Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Why Do Whites Discuss Blacks - And Not Themselves?


Like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Chauncey DeVega is always good for dissecting white culture. Here he is, on the Santa Barbara shooter:



This is understandable: what reasonable person would not want to excommunicate them from their community and affinity group? 

Only white folks have such a luxury in the United States: a black rapist, thief, or murderer is de facto a representative of 'the black race' with its 'bad culture' and 'pathologies'. There is no parallel for whites. The white murderer, thief, rapist, or mass shooter is an outlier, 'mentally ill', or some type of deviant whose behavior reveals nothing about white people en masse. 




Which made TMR wonder, considering the profound effect whites have (and have had) on black lives, why don't whites generally discuss themselves - as a force - in public?


Do their obvious hypocrisies, and advertised insecurities - as they do their self-policing - appear normal to them, as they don't to TMR?


And how do they feel, about the "luxury" they've afforded themselves, at the expense of others?


Like having secured a place for such behavior while vehemently telling anyone, who will (still) listen, it isn't so?


Is there ever a twinge of recognition it's all a lie?


And don't they ever want to start over?


Clean?


If I was white - and not TMR to cultism - that'd be the way I'd go,…
 

8 comments:

  1. I know Bush tried to help Africans (who are black). He got no credit really for that in the media or from the left, even though he undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Most of those on the left are white.

    Meanwhile, over 800,000 Africans, mostly children, and almost all black, die of malaria each year. Most white Environmentalists could give a shit.

    So you have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As for the media focusing on race of criminals, you are correct (mostly). Unless there is some other agenda in play, like calling George Zimmerman a white Hispanic or calling this Santa Barbara shooter white (he was actually half Chinese-Indonesian). And if it is a politician in trouble, generally the (D) gets left off or buried down in the story but the (R) becomes part of the headline and first paragraph.

    But you have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bush got *some* credit - specifically from Bob Geldof who, last time I checked, was on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well good for Bush. I am sure that make up for all the Bushitler posters from the American left and disparagement in the media.

    I posted this link and comment in updates over at my post on Cotes' reparations article: AoSHQ: "The Power of Whiteness:" TourĂ©'s Glib Dismissal of a Descendant of a Holocaust Survivor Raises Eyebrows  This reminds me of The Sopranos episode where every character was narcissistically focused on their own historical persecution.  That episode is generally hated by most fans, but this little speech by Tony at the end is awesome.  The Sopranos visited the issue of victim-hood in other episodes previous to this (this theme definitely plays into the creepy little weirdo's shooting in California).

    History is important and everything that Coates said is historically correct. Blacks were systematically fucked in America. They are still getting fucked by white people, although those white people are mostly lefties and Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Evi,

    "Well good for Bush. I am sure that make up for all the Bushitler posters from the American left and disparagement in the media."

    Do you see what you did there? You changed the subject. I showed you the big ol' lefty, Bob Geldof, praising Bush - with me, acknowledging it as it happened on this blog, as a good thing - and your reaction was to change the subject. I'm going to venture that that truth bothered you, because it upset the narrative you're hung up on now - the one that isn't true. So you wrote a new one. It's not true, either.

    Stop doing the dirty work, Evi. For starters, it's not your fight. White supremacists don't care about left and right. The difference is culture, as I've told you, and the Dems aren't trying desperately to hide theirs like you (obviously) are.

    Haven't I warned you? You guys laughed. Or didn't intervene when the laughter started. I did warn you. I got smeared for it. But I'm still here. Know who your friends are.

    I am a Republican for all the historical reasons blacks have always been Republicans. For the same reason Condi Rice is a Republican. But on this I am unequivocal:

    The GOP won't get my physical vote until they eradicate racism from the party.

    Denials, that it's there, won't do it. Claims, that it's not as bad as it used to be, won't do it.

    No Confederate flags. No more speculation on "bad culture" or whether black teens have a right to exist because they may or may not have discovered getting high. No more politicians with ranches called "Niggerhead" being considered for president of anything.

    And, if you've got doubts about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then we have very serious doubts The Republican Party is the right fit for you.

    If you're not up to that, what are you talking to me for?

    This party's history - most of it - consists, supposedly, of standing by my side.

    It's time to lead,...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess you missed the "most of the white Environmentalists could give a shit part." Bob Geldoff notwithstanding. I did not intend my comment as "changing the topic" my point was there are very few on the left (other than a couple of Irish singers) would are willing to give Bush credit for anything good.

      If you won't vote GOP because of its failure to eradicate racism from the party, then I assume you won't be voting Democrat either. You lost me with the Dems not trying to hide their culture. Many lefty environmentalists (who are voting Democrat) would love it if 90% of the planet died off from a plague and they had a secret cure to survive--and they sure as hell don't care about Africans or other dark skinned people (other than as servants on their Ecofriendly adventure).

      Doubts about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You talkin to me? Where did that come from?

      As for Perry's "ranch" it was not his ranch (nor did he name it). He painted over the offensive painted rock. He had a hunting lease. If that is a deal breaker for you fair enough. Mine was when he melted down in the debate.

      Delete
  6. "Doubts about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You talkin to me? Where did that come from?"

    Rand Paul.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON