way that a rally for the rights of Palestinians is likely to be a Hezbollah magnet. I don’t care if 95% of them are unarmed and if they primarily do spotting, reporting, or whatever. They are deliberately giving the impression that they are an independent army, doing what the federal government will not do. Hell, if the organizers didn’t make those disclaimers, there would be pretty good grounds for the FBI to round them all up on charges of insurrection.
The President had the good sense to write them off. Why do you think he did that?
Geek —
If I start asking you to pontificate on things you haven’t read and then, when you say you haven’t read them so you aren’t prepared to make a judgment, I call you an ostrich, willfully blind to, say, the semiotic theories of Umberto Eco, or the implications of intrusive viral gene therapy—feel free to laugh at me, too.
In the meantime, you can continue to scream about everyone else’s racism and I’ll continue to ignore you and to beat back thoughts that what’s really happening here is an instance of textbook projection.
Askrom —
Oh. I see. Common sense. Gotcha. Tarring 95% of group based on what you believe to be the motives of 5% passes for common sense in your world, does it?
Oh. And being anti-illegal immigrant is not the same as being anti-immigrant. Unless of course it’s your goal to paint anyone who disagrees with you a racist or a racist sympathizer.
****
Anyway, I have a site to run, so excuse me if I bow out of this discussion. We’re not really getting anywhere—I’m tainted by the racism of those I don’t believe or know to be racists, and therefore you can dismiss everything I say as the anti-intellectual ramblings of a racist kook—so what’s left to talk about?
But feel free to chat amongst yourselves.
Geek, Esq: That’s all you got? That article on black quarterbacks is your smoking gun for demanding that Sailer and Malkin are racist and that Jeff is associating with racists? Ye gods….
Sailer is making empirical claims about the typical abilities of black people. They are either true or false. He presents these claims for their explanatory power; if black people do have a genetic tendency to be faster runners and have faster reflexes, then much of the current distribution of race among athletes makes sense. If the numbers he cites are wrong or his conclusions don’t follow from his premises, then his explanations fail.
Look, Sailer’s trying to describe reality without bowing to those who want to shut down discussion by being horrified. Likewise, Malkin wrote a book to examine Japanese internment in a manner that extended beyond “it’s evil, we can’t talk about it.” Declaring such topics to be off-limits such that no discussion is even possible is what having a closed mind actually means. (And spare me the sanctimonious “I’m happy to be closed-minded if it means I’m not a racist” rejoinder.)
In the book The Wizard of Oz, the group puts on glasses and is amazed to see how everything is made of emeralds. But of course the city wasn’t made of emeralds; they were just wearing colored glasses. If you keep seeing racism every time you turn around, maybe you ought to take off the glasses.
Powerful argument!!
Don’t read 100% of a writer’s work? Willful blindness. (I can now use the ad hominem of osterich! Aren’t I clever! For my next act: using all CAPS, then barking like a seal.)
Someone discusses differences in mean IQ scores between the races? You automatically qualify as a RACIST!!
Did you discover that the definition of illegal immigrant is an immmigrant illegally in this country? Do you also believe that laws are meant to be enforced? Congratulations, you’re now a White Supremacist!!
Because I say so!!
It is helpful, though, that the left hasn’t given up the rhetoric of the “big lie” because such usage makes them easier to identify, and ignore.
And then there are those who authortatively cite web sites like “Malkin-Watch”. Now that’s two people in need of a 12-step program for whatever addiction they have–or get a real job.
That lieing down with dog and getting fleas thing sounds like experience talking–adolescent experience. Come back when you’ve stopped sleeping with your dog.
If you’ve read this far, this is an example of a response to a troll.