17
Jul
John Rocker on the “racism” charge
From WND.com (by John Rocker)…
“Racist” is a very powerful word. It’s a word that can weaken the knees and shake the conscience of anyone to whom it is directed. It’s a word that can end any argument and thwart any debate with almost immediate precision. When that big ol’ ace of spades hits the table with the word “racist!” stamped on it, it’s enough to send any discussion from 100 to 0 in half a second flat, with nothing more than the smell of smoking brakes in the air. It’s also a word that is thrown around much too carelessly in our society.
If you have a tendency to follow mainstream media as I do, you have no doubt noticed the obnoxious level of frequency the word racist is being used. Everyone seems to be a “racist” these days. On some occasions when that card is laid there is pointed justification; in many more instances, however, the effort to point the dirty finger of racist accusation is simply absurd, designed to do nothing more than stifle all legitimate debate, derail the creation of common-sense policy, suffocate the enforcement of already existing measures or simply further ingrain the ideal of victimology into American society, along with further securing all of the benefits imparted to those seen as “victims.”
I have very little doubt that a great deal of exception was taken by all 241 members of the House of Representatives when they were accused of being racists for holding Eric Holder in contempt. A list of documents was repeatedly requested by members of Congress. Those requests were repeatedly ignored. It would seem that a contempt action would be the next logical step. Racial bias? How? This is not 1968 Selma, Ala.! I would like to think we have progressed as a nation far beyond our elected officials behaving along the whims of racial bias.
Evidently, according to special-interest groups and fear-mongering liberals, it’s not just House Republicans who are steeped in hatred and bigotry. According to some, legislators in Texas and South Carolina who have the audacity to suggest that a voter should be required by law to produce proper ID are participating in a racial agenda as well. In every corner of this country, members of all races, nationalities, colors, creeds and sexual orientations are required to have valid photo ID to operate an automobile, board a plane, even pick up a prescription. In these and many more scenarios, the identification requirements to perform certain functions are simply seen as the normal way of doing things. Being required to identify yourself prior to electing the next leader of the free world, however, is “racist” – end of discussion.
Do those who suggest this racial bias feel that minorities who may be affected by such a law are incapable of performing such a simple task? Isn’t underestimating someone’s ability to perform a task based on that person’s race the basic cornerstone of bigotry? Sometimes the intentionally blind eye some turn toward common sense borders on plain insanity.
The term “racist” does provoke fear by its accusers, and yet it’s basically an “infantile” namecalling at most as pointed out by John Darbyshire. It’d be best to counter the accuser as a childish namecaller, and point out that real problems might exist which namecalling will only intensify. The real problem is that if you ask ten people what “racism” or a “racist” is, you’d get ten different meanings. Therefore the term is hopelessly vague like good, bad, pretty, ugly, nice, and you would be foolish to fall into a fallacy snare and agree that you’re a “racist”. You might innocently say something like, “well, if by racist you mean ___, then maybe I am”. Forget it, doesn’t matter what you mean. You’re already grouped with Simon Legree, people who force little old Black ladies to the back of the bus, and perpetrators of all sorts of atrocities. Maybe Michael Levin was right that a proper place for the term might apply to those who want to oppress people of another race, but those filthy namecallers have their own agenda in mind with their infantile namecalling. You could also reply that you’re not a “racist, but rather a “race realist” who believes that races are real. This creates consternation on the part of the accuser. The childish namecaller can’t say that races don’t exist since the accusation of “racist” implies they do! Of course, if races exist, the races can’t be equal or identical or they wouldn’t be (different) races. By the way, saying races that have differences doesn’t claim a value judgement regarding superiority whatsoever.
July 18th, 2012 at 9:22 amWe need to get over our inordinate fear of being called “racist.” I certainly have…
July 18th, 2012 at 12:32 pmWhen called a “racist”, my normal reply is, “I am just as racist as MLK was.” Kinda puts a damper on their argument.
July 18th, 2012 at 11:26 pm