Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, March 21, 2013

What is a racist?

by Sam Huntington

One definition reads, “Racialism is normally defined as any view, practice, or action that reflects a belief that one race of human beings is superior to others, or that any racial group is inferior to others."

There is some context, however. On the question of whether or not he was a racist, Enoch Powell answered, "If by racialist one suggests a conscious difference among men and nations of various backgrounds, then in that context everyone is a racist. On the other hand, if by racialist one means a man who despises a human being because of his race, or a man who believes that one race is superior to another, then no, I am not a racist."



It would seem Mr. Powell's definition assumes an American characteristic after 1824. Moral Americans soundly rejected the notion of human beings as property, or of simple minds to be taken advantage of … while realizing that there are differences among men, and nothing is ever going to change this. Responsible Americans realize that that utopia only exists in the mind of the inexperienced, or the foolish. Unfortunately, however, the notion of enslavement does continue in the modern day; now as a primary platform of the so-called progressive movement.

The belief among modern conservatives is that a racialist will go out of his or her way to demean others because of their race, their skin color, or their ethnic identification. It is this precise behavior one observes among progressive politicians in the congress, throughout the various state apparatuses, and within the current administration. There is simply no other way to explain the concerted effort among progressive communists to keep American blacks poor, ignorant, and dependent upon government for their sense of self-worth.

But of course, there are two points of view. The opposite side of this argument, the progressive argument, is that a racist is anyone who dares to speak honestly and critically about an inept president, or corrupt politicians, and particularly if the corrupt or inept politician is an ethnic minority. The long and short of it is that anyone who dares to criticize the likes of Maxine Waters, or John Conyers, or Eric Holder, or Barack Obama, the idiot Hank Johnson, or the whore monger Robert Menendez must be a racist. They maintain that this criticism comes to them not because they have character flaws, or because they have ill-served the American people, but rather because anyone who criticizes them is a racist.

We realize this doesn’t make much sense —unless you repeat it often enough and the not so bright among us actually begin to believe it. Progressives believe there is no harm in giving inept or corrupt politicians a “racial bounce” when they are members of some ethnic minority, but in our view, this is as much an act of racism as denying citizens access to a public lunch counter.

With this in mind, we (as a nation) must have overlooked the startling clarity of Dr. Jack Wheeler, who in 2008 wrote:

“Barack Hussein Obama is an eloquently tailored empty suit. He has no resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how our economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls … nothing, in fact, but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of substance.

“The man has no identity; he is half white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African surname and his Arabic first and middle names, proclaiming his Arab parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is black African from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

“What he is not, what he is not even a genetic drop of, is ‘African American.’ He is not the descendent of enslaved Africans brought to the Americas chained in slave ships. He hasn’t a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. They were profitable slave-trading Muslims —until the British ended it.”

This is the real Barack Obama, who in their infinite wisdom the American people elected —twice.

Was Jack Wheeler a racist, or was he simply making an astute observation? Was making this candid observation Jack Wheeler’s responsibility, or was it rather the obligation of a free and unfettered press? Beyond the spurious claims that Wheeler was a racist, is there anything Dr. Wheeler wrote that isn't true?

Among a few, then, it was no surprise that Jack Wheeler’s body turned up on a trash heap. Some would describe his murder as his likely comeuppance. Others might call it Chicago politics ... the kind of gangsterism we've come to expect from Eric Holder, who sold guns to Mexican drug gangs in order to make a case against our Second Amendment rights and, after accusing Americans of cowardice for failing to engage in honest dialogue about racialism, labeled as racists anyone who would stand up to Black Panther thugs or the unseemly politics of Kwame Kilpatrick and Monica Conyers.

32 comments:

  1. I just stumbled across THIS. One sentence from the blog post:

    Mayor Michael Nutter insists that Philadelphia Magazine should be punished for having reported the simple fact that white people are forbidden to talk about matters of race.

    The rest at the above link.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sam,
    See today's post at Western Hero. You might be interested in what Finntann has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find the latter day emergence of the terms "racialist" and "racialism" curious. I looked them up in several online dictionaries, and discovered the first known use of "racialist" occurred in 1906, yet I've run across it only in recent years. Once dictionary said it was "chiefly British."

    Apparently RACIST and RACIALIST are synonymous. There is no difference in meaning between the two.

    I wonder how and when this peculiar variant came into popular usage?

    I agree with Mr. Powell by the way, except I freely admit to holding the view that the various cultures that evolved in White European and British societies since the fall of ancient Rome are far superior to any others, and I refuse to apologize for it.

    That doesn't mean that "our" heritage is "flawless" and has no room for improvement, or that other peoples never produced anything worthwhile, BUT the fact remains that overall what "we" have achieved is generally far more advanced than the products of other indigenous cultures.

    The current fad to denigrate and attempt virtually to extinguish ourselves in order to show "sensitivity" to peoples we disregarded or failed to respect adequately in the past is in my view a form of activist-induced COLLECTIVE INSANITY.

    What "we" produced historically should never be discarded. Instead it should be SHARED with EVERYONE and USED as the FOUNDATION for building even BETTER societies everywhere in the world.

    Sane people do not reject and apologize for their successes, neither do they rest on their laurels, instead they continue to BUILD, REFINE and more deeply APPRECIATE what they've achieved in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fine article. As Rush says, Obama is not "down for the count", which brings me to Dr. Benjamin Carson. He is a man who achieved what he did because of his determination, his beliefs, his hard work, had nothing to do with his skin. When Conservatives look at people like Carson, we don't see color, I don't. I see what the man stands for.

    Too many voted for Obama simply because of the color of his skin, if that isn't racist I don't know what it.

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. We realize this doesn’t make much sense —unless you repeat it often enough and the not so bright among us actually begin to believe it.

    And it helps to reinforce leftist lunacy for the entire period a child attends public school, right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hate everyone ... so, I'm a _ _ _ _ _ _ ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would type many words in CAPS and long labored sentences in bold font, but that would be sophomoric and overweening, not to mention bloviation. Well, yeah, okay, let's mention it. Bloviation.

    Ennyhoo, let me proudly state here and now that I am a Racist. I find Japanese people to be of superior intelligence to all other racial groups, and you know what? They are! Google it.

    Likewise I find Negroes to be among the lowest in intelligence, and once again, that's a proven and statistical fact.

    The stupidest people I ever encountered, however, are the full-blooded aborigines of Australia. They're incredibly ugly and as brutish as they are homely.

    American blacks vie with the Japanese for the title of Most Racist, though Mexicans may make it a 3-way tie for First Place. Their whole culture is based on skin color and ethnicity, with white Spanish at the top and dark bush natives at the bottom.

    We are all racists. I don't care what your skin color is, there is at least one other racial type that you consider yourself superior to. To say otherwise is to lie and we're all honest people here, right? Now the self-righteous may speak.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You've got some live ones today, AOW.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that no matter how sanctimonious people may appear to be most have some degree of tendentiousness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A show of things worthy of pride

    Will attract those compelled to deride

    Any person at all
    
Who has more on the ball

    Than those who enjoy being snide.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Critics are those who have failed [in life]."

    ~ Albert Schweitzer

    ReplyDelete
  12. One thing is for sure. That is Islam is not a race. It's a religious, political, cultural system that contrial the mind and lives and millions of people around the world. This sadly that led to much murder and mayhem. All this "Islamophobia" is in reality Islamorealism in that some people see and are aware of the dangers of this death cult that oppress girls and women. As Thomas Jeffersom explained "have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hositlity against every form of tyranny over the mind of men."

    ReplyDelete


  13. Jon, usually your meaning is very clear whenever you write, but I wish you'd please explain what you mean by "tendentiousness."

    Sanctimony usually indicates a pompous show of self-righteousness that may or may not be hypocritical. It's usually taken as sign that the speaker or writer thinks too well of himself and too little of his audience.

    Tendentiousness involves writing or speech making designed to serve an agenda or promote a particular point of view while trying to disguise itself as something of more general interest.

    In tendentious writing characters are treated more as symbols than as real multi-dimensional, warm-blooded individuals. Allegorical or polemical would be suitable terms to describe that kind of writing.

    So, if those definitions are correct, I don't understand what you were trying to say. Please elucidate.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yattata yattata yattata. My god in heaven. Whatever happened to the thread?

    Oh. This is all about one person? How silly of me to forget. We're not here to discuss racism or anything like that, we're all here just to focus on one person.

    ReplyDelete
  15. At least you know that JonBerg was talking about you. Tendentious means argumentative. Sanctimonious and argumentative fits. You're definiton is skewed into the far corner of left field.

    When you constantly try to talk over everyone's heads all you do is make an ass of yourself while insulting your audience.

    ReplyDelete
  16. FT,

    "tendentiousness"

    According to "RogetsII:The New Thesaurus" the word is synonymous with "prejudice"and "bias", as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ask ABC or CBS or NBC or CNN or MSNBC or every major paper, etc etc....their definition of RACIST is REPUBLICAN.

    Ridiculous, but true.

    I particularly think that's funny when we know that 97% of Blacks voted for Obama.
    WHO'S racist? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. SANCTIMONIOUS:

    1. Feigning piety or righteousness

    2. Affecting piety or making a display of holiness

    3. Descriptive of someone who tries to show that they have better moral or religious principles than other people

    4. Hypocritically pious or devout

    5. Making a show of sanctity; affecting saintliness; hypocritically devout or pious.

    6. Feigning an appearance of saintliness; a showy, hypocritical pretense of virtue


    TENDENTIOUS:

    1. Marked by a strong implicit point of view

    2. Exhibiting bias: biased, one-sided, partial, partisan, prejudiced, prejudicial, prepossessed

    3. Having or showing an intentional tendency or bias, esp a controversial one

    4. Expressing a strong personal opinion, attitude, or intention that other people are likely to argue with

    5. Marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : biased

    6. Characterized by a deliberate tendency or aim; esp., advancing a definite point of view

    7. Having or expressing a particular point of view; not impartial; biased. a tendentious editorial

    Thank you, Jon. I just saw your answer after I put these definitions together from various online dictionaries. I never thought we were at odds. I just wanted to understand the context of your remark a little better.

    If you meant that everyone enters a discussion or debate with a particular point of view, I couldn't agree more. I'm just not sure that all those who dare enter the arena of public discussion are necessarily sanctimonious, that's all.

    Sanctimonious started out meaning saintly or saint-like, but its use has long since become almost exclusively pejorative.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Exactly ... West Virginia is heavily progressive. Good find, Liberalman ...

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Maybe racism would go away if we stopped talking about it all the damned time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. About the link that Liberalmann left and that story from West Virginia....

    Racism and hate exist; they can be found all along the political spectrum. I suppose that one can force people not to say such things, and certainly legal steps can be taken to reduce taking action on people's hate. But people's views will remain what they are unless they have reason to believe otherwise.

    Perhaps the truth is this: people are automatically suspicious of "the other." As Sam said in the body of the blog post: there are differences among men, and nothing is ever going to change this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If tendentious means Marked by a strong implicit point of view, then almost the entire blogosphere is tendentious to a large extent -- as are all media and all people.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Z said: 97% of Blacks voted for Obama. WHO'S racist?

    Good point.

    But if a white person votes for a political candidate because that candidate is white, then that is racist. Or something.

    For my part, I've pretty much given up on trying to figure out how voters decide for whom to vote. For example, I know someone who would have voted for McCain but did not because that voter "did not like the sound of Sarah Palin's voice." How odd is that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Black Sheep,
    I don't see FT's comments are Verbiage. I'm a lingua-phile.

    You bluntly said something interesting:

    We are all racists. I don't care what your skin color is, there is at least one other racial type that you consider yourself superior to. To say otherwise is to lie...

    That may well be so. What matters is how people ACT on those beliefs, IMO.

    I think that such biased judgments extend to more than race.

    For example, I don't like the look of those with multiple piercings and tattoos. Indeed, I find those "decorations" on women ugly and stupid as well as defacing. Yet, one of the best veterinarian techs whom I know has herself all "decorated." I avail myself of her animal-care services, which include "animal talking." And I certainly don't persecute her because I recognize that, although she looks very different, she has certain skills. In other words, I know her as a person; on that level, I like her and gladly pay her for helping my pets.

    I know that my analogy isn't perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Robert,
    FYI....There is no point in responding to Liberlmann's comments here. All of his comments are deleted by an administrator as soon as one of us administrators becomes aware of those comments.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hmmm... y'all are getting too deep for me. I'll just go along with my bud, Woodsterman (Odie,) and second the motion that I hate everyone.

    What I have noticed is this: Ever since Down Low Barry made the scene, our race relationships have slipped to an all time low that hasn't been seen since Down Low Barry made the scene.

    ReplyDelete

  28. M4E,

    "Ever since Down Low Barry made the scene, our race relationships have slipped to an all time low"

    Yes, but I've never seen so many real "Blacks" become so overtly Conservative, albiet still a small number, so far.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Marine4ever,
    No doubt about it! Race relations since Obama took office are worse than before.

    Really.

    Black clients and black friends that I had got all irate with me because they surmised that I had not voted for Obama. The basis for their guess: I had no bumper sticker supporting Obama on my vehicle.

    In fact, I have no bumper stickers at all. But my not having an Obama bumper sticker infuriated these people. I never seen any of them anymore.

    Because any dissent to Obama's policies is automatically deemed as racist, America is divided more than I've personally observed in the past.

    Now everybody seems so angry: those who voted for Obama despise those who did not, and those who didn't vote for Obama despise those that did not.

    The Vietnam War Era was also a divided period, but in ways different from what we're seeing now.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jon,
    I agree that some blacks have moved to the Right.

    But I'm not sure that I'll ever get over that one of my black clients, long a supported of Alan Keyes, became an Obamabot.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective