• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's wrong with Derrick Bell?

WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in Al Sharpton or "pay-at-the-pump".

ETA: You haven't established Derrick Bell's credentials as a "fanatic".
 
angrysoba said:
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?
Click to expand...

His critics, like NPR?

DANIEL SCHORR: Welcome to the latest buzz word in the political lexicon, post-racial. It is what Senator Barack Obama signals in his victory speech in South Carolina when he tells of the woman who used to work for segregationist Strom Thurmond and now, knocks on doors for the Obama campaign.

It is what makes Bill Clinton seemed disconnected when he compares Obama's campaign to the campaigns of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and '88. The post-racial era, as embodied by Obama, is the era where civil rights veterans of the past century are consigned to history and Americans begin to make race-free judgments on who should lead them.
Click to expand...

Like the New York Times?

Under Obama, Is America ‘Post-Racial’?

A new book explains why the president is wary of using race-based policies to help minority groups.
Click to expand...

To me, post-racial black simply implies someone that wants to be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin. Hence, as noted in the NPR analysis, many of the race hustlers embraced Hillary rather than Obama, because they knew his election would be a powerful rebuttal to the claims that racism remains pervasive in America.

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?
Click to expand...

You have moved the goalposts on that one. As a reminder, what you said initially was "What is wrong with Louis Farrakhan?" Your comments above indicate that you know fully well what is wrong with Louis Farrakhan, and so you're changing the question.

Farrakhan is a racist, pure and simple. I don't suppose I have to recycle the quotes for you about satanic Jews? And qualified praise? That's laughable. Again, Bell called Farrakhan a great hero for the people.

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.
Click to expand...

What do you think Bell meant when he said that blacks were more subjugated than at any time since slavery? Do you agree it's a farcical statement? And assuming you do, why do you think he said it?

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".
Click to expand...

Oh, excuse me for parroting lame talking points. PLONK!
 
WildCat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Since I wasn't black in either of those years I don't get to make that call.

But it certainly isn't impossible. Racism isn't always on some linear path to tolerance. America certainly seemed more racist in 1920 than it was in 1870.
 
If it turns out Santorum once had a very pro-life professor does that mean the hard right will abandon him?
 
...I still have no idea what "Post-racial black" actually means. It strikes me as incoherent, and pretty laughable given US history. But I really can't say anything until I get a solid definition.
 
I do get what Brainster is talking about with "post racial" thinking and think it is a laudable goal. I just don't understand how Obama fits into this with this old professor.
 
When the vast majority of white people become post-racial, it will be reasonable to expect black people to do so as well.

In the mean time, to act like America is now post-racial would be to drop their guard right as threats to all the progress we have made as a society since 1965 would be to put all that progress at risk.

Armed bands of terrorist are forming to undo the Civil Rights movement, perhaps the constitution along with it.
 
RandFan said:
Without advocating the policy, there was an uneven playing field before the policy.
Click to expand...

I know, that is why I would be for it or something like it myself. But that wasn't my point. My point was, the commercial was no racist.
 
Caper said:
I know, that is why I would be for it or something like it myself. But that wasn't my point. My point was, the commercial was no racist.
Click to expand...
It was created by a racist, to support a racist candidate, to appeal to racist moron voters.

What aint racist about that?
 
Travis said:
I do get what Brainster is talking about with "post racial" thinking and think it is a laudable goal. I just don't understand how Obama fits into this with this old professor.
Click to expand...

Eh. The links he provided showed such a gross misunderstanding of reality (civil rights leaders consigned to history? All the problems of racism have been solved?) that I may as well try to understand politics by watching a Care Bears movie. Let's be honest - nobody who pledged to actually help black people out specifically would have a shot at the presidency. Hell, Obama's supposedly race-neutral policies (and never mind that many of them ended up benefitting white communities disproportionately) still had right-wingers like Beck and Limbaugh screaming "reparations!" and republicans putting blatantly racist photos in their emails. Even in the election, nobody who was actually paying attention would have said that sort of nonsense.

Frankly, the only real surprise so far is that Trump managed to make the 2012 election the most racist in my lifetime, before we actually hit 2012. I have to admit, Gingrich blathering about how black people love food stamps is no shock, and dragging up a token black republican to call other black people brainwashed plantation slaves is nothing new. But Trump was a spin I didn't expect.
 
Last edited:
Expecting Republican politicians and pundits to judge Obama on his actual actions instead of an alternate universe Obama? Now that's fanciful.
 
Mumbles said:
...I still have no idea what "Post-racial black" actually means. It strikes me as incoherent, and pretty laughable given US history. But I really can't say anything until I get a solid definition.
Click to expand...
Depends on who is doing the labeling... in some cases it is simply a wish to go back to the days of what Malcolm X referred to as 'house negroes'.

For others it is a wish for a time when nobody will notice race at all.

In either case, it is a wish for something that isn't happening now.
 
Caper said:
I know, that is why I would be for it or something like it myself. But that wasn't my point. My point was, the commercial was no racist.
Click to expand...
Fair enough then. Personally I don't know if the commercial was intentionally racist but it sure fails the "avoid the appearance" test. That's for damn sure. I tend to think it was. JMO.
 
angrysoba said:
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".
Click to expand...

Brainster said:
Oh, excuse me for parroting lame talking points. PLONK!
Click to expand...
Apparently it is more offensive to call one to task for roboposting poorly vetted and inaccurate talking points than it is to robopost said poorly vetted and inaccurate talking points in the first place. Lazy.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Apparently it is more offensive to call one to task for roboposting poorly vetted and inaccurate talking points than it is to robopost said poorly vetted and inaccurate talking points in the first place. Lazy.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Yes, although Brainster seems to have obviated the need for me to reply to his questions by putting me on ignore. At least, that is what I imagine the "PLONK!" means.

It's fine with me, I suppose. He had already conceded that what he considered wrong with Bell had been spoken after the video of Obama greeting Bell had been filmed and therefore all "evidence" that Obama was a "post-racial black".

Oh, but what the Hell, I'll give my response anyway:

Brainster said:
His critics, like NPR?



Like the New York Times?
Click to expand...

They both seem to be asking if Obama is "post-racial". And? This is not something Obama himself is declaring so you arguing that Obama's support of Bell is a rebuttal of a claim he didn't make.

To me, post-racial black simply implies someone that wants to be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin. Hence, as noted in the NPR analysis, many of the race hustlers embraced Hillary rather than Obama, because they knew his election would be a powerful rebuttal to the claims that racism remains pervasive in America.
Click to expand...

Do you think Obama wants people to be judged by the colour of his skin rather than of his character? It seems far more obvious that Obama is being constantly judged - by the same people who keep bringing up this stuff about Bell as if it were important - by the colour of his skin rather than of his character. I'm certainly not saying this of you, but you must know full well that a lot of it goes on. All the stuff about the birth certificate and questions about his religion comes entirely from the fact that he is black and that therefore there must be some *shock* *horror* truth about Obama that will come out once some evidence is found. Breitbart went in search of this “evidence” for years and could only come up with this pathetic morsel. In the meantime, Obama has shown absolutely zero evidence of making race a centre-piece of his administration yet the obsession continues on and on. Like, I said, it is troubling to see intelligent people engaging in this obsession or giving it any credence whatsoever.

You have moved the goalposts on that one. As a reminder, what you said initially was "What is wrong with Louis Farrakhan?" Your comments above indicate that you know fully well what is wrong with Louis Farrakhan, and so you're changing the question.

Farrakhan is a racist, pure and simple. I don't suppose I have to recycle the quotes for you about satanic Jews? And qualified praise? That's laughable. Again, Bell called Farrakhan a great hero for the people.
Click to expand...

In fact, I just wanted you to point out the obvious: that what is wrong with Farrakhan is that he is a racist. There's nothing wrong with pointing out racism. And yes, it was qualified, as he kept saying that he doesn't agree with much of what Farrakhan says.

Besides, it is you moving the goalposts by saying that even if these comments came after the video in question Obama still somehow should have known that these statements were “explicit” (!) or (wheee! slippery goalposts!) implicit


What do you think Bell meant when he said that blacks were more subjugated than at any time since slavery? Do you agree it's a farcical statement? And assuming you do, why do you think he said it?
Click to expand...

I don't know what he meant. As I have said, I don't agree with him. But they are far from outrageous and probably stem more from his experiences rather than as some money-making ruse. I’d be far more inclined to believe that Breitbart and Hannity’s jumping on this is a desperate attempt to further their own meagre reputations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom