"Being black means never having to apologize" ??

[jimtron]

To avoid a derail on this thread, I started this new topic. From the other thread:

No, it's mocking the absurd "being black means never having to say your'e sorry" attitude I have seen/heard about a billions times either personally or in the media/news from black apologists, w/the mindless self-righteous Whoopi being one of the worst. In case you missed it, she led the charge of apologists for Mikey Vick, a famous, highly hyped football player who was convicted for running a dog-fighting ring (PS and oh by the way, he also killed/tortured them in the sickest of ways, and latest word is he really enjoyed it to boot). She came out with this "well he was just a product of his environment" BS rather than just admitting he's scum. But can't do that of course, it would "betray the brotherhood."

More generally, I'm sick to death of that attitude, which is all the rage thanks mostly to hoardes of mindless white liberals still apparently feeling guilty about slavery, or whatever. It's not equal treatment at all, it's preferential treatment - the very thing they claim to be the problem in the first place.

Anyway not the best place for all that I agree; pardon the sidetrack.

I haven't read extensively about the Goldberg/Vick situation, but I found this article where Goldberg says:

He's from the South, from the Deep South ... This is part of his cultural upbringing...For a lot of people, dogs are sport," Goldberg said on the show. "Instead of just saying (Vick) is a beast and he's a monster, this is a kid who comes from a culture where this is not questioned.

I'm not necessarily defending Vick or Goldberg, but to me it doesn't sound like she's saying he doesn't have to apologize due to his being black. I haven't read a full transcript of everything she said on the matter, but here she's not saying it's perfectly OK, she's saying he's not a monster, this is part of Southern culture. And maybe she mentioned it somewhere else, but in the quotes I've seen she doesn't mention race. eta: Did she ever mention race? Did she ever say he shouldn't apologize? I'm asking sincerely, not rhetorically.

I've heard this sentiment before, and I think it's a straw man. If anyone has specific quotes or other sources, please post them here. Not just about Vick and Goldberg, but other examples of "mindless white liberals" or others saying that blacks should get a free pass due to being black. I'm skeptical that this is a common attitude.

eta again: Big Red, you brought this up on a thread about mass rape. Can you cite a source where someone said rapists shouldn't apologize if their black?

 

[Puppycow]

Jesse Jackson apologizes for crude remarks about Obama

I guess that sometimes you do have to apologize even if you are black.

FWIW, I also know what Bigred is talking about. People do sometimes use racism as an excuse or scapegoat when black people misbehave.

ETA: Apparantly Michael Vick had to apologize too

 

[bigred]

Thx puppy. I know many get it, but it continually amazes me how many don't.

jim re. this:

He's from the South, from the Deep South ... This is part of his cultural upbringing...For a lot of people, dogs are sport," Goldberg said on the show. "Instead of just saying (Vick) is a beast and he's a monster, this is a kid who comes from a culture where this is not questioned.

lol. Where to start:

He is from Newport News, VA. That is FAR from the "deep South." I know because I lived there. Richmond (which is northwest of it) is more "Southern" than that area, easily. This isn't exactly Mississippi we're talking about.

The "cultural upbringing" is BS too. For "a lot" of people dog fighting is sport? What a boulder-sized chunk of poo that statement is. The South (deep or otherwise) doesn't have some inherent love of dog fighting....so tell me, what "culture" is she speaking of?

Next - Vick IS a beast and a monster. Also water is wet. Read up on the specifics of it (google it you'll find plenty) - evidence abounds. If it's not painfully obvious to you then, there's probably not much point discussing it further and we'll have to just agree to disagree, although I'd then shudder to think what you feel it takes to deserve the label and figure you must really hate animals.

I'm not necessarily defending Vick or Goldberg, but to me it doesn't sound like she's saying he doesn't have to apologize due to his being black.

? Who cares about Vick and any pointless/insincere apologies he has to offer, let alone whether she thinks she should?

I haven't read a full transcript of everything she said on the matter, but here she's not saying it's perfectly OK,

I'm not saying she did. So? So she didn't say it's perfectly OK -whoa, out on a limb there.

she's saying he's not a monster

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I don't get the impression you're very familiar with her. She loves the race card, regardless of rhyme or reason.........like many of the yahoos I mentioned earlier who are seemingly breeding like cockroaches in this country.

I've heard this sentiment before, and I think it's a straw man. If anyone has specific quotes or other sources, please post them here. Not just about Vick and Goldberg, but other examples of "mindless white liberals" or others saying that blacks should get a free pass due to being black. I'm skeptical that this is a common attitude.

I guess it depends in part where you are. Here in the mid-Atlantic/southeastern coast, believe me, it's all the rage. Of course they don't come right out and SAY it though.

PS: ever hear of "affirmative action?"

eta again: Big Red, you brought this up on a thread about mass rape. Can you cite a source where someone said rapists shouldn't apologize if their black?

I hope you're kidding. Who gives a rat's ass about a rapist apologizing? Sorry for any offense, but I frankly have to question if you really know what "apologist" means.

 

[jimtron]

FWIW, I also know what Bigred is talking about. People do sometimes use racism as an excuse or scapegoat when black people misbehave.

Could you provide a specific example or two?

He is from Newport News, VA. That is FAR from the "deep South." I know because I lived there. Richmond (which is northwest of it) is more "Southern" than that area, easily. This isn't exactly Mississippi we're talking about.

The "cultural upbringing" is BS too. For "a lot" of people dog fighting is sport? What a boulder-sized chunk of poo that statement is. The South (deep or otherwise) doesn't have some inherent love of dog fighting....so tell me, what "culture" is she speaking of?

Next - Vick IS a beast and a monster. Also water is wet. Read up on the specifics of it (google it you'll find plenty) - evidence abounds. If it's not painfully obvious to you then, there's probably not much point discussing it further and we'll have to just agree to disagree, although I'd then shudder to think what you feel it takes to deserve the label and figure you must really hate animals.

OK, maybe he's not from the South and maybe he is an ***hole. But Goldberg didn't say anything about race. If she thinks that black people should be allowed to do bad things without apology because they're black--obviously that's crazy. But I haven't seen a quote from her that indicates that. Maybe she shouldn't have defended this guy, maybe she has bad judgment, but I don't see evidence that she thinks he needn't apologize since he's black.

I hope you're kidding. Who gives a rat's ass about a rapist apologizing? Sorry for any offense, but I frankly have to question if you really know what "apologist" means.

You brought this up on a thread about mass rape in Africa. Why?

Big Red, I'm still missing where Goldberg conveyed the idea that black people don't need to apologize for wrongdoing because of their race. Could you provide a quote from her or other evidence that backs up your claim? Also, any evidence of anyone else saying or believing that blacks don't need to apologize?

 

[Pardalis]

He's from the South, from the Deep South ... This is part of his cultural upbringing...For a lot of people, dogs are sport," Goldberg said on the show. "Instead of just saying (Vick) is a beast and he's a monster, this is a kid who comes from a culture where this is not questioned.

"comes from a culture where this is not questioned" What culture is she talking about? She's not talking about Afghanistan, or some foreign isolated culture, as far as I'm aware of the "Deep South" is part of America, and this sort of behavior is frowned upon in America, and it is clearly illegal.

I don't know if it's racially motivated, but she is going out of her way to make excuses for an abhorrent behavior.

 

[jimtron]

"comes from a culture where this is not questioned" What culture is she talking about? She's not talking about Afghanistan, or some foreign isolated culture, as far as I'm aware of the "Deep South" is part of America, and this sort of behavior is frowned upon in America, and it is clearly illegal.

I don't know if it's racially motivated, but she is going out of her way to make excuses for an abhorrent behavior.

OK, but I still don't see how the Goldberg/Vick incident backs up Big Red's claim about blacks and apologies. She doesn't say anything (that I know of) about his race, nor does she say he did nothing wrong, nor that he needn't apologize (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm trying to find a complete transcript of Goldberg's comments about Vick--no luck so far.

Any other examples of "white liberals" or others saying that being black means never having to say you're sorry?

 

[Pardalis]

OK, but I still don't see how the Goldberg/Vick incident backs up Big Red's claim about blacks and apologies. She doesn't say anything (that I know of) about his race, nor does she say he did nothing wrong, nor that he needn't apologize (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm trying to find a complete transcript of Goldberg's comments about Vick--no luck so far.

Any other examples of "white liberals" or others saying that being black means never having to say you're sorry?

Sorry, I added this bit after you posted your response, so I'll post it here:

I think she's more guilty of making moral relativism, but I'd be interested to see if she'd say the same thing about polygamy in Mormon communities, or excision in Somalia, or child brides in Afghanistan, after all, it's "part of their culture" too.

 

[jimtron]

Here's a transcript from a Goldberg interview on Larry King, which quotes the original (?) View episode: (ETA: I think the View clip quoted below was from the day after Goldberg's initial Vick remarks...)

KING: Now during your debut of "The View" moderator you got into the topic of Michael Vick and dogfighting. Let's listen to your initial comments what and you said the next day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDBERG: The Michael Vick thing, since we're talking about dogs. There are all of these very, very strong opinions about it. One thing I have not heard anybody say is, you know, from his background, this is not an unusual thing for where he comes from. For a lot of people, dogs are sport. It's not -- So I just thought it was interesting. Because it seemed like a light went off in his head when he realized this was something that the entire country really didn't appreciate and didn't like.

BARBARA WALTERS, "THE VIEW": Do you think he should not have been sentenced as he was? Because you say that it goes with the territory?

GOLDBERG: I don't know if it goes with the territory. But I thought it was -- if it had been somebody from New York City, my feelings would be very different.

So here I am, day two. Day one I step in it immediately. Let me really just reiterate this for real for everybody. I was not condoning, nor was I saying I thought Michael Vick did anything right. I did not say that I thought he was good in what he did. I condemn what he did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Did somebody tell you to like change it the next day?

GOLDBERG: No, I didn't change anything. I was making an observation about something that had occurred to me based on what I had seen on HBO's "Real Sports." I don't remember the reporter's name. I hope he will forgive me. But he went down South to talk to people who were doing this. And what he talked about was the culture, the cultural aspect of it. So I thought it was an interesting part of the discussion. Well, child, you would have thought I burned a dog or sat on a cat or, you know, that wasn't the issue.

And it went on and on and on. I thought, OK, I forgot that you have to, for some people, you have to explain yourself more than once. And so, you know, I never said I thought what he did was smart or good. And I said that.

I just said, I thought there was another direction to look at this from. Because I figure, if you look at it from all of the possible directions there might be possible answers we're missing.

(bolding/highlighting added)

Maybe there's something worse she said that I haven't seen yet? I'm still not seeing anything about race or apologies, and I don't necessarily even see her making excuses.

Anyway, fee free to chime in about the Goldberg/Vick thing, but really what I'm interested in is the claim that white liberals think blacks don't need to apologize.

 

[plumjam]

Hmm.. sounds like the rationale old Whoopi was using (something supposedly being part of the culture around you) could be equally applied to Southern slave owners. I wonder whether she would ever use it in that context.

 

[Lonewulf]

Saying that it's part of the culture around you doesn't justify the action, it gives an explanation for it.

One need not agree with what occurred to say "it's because of the culture".

 

[gumboot]

The phrasing along the lines of "I'm not condoning what he did, it was wrong, but..." is a classic apologist argument.

 

[jimtron]

Goldberg never mentioned race, as far as I know. She referred to Southern culture, which is certainly not restricted to "blacks." Again, I started this thread not to defend Vick and Goldberg, but to take issue with Big Red's claim about blacks not having to apologize. I'd like to see evidence of this--any other examples?

 

[EGarrett]

1. As has been said, she did not condone what he did.
2. As has been said, she did not bring race into the matter.
3. Even if she did, there are foolish people who use bad logic, that doesn't mean that ALL people, or ALL black people, believe that sort of thing.

For the 18 trillionth time on this planet, NOT ALL BLACK THINK OR ACT ALIKE. NOR DO ALL WHITE PEOPLE. Condemn Whoopi Goldberg if you want, but don't start a thread attacking all black people or implying that all black people (or all of society) have a certain bad idea because one black person may say something that seems foolish. (and if you're not pointing out black people specifically, use the term "apologists," not "black apologists.)

 

[lionking]

Goldberg never mentioned race, as far as I know. She referred to Southern culture, which is certainly not restricted to "blacks." Again, I started this thread not to defend Vick and Goldberg, but to take issue with Big Red's claim about blacks not having to apologize. I'd like to see evidence of this--any other examples?

If you think "southern culture" in the context Goldberg used it was not a synonym for "black culture" your head is in the sand.

 

[jimtron]

If you think "southern culture" in the context Goldberg used it was not a synonym for "black culture" your head is in the sand.

Here's the context:

He's from the South, from the Deep South ... This is part of his cultural upbringing...For a lot of people, dogs are sport," Goldberg said on the show. "Instead of just saying (Vick) is a beast and he's a monster, this is a kid who comes from a culture where this is not questioned.

How do you know she's referring to "black culture"? Neither I nor you can read her mind. Is dog fighting unique to African Americans in the South?

 

[lionking]

I read her comment. My point stands.

 

[linusrichard]

I have to say I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "to explain is to defend" or "to understand is to sympathize" line of reasoning. It reminds me of after 9/11, if you said that al Qaeda knocked down the towers because they were upset about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and they opposed the pro-Western regime in Saudi Arabia and the secularist regime in Iraq, then you were somehow defending the terrorists. Instead, you have to say they did it because "they hate our freedom." It's enforced ignorance.

If I say that a bank robber or drug dealer or Enron executive committed his crime because he wanted to have more money, there's nothing offensive about that (other than the perhaps offensive obviousness of it). But if I say that al Qaeda committed its crimes in response to US policy in the Middle East, or that Vick committed his crimes in part because he grew up around people who thought dogfighting was cool, then somehow I'm defending al Qaeda or Michael Vick? It doesn't make sense.

I think it's rooted in this need some people have to see people who do certain things as non-human. So we might describe dogfighting or terrorism or torture or the like as "inhuman," or we might describe (as has been done in this thread) Michael Vick as a "monster." Good people are praised for their "humanity." My problem with all of this is that it ignores what we know about humans, which is that many of them are cruel, stupid, cowardly, etc.

Someone (maybe author and JREFer David Wong, but I don't remember) pointed out something I found interesting. If you start talking about bin Laden's hobbies, his favorite flavor of ice cream, his first date, stuff like that, it can offend people! Why should this be? It's because we need bin Laden to not be human. Humans have favorite ice cream flavors. Monsters orchestrate terrorist attacks. Never mind that you're not defending bin Laden one iota by talking about his personal life - merely showing that he is human is seen as a defense. It's the same with Michael Vick. If you talk about the culture in which Vick grew up, the forces that shaped him, or what motivated his crimes, you're talking about him as if he were a human. Humans have motivations. Monsters fight dogs.

What I feel we shouldn't forget is that humans are a very diverse group, and capable of evil. Hitler and Stalin were every bit as human as MLK and Gandhi.

 

[Lonewulf]

Linus Richard makes a very good point in his post. Pretty much underscores what I was thinking, but explains it quite succinctly.

Good post, Linus.

 

[Cleon]

I have to say I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "to explain is to defend" or "to understand is to sympathize" line of reasoning. It reminds me of after 9/11, if you said that al Qaeda knocked down the towers because they were upset about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and they opposed the pro-Western regime in Saudi Arabia and the secularist regime in Iraq, then you were somehow defending the terrorists. Instead, you have to say they did it because "they hate our freedom." It's enforced ignorance.

If I say that a bank robber or drug dealer or Enron executive committed his crime because he wanted to have more money, there's nothing offensive about that (other than the perhaps offensive obviousness of it). But if I say that al Qaeda committed its crimes in response to US policy in the Middle East, or that Vick committed his crimes in part because he grew up around people who thought dogfighting was cool, then somehow I'm defending al Qaeda or Michael Vick? It doesn't make sense.

I think it's rooted in this need some people have to see people who do certain things as non-human. So we might describe dogfighting or terrorism or torture or the like as "inhuman," or we might describe (as has been done in this thread) Michael Vick as a "monster." Good people are praised for their "humanity." My problem with all of this is that it ignores what we know about humans, which is that many of them are cruel, stupid, cowardly, etc.

Someone (maybe author and JREFer David Wong, but I don't remember) pointed out something I found interesting. If you start talking about bin Laden's hobbies, his favorite flavor of ice cream, his first date, stuff like that, it can offend people! Why should this be? It's because we need bin Laden to not be human. Humans have favorite ice cream flavors. Monsters orchestrate terrorist attacks. Never mind that you're not defending bin Laden one iota by talking about his personal life - merely showing that he is human is seen as a defense. It's the same with Michael Vick. If you talk about the culture in which Vick grew up, the forces that shaped him, or what motivated his crimes, you're talking about him as if he were a human. Humans have motivations. Monsters fight dogs.

What I feel we shouldn't forget is that humans are a very diverse group, and capable of evil. Hitler and Stalin were every bit as human as MLK and Gandhi.

Nominated. Great post.

 

[Sefarst]

I agree with the other posters that I don't understand why race would enter into this discussion. I think Goldberg's point was to just try and humanize Vick a little since he was taking such a beating by people for so long.