I have been sitting back and watching our nation slowly but surely become hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive the last 8 months. It is clear that anything that happens between people of color and whites is considered racists or some form of racism gets associated it with. Also I have seen that if you are a person color and don’t agree with a black politician particularly President Barack Obama, you are considered a hater or an Uncle Tom. It seems to me that the constant labeling attacks on people in this nation and playing the race card is at an all time high. I feel like I am in the 1960s and 1970s except without all the physical violence but verbal violence is definitely amongst us. For months, I have watched people call others racists who disagree with our President but I can remember for about 8 years that when people disagreed with President Bush and the government they were called unpatriotic or un-American. Now as I have wrote previously, it seems that we are in the midst of labeling people un-American or racist if they disagree with President Obama and the government.
People what are we really doing in this nation when a person can’t call someone a racist without being attacked by organizations or people who don’t agree with their comments. For months I have seen people come on MSNBC and CNN and call protestors at tea parties and at town hall meetings racists but when Glenn Beck goes on another Fox News show and calls President Obama a racist, people want to attack him. For months I have seen MSNBC and Fox News cover the birther story but when Lou Dobbs does it, he comes under attack by the same organizations that are attacking Glenn Beck (ColorofChange.org and the Southern Poverty Law Center). Now I am not saying that I agree with Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck but I don’t agree with the protestors either because Lou Dobbs only covered the story in a more in-depth way than other national news shows because he gave a supporter of the birthers air time while the two cable networks didn’t do that. Also in the Glenn Beck case he reasons why he thinks Obama is a racist while people who called tea party protestors and healthcare protestors racists simply because they were white.
In fact many of my friends and associates called the tea party protestors uneducated and other derogatory terms as I defended them because I don’t know all those protestors so I can’t call them uneducated. In fact these same friends and associates of mine got a lashing from me because many of them voted for President Obama and can’t even explain his own political stances on issues but what to try to tell me that I am wrong when I criticize President Obama. Regardless of all of that, I want to make it clear that many Americans are realizing what politics is all about and they are taking an active role in government and activities. So for anyone demonize or downgrade people simply because they don’t agree with your view or President Obama is not right. The problem with us as a nation is that we don’t agree to disagree with. Instead we think everyone should think like us and act like us.
For far too long, I have witnessed people get so passionate about politics and government but it seems that people only think it is only okay for other people to get energized as long as they agree with them. However that is not the type of nation we live in. We live in a nation where everyone has a opinion and their views and beliefs should be heard as long as they are not talking about killing or murdering someone. Calling someone a racist is not hate speech to me when time and time again people of color do it all the time. Questioning President Obama birth certificate is not being a racist to me but rather that people need to feel and touch the real thing to believe it and a part of it is that they don’t believe what they can’t as well as they are uninformed. Racists no and those who are against the legislation of healthcare reform that is in Congress are not racists because many of them are senior citizens worried about their Medicare benefits and are skeptical of rhetoric because until it is clearly defined in legislation than we all should be skeptical of rhetoric, i.e. the Patriot Act, TARP, the stimulus bill and the omnibus bill should make all Americans skeptical.
A beloved newscaster and reporter, Robert Novak once said, “Always love your country — but never trust your government! That should not be misunderstood. I certainly am not advocating civil disobedience, must less insurrection or rebellion. What I am advocating is to not expect too much from government and be wary of it power, even the power of a democratic government in a free country. Ours is one of the mildest, most benevolent governments in the world. But it too has the power to take your wealth and forfeit your life. ... A government that can give you everything can take everything away.” Therefore regardless of who is President or what political party is in control of Congress or the Presidency we should always be skeptical of government and we should always look to check government when we don’t agree with it. People should always be willing to question their local, state and federal government and that is what I am seeing more of since the election of President Obama. President Obama asked the American people to hold him accountable and to take a more active role in government but for some of us it is only okay when people are standing up for Obama but when people are against him it is not okay.
People what have become too sensitive and hyperly racial in this nation because we equate everything that someone does against a person of color as racists. For example, when Professor Gates was arrested by a white Cambridge police officer Sgt. Crowley, everyone including the media invoked race into it and called the situation racial profiling. However what is interesting to me is that no one questioned Professor Gates to be race baiting when he is using his arrest to make a documentary about racial profiling in order to make a profit off of it but what is even more interesting is that no one questioned whether or not the allegations made by many neighbors and officers that Gates called Sgt. Crowley a racist. I didn’t see the Southern Poverty Law Center or ColorofChange.org or even the NACCP say anything about a black person calling a white person a racist which is something that happens nearly once a week. Still but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist, it is a major uproar but it is okay for guests on CNN shows and MSNBC shows such Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow to call protestors racists.
What are we really saying as a nation when we only attack those who use the r-word that is directed toward a person of color but when others use it and direct it toward whites, it is okay? Is that the message we are teaching our youth, is that the message we are trying to convey or are we simply trying to silence or censor those of us who disagree with us? People, are we really going down this path of censorship that is no different than the path that we experience for nearly the last 8 years when we questioned President Bush and our government as it related to 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina as well as TARP and a host of other bailouts that started under the Bush administration but continued by President Obama. People started to wake up last year and question government spending prior to President Obama even won the White House but now it is seems it was okay than to question our nation’s leaders but now it is not. Is that the message we are trying to send?
So as Glenn Beck returned to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist. A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange. org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago. While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.
The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that it has decided not to advertise on political talk shows. The shows present a dilemma for advertisers, who usually like a "safe" environment for their messages. The Olbermans, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Maddows and Becks of the TV world are more likely to say something that will anger a viewer, who might take it out on sponsors. They also host the most-watched programs on their networks. "This is a good illustration of that conundrum," said Rich Hallabran, spokesman for UPS Stores, which he said has temporarily halted buying ads on Fox News Channel as a whole.
Beck can bring the eyeballs. With the health care debate raising political temperatures, his show had its biggest week ever right before his vacation, averaging 2.4 million viewers each day, according to Nielsen Media Research. He was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said. ColorofChange. org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization' s executive director.
"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it." It's not immediately clear how many of the companies actually knew they were advertising on Beck's show. Sometimes commercial time is chosen for a specific show, but often it is bought on a rotation basis, meaning the network sprinkles the ads throughout the day on its own schedule. Sometimes ads appear by mistake; Best Buy said it bought commercial time for earlier in the day, and one of its ads unexpectedly appeared in Beck's show. One company, CVS Caremark, said it advertises on Fox but hadn't said anything about Beck. Now it has told its advertising agency to inform Fox that it wanted no commercials on Beck. "We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," said spokeswoman Carolyn Castel.
Besides the unpredictability of the opinionated cable hosts, the rapid pace of today's wired world complicates decisions on where to place ads, said Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Sprint. She said she was surprised at how fast the Beck issue spread across social media outlets and how quickly advertiser names were attached to it. UPS' Hallabran said the decision to pull commercials "should not be interpreted as we are permanently withdrawing our advertising from Fox." He said the company wants to reach viewers with a wide spectrum of opinions. Except for UPS Stores, there's no evidence that any advertisers who say they don't want to be on Beck's show are leaving Fox. Network spokeswoman Irena Briganti said the companies have simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere and that Fox hasn't lost any revenue. She wouldn't say whether Fox was benefiting from any anti-anti-Beck backlash, with companies looking to support him. Some Beck supporters have urged fans to express their displeasure at companies for abandoning their man.
Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange. org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange. org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started. Beck's strong ratings — even at 5 p.m. EDT he often outdraws whatever CNN and MSNBC show in prime-time — make it unlikely Beck is going anywhere even as the list of advertisers avoiding him approaches three dozen. But it could mean advertising time becomes cheaper on his show than such a large audience would normally command. Some of his show's advertisers last week included a male enhancement pill, a law firm looking to sue on behalf of asbestos victims, a company selling medical supplies to diabetics and a water filter company. Rucker said ColorofChange. org has contacted about 60 companies regarding Beck, and is heartened by the response. "It's causing a certain conversation around Beck, which I think is important," he said.
So my question to those who are advocating for the removal of Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, is are we going to take down every talk show who has someone on it that calls Americans racists or are we just going after those who call President Obama a racist or disagree with the President. People we need to realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and they have a right to free speech in this nation. People, I don’t see organizations like ColorofChange.org, the NAACP or the Southern Poverty Law Center defending Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas when people call him an uncle Tom and other such things but these organizations and other people want to get upset over the fact that people call President Obama a racist but it is okay for others to call ordinary Americans who go against the President on various issues racists.
Have we not learned from the previous 8 years that when people went against President Bush we were called un-American or unpatriotic but now if we go against President Obama people are called racist or un-American. I highly encourage us to stop getting involved in things that separating us a nation such as this whole Glen Beck issue when organizations like ColorofChange.org and the Southern Poverty Law Center won't question CNN or MSNBC about the people they have on their shows who have called healthcare protestors racists and before that tea party protestors racists. Now don't get me wrong, perhaps a few people who protest President Obama are racists but I am not willing to say that because I don't know those people. Secondly I can remember many of these same people protesting President Obama protesting President Bush so that is another reason why I won't call them racists or anti-American.
The issue isn't about Glen Beck but it is about us as a people not respecting those we disagree with as much as we respect those we agree with. Think about it, if we get rid of Glen Beck than what does that mean for Free Speech in this nation. Some might say calling the President a racist is hate speech but if it is then don't many of us call people racists, bigots, etc so are we using hate speech as well. These are the things that need to be thought about before engaging in things such as this. Know all the facts and understand the context for which why one said it. Although I don't agree with Glen Beck's comments at least he explained why he thinks Obama is a racist while many people on MSNBC's Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow's show just say it because most of the folks are white and people on CNN say it because of the raise in militias but militias have constantly rose in this nation and the way the SPLC is reporting it now is because they are trying to take advantage of fundraising dollars by making it seem as if they are fighting against these groups but if you do your own research on their lists than you will quickly find that many of the groups on their lists are not militias or hate groups at all.
Nonetheless, people we have to change this direction we are going in because we are slowly but surely becoming a hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive society that can’t seem to compromise to agree to disagree. We must fight racism with reason and that is something that we are definitely not doing. We are not being reasonable as we deal with racism, discrimination and bigotry. While battling racism with appeals to human decency and respect are important, and I fully support them; a rudimentary familiarity with the facts about the myth of race can come in handy too. We have to understand that not everyone in this nation is a racist and even those who disagree with us on certain issues that bring about a racial divide might not understand where you are coming from because they haven’t put themselves in your shoes and they haven’t tried to because they grew up in a different environment than you. That’s the same thing that can be said for why perhaps you don’t understand their view or opinion.
Nonetheless the things that divide us should not mean that we can’t work together to get rid of all those who display racism and not just target those we disagree with. If we are serious about fighting racism no matter who is and where it is than there are a couple of things we must do to stop this hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive trend that is erupting in this nation. First there are three great strategies for obscuring an issue which are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule as stated in Bergan Evans book, Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense. Still Jerome Kagan, professor of psychology, Harvard University says that if you make statements about racial differences based on data that doesn't exist, and right now there's nothing legitimate, then you are no more than a terrorist. This is why our IQ which stands for "intelligence quotient." A person's IQ is supposed to be a measure of that person's "intelligence:" the higher the IQ number, the greater the intelligence. Intelligence, or as it is known among social scientists, is supposed to be some sort of entity or property or set of behaviors.
However, it is as mythical as the unicorn. Not that there aren't people who are intelligent. Obviously, there are. And some people are more intelligent than others. But the myth is in thinking that only one type or set of behaviors counts as "intelligence." Most people recognize that there are some people with fantastic memories, some with mathematical minds, some with musical genius, some with mechanical expertise, some with good vocabularies, some good at seeing analogies, some good at synthesizing, some at unifying, etc., etc. And, of course, some people excel at more than one of these behaviors. In short, it may be appropriate to speak of human intelligences, but not of "intelligence. Thus, it might seem ludicrous for the Arthur Jensens and William Shockleys of the world to find a correlation between race and this mythical beast called intelligence. The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray might seem improbable in a rational world, but it is not only probable but a best-seller in our world, albeit a controversial best-seller. What makes such works improbable is that race is just as mythical as intelligence. Even the fundamentalists with their original Adam and Eve must see that much: we all come from the same stock. There is no such thing as a racial gene or set of genes any more than there is such a thing as an intelligence gene or set of genes. This does not mean, of course, that a person's biological makeup is not a significant factor in individual intelligence in particular areas.
The obvious physical differences among groups of peoples known as Mongoloids, Caucasians, Negroids, etc., have been determined by evolution over thousands of years. The primary mechanisms for the development of these racial differences have been natural selection and sexual selection. "There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white." ["Race: many biologists argue for discarding the whole concept," Deborah Blum, The Sacramento Bee, October 18, 1995, p. A12.] Joseph Graves, an African American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West in Tempe, notes that most people and researchers who try to establish correlations between various natural abilities and skin color are not geneticists. "These people don't know evolutionary genetics. They talk about interesting issues in race and biology. And since, some think, there are no real races, it makes one wonder what these issues are. It makes one angry that others have to take time from their research (on the genetics of aging) to argue about something that shouldn't even need to be discussed." [Blum] C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, claims that "race is a four-letter word with no basis in biological reality." [Blum]
Of course, physical features such as skin color, shape of eyelid, color of eyes, texture of hair, etc., are genetically determined. It is also true, that an individual's capacity for any particular kind of intelligence is largely dependent upon genetic factors. What isn't true is the notion that whole races of people have sets of genes which make them as a group more intelligent than other races. The genes which affect musical talent, the power to visualize or to think abstractly, for example, are not established as the same ones which affect those characteristics which are associated with being Caucasian, mongoloid or negroid. If you want to find out why Asians are overrepresented in California's universities and blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will search in vain for a genetic answer. My suggestion to those who are interested in such things is that they look to family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions.
Still, to correlate two mythical entities in the name of science and have the world pay attention to you is no small feat. Could it be the numbers, the statistics which impress some people? I don't think so. Even the most sophisticated numerical analysis which showed a correspondence between phlogiston and the ether wouldn't get a hearing today. So, why does the race/IQ bit get a hearing? How can any rational person take seriously notions such as the Aryans, racial superiority or g? For power, some suppose; as a quick and simple way to establish not only one's superiority, but one's right to superiority: as a rationalization to justify inequality. In a word, racism. What else could explain intelligent people taking seriously the psychological equivalent of Adam's naval or angels dancing on pinheads? For example, recently, I watched a television program on white supremacists. One fellow seemed to me to be typical of these characters. He was basically a thug who had been in prison several times for violent crimes, some of them hate crimes. He was not a stupid man, but no one would call him brilliant. But he was clearly a moral moron. He had no character, no sense of integrity or personal responsibility. He was basically a lazy dolt who had accomplished nothing in his life and blamed others for his lack of abilities and accomplishments. He saw himself as intelligent because he is white, but unable to flourish because blacks were either getting all the good jobs from a give-away government or they were stealing everything decent white folks earned the hard way.
Now, again, there are no such things as "white" genes. There is no "white" race, no connection between his skin color and the kind of intelligences this man has or lacks. But he was convinced not only that by being "white" (he was actually kind of brown) he shared in some kind of group intelligence, but that those who are black are, by virtue of their skin color, "destroyers of civilizations." The ignorance or disingenuous portrayal of history displayed by white supremacists is greater even than that of the Afro-centrists who claim the ancient Greeks (and therefore all of western civilization) stole everything they ever knew or did from the Egyptians who were black Africans. All those barbarians that nearly eliminated western civilization in the 4th century and returned Europe to an age of darkness for half a millennium were "white." The barbarians of the Third Reich were "white." I would be the first to look proudly upon all the accomplishments of Greeks, Romans, Germans, Italians, Norsemen, Celts, etc. But it would be absurd to ignore that all of these peoples were great destroyers of civilizations as well as creators.
This same white supremacist "historian" referred to Asians as "preservers of civilization." I am sure these words were not his and that he got them from one of his "leaders;" but what ignorance of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. history does such a notion display. I can only suppose that our white supremacist feels he is somehow more powerful by identifying himself with a group he declares is superior to all other groups. But what a moronic idea! A person who is mainly Irish and Italian, hardly thinks they deserve to be proud of the accomplishments of Michelangelo or W.B. Yeats. They might as well identify with Mussolini and Ronald Reagan! What non-sense! What any so-called "white" person accomplishes, or even what any so-called "white" race accomplishes, is irrelevant to who others are. One does not become "intelligent" because many "white" people are "intelligent." Intelligences always belong to individuals. They are measured by individual accomplishments, not by group affiliation. Are the studies, then, which show that African-Americans or other minorities, do more poorly or better than, so-called "white" Americans, of no value? That is, is the work of people like Herrnstein and Murray worthless? No.
It is valuable data, but it is also explosive data because of our racist political history. Such data will inevitably be exploited by white supremacists, twisted for their own political goals and used not to improve racial relations in America but to encourage further racial strife. Such data consists mainly of correlations. And while correlations should convince orthodox empirical scientists of nothing, to the racist researcher, correlations are the heart and soul of their work. The furor that The Bell Curve caused has died down because there has been an ongoing saga which has usurped its political and entertainment value: the O.J. Simpson trial. However, Herrnstein and Murray, in chapter after chapter, call for social reforms to improve the status of blacks in America. They may be disingenuous calls, but they are nevertheless inconsistent with the notion that the social condition of blacks in America is due to genetic factors. If genes led to the black underclass of young thugs who murder each other on a daily basis in almost every city in America, then there would be no point to call for educational or vocational programs, no point in urging a change of focus for black men and women in their families, as even the black supremacist, Louis Farrakhan has recommended with his million man march.
One should be willing to accept Herrnstein and Murray's data as accurate. However it is incomplete, however because when similar tests were done before World War II on black soldiers from the north and white soldiers from the south, the blacks scored higher on intelligence tests. [See Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game."] So simply put, I am not advocating that what some people say are not wrong or that I agree with it but what I am saying is that everyone has a right to freedom of speech and at least that speech entices violence which in no way I get from the likes of Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs or those who appeared on cable talk shows calling Americans who protested at the tea party and healthcare demonstrations racists. I don’t think these individuals are exciting hate or are calling for violence but I do think that each of them have been ill advised in their words or have been misunderstood to some degree by those of us who don’t like what have said.
In concluding, I urge all of us to stop being hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive but instead understand where others are coming from before we demonize them or try to dehumanize them. I urge all of us who laughed images or comparisons of Bush to a monkey to stop getting mad or upset when people Obama to the Batman character, the Joker. I urge all of us who laughed at shoes being thrown at President Bush to not demonize those who simply call President Obama a racist or don’t believe he is an American citizen. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, their feelings and their emotions. That is what a democracy is about and although I don’t think comparing President Bush to a monkey was fair or a Obama to the Joker is right and I definitely didn’t agree with someone throwing their shoes at President Bush was right, I understand how others view those are funny but I am not going to demonize or spew hatred toward those individuals for laughing or feeling the way they feel.
I am not going to stop speaking to these individuals or doing business with them simply because I disagree with them on certain issues. I come the belief that if I was your friend today when everyone loved you, I am going to be your friend tomorrow when everyone hates you unless you give me reason not to be. I come from the belief that how one portrays themselves in public is not always how they are in private. For example, an article in one of the local papers in Detroit talked about how a box was found in an old car garage that showed a huge supporter of Black activities in Detroit was a behind the scenes Ku Klux Klan member. This shocked many African Americans who used to get money from this man for various activists events for the black community in Detroit during the 1960s and 1970s. The box contained the man’s hoodie and meeting dates as well as photos of his participation in the Klan. So that just goes to show that how one person acts in public is not how they are privately. That’s why we all have to work toward understanding each other and work toward getting alone for the sake of our society moving forward to be better and greater than we are right now.
Let’s stop the hyper racism and hyper sensitivity that we are displaying because we can do better this and we will do better than this.
_____________________________________________
Further Reading:
Augstein, Hannah. ed., Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760-1850
(Bristol, UK: Thoemmen Press, 1996).
Evans, Bergen. The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game."
Gould, Stephen J. The Mismeasure of Man (New York, Norton: 1981).
Higgins, A.C. Review of William Tucker's The Science and Politics of Racial Research
Marks, Jonathan. "Black, White, Other" in Natural History, 12/94.
Montagu, Ashley. Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, 5th ed. revised and enlarged (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).
The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll
__________________________________________________________________________
"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace."
--Rudolf Rocker (Anarcho-Syndicalism, 1938)
__________________________________________________________________________
Fight superstition and pseudo-science:
The Skeptic's Society: http://www.skeptic.com/
The James Randi Educational Foundation: http://www.randi.org/
A Skeptic's Dictionary: http://wheel.ucdavis.edu/~btcarrol/skeptic/
People what are we really doing in this nation when a person can’t call someone a racist without being attacked by organizations or people who don’t agree with their comments. For months I have seen people come on MSNBC and CNN and call protestors at tea parties and at town hall meetings racists but when Glenn Beck goes on another Fox News show and calls President Obama a racist, people want to attack him. For months I have seen MSNBC and Fox News cover the birther story but when Lou Dobbs does it, he comes under attack by the same organizations that are attacking Glenn Beck (ColorofChange.org and the Southern Poverty Law Center). Now I am not saying that I agree with Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck but I don’t agree with the protestors either because Lou Dobbs only covered the story in a more in-depth way than other national news shows because he gave a supporter of the birthers air time while the two cable networks didn’t do that. Also in the Glenn Beck case he reasons why he thinks Obama is a racist while people who called tea party protestors and healthcare protestors racists simply because they were white.
In fact many of my friends and associates called the tea party protestors uneducated and other derogatory terms as I defended them because I don’t know all those protestors so I can’t call them uneducated. In fact these same friends and associates of mine got a lashing from me because many of them voted for President Obama and can’t even explain his own political stances on issues but what to try to tell me that I am wrong when I criticize President Obama. Regardless of all of that, I want to make it clear that many Americans are realizing what politics is all about and they are taking an active role in government and activities. So for anyone demonize or downgrade people simply because they don’t agree with your view or President Obama is not right. The problem with us as a nation is that we don’t agree to disagree with. Instead we think everyone should think like us and act like us.
For far too long, I have witnessed people get so passionate about politics and government but it seems that people only think it is only okay for other people to get energized as long as they agree with them. However that is not the type of nation we live in. We live in a nation where everyone has a opinion and their views and beliefs should be heard as long as they are not talking about killing or murdering someone. Calling someone a racist is not hate speech to me when time and time again people of color do it all the time. Questioning President Obama birth certificate is not being a racist to me but rather that people need to feel and touch the real thing to believe it and a part of it is that they don’t believe what they can’t as well as they are uninformed. Racists no and those who are against the legislation of healthcare reform that is in Congress are not racists because many of them are senior citizens worried about their Medicare benefits and are skeptical of rhetoric because until it is clearly defined in legislation than we all should be skeptical of rhetoric, i.e. the Patriot Act, TARP, the stimulus bill and the omnibus bill should make all Americans skeptical.
A beloved newscaster and reporter, Robert Novak once said, “Always love your country — but never trust your government! That should not be misunderstood. I certainly am not advocating civil disobedience, must less insurrection or rebellion. What I am advocating is to not expect too much from government and be wary of it power, even the power of a democratic government in a free country. Ours is one of the mildest, most benevolent governments in the world. But it too has the power to take your wealth and forfeit your life. ... A government that can give you everything can take everything away.” Therefore regardless of who is President or what political party is in control of Congress or the Presidency we should always be skeptical of government and we should always look to check government when we don’t agree with it. People should always be willing to question their local, state and federal government and that is what I am seeing more of since the election of President Obama. President Obama asked the American people to hold him accountable and to take a more active role in government but for some of us it is only okay when people are standing up for Obama but when people are against him it is not okay.
People what have become too sensitive and hyperly racial in this nation because we equate everything that someone does against a person of color as racists. For example, when Professor Gates was arrested by a white Cambridge police officer Sgt. Crowley, everyone including the media invoked race into it and called the situation racial profiling. However what is interesting to me is that no one questioned Professor Gates to be race baiting when he is using his arrest to make a documentary about racial profiling in order to make a profit off of it but what is even more interesting is that no one questioned whether or not the allegations made by many neighbors and officers that Gates called Sgt. Crowley a racist. I didn’t see the Southern Poverty Law Center or ColorofChange.org or even the NACCP say anything about a black person calling a white person a racist which is something that happens nearly once a week. Still but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist, it is a major uproar but it is okay for guests on CNN shows and MSNBC shows such Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow to call protestors racists.
What are we really saying as a nation when we only attack those who use the r-word that is directed toward a person of color but when others use it and direct it toward whites, it is okay? Is that the message we are teaching our youth, is that the message we are trying to convey or are we simply trying to silence or censor those of us who disagree with us? People, are we really going down this path of censorship that is no different than the path that we experience for nearly the last 8 years when we questioned President Bush and our government as it related to 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina as well as TARP and a host of other bailouts that started under the Bush administration but continued by President Obama. People started to wake up last year and question government spending prior to President Obama even won the White House but now it is seems it was okay than to question our nation’s leaders but now it is not. Is that the message we are trying to send?
So as Glenn Beck returned to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist. A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange. org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago. While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.
The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that it has decided not to advertise on political talk shows. The shows present a dilemma for advertisers, who usually like a "safe" environment for their messages. The Olbermans, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Maddows and Becks of the TV world are more likely to say something that will anger a viewer, who might take it out on sponsors. They also host the most-watched programs on their networks. "This is a good illustration of that conundrum," said Rich Hallabran, spokesman for UPS Stores, which he said has temporarily halted buying ads on Fox News Channel as a whole.
Beck can bring the eyeballs. With the health care debate raising political temperatures, his show had its biggest week ever right before his vacation, averaging 2.4 million viewers each day, according to Nielsen Media Research. He was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said. ColorofChange. org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization' s executive director.
"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it." It's not immediately clear how many of the companies actually knew they were advertising on Beck's show. Sometimes commercial time is chosen for a specific show, but often it is bought on a rotation basis, meaning the network sprinkles the ads throughout the day on its own schedule. Sometimes ads appear by mistake; Best Buy said it bought commercial time for earlier in the day, and one of its ads unexpectedly appeared in Beck's show. One company, CVS Caremark, said it advertises on Fox but hadn't said anything about Beck. Now it has told its advertising agency to inform Fox that it wanted no commercials on Beck. "We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," said spokeswoman Carolyn Castel.
Besides the unpredictability of the opinionated cable hosts, the rapid pace of today's wired world complicates decisions on where to place ads, said Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Sprint. She said she was surprised at how fast the Beck issue spread across social media outlets and how quickly advertiser names were attached to it. UPS' Hallabran said the decision to pull commercials "should not be interpreted as we are permanently withdrawing our advertising from Fox." He said the company wants to reach viewers with a wide spectrum of opinions. Except for UPS Stores, there's no evidence that any advertisers who say they don't want to be on Beck's show are leaving Fox. Network spokeswoman Irena Briganti said the companies have simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere and that Fox hasn't lost any revenue. She wouldn't say whether Fox was benefiting from any anti-anti-Beck backlash, with companies looking to support him. Some Beck supporters have urged fans to express their displeasure at companies for abandoning their man.
Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange. org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange. org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started. Beck's strong ratings — even at 5 p.m. EDT he often outdraws whatever CNN and MSNBC show in prime-time — make it unlikely Beck is going anywhere even as the list of advertisers avoiding him approaches three dozen. But it could mean advertising time becomes cheaper on his show than such a large audience would normally command. Some of his show's advertisers last week included a male enhancement pill, a law firm looking to sue on behalf of asbestos victims, a company selling medical supplies to diabetics and a water filter company. Rucker said ColorofChange. org has contacted about 60 companies regarding Beck, and is heartened by the response. "It's causing a certain conversation around Beck, which I think is important," he said.
So my question to those who are advocating for the removal of Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, is are we going to take down every talk show who has someone on it that calls Americans racists or are we just going after those who call President Obama a racist or disagree with the President. People we need to realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and they have a right to free speech in this nation. People, I don’t see organizations like ColorofChange.org, the NAACP or the Southern Poverty Law Center defending Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas when people call him an uncle Tom and other such things but these organizations and other people want to get upset over the fact that people call President Obama a racist but it is okay for others to call ordinary Americans who go against the President on various issues racists.
Have we not learned from the previous 8 years that when people went against President Bush we were called un-American or unpatriotic but now if we go against President Obama people are called racist or un-American. I highly encourage us to stop getting involved in things that separating us a nation such as this whole Glen Beck issue when organizations like ColorofChange.org and the Southern Poverty Law Center won't question CNN or MSNBC about the people they have on their shows who have called healthcare protestors racists and before that tea party protestors racists. Now don't get me wrong, perhaps a few people who protest President Obama are racists but I am not willing to say that because I don't know those people. Secondly I can remember many of these same people protesting President Obama protesting President Bush so that is another reason why I won't call them racists or anti-American.
The issue isn't about Glen Beck but it is about us as a people not respecting those we disagree with as much as we respect those we agree with. Think about it, if we get rid of Glen Beck than what does that mean for Free Speech in this nation. Some might say calling the President a racist is hate speech but if it is then don't many of us call people racists, bigots, etc so are we using hate speech as well. These are the things that need to be thought about before engaging in things such as this. Know all the facts and understand the context for which why one said it. Although I don't agree with Glen Beck's comments at least he explained why he thinks Obama is a racist while many people on MSNBC's Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow's show just say it because most of the folks are white and people on CNN say it because of the raise in militias but militias have constantly rose in this nation and the way the SPLC is reporting it now is because they are trying to take advantage of fundraising dollars by making it seem as if they are fighting against these groups but if you do your own research on their lists than you will quickly find that many of the groups on their lists are not militias or hate groups at all.
Nonetheless, people we have to change this direction we are going in because we are slowly but surely becoming a hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive society that can’t seem to compromise to agree to disagree. We must fight racism with reason and that is something that we are definitely not doing. We are not being reasonable as we deal with racism, discrimination and bigotry. While battling racism with appeals to human decency and respect are important, and I fully support them; a rudimentary familiarity with the facts about the myth of race can come in handy too. We have to understand that not everyone in this nation is a racist and even those who disagree with us on certain issues that bring about a racial divide might not understand where you are coming from because they haven’t put themselves in your shoes and they haven’t tried to because they grew up in a different environment than you. That’s the same thing that can be said for why perhaps you don’t understand their view or opinion.
Nonetheless the things that divide us should not mean that we can’t work together to get rid of all those who display racism and not just target those we disagree with. If we are serious about fighting racism no matter who is and where it is than there are a couple of things we must do to stop this hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive trend that is erupting in this nation. First there are three great strategies for obscuring an issue which are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule as stated in Bergan Evans book, Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense. Still Jerome Kagan, professor of psychology, Harvard University says that if you make statements about racial differences based on data that doesn't exist, and right now there's nothing legitimate, then you are no more than a terrorist. This is why our IQ which stands for "intelligence quotient." A person's IQ is supposed to be a measure of that person's "intelligence:" the higher the IQ number, the greater the intelligence. Intelligence, or as it is known among social scientists, is supposed to be some sort of entity or property or set of behaviors.
However, it is as mythical as the unicorn. Not that there aren't people who are intelligent. Obviously, there are. And some people are more intelligent than others. But the myth is in thinking that only one type or set of behaviors counts as "intelligence." Most people recognize that there are some people with fantastic memories, some with mathematical minds, some with musical genius, some with mechanical expertise, some with good vocabularies, some good at seeing analogies, some good at synthesizing, some at unifying, etc., etc. And, of course, some people excel at more than one of these behaviors. In short, it may be appropriate to speak of human intelligences, but not of "intelligence. Thus, it might seem ludicrous for the Arthur Jensens and William Shockleys of the world to find a correlation between race and this mythical beast called intelligence. The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray might seem improbable in a rational world, but it is not only probable but a best-seller in our world, albeit a controversial best-seller. What makes such works improbable is that race is just as mythical as intelligence. Even the fundamentalists with their original Adam and Eve must see that much: we all come from the same stock. There is no such thing as a racial gene or set of genes any more than there is such a thing as an intelligence gene or set of genes. This does not mean, of course, that a person's biological makeup is not a significant factor in individual intelligence in particular areas.
The obvious physical differences among groups of peoples known as Mongoloids, Caucasians, Negroids, etc., have been determined by evolution over thousands of years. The primary mechanisms for the development of these racial differences have been natural selection and sexual selection. "There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white." ["Race: many biologists argue for discarding the whole concept," Deborah Blum, The Sacramento Bee, October 18, 1995, p. A12.] Joseph Graves, an African American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West in Tempe, notes that most people and researchers who try to establish correlations between various natural abilities and skin color are not geneticists. "These people don't know evolutionary genetics. They talk about interesting issues in race and biology. And since, some think, there are no real races, it makes one wonder what these issues are. It makes one angry that others have to take time from their research (on the genetics of aging) to argue about something that shouldn't even need to be discussed." [Blum] C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, claims that "race is a four-letter word with no basis in biological reality." [Blum]
Of course, physical features such as skin color, shape of eyelid, color of eyes, texture of hair, etc., are genetically determined. It is also true, that an individual's capacity for any particular kind of intelligence is largely dependent upon genetic factors. What isn't true is the notion that whole races of people have sets of genes which make them as a group more intelligent than other races. The genes which affect musical talent, the power to visualize or to think abstractly, for example, are not established as the same ones which affect those characteristics which are associated with being Caucasian, mongoloid or negroid. If you want to find out why Asians are overrepresented in California's universities and blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will search in vain for a genetic answer. My suggestion to those who are interested in such things is that they look to family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions.
Still, to correlate two mythical entities in the name of science and have the world pay attention to you is no small feat. Could it be the numbers, the statistics which impress some people? I don't think so. Even the most sophisticated numerical analysis which showed a correspondence between phlogiston and the ether wouldn't get a hearing today. So, why does the race/IQ bit get a hearing? How can any rational person take seriously notions such as the Aryans, racial superiority or g? For power, some suppose; as a quick and simple way to establish not only one's superiority, but one's right to superiority: as a rationalization to justify inequality. In a word, racism. What else could explain intelligent people taking seriously the psychological equivalent of Adam's naval or angels dancing on pinheads? For example, recently, I watched a television program on white supremacists. One fellow seemed to me to be typical of these characters. He was basically a thug who had been in prison several times for violent crimes, some of them hate crimes. He was not a stupid man, but no one would call him brilliant. But he was clearly a moral moron. He had no character, no sense of integrity or personal responsibility. He was basically a lazy dolt who had accomplished nothing in his life and blamed others for his lack of abilities and accomplishments. He saw himself as intelligent because he is white, but unable to flourish because blacks were either getting all the good jobs from a give-away government or they were stealing everything decent white folks earned the hard way.
Now, again, there are no such things as "white" genes. There is no "white" race, no connection between his skin color and the kind of intelligences this man has or lacks. But he was convinced not only that by being "white" (he was actually kind of brown) he shared in some kind of group intelligence, but that those who are black are, by virtue of their skin color, "destroyers of civilizations." The ignorance or disingenuous portrayal of history displayed by white supremacists is greater even than that of the Afro-centrists who claim the ancient Greeks (and therefore all of western civilization) stole everything they ever knew or did from the Egyptians who were black Africans. All those barbarians that nearly eliminated western civilization in the 4th century and returned Europe to an age of darkness for half a millennium were "white." The barbarians of the Third Reich were "white." I would be the first to look proudly upon all the accomplishments of Greeks, Romans, Germans, Italians, Norsemen, Celts, etc. But it would be absurd to ignore that all of these peoples were great destroyers of civilizations as well as creators.
This same white supremacist "historian" referred to Asians as "preservers of civilization." I am sure these words were not his and that he got them from one of his "leaders;" but what ignorance of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. history does such a notion display. I can only suppose that our white supremacist feels he is somehow more powerful by identifying himself with a group he declares is superior to all other groups. But what a moronic idea! A person who is mainly Irish and Italian, hardly thinks they deserve to be proud of the accomplishments of Michelangelo or W.B. Yeats. They might as well identify with Mussolini and Ronald Reagan! What non-sense! What any so-called "white" person accomplishes, or even what any so-called "white" race accomplishes, is irrelevant to who others are. One does not become "intelligent" because many "white" people are "intelligent." Intelligences always belong to individuals. They are measured by individual accomplishments, not by group affiliation. Are the studies, then, which show that African-Americans or other minorities, do more poorly or better than, so-called "white" Americans, of no value? That is, is the work of people like Herrnstein and Murray worthless? No.
It is valuable data, but it is also explosive data because of our racist political history. Such data will inevitably be exploited by white supremacists, twisted for their own political goals and used not to improve racial relations in America but to encourage further racial strife. Such data consists mainly of correlations. And while correlations should convince orthodox empirical scientists of nothing, to the racist researcher, correlations are the heart and soul of their work. The furor that The Bell Curve caused has died down because there has been an ongoing saga which has usurped its political and entertainment value: the O.J. Simpson trial. However, Herrnstein and Murray, in chapter after chapter, call for social reforms to improve the status of blacks in America. They may be disingenuous calls, but they are nevertheless inconsistent with the notion that the social condition of blacks in America is due to genetic factors. If genes led to the black underclass of young thugs who murder each other on a daily basis in almost every city in America, then there would be no point to call for educational or vocational programs, no point in urging a change of focus for black men and women in their families, as even the black supremacist, Louis Farrakhan has recommended with his million man march.
One should be willing to accept Herrnstein and Murray's data as accurate. However it is incomplete, however because when similar tests were done before World War II on black soldiers from the north and white soldiers from the south, the blacks scored higher on intelligence tests. [See Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game."] So simply put, I am not advocating that what some people say are not wrong or that I agree with it but what I am saying is that everyone has a right to freedom of speech and at least that speech entices violence which in no way I get from the likes of Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs or those who appeared on cable talk shows calling Americans who protested at the tea party and healthcare demonstrations racists. I don’t think these individuals are exciting hate or are calling for violence but I do think that each of them have been ill advised in their words or have been misunderstood to some degree by those of us who don’t like what have said.
In concluding, I urge all of us to stop being hyperly racial and hyperly sensitive but instead understand where others are coming from before we demonize them or try to dehumanize them. I urge all of us who laughed images or comparisons of Bush to a monkey to stop getting mad or upset when people Obama to the Batman character, the Joker. I urge all of us who laughed at shoes being thrown at President Bush to not demonize those who simply call President Obama a racist or don’t believe he is an American citizen. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, their feelings and their emotions. That is what a democracy is about and although I don’t think comparing President Bush to a monkey was fair or a Obama to the Joker is right and I definitely didn’t agree with someone throwing their shoes at President Bush was right, I understand how others view those are funny but I am not going to demonize or spew hatred toward those individuals for laughing or feeling the way they feel.
I am not going to stop speaking to these individuals or doing business with them simply because I disagree with them on certain issues. I come the belief that if I was your friend today when everyone loved you, I am going to be your friend tomorrow when everyone hates you unless you give me reason not to be. I come from the belief that how one portrays themselves in public is not always how they are in private. For example, an article in one of the local papers in Detroit talked about how a box was found in an old car garage that showed a huge supporter of Black activities in Detroit was a behind the scenes Ku Klux Klan member. This shocked many African Americans who used to get money from this man for various activists events for the black community in Detroit during the 1960s and 1970s. The box contained the man’s hoodie and meeting dates as well as photos of his participation in the Klan. So that just goes to show that how one person acts in public is not how they are privately. That’s why we all have to work toward understanding each other and work toward getting alone for the sake of our society moving forward to be better and greater than we are right now.
Let’s stop the hyper racism and hyper sensitivity that we are displaying because we can do better this and we will do better than this.
_____________________________________________
Further Reading:
Augstein, Hannah. ed., Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760-1850
(Bristol, UK: Thoemmen Press, 1996).
Evans, Bergen. The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game."
Gould, Stephen J. The Mismeasure of Man (New York, Norton: 1981).
Higgins, A.C. Review of William Tucker's The Science and Politics of Racial Research
Marks, Jonathan. "Black, White, Other" in Natural History, 12/94.
Montagu, Ashley. Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, 5th ed. revised and enlarged (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).
The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll
__________________________________________________________________________
"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace."
--Rudolf Rocker (Anarcho-Syndicalism, 1938)
__________________________________________________________________________
Fight superstition and pseudo-science:
The Skeptic's Society: http://www.skeptic.com/
The James Randi Educational Foundation: http://www.randi.org/
A Skeptic's Dictionary: http://wheel.ucdavis.edu/~btcarrol/skeptic/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment