What's wrong with Derrick Bell?

[Unabogie]

What are they supposed to use black hands in the commercial? Would the commercial make much sense if they used black hands?

The policy created an uneven playing field when applying for jobs. In many cases it took jobs that would have went to white candidates and gave them to minorities. Some people disagree with those policies. That's not a racist position to be against those policies...... and it would be incredibly stupid and make absolutely no sense to use black hands in that commercial. Not like it matters, but I would disagree with the position of the commercial.

I'm going to take what you've said a little more seriously in the hopes that you can at least see why other people saw racism in that ad and almost universally condemn it as racist to this day.

First of all, you have to go back to the time the ad aired and who was airing it. Jesse Helms had a long history of racism. He had created an ad in the 1950s for another candidate that read:

"White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."

Fast forward 40 years, and here he is again, somehow outraged that "blacks", who certainly weren't getting ahead in South Carolina for being black, were somehow stealing jobs from more qualified white folks and that Harvey Gantt, who was black, was supportive of this. The not so subtle message being that black politicians favor policies of stealing from whites to give to undeserving, lazy minorities.

The thing is, they're still making this same argument today when Newt Gingrich calls Obama the "food stamp president" and when Limbaugh says Obama's policies are "reparations". They're making the same appeal Helms made in 1950 when he asked white people to "wake up". Helms was stoking fear - fear of black people stealing from whites - to win elections. He was basing his ad off of something that wasn't happening; no one seriously believes that being white wasn't an enormous advantage in America and especially the South. Affirmative Action doesn't create an unlevel playing field. The field was unlevel since the 1600s and whites were always given preference. So his ad was a lie. And this racist imagery helped him win in a state with a history of racism against a black challenger who was at that point beating him in the polls.

For most observers, the racism was obvious and still is. It pits whites against blacks and us versus them. It didn't happen in a vacuum since everyone watching knew who Jesse Helms was and what his history was. They understood what he meant when he said "they gave your job to a minority".

I sort of doubt you'll see the truth in this, but maybe others reading this may.

 

[crimresearch]

It is hard to believe that you really cannot differentiate between a political ad criticizing a policy favored by the opponent and black people.

And it is impossible to believe that anyone really thinks that ad was anything other than racial fearmongering intended to convey that Helms would prevent 'black people from stealing their jobs'.

 

[Mumbles]

Really? A commercial attempting to argue the unfairness of discriminating against white people (forget about whether they are right or wrong, that isn't the point) is not going to use an angry black guy.... it wouldn't make sense. It's going to use the group that is discriminated against. Again, whether the policys are right or wrong are beside the point.

The point, Caper, is that unqualified minorities taking all the good jobs is not, and never was, a major issue. In fact, we know, through related studies, that the accomplishments of black job - seekers aren't given nearly the weight of those pf white job-seekers. In other words, the ad was the normal race-baiting inversion of reality that was designed to anger white voters by inverting the reality of unqualified white workers being hired ahead of minorities.

 

[Ausmerican]

"The excellence of his scholarship... his scholarship has opened up new vistas and new horizons... open up your hearts and minds to the work (words?) of Professor Derrick Bell...."

The "excellence of his scholarship" had certainly "opened up new vistas and new horizons" given that he was the first black tenured professor.
As to the second half I am starting to believe you are indeed a supporter of selective editing. Why put 'work' as the first pick with 'words' in parentheses with a question mark as if it the dubious second choice?
Because it makes it sound as if Obama was promoting the ideas of Bell.
If there is truly confusion on your part as to what Obama said look at context (that stuff Breitbart usually snips).
He is introducing him at a speech. Obviously it is 'words' as he is about to speak.

 

[Brainster]

The "excellence of his scholarship" had certainly "opened up new vistas and new horizons" given that he was the first black tenured professor.

The first black tenured professor of law at Harvard. And you may be convinced that his scholarship was excellent; I find it somewhat ludicrous.

As to the second half I am starting to believe you are indeed a supporter of selective editing. Why put 'work' as the first pick with 'words' in parentheses with a question mark as if it the dubious second choice?
Because it makes it sound as if Obama was promoting the ideas of Bell.
If there is truly confusion on your part as to what Obama said look at context (that stuff Breitbart usually snips).
He is introducing him at a speech. Obviously it is 'words' as he is about to speak.

The first time I heard it in that clip, I heard "work"; later in that same clip they have a poorer audio quality clip from a TV broadcast where I heard "words". I listened to both twice and could not be sure which was the intended meaning. "Words" probably does fit better in the context, as you say, but I went with my first impression and indicated some doubt.

 

[Ausmerican]

The first black tenured professor of law at Harvard. And you may be convinced that his scholarship was excellent; I find it somewhat ludicrous.

Doesn't matter what I or you think of it. It got him the position and that did open up "new vistas and horizons".

 

[respect]

Over the years I have seen plenty of whining from the left and right about Mexicans coming here and stealing our jerbs. I don't see an ad targeting Democratic politicians for supporting racial quota policies to be akin to that. The target is the politicians, not black people.

It is quite possible (even probable considering it was for Jesse Helms) that racism was a motivating force behind it and it was meant to appeal to white racists, however, criticism of race quotas is not inherently racist itself. Unless, of course, you guys think that it is not possible to mount a non-racist criticism of race quotas.

 

[crimresearch]

Over the years I have seen plenty of whining from the left and right about Mexicans coming here and stealing our jerbs. I don't see an ad targeting Democratic politicians for supporting racial quota policies to be akin to that. The target is the politicians, not black people.

It is quite possible (even probable considering it was for Jesse Helms) that racism was a motivating force behind it and it was meant to appeal to white racists, however, criticism of race quotas is not inherently racist itself. Unless, of course, you guys think that it is not possible to mount a non-racist criticism of race quotas.

Your post questioned the *existence* of any such race based fear mongering about jobs. Now you admit to it, and keep right on spinning..

 

[crimresearch]

The first black tenured professor of law at Harvard. And you may be convinced that his scholarship was excellent; I find it somewhat ludicrous.



The first time I heard it in that clip, I heard "work"; later in that same clip they have a poorer audio quality clip from a TV broadcast where I heard "words". I listened to both twice and could not be sure which was the intended meaning. "Words" probably does fit better in the context, as you say, but I went with my first impression and indicated some doubt.

'Ludicrous' would be expecting skeptics to blindly swallow the notion that your assertions about his scholarship are any more rational or fact based than your rants here..

 

[respect]

Your post questioned the *existence* of any such race based fear mongering about jobs. Now you admit to it, and keep right on spinning..

The target was race quota policies and the politicians who supported them, not black people.

 

[crimresearch]

The target was race quota policies and the politicians who supported them, not black people.

Denial isn't just a strip club in Dubai.

 

[respect]

Denial isn't just a strip club in Dubai.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between two politicians and a race.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

They took our jerbs!!!!

 

[RandFan]

They took our jerbs!!!!

That was a catch phrase for my son and his friends for a long time.

 

[Mumbles]

The first black tenured professor of law at Harvard. And you may be convinced that his scholarship was excellent; I find it somewhat ludicrous.

Personally, I don't find his theory ludicrous at all. Certainly, racial tensions were running high back in the 1990s, due in large part to backlash over civil rights. And far too many republicans have celebrated Obama's election by sending blatantly racist emails, trying desperately to connect him to the evil black boogeyman Louis Farrakhan*, stating that black people are brainwashed or satisfied with food stamps, and so forth. And it's simple to find black people who have been, say, harassed by police, or who had a realtor who only showed them homes in black neighborhoods, and on and on. And of course, there are all the arguments about black people took a white person's job, which amazingly aren't backed by any study or set of employment data.

I've seen a lot of outrage about Bell from the left wing, but I haven't seen anything in the way of counter arguments, or for that matter, not much even presenting his claims accurately.

*Ever notice that the fear of Farrakhan is wildly disproportional to the things he has actually done to white or Jewish people? Or how every prominent black person gets asked about him, even if they've given no reason to think that they support him?

 

[angrysoba]

You don't have a clue what a post-racial black is? And you don't know "What is wrong with Louis Farrakhan?" That's either incredibly naive or disingenuous. Either way, I suggest you Google those terms and educate yourself.

I can imagine a few different things being meant by "post-racial", but like a lot of political terms there may not be a consensus on the word. It might mean that you are somebody who doesn't subscribe to the belief that races are scientific concepts with the opposite being a so-called "race realist" (I notice that Bell sometimes uses this term, "race realism", but it appears he uses it differently to the way I understand it). Similarly, "post-racial" could refer to someone who thinks that all the problems of racism have been solved. Or it could mean someone who is not interested in identity politics. Personally, I am not a big fan of identity politics myself but then it is easy enough for me, a white, straight, atheist male, to find nothing of interest to me in identity politics.

My question is how are you using the term, "post-racial" and in particular, "post-racial black" as though, as pointed out, it is specifically blacks who need to get over the race question. It would seem a new form of identity politics for politicians to go round proclaiming themselves, "post-racial blacks" and oxymoronic. Has Obama ever claimed to be a post-racial black? Is this not a strawman that his critics have assembled?


As for Farrakhan, I have my own reasons for despising him, but what then I am someone who doesn't pooh-pooh charges of racism. Farrakhan has said a number of very inflammatory anti-semitic remarks and apparently praised Hitler (and Hitler was especially bad because of his taste for genocide - which is racial murder). He also believes many conspiracies which he believes have racial origins and he may or may not have been responsible for Malcolm X's assassination.

But again, what do you hate about Farrakhan that even offering qualified praise, as Bell does, is beyond the pale?

But if your marketability is based on being a crusader against white racism, then you have a vested interest in telling people that racism is bad and getting worse.

You may as well say the same about yourself and any opponents of "black racism" or 9/11 Truth. Now, if I were to say to you, "You want there to be more Trutherism around because it increases your marketability!" you might be forgiven for thinking I was an incredibly cynical man. Well, I think you are being incredibly cynical for thinking that Bell (and by implication, Obama) want to claim more and more racism exists just to profit from it.

WildCat goes as far as to suggest racism is mythical, like Bigfoot.

People like Bell find racism under every stone, just like a Bigfoot believer sees Bigfoot in every fuzzy blob in low-res videos or out-of-focus still photos.

People like Bell need to find racism, whether it exists or not.

You make a valid point about Obama's defense of Bell coming before he had made those particular comments. However, if you read anything about Bell's critical race theory, you will begin to understand that those thoughts were already explicit or implicit in the man's work.

Well, thank you. But that means those quotes are not germane to discussion. You have to show where else in his work is explicit or implicit praise of Farrakhan, the idea that 1992 was the worst year for black people since slavery and his prefiguring of "Space Traders".

Anyway, for what it's worth, I am a little surprised by you and WildCat taking this stance. I know that both of you seem to be conservative but I thought you were both firmly on the non-lunatic fringe of conservatism. I always find it shocking to see intelligent people parrotting Hannity-Breitbart-O'Reilly talking points as though these were genuine thoughts of their own and not lame, desperate trumped-up "gotchas".

 

[A'isha]

Anyway, for what it's worth, I am a little surprised by you and WildCat taking this stance. I know that both of you seem to be conservative but I thought you were both firmly on the non-lunatic fringe of conservatism. I always find it shocking to see intelligent people parrotting Hannity-Breitbart-O'Reilly talking points as though these were genuine thoughts of their own and not lame, desperate trumped-up "gotchas".

That's what gets me. It's not like any of this information is new, or was buried and only now being revealed.

Bell's book with "Space Traders" in it was published long enough ago that it's almost old enough to legally drink, and was reviewed in the New York Times. The story itself was used for a movie on HBO almost that long ago. The footage of Obama's comments about Bell himself has been available since 1990, and was used in a documentary broadcast nationwide during the 2008 election!

This is the non-est of non-stories!

 

[WildCat]

WildCat goes as far as to suggest racism is mythical, like Bigfoot.

I suggested no such thing.

It's merely an example of the ability of people to find something that isn't there when they are zealots. Bigfoot illustrates this nicely because most of us here accept that it doesn't actually exist, yet Bigfoot hunters find signs of it everywhere. Clearly, their bias clouds their judgement.

Do you think blacks were "more subjugated" in 1992 than in 1865?

 

[angrysoba]

I suggested no such thing.

Yes, you did. Watch:

It's merely an example of the ability of people to find something that isn't there when they are zealots. Bigfoot illustrates this nicely because most of us here accept that it doesn't actually exist, yet Bigfoot hunters find signs of it everywhere. Clearly, their bias clouds their judgement.

How can you say you are not suggesting racism doesn't exist when you are explicitly likening it to something we all agree does not exist?

Do you think blacks were "more subjugated" in 1992 than in 1865?

No, I don't think so. I think it is probably false. And I've already answered this question anyway:

No. I think the coment is most probably false but you have made plenty of idiotic comments on this very thread to more than match Derrick Bell

 

[WildCat]

Yes, you did. Watch:



How can you say you are not suggesting racism doesn't exist when you are explicitly likening it to something we all agree does not exist?

I'm illustrating how a fanatic will see things that clearly don't exist. I'm certainly not claiming that racism doesn't exist.

Al Sharpton, for example, believed he found a child-raping racist upstate prosecutor who abused Tawana Brawley. He wanted desperately to believe it, so he did.

Do you think Sharpton being wrong about Brawley means racism doesn't exist? Of course not, it simply means that it didn't exist in that case. But for people like him racism is revealed under every rock. I remember a minor outrage years ago, when pay-at-the-pump was still new. There were charges that gas stations were making blacks pre-pay for gas, while whites were allowed to just pump away without pre-paying. Racism, right? Nope, it just turned out that the whites were far more likely to pay at the pump with a credit card, and didn't have to go inside and pre-pay because the pump is turned on when the credit card is approved.