Patterico's Pontifications

12/6/2009

That Quote Most of You Called “Racist” Was Written by Robert Stacy McCain

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:26 pm

Whom I always liked, to be honest with you, as a funny and seemingly sensible guy. And I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time. But at the same time, he wrote something that would make most of us cringe.

Earlier today I asked whether this quote is racist:

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

I asked readers to tell me whether you think this quote is racist. Many of you said that it is. I agree. As one commenter said: to be as charitable as possible, it is racially prejudiced.

The quote is from Robert Stacy McCain. Founding Bloggers asked McCain about the quote and he admitted the quote and claimed that it had been taken out of context:

We spoke at great length with RS McCain today, and we are satisfied with what he had to say about the above comments. To sum up, here is what he told us:

The quote about interracial marriage [The same one I quoted in this post -- P] is taken out of context, and is more about ethnographic-genetic philosophy than race (our conclusion). While we personally do not accept the premise being discussed in the quote, to the degree which we can divine intent, we do not feel that McCain’s motive was any kind of overt racism. It is possible to be wrong on issues related to race without being racist. Some people will probably disagree with that conclusion but there you are.

They’re doing their best to be charitable, but the discomfort is palpable. As for “context”: if you want, you can read the quotes in their full context here, or an Internet Archive version of the quotes here.

For context, I am placing the full quote in the extended entry below. The reader can judge for himself or herself whether the context renders non-racist McCain’s observations about the “natural revulsion” that many people feel upon seeing images of interracial marriage.

By the way, I found the Founding Bloggers post linked at this very lengthy and thorough post that is very harsh to McCain. But the author also has plenty of evidence to back up much of what he has to say. It’s worth a click and a read.

I have much more discussion of the evidence at this page, but I think it’s too lengthy to include here. I think the evidence set forth there is quite compelling and interesting — and shows how McCain has made sort of half-assed attempts to deny, or implicitly deny, the quote. But when he was finally asked the question quite directly by the sympathetic site Founding Bloggers in the link above, he admitted it. And claimed he was taken out of context.

So let’s turn to the full context of the quote.

To be sure, McCain says some other stuff here that is not racist, and some stuff that is less racist than the part quoted above. But I keep coming back to his claim that “the media now force interracial images into the public mind” that that “a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion.”

And that “[t]he white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM.

You can put as much context around that as you like. It still sounds like racism to me. But judge for yourself. Here’s McCain in his own words:

Note that in this piece, McCain talks about having majored in theater in college (which he did) and having been a small-town sportswriter (which he was):

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

August 23, 1996

The somewhat discordant discussion of race relations which has broken out here in the past couple of weeks may be entirely unnecessary. In fact, it might be nothing less than the product of Communist subversion. (I’ll wait until the laughter stops.)

OK, now that we’ve got that over with … I live in Northwest Georgia, former home turf of Larry McDonald, a place where one still sees lots of “Get US out of UN” signs on the roadsides and stickers on the bumpers of cars. The local John Birch chapter is quite active they pitched in and bought me a subscription to New American which, unfortunately, recently lapsed. And, in the local used bookstore, one can find plenty of old hardright paperbacks tucked in among the history and political science sections. They’re cheap and interesting, and so I buy some of them from time to time.

I recently bought “The Bondage of the Free,” a 1966 analysis of the civil rights movement by Kent H. Steffgen, published by Vanguard Books. Steffgen’s analysis sought to explain to Northerners why the South reacted so passionately against federal intervention in civil rights: The South had seen this act before, during Reconstruction, they knew what it was all about and they hadn’t forgotten. Federal meddling had brought disastrous results during Reconstruction including increased racial animosity and Southerners, with their distinct history, knew that a renewal of such interference would cause further estrangement and demoralization on both sides of the color line. But the average Northerner, living in virtually allwhite communities, perhaps with only some token “integration,” could not understand what the South was so angry about, Steffgen explained. The South had this lesson from its past, while for the North the consequences of federal intervention were unknown. And he points out that hypocritical Yankees are unaware even of their own racial attitudes:

“Years of sustained pressure, tea leaves and glory road propaganda have not brought integration to New York City or to any other large city but instead, Harlem, the largest segregated Negro community in the world. As one spokesman has paraphrased it, the result of all the egalitarian outpouring … is that no white man or woman will live in Harlem under any circumstances.

“A dormant and contained Harlem gave liberal college professors at Columbia and New York University a onemile twilight zone from which to demand that New Yorkers abandon their “inverted” thought patterns and learn to accept the integration requirements of 20th Century society. But as soon as Harlem’s bulging population began to spill over in a downtown direction, out of the way fled these same professors to restricted neighborhoods where their children could be enrolled in allwhite schools.”

And, what is more, Steffgen predicts, agitation by the civil rights leaders and the consequences will lead to a GROWTH of racialist doctrines in America. This was especially true in light of Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 statement of the “next phase” goals: “We see not equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and a result.” (Note, this was AFTER the landmark legislation of 1964.)

Affirmative action, preferences, quotas and setasides were the obvious implication federal intervention to bring about economic equality between the races. If the black race were now actually to be the FAVORED race in the eyes of the government, Steffgen pondered, how would whites react? Survival is the first law, and as if possessing prophetic powers, Steffgen foresaw the rise of “14 words” racialist doctrine:

“President Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ … is an interracial society…. If this is what Americans wanted, they will have their chance to buy it now. A Negro will appear in every advertisement and televised audience scene. The cast of characters in major Hollywood productions will conform to the ‘racial balance’ requirement of the Federal government…. [Am I the only one thinking of 'Montel' here?]

“Americans will be told, in effect, that they must make a choice between their own heritage and prejudice toward Negroes. That is the way the Communists have it rigged. Ten thousand interracial themes will not beat a path to brotherhood but into the moral sewers which, in turn, will open up a market for the advocation of pure race doctrines from coast to coast and border to border for the first time in U.S. history. The cry will go up that subversive elements are trying to turn the United States into a nation of mulattoes and aboriginal gatherers. Having been partially submerged and withdrawn from the academic halls with the rise of progressive education during the thirties, physical anthropology, eugenics and the biological sciences will reappear and begin a renewed defence of the United States as a Europeanstyle civilization (which, of course, it is). After first *creating* the race issue, the Communists will now capitalize on their creation thus provoking a more or less logical reaction from Americans everywhere….

“It can be said with fair accuracy that while Americans don’t regard themselves as ‘racists in the sense the Communists and their allies are exploiting the term today, the vast majority .. [are] ‘race conscious’ to the extent that they practice selective association and seek out members of their own race and culture to marry; … and are conscious of their Caucasian and AngloSaxon ancestry…. To take pride in one’s heritage is not to entertain a hatred for someone else’s, other than by the twisted jargon of Communism. Nonetheless, it is this centurieslong code of traditional values and beliefs which will now be assailed and downgraded in order to bring the ‘social revolution’ of the Great Society into conformity with the laws an invertebrate Congress has already enacted.”

Fairly prescient, I would say, for something written in 1966. And we must beware, I believe, of reacting to the programme of our adversaries in ways which help them attain their goals. Their central goal, don’t forget, is to wield tyrannical worldwide power. Steffgen here calls our adversaries “Communists,” which tends to provoke laughter as evidence of paranoid McCarthyism, until we remember that communism is not a party or an agency, but an ideological doctrine. And anyone with a clear mind can see that this ideology is very prevalent in elite America today. Communists RULE America’s universities and communication media.

To say that one wishes better racial relations in a real sense is not to endorse the prevailing view of “diversity through homogenization.” I recently saw a young black woman that I had once knew when I was a smalltown sportswriter and she was a high school track star. She is originally from New York and had just gotten out of the Air Force a few months earlier and returned to Georgia. After some friendly banter, I asked her if she thought race relations were better or worse in the South than elsewhere in the country. About the same, she said, but then she immediately began a discussion of interracial relationships and how these are less accepted in the South.

This struck me as odd: Why should attitudes toward dating/marriage between the races be considered a litmus test of racial harmony? After all, as she later made clear, many blacks are extremely disapproving of such relationships. And yet an acceptance of “Jungle Fever” (Spike Lee movie about blackwhite dating, for those who’ve missed their multicultural sensitivity training sessions) is held out to us as the ultimate test of whether or not we’re “racists.”

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

And so when we see an overreaction to this programme, with people urging a return to Jim Crow or even advocating the formation of separate racial nations, the first thing we must understand is that we’re looking at a reaction that is not entirely illogical. What is necessary is to realize what is causing the reaction and to realize how emotionalism may prevent us from properly combatting the programme. WE MUST BE RATIONAL AND PRAGMATIC, for our adversaries are extremely rational and pragmatic in pursuing our destruction.

One final note: I majored in theatre in college. After reading Steffgen, I conceived of a oneact play dealing with this problem a play I’ll probably never write, of course. But the opening scene is of two high school students, a black male and white female. The black teen asks the white girl for a date. When she refuses, the boy answers: “Oh, so you’re a racist?” If this is the test, then, she can refute the accusation in only one way, correct? And, as you probably know, our modern education system is very laudatory of those who “combat racism.” Think about it.

Robert Stacy McCain

P.S.: My imagined play, by the way, would have what even Mr. Wheeler would consider a happy ending.

Again, I’m not willing to write off the man entirely for one quote. And yet, it’s clear to me that this quote is his — and that it is racially prejudiced.

He ought to stop halfway pretending he didn’t say it. He should just flatly renounce it.

P.P.S. Of course, maybe he wants to defend it rather than renounce it. The closest I have seen him come to an explanation of his views on this issue is here. But if he wants to defend the quote, let him own it and defend it — rather than raise technical defenses that imply he didn’t say it, when he did.

274 Responses to “That Quote Most of You Called “Racist” Was Written by Robert Stacy McCain”

  1. “natural revulsion”

    eeeek. That’s quite a strong statement. And Mccain repeatedly notes that he’s a professional writer, so he knew what he was doing.

    A lot, some argue all, of us have visceral racism. If they can control, understand, and adapt to this, they can be quite good to one another. If you are revolted at a marriage, because of races, you are not well adapted. I like Mccain’s blog sometimes, and I particularly have an interest in liking enemies of a particularly nutty blog that hates Mccain, but I guess that ‘racism’ charge against RSM was not entirely ridiculous.

    That’s not to say that people who associate with RSM are racists, as some allege. And it’s not to say that RSM is a white supremacist (though he’s clearly got an issue).

    Revulsion? It takes effort to feel that way about actually awful stuff. That’s a strong damn thought, and I am pretty surprised that it’s coming from someone who has a large following.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  2. “He ought to stop halfway pretending he didn’t say it. He should just flatly renounce it.”

    I think this is what’s really troubling me. RSM has been repeatedly acting like he’s the victim of a particularly horrible smear. And I’ve sympathized with him (though I admit, I barely read his blog unless he’s doing some timely reporting, as he did in NY 23).

    The way RSM has handled the charge of racism was to play victim of what I consider to be a ugly a real problem today: trying to smear your opponent as racist just because he’s conservative. You know, RSM is screwing over a lot of good people who really have had that occur to them, by using that argument when it doesn’t apply.

    He should own this comment. Either he realizes it is boneheaded, or he agrees with it. Either way, he needs to own it. I now understand why PJ Media has cut him off, why Hot Air seems to be cold towards him, etc. RSM deceived me about this.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  3. “White folks greed runs a world in need!”

    Implies that the inherent calumny of an entire racial group is responsible for the ills of the entire earth.

    This comment is manifetly far more racist.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  4. I can’t help but notice your (accurate) use of the word “cringe” when you describe how most of us felt when we read these quotes. It’s ironic because TCM replayed Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? this evening, and the characters cringed in almost every scene as they dealt with their own prejudices.

    Cringing when we have racially intolerant feelings and when we see intolerance in others … I think that’s progress.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  5. Yes, Have Blue, it is.

    This idea that white people alive today have to answer, as a group, for anything, is ridiculous and deeply racist. A black man with a single mother with various other counter culture traits, such as a documented cocaine habit, or attendance in a crazy church, can be elected US President. Or run a huge company. Or go to Harvard Law. I don’t think White Privilege exists so much as Privileged Privilege exists.

    I think RSM said something that was frankly very dumb and offensive, but of course, a lot of people say racist things but happen to have the correct type of racism. Racism from blacks towards whites or asians is somehow not as bad as racism in the other direction… at least according to those blogs that are conspicuously concerned with RSM’s dumb comment and haven’t touched on the more egregious examples out there (I’m obviously not talking about this blog, which seems more consistent than anyone could ask for… but some blogs say you are a White Supremacist for ever working with RSM while ignoring nearly every serious example of racism in the world).

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  6. If you believe in diversity, can you support something that has the effect of turning humans into one homogeneous race?

    The different races represent human subspecies. It’s speciation in its infancy. Had technology never advanced, the different races would each be their own distinct species eventually.

    It’s neither good nor bad if the subspecies become reunited and combine into a homogeneous race again. There would be postitives and negatives depending on your philosophy but the real champion of diversity would want the races to keep their distinctions.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  7. I have noticed for many years that TV shows and advertisers alike seem to always construct a reality where a situation with a bunch of white people doing “stuff white people like” always has ONE black character present, acting like the white people. As if that is the absolute universal social norm. Now I have been around a bit and have rarely observed that in real life. So it seems obvious (to me) that the advertisers and shows are pushing an agenda for some reason. Is it “racist” to simply point that out?

    William Wilson (40bc94)

  8. RSM said:

    This struck me as odd: Why should attitudes toward dating/marriage between the races be considered a litmus test of racial harmony?

    Um, because it’s the ultimate test of whether you see other people of other races as human beings no different than yourself?

    Yes, the Irish didn’t want their daughters marrying any Italians (and vice versa) during earlier periods of our history. That, too, was bigotry, though not “racism.” If we’re approaching the point where black people are treated as the Irish or the Italians or the Polish were treated early last century, then that is progress of a sort, I suppose, but it’s hardly something to be proud of.

    I read this quote back when Johnson first called attention to McCain, and decided, based on the quote and McCain’s initial responses to Johnson’s denunciation, that I wanted nothing more to to with McCain.

    My brother is dating a black girl at the moment. I have no revulsion, natural or otherwise, at seeing them together. And yes, that makes me a better person than Robert Stacy McCain.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  9. I am not now nor ever have been a member of the Communist Party.

    Clavius (b00448)

  10. Clavius, I like that analogy.

    Communists are total scumbags…. enemies of the human race generally, and not worthy of inclusion in polite society. Racism is along the same lines as a problem. Granted, RSM is not an avowed racist so much as someone who clearly is wrongheaded on the issue.

    Kinda like Obama isn’t really a communist so much as he’s wrongheaded enough to perpetuate socialist policies.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  11. Look up revulsion.
    There are several definitions and one of them is closer to a recoil than vomiting in the back of my throat. If my daughter wanted to marry Spike Lee, I’d probably feel revulsion… he’s an asshole about his blackness as are some of his friends and he’s way older than her and I’d be concerned I’d work to make it work for her, but my first reaction would not be joy.

    Is it possible to have extremely strong and natural negative feelings surrounding an inter racial marriage that are not racist?
    Might those feelings be prudent in an individual case? (Like the bank teller)
    Might those feelings be prudent within a small community?

    There are big time issues around being married across racial and cultural boundaries Stepping back and saying “whoa, let’s take a minute to look at this” might be the best thing to do.
    Some families might not be up to the task of supporting the marriage… perhaps they are the racists… not me

    SteveG (ece883)

  12. About twelve years ago I had a co-worker who was white and dating a black law student. She was at a very liberal, very prestigious university (one that a current US pres may have attended). Her minority class mates made her life hell until she broke it off with him. I know he was really in love and thought that they had something, but to her classmates the political statement was the more important.

    (And off topic itf you want a chuckle at Harvards expense look up the dictionary definition of prestigious.)

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  13. SteveG, what does your problem with Spike Lee have to do with him being black?

    “Is it possible to have extremely strong and natural negative feelings surrounding an inter racial marriage that are not racist?”

    Absolutely, if your negative feelings are not related to the race. This is 2009, and it’s simply not the case that a black person and a white person are not compatible life partners in virtue of race. In fact, such problems that you wrongly associate with race actually are associated with many problems that cut across whatever racial lines we choose to draw.
    that he meant other traits.

    I think you’re trying to rewrite what he said to point out that, as he said, it is possible to morally feel revulsion at your white sister marrying a bad person who happens to be black. Of course, that comment is so banal that it’s clearly not what RSM was saying… and it includes the critical ‘content of character’ disclaimer.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  14. What is “ethnographic-genetic philosophy” as distinguished from “racial philosophy”? Clearly ethnic identity and phenotype–that is to say, skin color–are the chief concerns. How is this distinguished from ostensibly much-worse racism?

    I can accept the argument that we needn’t engage in interracial relationships merely to prove how un-racist we are, but there’s quite a bit of distance between that claim and the argument that there exists a “natural revulsion” to relationships between two races of sufficiently dissimilar skin tones.

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  15. Can’t get exercised about the term “racism” these days. It has become meaningless to me. I’ve been married to an African Ndebele woman for years. She believes that many in the U.S. are crazily focused upon skin color or lack thereof. On both sides. Too much focus on non-essentials.

    Some want to persuade others to their point of view about “tolerance” and “diversity”. Logical arguments, essays, and debates are okay by me. Advocates on either side should be allowed to have their say, without fear of physical harm. PC Legislation about what one should think and say is complete crap. It’s just the age-old power play an elitist wants to use to increase his purse, or his feel-good sense of himself, or his need to dominate others. It reduces everyone’s liberties. As for governmentally sponsored enslavement of blacks in the U.S.–it’s over, so it’s time to get over it. That might take great rational effort, and emotional outbursts do not serve us well.

    FrankM (2352be)

  16. It isn’t always about seeing people as being no different than yourself.
    Because there are differences in cultures that have been shaped by race and “pioneering” a course through those differences can be difficult and if i think someone(s) don’t seem to be up to the task do I dare say something aloud?

    In a dream world where you are looking only into your lovers soul I agree with you color doesn’t matter…. however, some people and some families are not strong enough and I think it should be fair to state my reservations without being branded as racist.

    The elephant in the room is that inter racial marriages are harder at times due to the inter racial components.
    I know from personal experience.
    My wife is Mexican and some Mexican’s don’t like it all that much. My wife feels some of the same from whites.
    The worst was when we were travelling in central Mexico my wife got harangued by everyone about marrying a white guy. It’d be tough to live with that daily or even hourly and it isn’t for the weak.
    Our immediate families get along great… although I know inter racially maried couples for whom that is not the case and it is awkward, hurtful to their children etc.

    SteveG (ece883)

  17. Steve… and those Mexicans hassling you and your wife were racist. You seem to be defending them, frankly. If they were only feeling a “natural revulsion” at seeing one of “their” women with a gringo like you, isn’t that the reaction to be expected? Don’t you think reactions like theirs should be condemned?

    Are there different cultures out there? Sure. Do some of them correlate somewhat with race today? Sure. Does that mean much when it comes to individuals? Nope. I’d much rather my brother date the girl he is dating than some piece of “redneck white trash” (to abuse another stereotype). My mother dated a Frenchman for many years. They were certainly in love, but they also had a fair number of conflicts caused by cultural differences, especially cultural conflicts over the role of women. But would anybody have a “natural revulsion” to them being together? Ridiculous.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  18. It isn’t “interracial components” that are making that relationship difficult; rather, it’s the racist antipathy expressed by your family and in-laws.

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  19. Revulsion “The act of moving away from something difficult, dangerous or disagreeable”

    Inter racial marriage can be all three whether you like it or not…
    I’ve found difficulty and danger to be disagreeable, but I have overcome my natural revulsion to difficulty and have now become merely adverse

    sometimes it pays not to have a good vocabulary

    SteveG (ece883)

  20. I think many of you are confusing “natural” with “virtuous”. Why not instead argue that natural is wrong and overcoming nature is right?

    In some instances, we can probably admit that overcoming nature is a virtue. Many of our social customs are not natural and were actually devised for the purpose of overcoming nature. Even if humans are somewhat monogamous by nature, marriage leads us to be more monogamous than we’d behave if left only to our natural inpulses.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  21. Why is it racist? Would YOU want a sister-in-law who was Black, knowing nothing else about her?

    Given that 60% of Blacks are urban-core Ghetto? Just going by the numbers, there’s damn good reason not to want Black in-laws. If your in-law is Barack Obama or Oprah Winfrey, that’s one thing, but if it’s the local gangsta that’s another. And by the numbers you’ll get the local gangsta.

    Moreover, I’ll go further. BLACK PEOPLE DON’T LIKE WHITE IN-LAWS EITHER. THEY feel revulsion. And by the “rules” of PC, Blacks cannot, in any way EVER be RACIST. EVER. Tiger Woods is being denounced by Black women, for marrying a White woman and worse, having affairs with White women. Barack Obama would have gotten ZERO Black female votes if he married a White Women. Seal, Ice-T, and other Black men married to White women are denounced by Black Women.

    Furthermore, there’s damn good reason for White men to dislike Black men dating White women. Black men are perceived by women of all races to be more masculine and with higher levels of testosterone. Black women, however, suffer from higher rates of obesity than women of other races (thus fewer are attractive) AND are FORBIDDEN TO WHITE MEN. PERIOD. [The notorious rape-murders of the White Marine Sgt and his Black wife by the Black marines under his command at Pendleton over in Riverside comes to mind -- the Black Marines were incensed he married a Black woman.]

    There are few attractive Black Women (obesity) and those that are via violence veto by Black Men are off-limits to White men.

    Unless some Mad Scientist is somewhere cloning hot women, Black Men + White Women = White Men lose out. Period.

    Finally, everyone wants grand-kids to look like them. There are sound reasons NOT to want a Black Spouse for your daughter/son if you are White: the grand-kids will NOT LOOK LIKE YOU AND FAVOR THE BLACK GRAND-PARENTS. Period. We see this with Barack Obama, Alicia Keyes, and other mixed-race people — they abjure their White parents and grandparents and prefer the “worthwhile” Black parents and Grandparents.

    Let’s face it — Blacks are valued more in the US than Whites (who are accounted useless and evil). There’s not a White man in America that has not wished he was Black at some point. Black Men are not viewed as intrinsically evil (White Men are unless they are “cool”). Black men are viewed automatically as more sexy and masculine dominant by women of all races. Black men are given special privileges in employment, the justice system, education, and so on. White Men are the first fired and last hired.

    That being said, if almost every Black man and woman were millionaires or related to one, no one would feel revulsion at being a prospective in-Law, but would you want to take a gamble of Tookie Williams or Damien “Football” Williams being related to you?

    [I'll note that White guys + Asian women seems a common pairing, and one that excites no comment. That's because Chinese and Japanese emigres are upper-class, value education, and make good in-laws, over-riding the "grand-kids don't look like me and prefer the other grandparents to me" factor. Less common is the Asian Guy + White gal, which also excites little comment.]

    whiskey (f36a0a)

  22. whiskey, if I married a black woman and had children, what makes you suppose that they’d love me less than my wife? Or that their children would love me less than my wife?

    Is it something about their black-ness? Or is it simply a part of popular “black” culture?

    Imagine if people judged white culture by how white senators and entertainers conduct themselves. Do you think they’d have a good idea about what you’re like? What values you have?

    I think that if kids are raised not to give a shit about race–like I was–then it will be very difficult for pop culture to brainwash them into being racist.

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  23. @ j. curtis:

    Why should we suppose that this racist impulse is “natural”? Supposing that it is–and supposing that RSM is not arguing that this response is virtuous–how do you reconcile your position with RSM’s conclusions about avoiding interracial couplings?

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  24. Part of being racist is relentlessly focusing on race, as whiskey there does, regardless of where one comes out on the subject.

    Oh, and where the hell do you get the idea that “There’s not a White man in America that has not wished he was Black at some point.” Insane. I’m white, and I’ve never wished I was black (not even when fantasizing about how I might manage to get Halle Barry to go out with me). In fact, white men continue to enjoy a great deal of success in the work force. It’s a bit easier (i.e., less risk of a lawsuit) to fire a mediocre white employee than a mediocre black employee, but that’s about it. Their “special privileges” in the justice system would sure come as news to the exceedingly large percentage of black men currently incarcerated, a percentage significantly larger than their percentage of the population.

    I wouldn’t want a Tookie Williams in my family, but neither would I want a Tim McVeigh, or a John Wayne Gacy, or some white supremacist biker gang member.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  25. Well, this is turning into just a lovely thread.

    I’m off to bed. Someone please set #21 straight?

    Patterico (64318f)

  26. Ah. I see that PatHMV has already started to do so.

    More like that, please.

    Patterico (64318f)

  27. There’s also quite a difference between playing the percentages–that is, feeling initially opposed to the couple because of a probabilistic conjecture about your sister’s boyfriend’s character–and, having met the fellow, disapproving of him because his skin color is different.

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  28. The media may be forcing inter racial images on us… god knows they can be ham fisted (apologies to Muslims for mentioning pork) for a while there it seemed like Hollywood was on a crusade (sorry) to teach us all to accept black males with white females and it took them way to damn long to put Halle Berry with Billy Bob Thorton.

    But that article linked earlier shows Ebonie sure isn’t buying off on it.

    Oh

    And discomfort is palpable around anything racial that doesn’t fall within a nice PC construct.. they should have said “go buy a fucking dictionary and get over yourselves”

    SteveG (ece883)

  29. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM,

    Well, to be sarcastic, maybe Robert McCain means it’s a case of not racism but one of bigotry. Actually, he’s being disengenuous in claiming the reaction he’s describing is not born out of racist or bigoted emotions.

    However, he’d be accurate to claim there’s a narrow line separating the judgment that people make based on superficial qualities related to race/ethnicity and one based on, for example, a very obese, unattractive woman dating a so-called hunky, trim guy (ie, “he must be freaky, or gay, or both!”) or an older, somewhat wrinkled-face woman flirting with and trying to hitch up with a college-aged guy (ie, “she’s pathetic!!”). And so on and so forth.

    Here’s another one that can make a person go “hmmm”: There was a major flap a few years ago over Britain’s Prince Charles dating a woman who eventually became his current wife—a person described (and scorned) by some as a horse-faced homewrecker. The relationship certainly triggered issues of appropriateness and etiquette as they pertained to British monarchy. Imagine if the woman Charles Windsor had a thing for also were black? And so on and so forth.

    Mark (411533)

  30. I could only stomach to hit the highlights, Patrick, sorry.

    Steve… what you’re describing is a worry or a concern, or even a fear; revulsion has an entirely different connotation.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  31. You know, I don’t know quite what to say about the above at #21.

    I still think we need to look at individuals.

    And I know for a fact that many Asian families are NOT happy at the prospect of a “white” son-in-law or sister-in-law.

    But that isn’t what I wanted to write. Sure, I think what McCain wrote was racist or racialist. Of course. Just like Reverend Wright has a long history of anti-Semitic and racist statements.

    But here is the thing. When it comes to writing offensive racist material…why do we ignore the person who is third in line for the Presidency?

    Officer in the KKK, filibusterer against the Civil Rights Act, and a person who said the dreaded “N” word on national television.

    Sure, he says he is sorry for all of that. But the fact remains.

    You see, I keep seeing a flexible yardstick used with this sort of thing. Heck, I think that Biden himself was skirting racist nonsense with his “clean” statement about BHO.

    But that’s always different.

    I’m not excusing McCain’s comment. I am saying that there is a differential at play here, in addition.

    Eric Blair (91356a)

  32. Perhaps you missed the BLACKS now outraged that Tiger Woods not only has a WHITE WIFE, but, so far, as they have come out of the woodwork, all the MISTRESSES are also WHITE!!

    Agree that “natural revulsion” seems strong phrasing, but having been raised a Catholic and having a grandmother, on my mother’s side, who came over from Italy in the early 1900′s, just before WWI, I understand “natural revulsion”.

    As my dear Noona had much “natural revulsion” when one of my aunts, the one the family was beginning to consider a spinster, came home with a Lutheran German. She wasn’t too happy with my mother either for marrying a “Johnny Bull”.

    Patterico, you may have such relatives in your own family. Actually, both marriages worked out well, as Aunt was too old to have children, so no problem as to the religion of the children. My “Johnny Bull” father was also part Irish and German and was a practicing Catholic.

    Step that up to the more educated vs new immigrant with relatives dying in the WWI & II, they still saw great difficulty in the future for inter-faith marriages, particularly in the raising of the children.

    Now wouldn’t call that “revulsion”, although, that word would be operative in families on both side of Christian – Jewish marriages. Many just disowned their child. Now we see more than “revulsion” re mixed marriages in Islam where they tend to murder them.

    But let’s go back to what is going on with Tiger Woods and the Black community. Tiger like Obama is not a 100% Black. Even if William Ayers did write O!’s books, you must admit that he made it very clear that it is difficult for the child of interracial marriage. And that isn’t just from the past, it’s going on today in the Black community re Tiger.

    One more, sure you all remember the stories of the children fathered by our troops in Viet Nam, they were not accepted. That’s only one historical reference which could be included here.

    There is something “natural” and intrinsic to man as it has been expressed by every “tribe” throughout history and that offspring of even very loving long term inter-whatever marriages may bear a brunt.

    I do not think that R.S. McCain is a racist. Hope you’ll consider what I have attempted to put into words tonight.

    Larwyn (139260)

  33. Now, suppose the quote had gone:

    “the media now force same-sex images into the public mind” that that “a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion.”

    And that “[t]he straight person who does not mind transacting business with a gay bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his inlaw, and THIS IS NOT HOMOPHOBIA.”

    Would this quote be homophobic?

    Careful, we may revisit your answer to this question in 2022.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  34. Why should we suppose that this racist impulse is “natural”?

    Because races are subspecies of the human species. How do subspecies behave towards each other in the animal kingdom? They tend to stick to their own subspecies.

    Hell, even tribalism is natural, and that is a division beyond what we are calling racism.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  35. Moreover, I’ll go further. BLACK PEOPLE DON’T LIKE WHITE IN-LAWS EITHER. THEY feel revulsion

    Personally, I think the only thing that should provoke revulsion — or a better word would be “disquiet” — in people who are scrutinizing others is knowing the people they’re assessing favor the politics of nonsensical, phony-baloney, feel-good liberalism. Or if they themselves are guilty of that particular ideology — and are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats — they should look in the mirror and feel revulsion (or disquiet) towards the reflection looking back at them.

    Mark (411533)

  36. I agree with your sentiment that McCain has BSed around the issue instead of flatout renouncing it.

    HOWEVER, the quote comes from a series of emails that were edited together. Patterico, are you saying that based on what the editor wrote (which follows), this is proof that the email ‘transcriptions’ are verbatim?

    I waited until after the debate was over to put this together as I didn’t realize the importance of what was taking place as it occurred. Because of that, a few of the names of the people participating got lost. When reading an e-mail post which is an answer to a former post which may be an answer to an even more former post, it is sometimes difficult to tell who’s saying what or exactly what they’re talking about if you haven’t kept up with the posts as they were being delivered.
    I have gone through them all and edited them with this in mind. I have touched very little of the content, but have inserted guideposts so that you can now come into the discussion and tell who was speaking at each point along with what things or previous statements they were referring to.

    I have numbered the posts, so whenever you see a `#’ sign followed by a numeral, you will know that a new message is beginning.

    I have also placed my own comments throughout the document to highlight the items that I thought were the most important and to provide you with some perspective as to what the significance of a current or upcoming event was or would be.

    liontooth (15a295)

  37. I do think there is a difference between racism and being willing to have sex with a person of some particular other race.

    I do think there is a difference between racism and being willing to deal with deep cultural differences, as might be the case with inlaws.

    That being said, I’m having trouble, even as a thought experiment, in working around the wrods McCain chose. My best defense for him would be “brain fart.”

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  38. Perhaps you missed the BLACKS now outraged that Tiger Woods not only has a WHITE WIFE, but, so far, as they have come out of the woodwork, all the MISTRESSES are also WHITE!!

    Not at all. I posted about that just today. And it actually fueled this discussion.

    And so the point is . . . what? That they are not being racist in feeling that way?

    Patterico (64318f)

  39. And that “[t]he straight person who does not mind transacting business with a gay bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his inlaw, and THIS IS NOT HOMOPHOBIA.”

    I’d theorize that even a good number of truly liberal, truly tolerant, truly permissive mothers and fathers wouldn’t be quite as thrilled at the notion of their teenage son going out on a hot date with and kissing a guy, or their teenage daughter going out on a hot date with and kissing a girl.

    Mark (411533)

  40. Sorry, this post was in lead and stopped me dead as I wanted to read it in entirety and did that without having seen your other posts today.

    See that you are aware of Blacks vs Tiger. Including all three posts in collection to go out as soon the American Thinker articles are picked up.

    Larwyn (139260)

  41. Because races are subspecies of the human species. How do subspecies behave towards each other in the animal kingdom? They tend to stick to their own subspecies.

    You may as well argue that we have a “natural aversion” to having surgery performed, since animals in the wild typically do not perform surgery on each other.

    And that “[t]he straight person who does not mind transacting business with a gay bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his inlaw, and THIS IS NOT HOMOPHOBIA.”

    Would this quote be homophobic?

    Is any disapproval of homosexual conduct homophobic?

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  42. Racist statement? No. Biased/prejudiced? Maybe.

    JB2 (98cc83)

  43. An interesting question, aside from the racism, is was he right?

    Has our sensitivity to political correctness become oversensitivity, such that even the veracity of a statement cannot be objectively assessed if it even smacks of racism?

    I propose that his use of the word “revulsion” was unfortunate. I wonder if he had said “reluctance” instead, if there wouldn’t have been such a firestorm?

    Yes, it’s racist. But is his premise incorrect?

    “You can’t say that!” we scream,

    “Why not?”

    “Because it’s racist!”

    “Is it incorrect?”

    “Doesn’t matter! It’s racist! So you can’t say it!”

    Thus, a white man is effectively prohibited from discussing the concept of racial hegemony in social dynamiocs if he comes to any conclusion other than that which has been mandated by social stricture.

    I tend to agree that if it had been a black man, say such as Spike Lee or Malcom X who had made a similar statement, but from the opposing perspective, then it would have been viewed as insightful social discourse.

    Let a white suggest it, and he’s a hater.

    Having read the context, I can see how it would be easy to see racism as the context, but I don’t agree. More intentionality, I guess.

    He seems to suggest that someone might “naturally” oppose such a pairing, given the tendency of racially homogenous groups to remain so, and that despite the advances in our culure in this area, there is still a lot of deep socialization that lends itself to such a reaction.

    Identifying the dynamic does not have to mean promoting or approving of it.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  44. “The tendency of racially homogenous groups to remain so” exists because people discourage miscegenation. What reason would they have to do this?

    CliveStaples (894d67)

  45. #41: “revulsion” isn’t the same thing as “reluctance”, and doesn’t mean the same thing. What difference would it have made if the firestorm was less than if McCain said something else? It’s not like his comment was written in such a way to allow an open ended discussion of what he really meant (like Palin’s comments on the birther movement).

    I would also note that about a month ago I believe it was Ben Smith of the Politico specifically accused him of being against interracial marriage. McCain issued a lengthy “rebuttal” that went out of its way to avoid responding to the actual charge, so this is should hardly be a surprise.

    Sean P (579fd6)

  46. This is sort of a tangent, but it’s still related to the quiet disengenousness that many people are guilty of.

    There’s a very nice, upper-income neighborhood in Los Angeles called Baldwin Hills. It originally was a mostly white, affluent part of Los Angeles, ideally located to many other parts of the city.

    In the 1960s, particularly after the Watts Riot, the community went from being predominantly upper-income white to predominantly upper-income black, with some lower-income blacks interspersed around parts — mainly the edges — of the neighborhood.

    The area even had (or has) a reality-TV show based on it, produced by the BET network, called “Baldwin Hills.” Sort of a spin-off on reality-TV shows that follow around the lives of well-to-do people. But, in the case of “Baldwin Hills,” black families instead of white.

    I recall an LA Times writer claiming around 1990 that the area, which through the 1960s and 1970s went from being segregated (almost all-white), to integrated (a mix of white and black, and some Asian, Latino) to segregated (mostly black) all over again, was attracting some white residents and becoming a bit more diverse. That bit of news was quite heartening to me.

    Only problem is that when I checked the population statistics for the 1990, post-1990 US Census, they indicated Baldwin Hills, if anything, remained just as predominantly black (ie, 95-plus %) — if not more so — as ever before.

    There are a lot of affluent, very liberal, very tolerant, very permissive white folks throughout West Los Angeles — some of them employed in the very liberal entertainment industry — who through the years could have re-located their residences in Baldwin Hills. But they’ve chosen not to. Why?

    Mark (411533)

  47. Okay, let’s try a different tack.

    Here are a few things to throw out there. Let’s say I have a ‘native’ Muslim as a friend. She’s fairly hot. I enjoy talking with her. I like lightly flirting with her. We work together and I don’t have a problem with her either professionally or personally. We go out for dinners, lunches, I give her rides home. Friendly colleagues. Heck, if she invited me into her bed, notwithstanding that she’s married, I’d jump in. And if she wants me to be a long-term bed partner, I’d go for it in a heartbeat. (This is just to illustrate her hotness; I hope I have enough discipline not to act like a boorish pig)

    But I would *never* marry her. Because she’s Muslim, and because she’s ‘native’. Nor would I ever marry any Muslim, ‘native’ or otherwise.

    And for that single point, for that one issue, you can label me a racist? WTF? Or is it just that I made a racist comment, or that is a racist principle? WTF? I won’t marry a man either, does that make me sexist? I suggest proper definitions and logic are lacking, people.

    Well, let me say this then; if that is racist by definition, then I embrace it wholeheartedly. Further, I would argue that this is a positive form of racial and religious discrimination, and I will continue to practice it till I die.

    Here’s a shorter version of what I wrote on the other thread:

    You need to take the two sentences and parse them separately.

    1. Steffgen predicts X, and indeed it is observed that this is so.

    2. Interacting with someone (of a different race) in an arms-length transaction is different from interacting with the same said someone (of a different race) in a more intimate, familial setting, and hence the one but not the other cannot be ascribed to simple racism.

    Gregory (f7735e)

  48. Larwyn,

    “Blacks” versus Tiger? What exactly do you mean by that? Are there some racist black people out there? Sure. Do some of them criticize Tiger for marrying a “white girl”? Sure. Do those people speak for all black people? Of course not. But the way you and your ilk obsess over racial categorizations and group identity make you forget that people are individuals first and foremost, and whatever demographic you may fall in (age, race, gender, whatever) is no sure predictor about what kind of human being you are, what your character is, your politics, you name it.

    You cite the refusal of Koreans to socially accept the children of American GIs and Korean women. In the first place, that’s not necessarily racial; children of occupying soldiers have historically had a bad time of it, regardless of any racial differences. Second, is that really your standard? At the time of the Korean War, Korea was much less developed than we were at the time. The population was largely uneducated, not that much past the tribal stage, as a society. Is that really the standard of behavior you want to adopt?

    Lots of tribal cultures are racist. Fear and loathing of others has been a close companion of the human race for millenia. But are we not better than that? Is not America a nation founded on the idea that who people are and what they believe is vastly more important than who their ancestors were, what “tribe” they belong to? As Christians, are we not told to forsake even our parents (and certainly then our tribal identity) in order to serve God?

    Several commenters are decrying the double standard which leads to some black people being less condemned by the MSM and others for racist behavior. Certainly the double standard exists and is to be decried, but it has ZERO to do with whether the attitude that RS McCain displayed is racist and inappropriate.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  49. Gregory, just to state the obvious, “Muslim” is not a race. There is no “Muslim race.” Muslims are those who follow the religion of Islam.

    I do trust that you will tell the hot Muslim whose bed you are willing to share, up front and in clear, unambiguous language, that you would never marry her in a million years, simply because she is a “native” Muslim (whatever the hell you mean by that).

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  50. “because people discourage miscegenation. What reason would they have to do this?”

    There is a natural tendency to hang out with people like us. Doesn’t mean we can’t or won’t intermingle, but it’s socialogically quantifiable that you tend to gravitate and mix with people more “like” you. Now, this can be cultural, racial, professional or political. We tend to group according to common interests and outlooks. Just human nature.

    There are clear and distint differences between what is commonly accepted “white” culture, and commonly accepted “black” culture. Wait, does saying that make me racist? No. There is no value judgement, merely an observation. Given the ostracization many blacks get for too completely adopting “white” socialization, it pretty clear that the distinction exists.

    Should there be a difference? Completely different discussion.

    Thus, as Gregory suggests, it might be “natural” for a white man, though he can have a great, fulfilling, and meaningful social relationship with a black woman, to never seriously consider marrying her. Maybe not because she’s black, but perhaps because of a CULTURAL divide.

    Does that make him a racist? Clearly by some definitions, yes.

    That’s why I think the “one act play” reference is very relevant. Given the alacrity with which people were branded racist for not wanting to vote for Obama, and the knee-jerk reactions that suggest you’d only turn down a date with a black man/woman because you’re racist, I would suggest that this continuing oversensitivity to race as a defining element of our interactions actually makes things WORSE, in many situations.

    To the point where even talking about it without due consideration for every poosible nuance of possible offence gets you branded.

    Unlike people like Whisky, who clearly have
    issues.

    I guess part of it depends on what our definition of racism is. Without a commonly understood or agree upon definition, these kinds of “offenses” are inevitable.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  51. Steve, are all black people part of the same culture?

    Don’t want your daughter to date someone who loves hip hop and wears his pants baggy and around his knees? Fine by me. But it’s erroneous to say then that you don’t want your daughter to date a black man… unless you simply assume that all black people share the same cultural values.

    Am I alone in finding odd the idea of having a “great, fulfilling, and meaningful social relationship” (including, presumably, sex, at least in Gregory’s view) with a woman that I would never dream of marrying? I can certainly understand sleeping with someone you wouldn’t marry. But a great, fulfilling, meaningful relationship, including sex? How could you possibly have that with someone you wouldn’t be willing to marry? If their culture is so different that they would be unsuitable marriage partners, how could you find the relationship with them that fulfilling?

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  52. PatHMV: Well, yes, Muslims are adherents of a religion and not tied to racial components. Howeve, in different parts of the world, this is not necessarily so the other way around; in Malaysia, for example, to be recognised as a ‘native’ Malay you must also be a Muslim (hence, the definition of race has a religious component). So, ‘native’ Malay equates to ‘native’ Muslim in Malaysia, at least (and I trust you will not ask me for more specific details in other countries; Bing is your friend). This is quite similar to the idea that if you were born Muslim, you will most certainly die Muslim one way or the other. Also, that if you were to marry a Muslim, you must also become a Muslim.

    So what now? I’ve made my views perfectly clear to everyone in my office, really, that I would never marry a Muslim, period. Do I need to say it specifically to each and every one? I mean, yeesh.

    Nor is it, you know, an expiring principle. Were I to live for a trillion years, it still will not happen.

    I hope that explains some vagaries of foreign law, PatHMV.

    Gregory (f7735e)

  53. Tell me there isn’t a “black” culture. Do all blacks claim it as their culture? Nope. But there is enough of a common core to set it apart from other social traditions, values, and moreys. Not to say that it is wrong or right, merely that we have to acknowledge that it exists.

    I personally could care less if my daughter want’s to date, marry, or hang out with a “black” person. I do my best to not think of them as a “black person”, but merely a person. Yeah, if he comes in looking like a gangbanger, I’m going to have a problem with that…not because of his skin color, but because of his culture. If she dates a black kid, who just happens to fit in with most of the social conventions with which I’m comfortable (ie. my definition of “white” culture”) I’m “naturally” going to be a lot more accepting than if he comes across more according to my definition of “black” (i.e.- different) culture. There may be an element of “racism” in that, but there’s also a strong piece of sociology at play.

    I personally don’t find most black women that attractive. Some I do, but a lower percentage overall than white women. Does that mean I’m racist? Or does it mean that the culture in which I grew up tended to affirm or desire different physical traits, such that I tend to gravitate towards those?

    So, I can be great friends with a “black person” because of who they are, not how they look. But if I don’t find her physically appealing, would I want a sexual relationship as well? Nope. I have a lot of good friends I’d never marry. REGARDLESS of their skin color!

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  54. Pat#48

    WOW! Sure ready to jump on “people of my ilk” when you don’t know me at all. You really expose yourself when you follow that up with lecture based on the intolerant jumping to conclusions we or my ilk jump to by just jumping to your own!

    It was Viet Nam and not Korean war which I referenced. And your statement re children of “enemy” soldiers always being treated badly…don’t think that was the case of those fathered by our boys in WWII in Italy, France, Germany.

    Further, if you studied history, you would learn that is was quite “normal” for the conquer to slay most of the males and to rape/impregnate the females to assure that the conquered tribe died out by being taken over by the genes of the conqueror.

    We could get into nature vs nurture in man’s development. We should also consider that living in America in the past century has been a very different experience of life as known and lived by the most of the rest of the world. There are good reasons to suspect ‘THE OTHER”.

    Throughout the history of the world, suspicion of the other was necessary for survival, so was it “natural” to begin with or nurtured as a fact of life?

    Even in the “civilized” European countries, where arranged marriages between the royals were made to assure alliances between their countries, the interloper was not really trusted by the Court.

    One of the other commenters brought up the behavior of species of the animal kingdom. Had to laugh at that one as the very same people who don’t want us to eat animals, who tell us only x number of genes separate us from them, who think like Holden that animals should have ‘CIVIL RIGHTS” and be allowed to sue, are the same people who take great UMBRAGE when anyone uses the natural behavior of animal species toward each other as comparison to human behavior.

    Too tired to try to fix the run on sentences, hope all got my drift(s).

    Sadly, Pat, the election of O! hasn’t helped RACE RELATIONS one bit. As a matter of fact, when Whites hear what the Black Panthers in front of the polling place in Philly were shouting “BLACKS RULE NOW!!” and see Holder dismiss the summary judgment against them, added to other such statements by blacks, and O!’s “stupidly” and “typical white person”, well, we are in a fix. Seems that they plan on ‘getting over on the man” as in Atlanta where there was outrage that they may finally elect a WHITE MAYOR. (Haven’t yet heard outcome of that election and too tired to check tonight).

    I, a person of “ilk”, end rant::::laughing::::

    Larwyn (139260)

  55. It’s a tough call…

    The word “revulsion” is loaded. But I bet you could find a dozen or more psychology studies on Racial Identification and emotional reactions.

    That post was from 13 years ago. If he is able, he should come out claim it and refute it. In the same context, he’s talking about being okay with the Birchers and enjoying far right interpretations of history and politics. It would be a great opportunity to explain how he’s grown beyond being a reactionary.

    Xmas (ff0aad)

  56. Lets give all confederate apologists a hard time.

    imdw (2e60b1)

  57. I had read this quote before but never this part at the end:

    “One final note: I majored in theatre in college. After reading Steffgen, I conceived of a oneact play dealing with this problem a play I’ll probably never write, of course. But the opening scene is of two high school students, a black male and white female. The black teen asks the white girl for a date. When she refuses, the boy answers: “Oh, so you’re a racist?” If this is the test, then, she can refute the accusation in only one way, correct? And, as you probably know, our modern education system is very laudatory of those who “combat racism.” Think about it.”

    RSM is disgusting.

    imdw (7dd54a)

  58. SNL actually did that play about twenty years or more ago with guest host Wilt Chamberlain playing a high school basketball coach whose every response to “No” — from asking for sex from a student to and extra dessert at dinner from his mother (yes, his mother) — was “Is it because I’m black?”

    nk (df76d4)

  59. [I'll note that White guys + Asian women seems a common pairing, and one that excites no comment. That's because Chinese and Japanese emigres are upper-class, value education, and make good in-laws, over-riding the "grand-kids don't look like me and prefer the other grandparents to me" factor. Less common is the Asian Guy + White gal, which also excites little comment.]

    It depends on where the couple lives. Come live in the south and you would see a very different reception from blacks and whites. If anything asian-white couples get to see that racism or bias is not exclusive to any community. The stereotypes about Asian women are alive and well. (have been asked if the anatomy is horizontal versus vertical and if it is true parents send their daughters to Geisha school to learn sexual techniques. And the old saws of “he couldn’t find an American girl so…” or “probably a bar girl” are still heard.)
    The Asian is often expected to give tacit approval (silence is concurrence) to comments made about blacks or whites depending on what group he or she is with.
    One of the weird thingsI noticed about whites and blacks who married Asians (those born and raised in another country and not second generation born in the US) is that if the American husband has some bias toward another race the wife will tend to show some of that mindset and give away the husband’s true views.

    voiceofreason2 (63d684)

  60. It’s a two-way street. Some, especially liberals, are far too quick to pull out the race card.

    Of course, McCain’s statement is racist. We all know that. People, as MLK said, should be judged on the content of their character. As a product of an interracial marriage, I absolutely find his comment disgraceful in this day and age when interracial marraige has grown so common. But I also find it objectionable when African-Americans object to other blacks marrying whites. My son took a black female friend to his prom, and it made me think about what I would think if he brought a young black or Asian girl – even Hispanic (he looks white but is 1/4 Hispanic) -home to meet us. BTW, I wouldnt mind.

    I think that’s what we should be thinking about.

    I also believe that with all the barriers coming down, in the next few centuries – assuming we survive – you’re going to see so much intermarriage that it will be hard to tell anyone’s race.

    JEA (9f9fc9)

  61. In my lifetime (I’m 60) I have had friends who were part of a biracial marriage. They carefully shopped, investigated areas of my country to find an area that would accept them and their offspring. There is still a reaction in this country to biracial marriages and, because I note that, am I too a racist?

    J (2946f2)

  62. The different races represent human subspecies. It’s speciation in its infancy. Had technology never advanced, the different races would each be their own distinct species eventually.

    This is manifestly untrue. Microbiology has shown, for ever 30 years, that the New Guinea highlander and the Amazon rain forest denizen and the average New Yorker have less difference in their DNA than to Chimps living on opposite sides of mountains in cloud forests (link)

    We are all brothers and sister, j curtis, and the sooner you figure it out, the better you will feel

    timb (449046)

  63. No, you’re not.

    JEA (9f9fc9)

  64. Patterico, thanks for investigating this. You have once again proven yourself a honest broker.

    timb (449046)

  65. “The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM”

    If you won’t accept someone solely because of their skin color, then you’re being racist.

    It’s really not debatable.

    Dave Surls (5dfed0)

  66. so another blog claims RS McCain admitted it. okay, so let’s hear it from him.

    But yes, it would be racist.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  67. o another blog claims RS McCain admitted it. okay, so let’s hear it from him.

    But yes, it would be racist.

    Comment by A.W. —

    Not to hammer the nail any more, but Patterico provided a link to the audio where he DOES admit saying it. Go click it and listen

    timb (449046)

  68. timb

    well, i can’t do that right now, but i will assume you are being accurate, until i get home tonight.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  69. so another blog claims RS McCain admitted it. okay, so let’s hear it from him.

    If you click on the link in this post for more evidence, you’ll see he has addressed it as much as he’s ever likely to. He has admitted being involved in the listserv that was reproduced on the Reclaiming the South site, and only denies that he “posted to” that site.

    You’re welcome to try to get him to address it. I tried by leaving (actually, trying to leave) a comment at his site and it was never approved.

    Patterico (64318f)

  70. timb:

    Actually, he sort of denies it in the audio. But in context, I think he’s denying the INTERPRETATION of what he said. Plus that audio is just bizarre in McCain’s evasive manner.

    Look at ALL the evidence and I think it’s clear that he said it, but justifies it as non-racist.

    I’m not out to attack him but just to set the record straight, because I do think there have been some quasi-denials or implied denials that don’t add up — and that he forthrightly admitted the quote when Founding Bloggers put it to him directly.

    Patterico (64318f)

  71. I heard it differently, Patterico, because, instead of “Hell no, I didn’t say that,” he went on to try to explain the comment. I had read other things he wrote years before (especially the laudatory letter to editor for American Renaissance, in which he praises a white, Christian identity article, so I was pre-disposed against him.

    In the end, as I suggested earlier to DJR and to other posters, there is plenty of evidence out there from the man’s own pen. including a voice like that in any debate about politics and policy is just not helpful.

    timb (449046)

  72. I don’t really think there’s any doubt he said it. But I think he has tried to create some doubt by being less than forthright.

    I have at least one e-mailer (not McCain) who makes the case that the quote is not racist. Let McCain clearly own the quote — and then make that case if he wishes.

    Patterico (64318f)

  73. Mr. Frey, you’ve jumped the shark with this. The post and comment thread is an Orwellian wet dream. McCain has evil thoughts. Or he approves of those who have evil thoughts. Or maybe he sympathizes with people who have evil thoughts. He believes evil thoughts are “natural”!

    Mr. Frey, you’re a lawyer and, I have no doubt, a very good one. You know thoughts are not actions. Heck, you even know that thoughts are not necessarily intentions. Time was when racism meant the intent to cause harm to someone on the grounds of their race coupled with an act of harm or at the very least an active willingness to seek out opportunities of inflicting such harm or the active support of those who did such harm or advocated doing so.

    Is this what Mr. McCain is involved in? Manifestly not. He is guilty rather of thought crime, of not toeing the Kumbaya Line beloved of Liberal Witch Hunters that all white people – whiteness here is of the essence – at all times suppress any and all negative feelings and thoughts they may have of people of other races especially blacks. All whites now have an imaginary censor – a kind of Harvey the Rabbit – who accompanies them everywhere and vets everything they feel, think and say to ensure its complies with the dictates of racial orthodoxy. If they offend they are condemned as “racist”.

    This used to be called a smear, i.e. character assassination, but it has now become an act of sacramental cleansing for white folks: Thou hast sinned against the Most High Kumbaya. Repent! Repent! Repent or thou shalt be cast out into exterior darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of David Duke’s teeth. In other words: “He should just flatly renounce it!” Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. The penance is not of course three Hail Marys but an act of profound self-abnegation which renders the wretched penitent a life-long captive of the Salemic Priesthood of Racial Orthodoxy.

    This rite is reserved for white people alone for only they carry the Mark of Jim Crow upon them, only they suffer from the Original Sin of Slavery. Only they can be racist for that is precisely how this new “racism” is defined.

    It is said that “white people can’t jump”. They are however willing, nay eager to learn. Every time the subject comes up, they all cry out, “How high?”

    liamascorcaigh (c2a6e7)

  74. I don’t have that censor

    timb (449046)

  75. I really do not have an issue with this quote. And I agree with the statement. That attitude might be racist and again it might NOT be. Let me reframe the quote using a similar situation.

    While you may feel sympathy and give a few dollars for the homeless person on the corner, you would recoil with an understandable horror at the thought they may become your brother-in-law.

    It has not much to do with who you are or who they are. The fact is they are *different* as perceived by you. And this plays a large role in how we react to others. When you feel some connection as “we are similar” you will automatically react differently. This does not equal sexism, racism or any other -ism.

    There was a little “test” done with having someone panhandle on Wall Street in NY. First, they dressed poorly and then did the same experiment dressed in a business suit. The “story” was that they had forgotten their wallet and needed a few bucks to get home. When dressed in a similar style to the people around them, the whole reaction was vastly different as was the help offered.

    To recoil from the “other” when they are perceived as “different” is quite a normal human reaction. I make no statement whether that is a good/bad thing, merely an “is” thing. And any “ism” attached is being put there by the reader, not by the participants. Mind your own filters … always. We all have them.

    Yehoodi (557b2d)

  76. I think the whole thing comes down to humanity — one human being identifying with another human, no matter how they register on the light meter, or how they’re dressed, or whether their hands are filthy and they’re missing some teeth and snot is running out of their nose.

    I tend to think that it’s innate. But I am willing to accept that it can be learned. I do not believe that it can be imposed.

    nk (df76d4)

  77. Liamascorcaigh, there was never a time when racism meant only “the intent to cause harm to someone on the grounds of their race coupled with an act of harm or at the very least an active willingness to seek out opportunities of inflicting such harm or the active support of those who did such harm or advocated doing so.”

    Businesses which ran segregated lunch counters were racist, even if no black people were ever physically harmed in doing so. Racism is viewing people as members of their racial group first and individuals second (or perhaps 3rd or 4th). It is believing that a person’s race, by itself, should determine your business, legal, or social relationship with that person. It is obsessing with racial identifications.

    You are projecting a great deal. One can consider what R.S. McCain said (both in this quote and in his broader defense elsewhere of a relatively undescribed “Confederate heritage”) to be racist without supporting reparations, “white guilt,” etc., etc., etc. Acknowledging that this statement by Mr. McCain is racist neither condemns him as wholly evil nor excuses the multitude of racist statements by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and many others.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  78. On the internet, no one knows you are a [your race here].

    So all of you who have a significant other, what race is that significant other relative to your own?

    Do you hate all the other races? Do you hate your own race if you are a multiracial couple?

    I’m not aware of any states that allow polygamy, so I’m thinking a lot of this conversation is really silly. We only get one spouse, and MUST in reality exclude all other races aside from the one we pick. So do you people all want to be called racist on the basis that you didn’t pick any of the other races? This seems to be where this conversation is going.

    No matter which race you get coupled with, someone else can make you racist for not picking some other color. As for writing, no matter how much you try to be clear, other people can really make a mess of it.

    Now think how the government would solve the problem if you think its really blind to gender, gender preference, religion, ethnicity and politics? It would take two people at random and marry them. Absolutely no racism or discrimination of any kind. Problem solved. Y’all would love that now, wouldn’t you? So the real question is: do you all really want the ability to discriminate or not? Do you like the idea of government telling you who you may or may not like? Race is only one variable of many people may discriminate on. If government can regulate that variable, it can decide to regulate all the others in the name of tolerance.

    Now, lets take something I remember reading from Walter Williams, one of my favorite economics types. He asked a simple question: Why were Jim Crow laws made? His answer: because people would naturally integrate if they weren’t forced to stay apart. Businesses like money regardless of the race of the people they sell to. Free markets get people of all races close enough to get to know each other better. The people who are racist don’t get that benefit. Its their loss.

    Jeff (0204be)

  79. BTW, for you young people who only know automatic cameras (wonderful things, BTW), “register on the light meter” refers to the cave man days when, if you wanted to take a picture, you had to use a little machine to see how well your subject reflected light and then had to adjust shutter apperture and speed manually (and maybe change the film) on your camera.

    nk (df76d4)

  80. Jeff, your statement started out with compounded fallacies and invalid logic steps. I stopped reading it after that. I’m a mixed-breed with no black blood. My grandson is a mixed-breed with black blood. And that’s as far as I’m going to satisfy your arrogantly ignorant accusations.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  81. This post was brought to my attention about an hour ago, and [object].

    There were other, more productive ways I intended to use my Monday. But since you insist, I will compose an extended discussion.

    [note: fished from spam filter. --Stashiu]

    Robert Stacy McCain (b2a74a)

  82. We’re all racist to a certain degree. I react differently to young black men dressed a certain way than to women or other black men (e.g., ones who are older). My wife found “F__ you, white b*tch” written in the dirt on her car in front of our house. (I should mention we live in a mostly black neighborhood in the city.) So it’s on both sides. And your example of the ‘bum’ versus the guy in the suit really isn’t germane, because it’s about economics, not race.

    The question is, how far do we take our private racism when we go out in public? What McCain said is unacceptable in today’s society, just as it should be. And it does do harm. Just as African-Americans not accepting blacks who marry other races does harm too.

    JEA (9f9fc9)

  83. “That attitude might be racist and again it might NOT be. Let me reframe the quote using a similar situation.

    While you may feel sympathy and give a few dollars for the homeless person on the corner, you would recoil with an understandable horror at the thought they may become your brother-in-law.”
    -yehoodi

    No, it’s racist, pure and simple, to find race on its own to be relevant in judging a person. If this black suitor is a homeless man, or has some other bad trait, and you’re horrified at the non-race trait, that’s not racism. If you are horrified at someone’s race, and compare it to being homeless or stereotypical race traits you might sww on MTV, then you’re racist.

    You didn’t reframe the quote. You simply changed and unacceptable premise to an acceptable one. I don’t like to drive unreliable cars. I saw a blue car that was broken once, and thus, it’s smart to avoid blue cars.

    No, it’s easy as hell to chance RSM’s quote to include valid reasons to have a problem with a new sister in law, or a potential date. RSM failed to make that distinction, even though it was trivially easy to do, because he wasn’t talking about avoiding homeless people or criminals… he was talking specifically about avoiding interracial relationships.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  84. In Disney’s Fantasia, You could tell which were the centaur-centaurette couples by their MATCHING HAIR.

    Of course, they were all racists back then…

    SarahW (692fc6)

  85. “black people do it too”
    black people sometimes make mistakes too, hell they make them all the time in my experience. This doesn’t make mistakes OK. Blacks and whites are not competing teams, and this isn’t about whites and blacks as independent groups making rules that are fair. If we stop looking at ourselves as one race, and classifying others by any race, the democrats lose a lot of power, but individuals gain a better understanding of the world. That’s why RSM’s quote is so wrong.

    If I knew only that my next sister in law was black, I would simply not know anything about my next sister in law. It’s the same as if I knew my next sister in law was a red-head. I guess I would know (being white), that my sister in law was entering a relationship that would generate ugly thoughts in the heads of ugly people. That’s it.

    Just because racism is natural, which I think is totally arguable, doesn’t make it not racism. That’s the core of why RSM’s quote is deeply irrational. Racism is a socially corrosive and mentally crippling way of dealing with social information. It may be something that was favorable to evolution, but if we cannot recognize that evolutionary benefits are different from morality, or even rise above the random traits that enabled a distant ancestor to survive in a foreign world, then we are idiots. We are idiots who are beating our clubs against our heads.

    A black sister in law should not horrify white people. Unless some other horrible trait exists that would horrify if she were a white sister in law. Just ‘pretend’* race doesn’t exist.

    *it really doesn’t.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  86. I asked my daughter a question (that I heard years ago) yesterday.

    Suppose you’re walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night and a group of tall, well-built black men walk out of a building. Would you feel safer if they had basketballs in their arms or Bibles?

    She cheated. She said if they’re dressed like ghetto thugs, she’ll get out of there. But if they’re dressed decently, she’ll walk up and strike a conversation. She didn’t care what they were holding.

    Of course, the question I heard and repeated came before RevWrong. Might make a difference.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  87. I don’t think that is a racist quote at all.

    Maybe it could have been clarified a bit better. but to call him a racist because of it?

    Cracker, please.

    DaveC (6d87b7)

  88. Dustin, what do you have against red-heads?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  89. I will share an observation that is more seriously on point.

    I had a friend who had a romance and fell in love with a man of a different race. I didn’t think anything about it. Love, yay!

    Then that relationship broke up, and she had another boyfriend who happened to be of that other race.

    Then a third boyfriend of the other race.

    Since it wasn’t for lack of opportunity to have a boyfriend who wasn’t of the other race, I began to think to myself “Youre doing that on purpose!” And I was surprised and shocked to realize I felt offended by this purposeful choice.

    I comforted myself that I was offended because she was using race as her selection criteria, and THAT was racist.

    But the truth is, in my heart of hearts, I thought “one off is fine”.
    But why can’t you at least try to find a boyfirend of your own race.

    This is racism of my own. I can’t really comprehend or explain it. I haven’t any particular * intellectual* belief that races shouldn’t mix. Why did it seem to me to be bad manners to keep doing it?

    Perhaps it all goes back to a childhood internalization of the idea that couples ought to “match” in some way.

    I blame Walt Disney, the greatest racist of them all.

    SarahW (692fc6)

  90. John, if your daughter doesn’t get out of there when walking down a dark alley at night, and seeing well built white men, dressed like ghetto thugs (many are in the dark alleys I’ve seen), then she’s not bright.

    I get what you’re saying… in poor neighborhoods you will find a lot of black criminals.

    But that’s not a good reason to be revolted at interracial relationships. Poor neighborhoods often have a lot of white criminals. We can play with the statistics if we want, but the reality is that you (should) have a problem with the white and black criminals, and no problem with the white and black good folks. So when you hear your next sister in law is black, you need to know more before you know anything.

    I get frightened sometimes when I am in baltimore and run into some black men at night. That’s got nothing to do with their race. I have felt the same about white methheads.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  91. It’s a funny thing, Dustin. I remember some comic bringing up that “Scary Black People at Night” meme.

    Then asking how you would feel if they were coming home from Bible Study class?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  92. Sarah, that honest story almost makes up for accusing me of sending Godlstein fake emails.

    RSM is who he is, a neo-Confederate jackass. We are all better for ignoring him.

    timb (449046)

  93. Dustin @8:48 am, I think maybe you missed the values added to the question or the time-dated contextual reference. If you look at the link I provided RE my red-heads snark, my statement that my grandson is less than half white (that I have made at least one other time) might add a bit of flavor.

    I really think you and I are on the same page on this one.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  94. “But the truth is, in my heart of hearts, I thought “one off is fine”.
    But why can’t you at least try to find a boyfirend of your own race.

    This is racism of my own. I can’t really comprehend or explain it. I haven’t any particular * intellectual* belief that races shouldn’t mix. Why did it seem to me to be bad manners to keep doing it?”

    -Sarahw

    It is bad manners. And I think you’re right that many folks have this identification with one race or kind of people, and this leads to a lot of problems that are probably rooted in evolutionarily advantageous tribe mentality. You’re doing the right thing by thinking about how your mind is working, and adapting to the modern world. If everyone did that, the world would be a much better place. I don’t think it’s just Disney’s effect, though I am sure pop culture, a human thing, is infected with human rights and wrongs.

    For some reason, I simply don’t identify with any particular race, and I see my tribe as just me. I don’t know how that happened.


    DaveC thinks the only problem with this quote is that it could be clarified. How long has RSM had to clarify it? If he’s not willing to do so, then he’s accepting our modern world’s rejection of people who say racist things. He’s forfeited his journalist career and cried that he’s the victim of a smear campaign (which I thought he was until I read this post last night). He owns the penalty for this. It is his fault. He should disavow the notion that it’s horrifying to mix races. If that’s not what he meant… if he meant that there are natural reasons why people have ugly traits like racism, that would be super-easy to explain, and I would happily accept it.

    RSM’s a good person, a great writer, and a hard worker. I want him to deal with this smartly. Sure, he shouldn’t have to prove that he’s not politically correct. But he does, to this limited extent.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  95. John, you’re right.

    I even read your other remarks, and still missed your point.

    My bad,

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  96. DaveC, the comment is racist.

    JEA (9f9fc9)

  97. It looks almost as though McCain is attempting to suggest that this “bank teller but not in-law” attitude is “natural” or logical in the fact that it results not from a core of racism, but rather a conditioned response to the communist programme designed to foster just such division. I’d suggest that it means you view the person more as a servant than an equal, which, if based on skin color rather than economic status, for example, is clearly racially motivated.

    And he then goes on to caution against the kind of over-reaction which would drive the “racial purity” response (Karenga, anyone?) which, while seemingly “logical” based on the communist conditioning received in Academia, it is still to be opposed.

    And while I can see where he’s going, if that’s the case then I don’t think he’s framed his argument very well. An otherwise defensible argument (with which I’d still disagree) that crumbles right about the time he insists “THAT’S NOT RACISM.”

    While it may be “understandable” for whites to react negatively to the forced integration of minority faces in media images (which is clearly happening), to then suggest that this response is NOT racism by any modern definition is just, well, stupid.

    So, while I don’t think this comment itself necessarily hows RS McCain to be a racist, I’d have to disagree with his assertion that the mindset he discusses isn’t racism.

    Which, if that really IS his view…becomes the problem.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  98. Steve B, that’s very smart.

    I think DaveC is right that this can basically be put in enough context to be forgivable, if RSM wants.

    I like when people talk about this. We all deal with race, and in our mental development, have probably considered the ugly aspects of racism. It’s complicated, and fraught with strange arguments about intra race justice and inferiority, and as you say, servitude versus family.

    If RSM wants to tackle that tough topic, I’m thankful for that. He just needs to be clear, and provide the critical caveats about the immorality of racism, even if he calls it a natural thing that isn’t racism by his definition (I can’t understand that as he’s put it in this quote).

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  99. read the link, Dustin! Jesus, it’s more than one quote.

    timb (449046)

  100. I really think this pales next to the rabid hate campaign being prosecuted against Kevin Jennings by the First Things People and Michelle Malkin and Andrew Breitbart. But I guess if Mr. McCain gets the vapors from an Adam Lambert performance he’s probably on board with the rest of these bigots as well.

    When did team R get to be so hatey and dishonest? Am I just now noticing?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  101. I gotta say, though, that I’m a coward. Before I got married, I knew I’d never date a black girl. Now that I’m no longer married, I expect I’ll never date a black woman. It’s because I’m a coward.

    I don’t want to be “that white boy” that gets laughed at for deigning to ask. I’d rather not ask than to be humiliated. Now Asians and Pacific Islanders, that’s another thing entirely. I don’t feel the fear of being laughed at as “that white boy” if I find some aesthetically pleasing woman of Asian or Pacific Islander descent.

    I’m just glad I built my daughter to be much more self-sufficient and self-assured than I’ll ever be.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  102. footsie, count me among that group you misname haters. TYVM.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  103. It’s very dishonest, Mr. Hitchcock. It’s really no wonder that youth find the Republican Party to be hateful and toxic.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  104. Happyfeet, I don’t know…

    but, on the off-chance you are serious, I thought this would be appropriate

    A new beginning

    timb (449046)

  105. I can’t see youtubes at work. And just cause I think some people in Team R are hateful and dishonest doesn’t mean I’m a dirty socialist.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  106. Yehoodi

    Gosh, this is such a terrible metaphor.

    > While you may feel sympathy and give a few dollars for the homeless person on the corner, you would recoil with an understandable horror at the thought they may become your brother-in-law

    I won’t say that homelessness never happens without the person being at fault, but so long as we are talking about adults, it usually is. So homelessness as a proxy for bad behavior has some real logic behind it. skin color, not so much. And even then, rational people recognize that there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, how many people would be happy to know that Samuel L. Jackson might become a part of your family by marriage? I imagine a lot of people. But Mr. Jackson himself was once a crackhead, and I would wager even odds a homeless man, too. But obviously whatever demons had ahold of him back then were slain and he seems to be a pretty upstanding citizen today. Good for him.

    And the likening of race to homelessness, is, well, more than a little bizarre.

    > The fact is they are *different* as perceived by you.

    And therein lies the problem. A person with dark skin seems no more different from me than a person with dark hair, or differently colored eyes. The people I get along with, it has to do with whether they are geeks of my ilk more than anything else; color ain’t got nothing to do with it.

    > When dressed in a similar style to the people around them, the whole reaction was vastly different as was the help offered.

    But its not the similarity, but the fact that the guy in the suit really looked like the kind of guy who ordinarily earned his keep.

    Pat

    > Racism is viewing people as members of their racial group first and individuals second (or perhaps 3rd or 4th). It is believing that a person’s race, by itself, should determine your business, legal, or social relationship with that person. It is obsessing with racial identifications.

    I will respectfully dissent, or maybe more like concur. I say racism is the opposite of MLK’s dream: “to judge a person not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin.”

    Jeff

    > So do you people all want to be called racist on the basis that you didn’t pick any of the other races? This seems to be where this conversation is going.

    Indeed Tiger Woods children are the full trifecta: white, black and asian.

    JFA

    > We’re all racist to a certain degree.

    Um, speak for yourself.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  107. footsie, it is dishonest to call Focus on the Family “haters”. It is dishonest to claim a “Warning: The surgeon general says cigarette smoking can cause low birth weight” means cigarette manufacturers have any pretense in attempting to educate their clientele on the dangers of their product. But that’s precisely what you are doing with GLSEN. You are citing the disingenuous disclaimer to refute all the promo it is doing. That makes you the blind person in this case.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  108. timb,

    I’ll be honest, I almost don’t care if RSM is a white supremacist or not. He’s barely on my radar, and there are lots of nuts. I just like the discussion. Sarah and John are both being brutally honest about how this kind of thing affects their psyche. It’s pretty important, in my opinion, that we have this discussion. It is not that important, to me, that we condemn someone as racist, whether they are or not. I do not care about the left’s constant battle to define everyone not on the left as subhuman. That’s more of a problem in today’s world than racism. MORE of a problem.

    John, I don’t think there’s anything more satisfying than knowing your kids are really making progress for the family tree. You already noted that you have these serious talks about race… I bet most families don’t, at least not seriously.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  109. Focus on the Family are those kooks what promote sexual orientation therapy. Also they’re very prissy about what they think can be shown on tv. They’re not normal people.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  110. happyfeet, care to show me an honest online debate among Dems about racism? I mean, about the racism where superior white liberals refuse to buy property in black neighborhoods? The racism where some of my liberal friends have been known to say “now, I’m a good liberal Democrat, but let me tell you, the Blacks…”? And that’s just the anti-black racism. Can you show me any debates among Democrats over the virulent anti-white racism routinely spewed by the likes of Revs. Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton?

    When did team D get to be so hatey and dishonest?

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  111. footsie, I am one of those people.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  112. If Michelle and Hateway can’t find anything to critique about Mr. Jennings’ policies and comportment in his job then all they’re doing is stirring up a hate campaign about gays having designs on kids. And they’re being very dishonest and incitey about it. If they have an argument with GSLEN then apparently they weren’t all that incensed about it until it became a convenient bludgeon. It’s incredibly juvenile and hateful what they’re doing and it’s not the way we treat people.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  113. Happy, it was a video of Louis and Rick at the end of Casablanca. I meant it all ironical, since I know your definition of socialist means roughly “any change since the New Deal.”

    Still, I liked the idea you’d have one French friend

    timb (449046)

  114. Well, Mr. Hitchcock, I’m sure they do some good but I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that they are a mainstream organization. They’re not. They’re fringe.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  115. oh. Do you know I’ve never seen Casablanca? Or Animal House. I’m gonna have a lot of movies to watch in the rest home I guess.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  116. They’re Christian. That’s what makes them fringe. You know that whole kooky “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible” thing those hatey Christians espouse? Those hatey Christians, like me? That’s what makes them fringe.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  117. That is all I have to say about it but I think while we’re excoriating racism we might spare a moment to condemn Michelle and Gateway and Mr,. Breitbart as well. Honestly I think it’s these ones what are more likely to incite some real hate than Mr. McCain is. They’re sure trying a lot harder.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  118. No they’re not fringe because they’re Christian. They’re fringe because they’re weird.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  119. Happy, if you ever, and I mean ever get a chance, see Casablanca. It’ll take 80 minutes and it’s not exactly hard to follow.

    timb (449046)

  120. I will. I may even have it at home.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  121. For you, footsie, from twitter:

    andrewbreitbart

    Mr Overly-Judgmental Strikes Again: Obamas Safe Schools Czars 2000 Conference Promoted ‘Fisting’ to 14 Year-Olds http://tinyurl.com/ycmke5o

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  122. This is manifestly untrue. Microbiology has shown, for ever 30 years, that the New Guinea highlander and the Amazon rain forest denizen and the average New Yorker have less difference in their DNA than to Chimps living on opposite sides of mountains in cloud forests (link)

    We are all brothers and sister, j curtis, and the sooner you figure it out, the better you will feel

    Comment by timb

    There are some very uncomfortable things coming out of genetics in the next couple of decades. Among them are things like those discussed in The Bell Curve and they will be hot potatoes like AGW.

    I didn’t read all the comments but it was certainly lively. I think McCain used the wrong term for the discomfort that many people, especially in Georgia, might feel at the prospect of an interracial marriage in the family. I don’t think revulsion is the right word. Aside from that, he was stating something that is true for many people.

    The big problem these days with interracial dating is the politics. Obama dropped a white girlfriend because he said it would preclude a career in politics. Someone here told the story of his own black girlfriend and the pressure she came under. I would have no problem marrying a black woman or having one of my kids marry one but I would be very worried about the race politics that they would have to deal with.

    I have previously told the story of hanging around with black guys in a bar when I was 18. I felt no undercurrent of hostility. Today, I would not do that. Times have changed and race relations are actually worse, even though blacks have gained many advantages in society since 1956. As is the case in many revolutionary societies, granting relief from prior inequities does not make the recipients of that relief grateful. It makes them more demanding and more hostile.

    The French Revolution was not carried out by enslaved peasants but by bourgeoisie who resented the residual privileges of the nobility. In many cases, such as with Charlotte Corday, assassin of Marat, the nobility were impoverished relative to the bourgeoise.

    We will have years and decades of hostility from blacks even as they continue to improve their lot, at least those who adopt “acting white.” The fact that they have to do so may be the source of some of the hostility. Guilty whites may try to convince the gullible that all cultures are equal but blacks who are making it know better and resent it.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  123. See, that’s dishonest, Mr. Hitchcock. The conference, held at Tufts’s University, was open to ages 14-21…

    This fisting dealio happened at one of 50 seminars … this one was an open q&a… the facilitator was an idiot… he was not a GSLEN employee. Kevin made a statement where he said it shouldn’t have happened and it wouldn’t in the future.

    Which is probably why they have to use a nine-year-old clip.

    But in the process of their hate campaign they are energetically driving home a tired message about gay people having designs on kids.

    If they have an argument with Mr. Jennings, who is a rabid dirty socialist with whom many, many arguments are possible, I think they should make a case like adults, not like hateful screechy harpies.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  124. happyfeet, let me ask you a question.

    You consider most Republicans and conservatives to be “haters,” yes? I presume that you are a decent person who wants all people to improve and better themselves, and that you would think it a good thing if more people recognized and tried to stop racist attitudes. True?

    So here you have happened across a fairly conservative blog, with fairly conservative regular commenters, engaged in a pretty open discussion about race, in which many conservatives are criticizing another conservative for his racist statements.

    If the things I stated in paragraph 1 about you are true, why would you interrupt that conversation to piss all over Republicans and conservatives in general, throwing a monkey wrench in the works and no doubt making some folks more willing to overlook RSM’s racist comments out of greater solidarity in opposition to asshole Democrats like you?

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  125. Mike K… RSM has had many opportunities to clarify that by “revulsion” he meant “worry and concern for the well-being of the couple, given the irrational hatred some in society have for mixed relationships.” He has not, to the best of my knowledge, made that clarification.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  126. no I don’t consider most Rs and conservatives to be haters… I think right now they’re being very, very tolerant of a very hatey campaign though.

    ….I just felt like juxtaposing this hate campaign with the McCain inquisition is all. Because it’s ironic how unexamined posts viciously smearing Kevin Jennings are while we look to things Mr. McCain said years ago to try and discern racisms.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  127. I’m a bit surprised that supporting interracial (and specifically black/white) marriage seems to be being promoted as a shibboleth to prove that people are not racist without considering any of the other issues. If there is one thing that the Obama campaign revealed, it would have to be that there are a lot of deeply troubling issues that will face the children of black/white relationships.

    Whether it is out of personal choice or political expediency, Obama chose to identify with the black nationalists and white-hating preachers in the American political community. In fact, it seems that he had to do this in order to be accepted as authentically black. (It seems to be assumed that he never had the option of choosing to be authentically white instead–perhaps because there is no such thing, perhaps because the concept only exists at the (rightly) ostracized racial fringes of American society, or perhaps because his skin color would prevent it). During the campaign, his comments about his mother and grandmother were consistently less favorable than those about the father who abandoned him in his infancy and were often explicitly connected to their race.

    Assuming that the couple themselves can overcome the widespread antipathy towards interracial unions in the black community (and whatever such opposition exists in the community at large), that is not the only hurdle. It seems likely that the children of the union will be pressured to hate and denigrate the white parent and his or her family–and that if they want to achieve any position of prominence, they will have to sign on with the hate whitey crowd in order to prove their authentic blackness. That’s a lot of baggage for a child to come into the world with and a chance that any parent would probably want to avoid.

    Marriage isn’t just about the parents’ feelings for each other and it certainly shouldn’t be about proving that you’re not a racist. That makes the adoption of black/white interracial marriage as a racism litmus test troubling.

    Seneca (1e3562)

  128. btw, can we stop using that term “natural” on the subject. Okay? Being natural is not a good thing. do you see animals using toilet paper, for instance? or cooking their meals? And indeed, creatures naturally do alot of things we would consider morally appalling, like eating their children. I don’t get this “fetishization” of nature.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  129. Seneca

    if you really think Obama HAD to sit in wright’s church, you are smoking something. no, he did it because he has no courage whatsoever.

    Personally i find it positively good for there to be multiracial children. its kind of hard for racism to exist if there are no longer distinct races.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  130. Seneca – do you have evidence that blacks are overwhelimngly opposed to interracial marriage (“the widespread antipathy towards interracial unions in the black community”), or are you just making assumptions?

    I assume most marriages are about falling in love with someone and wanting to spend your life with that person, and don’t make political statements.

    And I can readily understand Obama felt he had to give up a white girlfriend for politics. I doubt any politician, white or black, would get elected with a spouse of another race, despite the fact it shouldn’t make a difference. The US isn’t ready for that.

    JEA (9f9fc9)

  131. As for the topic in question, the selfish gene interpretations of evolutionary biology would suggest that there is indeed a natural resistance to interracial pairings of any type (at least when you are not one of the two individuals involved–my understanding of the subject is that there is supposedly a biological incentive for men to mate indiscriminately but that there would also be a biological incentive for people to disapprove and work to prevent matings outside their group). But being natural does not make it good or justified.

    As to whether or not it is racism, I think it is probably distinct from the bank clerk form of racism in that it has a stronger biological basis and that it is backed up by rational concerns over the cultural difficulties specific to black/white interracial marriages. I can see a compelling public reason to disapprove and discourage bank clerk style racism (including affirmative action which is nothing more than saying that the government wants black bank clerks more than white ones): such racism leads to injustice and stirs up civil strife. The case for encouraging (or perhaps working to erase disapproval of) black/white interracial marriage is more complex since there is a good chance that interracial marriage would increase racial tensions and civil strife rather than decrease it. (It would almost certainly do so if the monolithic black disapproval of such unions did not disappear). In any event, I would expect opposition to or revulsion at the prospect of black/white interracial marriage to be a form of racism that is probably best left for last in any attempt to eradicate racism.

    Seneca (1e3562)

  132. I’m not personally “repulsed” or in any way negatively affected by an interracial couple.

    However, there is something to be said for the undeniable reality that in the majority of cases, blacks are not attracted to whites and whites are not attracted to blacks. (romantically)

    Just as most whites/blacks are not attracted to Asians and vice-versa.

    It’s simply a biological, evolutionary birds of a feather thing, perfectly natural and normal. Am I racist because I prefer to date or marry someone from my own race? Man, there’s a lot of “racists” out there.

    Could this really be all that’s at the root of RSM’s feelings? In reality, feelings shared by the vast majority of the human race?

    Perhaps it’s that RSM is more brave, honest and un-PC — than racist.

    Gary (44b490)

  133. Was the black bank clerk rejected as a relative because of
    (a) skin color
    (b) income level (bank clerk)
    (c) something else (personality)

    I’ve known plenty of snobs who weren’t racist – they held everybody as being beneath them.

    Sounds like some people view all people as racists first. That’s not a very “color-blind” way to think.

    Fred (f8422d)

  134. Here is the sort of response Gateway and Michelle’s hate campaign is engendering, Mr. Hitchcock…

    averagemelonNo Gravatar
    December 7th, 2009 | 12:45 pm | #16

    Anything to destroy the family unit. Kids are the easiest target. This man is nothing more than a serial killer. He uses his sexual needs to destroy healthy children. In his dark mind, there is no such thing as innocence. I am certain he would slice, cook and eat children’s genitals if it made his lower half happy, all the while claiming it to be “normal” and attempting to sway others with his argument so that he can indulge in his dark wishes more easily without the nuisance of a law.*

    Their campaign seems to really effective at exciting the sickos I think, but, they meant to do that, didn’t they?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  135. oh. Mr. Gateway’s new post today does place the conference at Tuft’s University… it didn’t say that the first time he ran this post. I’m guessing he had to ratchet up the honesty for publication at Mr. Brietbart’s.

    That’s a good thing, but it’s also a little telling I think. Also I should say it’s very much to Mr. Hoff’s credit that he’s allowing criticism of his posts in his comments section.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  136. oh. *Hoft’s* I mean

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  137. and also that should be *Breitbart*

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  138. The idea that distinct races will disappear due to interracial marriage is a fantasy. Part black, part white interracial individuals who, like Tiger Woods, do not choose to identify with one group or the other seem to be relatively rare. Perhaps more to the point, it would not come close to erasing the physical distinctions between black and white americans because the number of blacks and the number of whites are nowhere near equal. Even if every black person in America married a white person, there would still be around twice as many people with exclusively white ancestry as with mixed race ancestry. And while it would not always be obvious that mixed race individuals were of mixed race, there would still be populations with distinct experiences and histories. (Also, in other countries where there are large mixed black/white populations, they have typically formed their own distinct social identities rather than blending into one group, blending into the other or bridging the gap and blending both groups into each other–of course active discrimination and various race laws were often a factor in this but I don’t know of any examples that didn’t go that way).

    As for the idea that black opposition to black/white interracial marriages is widespread, it is surprisingly hard to find specific research on specifically black american attitudes towards interracial relationships. It is pretty easy to find anecdotal evidence such as the individuals from Patterico’s post yesterday (and the fact that such views seem to be mainstream and opposing them seems controversial). More such anecdotal evidence here (which locates the opposition among black women):
    http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LdRP4hhGdgXrbdQJkdBtntJmqmP2Q734kcmmlWcw1hyrNzhs2JKv!-843851005!-791355714?docId=5008733019
    and here:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200212/kennedy
    Further research on my part indicates it to be a significant portion of the American black population but not a majority that opposes interracial marriage.(Complicating this is the fact that most blacks who oppose interracial dating also opposed anti-miscegenation laws which were frequently used as a proxy for research on attitudes toward interracial relationships. Also, responses to surveys appear to vary depending upon the race of the questioner and whether it is face to face or written and are, in any event a subject where people often do not answer honestly). My suspicion is that interracial individuals who want acceptance in the black community probably face greater pressure to prove their authenticity through radicalism and marrying in-group than people with two black parents.

    Seneca (1e3562)

  139. I think there is a lot more opposition to interracial marriage from black women than men. That was certainly the case with OJ and we are seeing it with Tiger. Some of that has to do with perceived attraction (or lack) and it also has to do with a perceived shortage of black men who are good husbands.

    I don’t think most black men have any problem with interracial dating or marriage. The political issues that Seneca raised about the children are real and can be seen well in Obama’s behavior.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  140. Wow, we’re certainly getting some….different types of thinkers.

    timb (449046)

  141. Terms like “racist” or “racism” almost always reveal less about the subject than they do about the person using them. The actions or statements under review are not altered by one’s understanding of the appropriate application of a label.

    For me, any attitude or judgment about another that is predicated on the color of their skin (a characteristic one is born with) is a “racial” observation, assuming we are equating race with skin color within the context of this post. If one has a negative or positive opinion of another based solely on the color of their skin, I would assert this is a “racist” observation. To exclude someone based on the color of their skin e.g., ” I don’t want a black sister-in-law” is racist. To include someone based on the color of their skin e.g., “this (fill in the blank) would be improved by bringing in a person with black skin” is racist. To believe that someone should be ashamed or proud of the color of their skin is a racist attitude. Implicit in such an observation is the race connecting thought that we are not individuals – the linkage to those that share are skin color is somehow inextricable.

    I differentiate skin color or “race” from the term “culture” as it is commonly thought of today. If one assumes a “cultural” identity then others may harbor positive or negative attitudes towards that “culture” without being appropriately defined as racists. Irrespective of the propaganda put forth by the “diversity” movement it is not an attribute of the human condition that one is de facto “improved” commensurate with one’s exposure to other humans that think and live differently than you do.

    My bottom line:

    If you are more comfortable with people that look like you but share none of your interests, attitudes or beliefs – you sir, appear to be a racist. If on the other hand you are more comfortable with like-minded individuals irrespective of the color of their skin – you sir, may have issues, but racism isn’t one of them.

    JDBlackaby (1309cf)

  142. Seriously? He has to admit that he’s a racist or that the comment was racist? He has to apologize or distance himself from it? Patterico, do you honestly believe that RSM is a racist? This post is beneath you (or so I thought). The whole discussion is about one statement in the middle of a discussion on the perceived racialist agenda of the progressive left (there was a time I would have thought I could leave out the “left”). Sounds to me like you’re stepping right into the trap. Racism isn’t one comment or opinion. Racism is a sustained idealogy based on the evidence of ones actions. RSM doesn’t come close to qualifying. As for the comments, you people are a bunch of sanctimonious blowhards. While you stand around congratulating each other for your enlightened view of the world, you’re missing the bigger picture. You’re so busy trying to earn your “anti-racist” badges that you can’t acknowledge the point of what he’s saying (right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree). The saddest thing of all about these posts: deep down in your little, self-righteouss hearts, more than half of you probably get his point and admire him for having the guts to say it out loud. It’s attitudes like I’ve observed here that enable the racists and race-baiters alike. And they will continue to profit from your cowardice and intellectual dishonesty for…all time, apparently.

    Will (f85f0a)

  143. 138.The idea that distinct races will disappear due to interracial marriage is a fantasy

    Not over night. Just as certain as different groups of isolated human populations will become subspecies ( races ) they would recombine into one race again if the isolation ends and if there was no “racism” ( if racism is defined as preference for one’s own subspecies ).

    j curtis (5126e4)

  144. Racism is a sustained ideology based on the evidence of ones actions.

    I think that’s a fair definition, Will. I think Mr. P was wanting to give Mr. McCain a platform to clear the air, cause the accusations are going on and on.

    I think Mr. McCain’s background with the whole… “Southern movement” and whatnot is very foreign to most people and not well understood. I think that’s what drives the whole dealio more than any racial oppressiveness what Mr. McCain may or may not have caused.

    I don’t understand the “Southern movement” very well personally, and I love the South more than beans.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  145. Actually, Will, it’s more than one quote, as Patterico made clear. The links are above. If you want, I can provide them for you.

    Though I have to admit, I like the “leftist plot” angle. It’s true, long ago in usenet days, me and Ariana Huffington and Markos Molitis (the Kos guy) knew 15 years later there would be a health care debate and so we tricked Robert Stacy McCain into saying slavery was good for blacks and lauding Christian Identity articles in American Renaissance and posting on Free Republic nasty things under the name BurkeDabneyCalhoun. He’s such a powerful force, we knew knocking him out would get cloture…we’re just that prescient!

    Still, I admire the balls it takes to say that you don’t care if someone is racist, damn it, as long as he’s on your side in a political argument. It’s the argument Nixon accepted when he took Pat Buchanan’s advice and courted disaffected racists in ’68 and ’72!

    At least you’re honest.

    timb (449046)

  146. I don’t think RSM is racist but I think he was using terms that are racially charged, such as “revulsion.” I am also certain that discussion of this subject is highly charged with emotion, largely because whites are very sensitive to being seen as racist. I still say it was easier to talk about this between races 40 or 50 years ago than it is now.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  147. “Seriously? He has to admit that he’s a racist or that the comment was racist? He has to apologize or distance himself from it?”

    Or he could do nothing! Patterico makes no demands. Of course, his career on the internets was taking off before this stuff got in the way. Some people really don’t see any reason to explain or express regret for this quote… those people will never be seriously successful in the new media world. That’s what freedom is. RSM is not free from consequences just because he’s free to ignore this issue.

    I don’t know or care if timb is correct that there are tons of other quotes like this. I know the left generally uses this issue only to paint as many as possible as subhuman, so long as those people are conservative. They don’t care at all about the egregious examples like this that were in Obama’s own books, church, or philosophy.

    I don’t care about that effort, and I don’t care about identifying RSM as a racist. But yeah, if he wants to be known as a serious thinker, he should take advantage of this opportunity to explain this comment. Either way, I’m glad to see an intelligent discussion of racism… the depth, disagreement, and honesty here is something I don’t see on blogs like LGF or Kos.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  148. J. Curtis

    > if racism is defined as preference for one’s own subspecies

    Sheesh, subspecies? It is a coloration of the skin and a few other traits that define the different “races.” I don’t mind us using that term “race” as long as we recognize just how shallow it is. There is no more a black subspecies of human than there is a “left handed” subspecies.

    And let me say something about the rest of this thread.

    i especially love the one where we say that people of different colors have a different culture. unless that person is fresh off the boat, we are generally coming from different parts of the same culture. we don’t typically say a southerner can’t get along with a new yorker, but suddenly black people and white people from the same town have irrepressible cultural difference, supposedly.

    And even the supposed cultural differences that exist are exaggerated. I say this with a wife who was not born in america. there are some cultural expectations you have to navigate around, but really its just window dressing. we all want basically the same things, the world over. people might remember that next time they consign some nation to despotism.

    And finally when talking about bi or multi racial kids, the only problem they have is prejudiced people.

    And it is self-evident that given enough time and enough racial mixing, the races will be almost impossible to tell apart.

    Really, seriously, alot of people (and i don’t mean to pick on just you curtis) need to let go of their old attitudes a little.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  149. Mike, did you check the links Patterico provided?

    timb (449046)

  150. Mr. McCain has a response. I think we should all read it.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  151. “Wow, we’re certainly getting some….different types of thinkers.

    Comment by timb”

    See, you have nothing to contribute. You want to use racism as a weapon to prove something. The rest of us want to freely discuss something that many find offensive to even bring up. It’s not for everyone… it’s clearly not for you.

    If some racist wants to come in here and think through their racism in this forum, that’s a good thing, because it would possibly mean personal growth and realization of what’s wrong with racism. Or, we could mock everyone who doesn’t talk in politically correct tones.

    I know people who are strictly politically correct. They also deeply racist. They think Obama is remarkably clean and articulate for a black man. They throw MLK parties with malt liquor and KFC. They think black people need help to make it in an otherwise level playing field. Or worse, they think whites are somehow tainted for what happened over a century ago, and social justice demands they pay for it because of their race.

    Just because people refuse to discuss racism doesn’t mean they aren’t racist… if you’re so threatened by this discussion, you probably have deep seated problems that you are afraid to look at directly.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  152. Thus began a long train of events which now, more than a dozen years later, results in me being accused of racism — when my entire purpose was to argue against what I am now accused of advocating.

    I think he’s sincere and if he’s a racist he’s doing it wrong.

    He doesn’t address about the natural revulsion though, which would have been nice I guess.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  153. He mentions you by name, Mr. Dustin.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  154. happy

    well, i think he is trying to say, yes i said it, but it was to head off this guy who was even worse. which is, well, weird, especially from a guy who’s headline tells us about ruthlessly telling the truth.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  155. there’s definitely some icky moments… and I think that listserv was sort of a racist milieu… but I’m still left with the certain knowledge that good people who know this person much better than anyone here think he’s a good, not racist person…

    The past isn’t always prologue, and sometimes the past is actually for reals the past.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  156. Also he didn’t address his Adam Lambert issues.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  157. mmm, i don’t know. his behavior is wearing a little thin. certainly he could say this all a little more directly, and seriously, why give that much of a crap about a list serv and why then would being all racist help the situation.

    i think if he just said something forthright like “okay i was a racist. now i am not.” then i would be more accepting.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  158. Sheesh, subspecies? It is a coloration of the skin and a few other traits that define the different “races.”

    Comment by A.W. — 12/7/2009 @ 12:39 pm

    That’s all there is that determines different subspecies of other animals too. That really takes the magic out of the word “race”, doesn’t it? “You damn subspeciest!” doesn’t have the same conditioned effect.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  159. I think he was trying to argue against a very ugly racist… the white supremacist kind, and I think he was arguing to a racist audience that he didn’t want to alienate…

    But as far as who he is now I don’t think he’s a threat to racial comity and I don’t know what purpose condemning him for this stuff serves exactly…

    His response is very congenial I thought.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  160. “I’m not personally “repulsed” or in any way negatively affected by an interracial couple.”

    Yeah, me neither.

    In my little social group, interracial couples are fairly common, and no one thinks anything of it. So, I don’t think it’s really all that “natural” for people to be repulsed or revolted by interracial couples. I think it’s learned behavior.

    I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call RSM a racist, because I don’t really know the guy, but I think his suggestion that it’s natural to be revolted by interracial couples is flat out wrong.

    Dave Surls (6494ec)

  161. timb,

    At first reading, I thought to make some smart ass comment to the tune of “your reading of my post was shallow”. On second read, perhaps the error was mine, as has been the occassion more than once or twice in my lifetime.

    I referred to the “perceived racialist agenda…”. That, to my understanding, was the thesis of the text in question. Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant to my point–hence the “perceived”. Of course, you probably already know that. I wouldn’t want you to let trivialities interfere with your “sound bite” moment.

    Just because I’m of the same political persuasion as RSM doesn’t mean that’s the basis of my opinion. We’re both white and middle-aged, too. In fact, if I investigated further I could probably find a hundred other traits in common. Would the fact that we both eat red meat or put our pants on left-leg first equally make me fair game for banal ridicule?

    With all due respect to my seniors (I wasn’t conceived until 1972), I don’t think you’re any more qualified than me to label anyone a racist–no matter who you may or may not have pal’d around with during your misspent youth. Since you obviously can’t tell the difference between saying that there is no actual evidence of racism and not caring if someone is a racist, you might be even less qualified.

    Thank you for pointing out the links. Although I’ve already read them, I’ll be sure to look at them again to find out just where I went wrong. I don’t really think it an accident that the subject of this Patterico post is the most commonly encountered when throwing RSM under the racist bus. Do you?

    Will (f85f0a)

  162. The situation is a difficult one. While I would never snub by daughter if she married a black man and would accept the situation I must admit I would prefer she marry someone of European blood and who is Christian. Again, I would support her choices in the end. Having grown up in Brooklyn NY I can support McCains claim that the north was segregated. In Brooklyn at the time the cutoff was what we called ” The Junction” where major avenues met. It was this area of Flatbush that marked the racial divide with the exception of some public housing projects inserted into white areas. My elementary school had no black children. None. This was BROOKLYN though.

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  163. McCain said clearly in the quote (in all caps, in fact), that it wasn’t racism, so why are you lying and saying it is?

    Mitchell Blatt (f22c18)

  164. Keep in mind that being racist does not invariably mean that one is a racial supremacist. Quite a number of people, both white and black (and I’m sure other) support the idea of racial segregation and racial purity, while decrying any belief that their particular race is superior to the other ones.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  165. RSM’s statement is not racist. It’s not color blind either. It acknowledges that skin color considerations still do matter in our society.

    Anybody who thinks that Tiger chose his wife without regard to her skin tone is fooling himself.

    The sooner we accept that skin color is not race, the better.

    HappyFourth (211bbb)

  166. Patterico,
    Sorry to see you embroiled in this “racial” nonsensical debate.
    McCain is a primitive racial purist of the classical, idiotic kind: racial mixing is bad for the white race; miscegenation is the worst sin in the South (have you guys read your Faulkner?)

    Pansy (8b62b3)

  167. “Keep in mind that being racist does not invariably mean that one is a racial supremacist. Quite a number of people, both white and black (and I’m sure other) support the idea of racial segregation and racial purity, while decrying any belief that their particular race is superior to the other ones.”

    That’s o.k. with me as long as people respect MY right to mingle with people who have different colored skins. People can think whatever they want, as long as they don’t reach for their lynching ropes if I want to marry black woman.

    It was never racism that was the issue, it was always oppression with racism as the excuse that was the issue. In America, that’s pretty much a non-issue, at least at this time, and most of the hysteria about racism or percieved racism is a big ol’ tempest in a teapot.

    Dave Surls (6494ec)

  168. Happy4th

    You’re making a distinction without a difference. Whether you are talking about race or color the arbitrariness is the same.

    And no, race doesn’t matter; and color doesn’t matter. Or to be uniquely precise, its all skin deep.

    And the fact it might have mattered to Tiger, is also besides the point. Tiger is not my moral guiding star. He wasn’t before this all happened, and certainly isn’t now.

    Not that I had any animosity before then. He seemed like an okay guy. I’m just saying I ultimately never cared if he behaved morally, except to the extent that I feel bad for those harmed by his behavior.

    You seem ready to excuse his choice of partners despite the racial homogeny. Before I get to that issue, however, I am condemning him because the majority of his partners have not been his wife and the mother of his children.

    Mitchell

    > McCain said clearly in the quote (in all caps, in fact), that it wasn’t racism, so why are you lying and saying it is?

    Um, because it is. I mean it sort of like OJ saying, “look I stabbed my wife and some tennis player to death in a fit of rage with no legal justification of excuse. But I’m not a murderer.”

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  169. You’re making a distinction without a difference. Whether you are talking about race or color the arbitrariness is the same.

    No, stop bending over backwards to be so politically correct.

    Otherwise explain why the Swedish Bikini Team is wildly popular, while the Nigerian Bikini Team is not. Or why all over Asia women wear masks to protect their faces from the sun and thereby keep them as pale as possible.

    When you conflate skin tone with race you are the one perpetuating the stereotype.

    HappyFourth (211bbb)

  170. I am amused.

    Human do NOT have races in the biological sense of the word and have not in thousands of years. There is just WAY TO MUCH INTERBREEDING in human populations for the formation of ACTUAL races.

    What we do have are populational phenotypical and genetic clines that reflect the history of a time when races started to form, however, that time is LONG gone.

    Get over it, all you 1/1000th black/asian/caucasions/martian/venerian types, rofl. We are ALL RACISTS, the end result of billions of years of evolution making us so.

    biobob (7c60d1)

  171. Saying that the only problem that biracial children have is prejudiced people is true but rather beside the point.

    They have problems that other children do not have and which seem to lead those of them who are interested in political advancement to hate one half of their family in order to prove their own authenticity. Whether they would have that problem in a perfect world or not, they do have that problem in this world. Since others have mentioned Tiger Woods, I’ll note that he took a lot of crap from the black community over the years for not self-identifying as black.

    Now, maybe if you’re a white guy who has met a black woman or a black woman who has met a white man and you’re in love, those are risks you war willing to take and prices that you are willing for you, your family and your children to pay. Even if it is “because of prejudiced people,” that doesn’t change the fact that it is a risk and there will be a price. I’m not going to say that decision is wrong. I will say you should walk into it with your eyes open and if you haven’t met someone you want to marry yet, you might think about it before you click the “don’t care” checkbox next to race on your dating website of choice.

    Seneca (1e3562)

  172. Happy4th

    > Otherwise explain why the Swedish Bikini Team is wildly popular, while the Nigerian Bikini Team is not.

    “Here’s proof that race matters—other people think so!” just because a person has an inappropriate concern for race doesn’t mean race matters. That being said, racism of course matters.

    > Or why all over Asia women wear masks to protect their faces from the sun and thereby keep them as pale as possible.

    Um, seriously, what the hell are you talking about? If the phenomenon exists at all it is vanishingly rare.

    > When you conflate skin tone with race

    Right, and when the founders decided they wanted to ban racial discrimination in voting, how did they say that? “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    > you are the one perpetuating the stereotype.

    What stereotype do you refer to? Your argument is really confused.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  173. Seneca

    > They have problems that other children do not have and which seem to lead those of them who are interested in political advancement to hate one half of their family in order to prove their own authenticity.

    Really? Name 5 examples, besides Obama.

    > I will say you should walk into it with your eyes open and if you haven’t met someone you want to marry yet, you might think about it before you click the “don’t care” checkbox next to race on your dating website of choice.

    Mmm, like I always said when I was a single man, if you want to take yourself out of the running for a particular woman, that is fine. But in my single days if Halle Berry or Lucy Lieu came on to me, I wasn’t going to say, “gee, sorry, I am only interested in women of my own race.” And if you are single and you are going to take yourself out of Ms. Berry or Ms. Lieu’s consideration, well, your loss.

    Also I find this to be such a weird argument: but your children will have a hard time. Well, it beats not being born, which is the other option, here. Besides I would hazard a guess that it isn’t really such an awful thing. I know plenty of grown up biracial children too and I haven’t generally seen any special level of damage. I mean you make it sound like they are riding the short bus or something, when at most they get a little shit. I would guess it is a generational thing so that the generation growing up right now just aren’t hung up on this at all. And good for them.

    And I might add something else. Why should we think that mixed race children get it any worse than all black or all asian kids?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  174. btw, in good news OJ Simpson was apparently beaten in prison. cool. drudge doesn’t have many details, but i assume Patterico is all broken up to hear. couldn’t have happened to a nicer fellow, eh?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  175. “Otherwise explain why the Swedish Bikini Team is wildly popular, while the Nigerian Bikini Team is not.”

    Personally, I’m interested in pretty much any bikini team…as long as it’s made up of gals. Guy bikini teams don’t really work for me.

    On that score, I’m definitely sexist.

    Btw, where does one find information on the Nigerian Bikini Team? I’m willing to take a look.

    Dave Surls (6494ec)

  176. “Otherwise explain why the Swedish Bikini Team is wildly popular, while the Nigerian Bikini Team is not.”

    My god this is dumb.

    imdw (c06324)

  177. Mr. McCain responds some more.

    Here, however, I can briefly say that I understand man to be a tribal creature by nature, prone to appeals of group interest.

    While we today may identify ourselves by such labels as Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Protestant, Redskins fans or Cowboy fans, the underlying impulse is tribalism, and it is rooted in a basic sense of affinity that Edmund Burke addressed in his famous discourse about “little platoons.”

    So I think that’s the explanation about the revulsion.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  178. In the middle of his explanations he pauses to carry water for Gateway and Michelle Malkin’s hate campaign.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  179. Dustin,

    If some racist wants to come in here and think through their racism in this forum, that’s a good thing, because it would possibly mean personal growth and realization of what’s wrong with racism

    I don’t need to have a dialogue with racists to know “what’s wrong with racism.” How freakin’ naive are you? You need exposure to racism to know if it’s wrong? Go watch Mississippi Burning and leave the adults to talk.

    “personal growth” from talking to racists? Wow, Dustin, you could really grow by meandering over to Stormfront.

    “personal growth”? Who knew I’d hear wussy therapeutic talk here rather than lefty blog?

    Oh, and lastly, I have “nothing to add.” Dude, I have been trying to cause this conversation on this McCain douchebag for months! People like him need to be separated from the mainstream dialogue

    timb (449046)

  180. A.W. You may note that my argument is specific to black/white interracial marriages. While there are definitely pressures that, for instance white/asian interracial couples face and same race couples do not, I have not observed the same kind of group identity politics at work in asian american communities as appear to be at work within black american communities. In general, interracial marriage statistics also seem to support this theory since mixed white/asian marriages are significantly more common than mixed white/black marriages.

    As for mixed race individuals other than Obama, I’m not really hip to all the mixed part black, part white celebrities out there–and I’m not sure there are a whole lot of them. The only ones I can think of are Tiger Woods and Halle Berry. I know that Tiger has taken some public flack for refusing to embrace black identity politics. I’m not really familiar with Halle Berry’s, but if her Academy Awards speech from back when, she appears to view herself as a black american and embrace the radical grievance attitudes that go along with that. (Of course, she’s a hollywood star, so that is par for the course regardless of her parents).

    Black/white marriages present obstacles that, in the abstract, I would not care for my children to face. (Presumably, it’s a choice of whether to marry and have children interracially or within the same race, not whether to marry interracially or not at all). I do not have the same reservations about other mixed race marriages. (So, to use your example, I’m not out of the competition for Lucy Lieu). Now, if someone who looked like Halle Berry and who had Halle Berry’s bank account but didn’t have her obnoxious politics were available, I’d probably figure it was worth the risk. But in general, that’s not the choice that faces people.

    Seneca (1e3562)

  181. RS McCain’s statement is about as racist as waterboarding is torture; virtually everyone will say either ‘well of course they both are!’ or ‘well of course they both aren’t!’. Both ‘torture’ and ‘racism’ are loaded words that too many people overuse and abuse.

    Finrod (26657d)

  182. Referencing “Mississippi Burning” in a discussion about the South is akin to referencing “Escape from NY” in a discussion about Manhattan. People like timb need to be removed from any discussion, you might catch idiocy by osmosis or something.

    paul mitchell (9a74a1)

  183. a.w.: Dude, you’re wrong. I’m from Asia (heck, I’m *in* Asia) and I can tell you outright you’re well off course here.

    The most popular skin care adverts all feature skin *whitening* treatments (the facial products, at any rate). Even in India, where the average Southern Indian is blacker than most so-called blacks in the US. It is most definitely NOT unusual – indeed, it is the norm. Is it racist? You be the judge.

    Now that RSM is starting to explain himself, well and good, let’s see where it goes. But I will say this again.

    Race is usually a proxy. Religion is also usually a proxy. School name, party identification, income level… these are all proxies. Proxies for what? Well, proxies for categorisation, that’s what. Think of them as filters.

    The human mind cannot store information like a computer in a random-access fashion. Instead, we link them all in heuristic manner, and use them likewise. We then use different factors in deciding different issues.

    What comes to your mind when I say ‘Asian shopkeeper”? Usually, some hardworking Chinese, Japanese or Korean mom-and-pop operation, right? That’s our memory using the phrase as a shortcut to pull together a picture of the concept. Maybe in the future, our children will instead think of Indian/Pakistani 7-11 owners instead. Again, that would be their memory using the phrase to pull together a shortcut.

    In this case, RSM isn’t talking about immediate reactions to some words, but an event; namely, that someone’s daughter is marrying his black bank clerk.

    In this instance, that someone may use said bank clerk’s ‘race’ as a proxy for other things; education level, culture, speech patterns, hell for all I know the family (don’t forget that your daughter’s marrying into another family, not just a single person).

    Assume I can otherwise interact with and be completely open and friendly and social and even be loving (in the agape sense) with someone, and race plays no important factor. And yet I do not want to marry said someone. Even if it was primarily of even solely because of race in that one issue, I think it’s a bloody stretch to say I’m really a racist or to say that I’m showing racism, or whatever.

    Or else you’ll have to call someone who doesn’t want his daughter to marry any Democrat a politicist (or whatever equivalent made up word), even though in all other aspects of his life he’s not political at all.

    Gregory (f7735e)

  184. Happyfeet

    > So I think that’s the explanation about the revulsion.

    I think that is a poor explanation.

    > In the middle of his explanations he pauses to carry water for Gateway and Michelle Malkin’s hate campaign.

    I am sorry, but it is not hate to be upset that x-rated material is being put on a reading list for children. Be tolerant, fine, but don’t be an idiot.

    Let me hope you meant that in jest.

    Timb

    > I don’t need to have a dialogue with racists to know “what’s wrong with racism.”

    Mmm, good reading comprehension. Let me help you: “If some racist wants to come in here and think through their racism in this forum, that’s a good thing, because it would possibly mean personal growth and realization of what’s wrong with racism.” See the person thinking through and growing in that sentence is THE RACIST. Not Dustin, but the racist.

    *puts the dunce cap on you*

    Seneca

    > I have not observed the same kind of group identity politics at work in asian american communities as appear to be at work within black american communities.

    Its not identical but it exists. Try going to a family event, and they choose to speak in a language that only some members of the family understand.

    > embrace the radical grievance attitudes that go along with that.

    Never got that from her.

    > Black/white marriages present obstacles that, in the abstract, I would not care for my children to face.

    Better not to exist, then. I mean even if you have children with another person one thing is for sure, you will not have those children you would have if you had opened your mind.

    > Now, if someone who looked like Halle Berry and who had Halle Berry’s bank account but didn’t have her obnoxious politics were available, I’d probably figure it was worth the risk.

    You would turn down Halle Berry for politics? Are you nuts?

    A.W. (185232)

  185. I didn’t mean it was a particularly explicatory explanation I mean I think it’s all we get.

    Does anyone else kind of admire the equanimity with which Mr. McCain addresses the criticism directed at him? I think that is a very good skill to have.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  186. oh. No. I think it’s a very hateful campaign what Michelle and her Gateway friend are directing at Mr. Jennings. It’s argument by anecdote, and done in a way that’s intentionally misleading. Michelle and her hatey Gateway pal are simply trying to get people outraged by smearing gross stuff in their faces and encouraging them to direct their hatey outrage at Mr. Reynolds.

    The deal with the books is a little different. These books come with a very honest disclaimer and if you read the reviews, they are well-reviewed and deemed age appropriate by many of the viewers.

    There’s absolutely no evidence that the group has tried to foist these books on anyone. I agree that sometimes books can cause people to have scary and dangerous thoughts, but these ones sit safely at Amazon until someone orders them. At Amazon they can read and decide if this is a book they want to read.

    But Michelle and her gateway friend are counting on people having hatey emotions what get in the way of their logic.

    If there’s a problem with the way Mr. Jennings is doing his job, then they should explain that. But this juvenile smear campaign is a good example of why Team R is generally considered to be somewhat unsophisticated and backwards. And hatey.

    If Mr. Jennings were a member of your family you would be very appalled at the unfair way he was being treated I think.

    If these people had a problem with GLSEN, they should have had a problem with GLSEN before it became a convenient hatey bludgeon I think. Kevin Jennings is surely a flagrant enough dirty socialist that people can articulate a forceful disagreement with him with out having a sensationalized and puerile hate campaign to accompany it I think.

    This is not the way we treat people.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  187. I said Mr. Reynolds instead of Mr. Jennings. I don’t know why I did that.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  188. This hatey campaign really isn’t a lot different than the casually vicious one what is directed at Sarah Palin, really. It works very much on the same level as rape kits and witch doctors I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  189. Except it’s even more hateful, really, cause of how it anticipates a “natural revulsion” with homosexuality and takes it to the power of a kabillion by asserting that children are being targeted. It’s really very classless for Michelle Malkin and the hatey Gateway guy to further a stereotype of gay people as child molesters just for their own desperate political purposes I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  190. 187

    Both were ABC news anchors.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  191. good catch… I don’t remember Frank Reynolds though…he’s dead but he has a kid what’s a journalist that appears to not be dead… I think he’s at CBS

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  192. Happyfeet, I read some of the stuff Gateway Pundit posted. It includes forcible rape of children by adults. What the fuck are you rambling on about and why?

    nk (df76d4)

  193. Um, I did write a novel about this topic. :) Out this month.

    baldilocks (0755b0)

  194. Reaction against that which is different from you or which you have never seen before is quite natural. But we humans are supposed to be able to transcend the natural.

    About interracial marriages: I’m black and my BiL is white. When my sister brought him home twenty years and four kids ago, my family went nuts. His (Texan) family, however, didn’t turn a hair. And that’s the way things have turned.

    baldilocks (0755b0)

  195. I think it is great of timb to share his rabid anti-southern bigotry with us all. He has been abnging this drum for months without making any specific arguments and has yet to do it on this thread except for LOOK AT THE LINKS. You can disagree with RSM’s interpretation of history without considering him a racist and I think that is what has got a lot of the libs panties in a twist.

    Screaming watch Mississippi Burning smacks of desperation and ignorance. Make a real argument timb.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  196. After you read the whole book you can say whether or not it’s a pro child rape book I guess. Some tool with an agenda that’s just quoting gross bits is probably not presenting a definitive picture of the book I don’t think. I think it’s very, very likely even that some tool with an agenda that’s just quoting gross bits is not presenting a definitive picture of the book.

    To actually believe or even just pretend to believe that GLSEN is a pro child-rape organization takes a level of disingenuous stupid that’s really sort of shocking and reflects a deep alienation from your little country and from fellow human beings I think.

    Michelle and Gateway’s hate campaign is aimed at stupid people I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  197. feets – Those books are sitting on a GLSEN website. Amazon serves as fulfillment for them as a convenience and to help them make money, otherwise they would have to stock and mail out books themselves as other organizations do so it’s a good deal for them.

    There have been organized campaigns against GLSEN before the recent Malkin and Gateway Pundit posts so your charge of dishonesty is not entirely honest. The appointment by Obama of GLSEN’s former head as national school safety czar pushed the organization’s activities into the national spotlight, again making your charge of dishonesty less than honest. Just poke around that massresistance site and you can see for yourself how long the school parents in Massachusetts have been trying to derail the GLSEN activities in their schools. It’s dishonest for you to deny that history.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  198. I don’t think most black men have any problem with interracial dating or marriage.

    It depends on how attractive the black woman observed is perceived to be. Anecdote: my sister is a very pretty woman but, having born four children, has had to battle her weight on occassion. My BiL, ever the blunt one, said that the only thing he liked about his wife being fat was that he didn’t have black guys trying to pick fights with him when they went out. She’s not fat now but since they have four kids, they’re too tire to go out.

    BTW, like me, my BiL is a veteran. We tend to be more open minded about race.

    baldilocks (0755b0)

  199. I really don’t understand how argumentation that’s obviously designed to be inflammatory and incitey isn’t greeted with more skepticism. Especially when Michelle Malkin gets involved.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  200. [...] McCain has responded to my post from last night, in which I stated that he was the one who wrote this: As Steffgen predicted, the media now force [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » R.S. McCain Responds (e4ab32)

  201. If people don’t like GSLEN that’s all fine and proper. But the way they’re attacking the organization discredits themselves. Book snippets and 9 year-old tape recordings. That’s very, very, deeply lame.

    You can just look at the sick and hateful comments at First Things to see that what Gateway and Michelle are doing is inciting hate against a class of people for political purposes.

    Inciting hate against a class of people for political purposes is wrong.

    I think people resort to scare tactics when they realize their arguments lack logical force. I think they want to rape your children falls under the heading of a scare tactic.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  202. *GLSEN* I mean

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  203. Otherwise explain why the Swedish Bikini Team is wildly popular, while the Nigerian Bikini Team is not

    I’ll wager a guess that this is because there is no such entity in Nigeria due to the fact that half of Nigeria’s population is Islamic and the poor bikini clad ladies might lose their heads.

    baldilocks (0755b0)

  204. Baldilocks – Is there a way that we can purchase your book that is more profitable for you?

    JD (4f510e)

  205. happyfeet – I don’t understand your continued focus on the nine year timeframe. There were problems with a presentation the following year as well. Do you think GLSEN has changed or is it that there are observers at these workshops now ready to report on the content communicated which has not led to further outbreaks of outrage from those sessions? You also keeps citing problems from only one of 50 presentations at the 2000 event. I haven’t seen the 50 number anywhere. Do you have a citation?

    Do you have a non-hatey method for removing Jennings as safe school czar and reducing GLSEN’s influence on the schools where parents feel it is troubling? Were you troubled in a similar way by the public revelations about Van Jones?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  206. I think wikipedia talks about the 50…

    A month prior “Teachout 2000″, the annual GLSEN state conference, was held at Tufts University where the leader of a conservative group illegally taped one of the fifty workshops where students aged fourteen to twenty-one graphically discussed sex in a workshop “billed as a safe place for youths to get their questions about their sexuality answered” in the session’s Q&A section….

    GLSEN later stated they needed to make “expectations and guidelines to outside facilitators much more clear”.

    I think it’s highly conjectural that Jennings is doing any damage in what looks like a not terribly important or impactful job. I think as our little country sinks glub glub glub into a quicksand of ruinous debt and third world health care schemes and marxist carbon dioxide regimes, screeching about Kevin Jennings is epically desperate and not a little absurd.

    Van Jones was a troofer. I’m not really bothered by trooferes as much as I am by people who attempt to fraudulently deceive the American people of our little country with a scheme what asserts that stupid makework green jobs will magically induce prosperity.

    And it’s also deeply, deeply dishonest for self-righteous cable news tools like Michelle Malkin to pretend that Team R’s plan for helping gay kids get safely through their school day is somehow better than Team Dirty Socialist’s.

    What’s Team R’s plan exactly?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  207. Do you have a non-hatey method for removing Jennings as safe school czar and reducing GLSEN’s influence on the schools where parents feel it is troubling?

    I don’t. But i really don’t think Michelle and Gateway’s methods are to anyone’s great credit.

    Kevin Jennings is not a depraved pedophile that want to defile children. GLSEN is not a predatory pro-child rape organization.

    It’s dishonest to assert that this is so, and it plays into damaging stereotypes.

    Those are not games Team R needs to be playing anymore.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  208. that *wants* to defile children I mean… he doesn’t want to do that. How do I know that? It’s just a hunch. Based on knowing people. brb.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  209. The Elector of Saxony

    December 5th, 2009 | 8:32 pm | #70

    “Here’s the defining question….If you have an 12 year old son, would you let him go spend the night with this guy?”

    The sad answer is that they would gladly allow it. The would encourage it. Look how many defenders of Jennings have popped up on this blog alone! That should tell you something about the numbers of gay paedophiles who are militantly advocating for the sexual abuse of children. The fact is that decent human beings cannot accept this behavior, but we see that the gay faction of the Left is quite open to child sexuality and rape. I oppose execution in most cases, but a functioning, healthy society should not allow anyone who sexualizes a child to live.

    Unfortunately, our civilization is dying and people like Jennings and his ilk are the ones killing it. The only comfort I can take is that Roman ideas survived the fall and Civilization flourished again after a period of great suffering. Our society shall surely fall and more quickly, and many who were responsible will live to regret the role they played. Hopefully they shall reap what they have sown.

    that’s… weird, and I think there might be some mental illness involved…

    Mr. Gateway is not accomplishing what he thinks he’s accomplishing.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  210. JD,

    It’s all good!

    baldilocks (0755b0)

  211. Reading this thread I’m reminded of Bill Whittle’s
    essay “Tribes”. A great read from his book Silent America.

    Kenny (6e9606)

  212. footsie, I saw no hate in that Gateway quote. I saw appropriate alarm and righteous indignation.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  213. I apologize what I said about Focus on the Family. It’s just mostly that one thing that bugs me and they’re very sincere about it to where I think we can just respectfully disagree. I shouldn’t have brought them up and I apologize and I want you to know that I do respect that your being in that organization is an expression of your earnest belief that it is a good organization with good aims and not a hatey organization, like how I said.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  214. but this is the mental illness part I thought…

    we see that the gay faction of the Left is quite open to child sexuality and rape.

    That’s really a strange thing to say I think. At the very least can we maybe agree it’s a little hyperbolic?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  215. I can agree it’s a little hyperbolic but I’ve seen some clips* of “Gay Pride” parades where participants should’ve been hauled off to jail — and would have had they not been in a parade out in public where small children could see.

    *Strategic black bars in place in the clips.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  216. But for clarity, “I am part of FotF” was misleading. I have much of their material and a close philosophical tie to all their messages (because I believe “religious” is not a good word). I spent boucoup bucks on FotF material, so that makes me part of FotF.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  217. I think gay people really don’t do themselves any favors with their paradings. They should probably look at that.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  218. What bothers me about this quote is that McCain seems to have bought into the “Tragic Era” version of Reconstruction. That was invented and promulgated by white Southern scholars in the Jim Crow period to justify the terror campaign of the “Redeeemers” who forcibly overthrew black-supported Republican state governments, and enforced white supremacy by lynch law.

    Yes, there was corruption in those governments, but some of the worst grafters were welcomed into Redeemer politics once they embraced white supremacy. The real issue was power.

    It should also be noted that Radical Reconstruction, including the 14th and 15th Amendments, was a reaction to “Conservative Reconstruction”. In the immediate wake of the Civil War, ex-Confederate Southerners set up whites-only governments, and enacted draconian “Black Codes” that re-established slavery in all but name – all with the approval of President Andrew Johnson, who was a Southern Democrat before (and after) he was a Unionist.

    Finally, I would note that there was no revulsion among Southern white men against sex with black women. That white slaveowners fathered many children with slave women was an open secret. Thomas Jefferson wrote at length of the “superior beauty” of whites and the “disagreeable odor” of blacks; but the mulatto slave Sally Hemings was his wife’s half-sister, begotten by his father-in-law, and her own children were fathered either by Jefferson or by some close male relatives.

    There is often hostile reaction to interracial couples. John Derbyshire, who is married to a Chinese woman, has commented on Angry Asian Males”

    Among East Asian males, there is a large subgroup who are flipped into a mode of blind fury by the thought of Asian women consorting with non-Asian males.

    In May 2000, Penn State quarterback Rashard Casey was arrested for assaulting a white man who came into his hometown bar with a black woman; and many black women openly said that Nicole Simpson had it coming.

    None of these cases reflect the “instinctive revulsion” cited by McCain: they are all examples of possessive jealousy.

    I’ve come to appreciate McCain; I’m sorry to see this in him.

    Rich Rostrom (8abb80)

  219. happyfeet: Dude, I’d give it a rest if I were you. You’re beginning to sound like the one with an axe to grind rather than Michelle Malkin or GatewayPundit, if you ask me.

    And you know, maybe I’m prejudiced, but I do myself believe that there is a gay faction to the Left that is indeed quite open to child sexuality, and NAMBLA proves it (I highly doubt a conservative would be part of such a group, right?). And since having sex with a minor when you are yourself not a minor is statutory rape, then child rape is the correct legal term as well.

    So, I highly doubt it’s hyperbolic so much as correct as written.

    Gregory (f7735e)

  220. I just think it’s one thing to take a close look at GLSEN cause of you think it might have a hidden agenda cause you care about kids and a different thing to take a close look at GLSEN because you want to destroy someone.

    And the only reason people are having a conniption about GLSEN in December of 2009 is cause they want to destroy Kevin Jennings. They don’t care about kids. You can tell they don’t care about kids cause they’re hatefully telling every high school kid in America that’s in a GSA thinger that they’re part of an organization of pedophiles. That’s sick and it’s twisted, and Michelle Malkin and Gateway and should answer for that, to say nothing of how they’re framing Mr. Jennings as a pedophile. It’s sick to do that to someone who’s dedicated his sad little dirty socialist life to helping kids. It’s sick to do that for political gain, and it’s ungodly cynical.

    That’s not how we roll.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  221. oh. There’s an extra and in there cause I was gonna add Mr. McCain but he’s had something of a day so I decided not to.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  222. happyfeet: Uh, dude, he is, man. Or at least, he is a paedophilic enabler.

    Okay, an ephebophilic enabler. It really doesn’t matter; the law is the law and he rammed his way through in breaking it.

    (this is in reference to his mishandling of a gay student/teacher incident)

    Besides, what’s wrong with taking down Jennings? I’d be really enthused if they had action plans for taking down each and every single czar that President BHOmbastic put in power.

    And if they have to shade the truth to do it, hey, that’s politics, baby! After the smear campaigns against Palin, and the two Joes, and Rush, and Malkin, I’m willing to turn a blind eye for, oh, say two years, while the right fights back.

    Christian I may be, but overly stupid I am not. Christ says to turn the other cheek. Very well, and if you hit me on the other cheeck you’re gonna get a faceful of lead. Or at least you’re gonna get a faceful of fist.

    That’s how I roll.

    But in any case, that’s not what they’re doing now is it? We’ve always had problems with the gay agenda in schools, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. The fact that we started to dig deeper now that Jennings is in a position of greater power and influence is only to be expected.

    But hey, tell you what. I can’t do it, but you can. Go to your local library or wherever you can read the books, and tell me if they’re misrepresenting. If you can figure out how to purchase the books without paying too much to the authors and/or publishers, I’d help pay for it.

    And we can then talk about it with more evidence.

    Gregory (f7735e)

  223. [I'll note that White guys + Asian women seems a common pairing, and one that excites no comment. That's because Chinese and Japanese emigres are upper-class, value education, and make good in-laws, over-riding the "grand-kids don't look like me and prefer the other grandparents to me" factor. Less common is the Asian Guy + White gal, which also excites little comment.]

    it actually attracts a great deal of comment among Asian American males, as you would expect. You find all cans of message boards about it.

    Moreover, I think I am beginning to detect some opposition among white females.

    Anyway, love your race — its an important part, not everything, but important, of who you are.

    a concerned conservative (11d38a)

  224. Happy

    > Michelle and her hatey Gateway pal are simply trying to get people outraged by smearing gross stuff in their faces and encouraging them to direct their hatey outrage at Mr. Reynolds.

    The only thing I have seen besides the books is that Jennings didn’t report on statutory rape, which was a hot topic with the whole Acorn thing.

    > These books come with a very honest disclaimer

    I yi yi… have you never met a teenager? Hell, have you ever been a teenager? If you want to ensure children will read something tell put a parental advisory sticker.

    > and if you read the reviews, they are well-reviewed and deemed age appropriate by many of the viewers.

    Or you can read the passages that gateway quotes and realize that anyone who thinks it is age appropriate is out of their frickin’ mind.

    And let me be clear. I am not sure they are advocating child rape. But even without that, when they are exposing children to is f—ed up.

    > There’s absolutely no evidence that the group has tried to foist these books on anyone.

    Well, it depends on your meaning of “foist.” If you include recommending them to schools, well then they did.

    > At Amazon they can read and decide if this is a book they want to read.

    That’s a straw man. No one is advocating that Amazon be shut down or that we otherwise ban the books. We are just saying they don’t belong in a school library, don’t belong in school period and SHOULDN’T BE RECOMMENDED TO CHILDREN.

    Just this morning, we find out that Jennings was the executive director at GSLEN and its keynote speaker where students were taught about… well, let’s let gateway do the talking:

    > During the 2000 conference, workshop leaders led a “youth only, ages 14-21″ session that offered lessons in “fisting” a dangerous sexual practice. During another workshop an activist asked 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?”

    I mean are you for real, or are you just trying to reenact that episode of South Park when Mr. Garrison tried to get fired by putting sexually abusing Mr. Slave in front of the class? Gateway is like the kids who sensibly are going, “wtf?” and you are like the adults who are claiming the objectors are bigots. As Garrison said in the end, be tolerant but don’t be an idiot.

    A.W. to happyfeet (e7d72e)

  225. Rabid hate-monger Jim Hoft continues his dishonest hate campaign today for his audience of stupid.

    I’ve never seen Team R stoop so low. They’re in a very sad and desperate place I think.

    Hah! I think Sarah Palin needs to go on the record about “fisting kits” … why is she not leading on this issue while our children are being fisty fisty fisted? Silence is approval!!!

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  226. Happy,

    i am sorry, is he saying something that isn’t true.

    Name percisely the unfairness of this. Is he lying? making an unfair association? or are you just okay with giving kids fisting kits in school?

    Seriously, you seemed like a reasonable person until you went all Roman Polanski on us.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  227. Hell, A.W., I have seen this euphemistic double-talk of happyfeet’s in court opinions. A case involving kidnapping an eleven-year old, repeatedly raping her, and finally strangling her. Guess what the cocksucker Justice’s clerk wrote that made its way into the publieshed opinion. “They had anal sex.” I swear.

    nk (df76d4)

  228. “Fisting kits” … that’s a total hatey wingnut lie. Just like the way you’re characterising me as going “Roman Polanski”.

    Is Sarah Palin ok with fisting kits? Why does she remain silent? I think Sarah should go on national tv and take up the anti-fisting crusade. For the children!! While our country is being ravaged by economically ruinous dirty socialisms, the American people need to know that Sarah Palin is rightfully focused on the fisting menace I think. She needs to show stalwart leadership I think. She must speak out!! Together we can get through this.

    LOL

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  229. This is not the happyfeet I thought I knew.

    nk (df76d4)

  230. Yes it is, Mr. nk. There’s no reason people can’t challenge Mr. Hoft’s deranged and hatey lies. Mr. Hoft is not a man of integrity. He’s a hateful liar, and Michelle Malkin’s in bed with him.

    There is a hatey sickness afoot.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  231. Happyfeet

    > “Fisting kits” … that’s a total hatey wingnut lie.

    okay, mass news is lying… and you know this, how exactly?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  232. You’re a little gullible I think. I have to go to my quiet place cause of I’m slammed at work.

    We might can talk about this more later, but I bet the fisting kit hoax doesn’t last the day, so people need to work fast to get Sarah Palin on the record.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  233. Happyfeet, won’t you please consider that if paranoids can have enemies that hatey people can sometimes be right about the people they hate?

    But that’s not what I wondering about. What I’m wondering about is that you have made your point about lebenteen gazillion times, in just about every thread, but you are still going on defending this Jergens person when no flea pursueth.

    nk (df76d4)

  234. Happy

    yeah, translation YOU HAVE NO PROOF. good to know.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  235. Happy, and btw, even is mass news is making this up, why is it gateway is supposed to be a hater for noticing it. And you still can’t defend that book list because it is indefensible.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  236. Because it’s wrong, Mr. nk.

    Campaigns based on inciting hatred are wrong.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  237. Snipping passages from books and using them to incite hatred against the homosexual pedophile menace is a sick thing to do. Also it’s shockingly retro.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  238. For those fools who use Hollywood productions as their source for Southern Racism can point out that most of the major racial problems of the last few decades have happened in places other than the South.
    Rodney King
    Howard Beach
    Crown Heights Riots
    Abner Louima
    Tawana Brawley
    New Jersey State Troopers racial profiling case
    Professor Gates and the White Cop

    Etc Etc Etc

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  239. I have not seen the fisting story debunked anywhere but I have seen those who exposed the story attacked with idiocy such as ” Right Wing Hate Monger”. Typical Alinsky tactic

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  240. That’s a fact, Dennis D. The South knew how to live with its black and white people, even though whites and blacks had different ideas about how they should live with each other. It’s the North that got a culture shock, not just in the ’70s but before that in the ’20s, when these strange-looking creatures found out that they were Americans too.

    nk (df76d4)

  241. happy

    so let me get this straight. you don’t dispute that the books are being quoted accurately. you just don’t like people quoting them accurately.

    Sorry, but this idiot ran an organization, founded it even, that made these recommendations.

    What this is called is SCRUTINY. this guy recommended shockingly inappropriate books for kids and then wants to be in charge of school safety? are you f—ing kidding me. what’s next? a secretary of treasury who is a tax cheat? oh, right, we have that too.

    you seem to think that because the guy is gay, or because the material is often gay, that this gives him a walk. it doesn’t. this material is inappropriate for anyone below college age, period, it shouldn’t be in our schools, it shouldn’t be recommended to children, period. and not because it is gay, but because it is so explicit. and because children are very often involved.

    Its official, happy. You are nuts.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  242. [...] is Stacy McCain a racist? I can’t say for certain because I can’t see into his heart. But from where I’m [...]

    On blogging and its discontents. (38c333)

  243. [...] the record, I do not buy Pat’s argument that anyone who has hangups about interracial dating and marriage is racist. For one [...]

    What Goldstein Said. | Little Miss Attila (62389c)

  244. Nope he’s not a racist. He’s not denying what he said, but he is right that you took it out of context. What you did was take a quote from one woman and compare it to McCain’s analysis of interracial marriage perceptions. The woman in her admittance that- Tiger Woods isn’t really black and that if Barack had married a white woman she would not have voted for him- has given you a glimpse into her personal view. In that frame, she can be classified as a racist. However, the paragraph you took from RS McCain, was part of an analysis he did on why blacks, whites etc may feel a “natural revulsion” to interracial marriage. And that such a revulsion, with an understanding of Steffgan’s analysis, could not be construed as racism. The revulsion in this case comes from a need to preserve your identity and history which is quite different from racism. Racism means that you want nothing to do with another person from a different race/ethnicity. This was prevalent in the woman’s admittance that she would have totally discounted Obama based solely on his marriage to a white woman. But the white person is still willing to interact with black people and probably vote, work with and be friends with a black person. But they do not want him in their family out of a need for familial preservation.

    I’m not saying that I buy Steffgan’s argument lock, stock and barrel, but it is an interesting insight into why people feel the way they do. RS McCain tried to analyze that feeling, because he understands that such feelings are an inherent part of the human condition. Whites, blacks, asians, hispancis- all have problems with interracial marriage. We all know it’s true.

    DarkGravity (54c7a1)

  245. “he is right that you took it out of context”

    Does he even clearly say that it was taken out of context? Patterico linked the full context, btw.

    “RS McCain tried to analyze that feeling, because he understands that such feelings are an inherent part of the human condition. Whites, blacks, asians, hispancis- all have problems with interracial marriage. We all know it’s true.”

    You know, I would have been cool with this explanation. If he admitted to having a personal visceral racism, and was exploring why he does while trying to understand the ethical implications, I would totally forgive him (again, with the forgiveness language, but yes, I would). But he hasn’t even been clear on if he was quoted accurately.

    Oh, and you suffer from racism, but a lot of people do not. I have heard a few racists try to tell me that we all have those feelings. They are so damn sure of it. But they are wrong. They have a problem with tolerating other people. They think there’s something being taken away from them when an interracial marriage occurs. This bigotry is immoral.

    And more to the point, whether it was really part of everyone’s program or not, it IS racist. Racism’s origins do not change whether something is racist or not. Such internal feelings you learned from your horrible and inferior upbringing must be overcome. Lots of people do overcome it, btw, and I don’t have a problem with them admitting to having the internal scars of racial confusion so long as they fight it.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  246. Re: #244

    Racist.

    Icy Texan (648a94)

  247. “Snipping passages from books and using them to incite hatred against the homosexual pedophile menace is a sick thing to do. Also it’s shockingly retro.

    Comment by happyfeet”

    I have seen people using these books to ‘prove’ that gays want to fist your kids out of some universally gay desire and egocentrism. I agree that this is wrong, and indeed retro.

    BUT there are some people who want to fist your kids, exploit them, have sex with them, and teach them horrible things, and undermine their parents’ role. Those people were involved with these books, and the leaders who permitted these recommendations to exist should be punished harshly. We spend a tremendous amount of wealth trying to raise our kids, and there was ample resources to ensure that adults read ALL that is being recommended to kids, and keep the truly bad stuff out. We have predators and separately, we have frauds in education. Sure, the backlash shouldn’t spill out onto gays in general, but this is a severe and unprecedented crime. I can only imagine if the political parties were reversed.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  248. mmm, personally i am sick of this thread. “I’m not a racist. i just want to puke whenever a white man kisses a black woman.” yeah, good luck with that.

    We are past beating a dead horse. if you don’t see the light by now, there is nothing i can do to help you.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  249. “It’s not racist because I am damn sure that inside everyone else’s head is the same sickness I feel when I see blacks and whites kissing!”

    That’s fucking convenient and morally cowardly. Own it. Is it right or wrong? Don’t tell me how many people do it too… is it right or wrong? There’s no damn reason to get sick at a black man making sweet love to a gorgeous and classy white lady, perhaps down by the fire. Perhaps even after they have been married and have a few children, and make a life together. The fact that you feel revulsion, because the races don’t match, is wrong. You can’t excuse being wrong just because you think everyone else is secretly just like you. You resort to that excuse because you know just how impossible it is to justify your feelings.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  250. damn this horse.

    (beat beat beat beat beat beat beat)

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  251. This seems to be a judgmental, meanspirited post. Please, if you take issue with his argument regarding the meaning of racism and find it worth your attention, engage the argument. Unseemly to assume you have won an argument that you never had, then apply your “winning” definition to label the opposing view racist.

    There are, no doubt, nonracist motivations for opposing intermarriage as well as racist motivations. If, e.g., one questions a mixed marriage that is not entered into irrespective of the partner’s race, but rather partially based on racial considerations, then such questioning would be the very opposite of racist. If my son or daughter wanted to wed a black person because black people are “cool” or because it makes him or her feel morally superior, I would question that motivation, and my unease would not be racist. My son’s or daughter’s motivation in such a case, however, would be improperly racist/racial.

    It would seem that there are some nuances that Patterico is missing by prematurely declaring himself the victor of a subsilentio debate about the definition of the label he applies. (And, BTW, a casual poll of what blog readers think sounds racist is no measure of racism.)

    ss (6519a1)

  252. [...] said: “I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Please Do Not Put Words in My Mouth (e4ab32)

  253. Dustin,

    Do not presume that you know me dude. You do not. The fact that you call my upbringing inferior ticks me off. That is a direct insult to my parents who have been wonderful people and have taught me how to be a good well adjusted person. I made no direct insults to anyone here and the fact that you chose to use insults, says more about the caliber of person that you are. You and many like you, throw around that word without any regard and based on nothing but some words on page. Words which you twist to mean whatever you want them to mean. And since you want to start it, you are the type of person who lacks the ability to engage in honest critical thinking. If you had such a skill, that might give you a clue as to why McCain started that article out with an explanation of book he just read. The book is not concrete proof to his personal bias, it just gave him a theoretical framework to answer why.

    In the real world, things are messy, complicated and not everyone likes each other. Human beings are complicated. Every last one of us has biases. It’s natural. And a lot of those biases has to do with group and identity politics. Why? Because family is an important construct for humans. Sometimes those families extend into larger units (ie tribes of Israel). With that said, the family is the closest thing you have to remind you of your group. This defines where you belong and WHO you are. This is why I thought McCain’s use of Steffgan’s argument had some merit.

    Example: in my family my cousin married a white woman. We have family members who hate the idea and others who are “uncomfortable” with it. Do the “uncomfortable” ones hate her? No. Do they hate him? No. We can all sit down together and have a conversation, eat, hug laugh play. She is a member of the family. The problem was that we had a notion of the pressures the black community faces. Racism, lack of jobs, incarceration, etc. With such problems, people have a need to build a strong community. The idea that he would marry outside leads people to think that he was breaking the fabric of the community. This leads to the popular quote: “Why couldn’t you have married a nice (insert race/religion here) girl/boy?”

    I have Asian friends (including Indians) who have expressed similar feelings. Jewish friends who have told me of how they are expected to marry within the faith. From my personal experiences, I believe it is more common than anyone cares to openly admit. With exception of a few, I would not call my family members racist. And I’m sure other people, who were faced with disapproval of interracial/interfaith marriages, would not consider their family to be racist.

    You may call it racist; I don’t. I just believe that there are those (black, white, hispanic, etc) who are uncomfortable with the idea, if only because they want to hold onto their identity. They want to keep their group the same.

    xax (54c7a1)

  254. Sorry for the confusion but I have two monikers for online. One for google, the other is my own.

    DarkGravity (54c7a1)

  255. DarkGravity, have you ever been to Hawai’i? That’s a state in the US in case you haven’t heard of it, because I’m certain you’ve never been there. Why am I certain? Because inter-racial marriage is very prevalent and nobody knows enough to be remotely concerned or shocked. “We all feel the racisms when we see whites and blacks kissing and holding hands and loving each other.” Seems I’ve heard this argument before. “Everybody wants to have sex with little girls.” Yup, there’s that very same argument.

    Since you are new to this game, let me inform you there are people commenting on this site who are in interracial marriages. They blow your hypothesis out of the water. My own writings regarding my daughter (think “raise up” among other writings) blow your hypothesis out of the water. The fact my grandson is less than half white and I have no problem with that blows your hypothesis out of the water.

    And, yes, if you are racist enough to have any issue at all with an interracial couple being an interracial couple, you are indeed racist and your upbringing left something to be desired.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  256. xax, it was meant to tick you off, but I apologize anyway.

    I sincerely believe that people who think everyone feels revulsion at interracial marriage have been raised poorly. I don’t mean that with malice so much as sympathy. You and I both have our problems and flaws, and I hope we both overcome them. It’s not up to me to judge you, but inferior upbringing I do judge.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  257. By the way, my mommy and daddy have different skin colors. If you feel revulsion at this family, and someone says that ain’t racism, [insert internet tough guy rhetoric].

    Robert Stacy Mccain specifically talked about how he never knew if he’d meet me. I think he’d be an interesting man to have a beer with… a very smart man who has been around the block in DC. A privilege. But really, would he want to have a beer with me? I’m revolting. Spawn of mixed breeds that natural man has been made to abhor.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  258. The people I feel sorry for in regards to interracialization are black females in America.

    If you have a population where 10% of the people are black females and 10% are black males, while 40% are white males and 40% are white females, what happens if the black males prefer white females and there were enough white females who are willing to mate with all those black males, while white males aren’t attracted to black females and black females aren’t attracted to white males?

    You can tell the black females that they should be tolerant of being left without mates, but people have a natural instinct to mate, and it’s a strong impulse for women to want children. They will become mothers regardless of whether the sperm donor is going to stick around.

    By the way, the fact that white males tend not to mate with black women and vice versa doesn’t make either of them racist.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  259. j curtis, you’re right that there’s a big difference between someone marrying someone of similar ‘race’, and someone feeling revulsion at a new sister in law having dark skin. One is clearly a total freaking bigot, and the other is pretty normal. I prefer blondes, for example. I do not care that my brother married a brunette.

    I’ve heard black women express great intolerance for black men who date whites. Perhaps that’s a reaction to the problem you bring up. I hadn’t ever put that together with the fatherlessness in black communities. Interesting concept.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  260. I don’t for a minute buy the “fatherless black children” reasoning. That reasoning is unsound from the outset. “Men of my race are marrying women of another race. I can’t get married. I’ll throw my morals out the window so I can become a single mother. It’s not my fault.” That doesn’t wash with me one whit.

    And, for the record, if an aesthetically pleasing black woman (and there are many) would ask me for a date, I’d leave my wallet at home (another philosophy of mine) and go out on that date. I got no problem with dating black women except I don’t have the courage to ask (as I said 160 or so comments ago).

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  261. 260

    It was mostly a hypothetical. I think marriage statistics won’t corroborate it other than that interracial marriages probably happen ten to one black males with white females than white males and black females. There might be a feeling that those black males who marry white females are often the “best catches” ( which I think I read alluded to in one of these threads ) or those who can have their pick of mates. That might lead to some resentment, naturally.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  262. John, I appreciate your candor. I think black women can be gorgeous and ugly, just like white women, so it’s hard for me to put myself in the shoes of people who see things differently. Oh well.

    I find the fatherlessness in the black community to be one of the most serious concerns in our country’s culture. I just find the idea interesting, even if it’s unlikely.

    Natural or not, justified or not, J Curtis is right that resentment is there in some (black women, or other categories) over losing prized members of your group to the other group. Dumb, and real.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  263. It’s interesting that he uses “Southerners” to mean “Southern whites.” Blacks just don’t seem to count.

    And it’s missing the point to talk about who one would marry oneself. Rules of attraction are very complex. The issue here is that he would be repulsed if his sister were to marry outside of her race. That’s racism.

    RobNYNY1957 (9de358)

  264. “The issue here is that he would be repulsed if his sister were to marry outside of her race.”

    I haven’t heard McCain say that, but then again I haven’t heard him say otherwise. Then again, I hardly ever read him, so I could have missed it.

    Why doesn’t he just come out and say how he feels about it personally?

    That would lay the whole matter to rest.

    People here have said how they feel about interracial couples. It’s no big deal to put your cards on the table.

    Dave Surls (da5013)

  265. Like Patterico, I don’t know that McCain himself would be repulsed if his brother married a black girl. (I don’t even know that he cares all that much about his brother.) But …

    His statement is definitely pandering to those who would be repulsed. “[A]ltogether natural”? Cut me some #$%^ing slack. Or at least cut me a leg off that chicken and some watermelon?

    nk (df76d4)

  266. Um, fatherlessness in the black community is not caused by people not being attracted to black women. i mean if they weren’t attracted to black women, then where are they getting their children from? immaculate conception en masse?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  267. AW, that’s a good point. There clearly isn’t much of a problem getting black men to have sex with black women. There’s a problem getting them to host a nuclear family as often as the general population of Americans. Plenty of them do, with great success, and I don’t see any major pressure on them not to have a great family (the black families I am friends with personally), so I just don’t get the problem. It’s cheaper, more fun, happier, and it’s the best way to stand up for social justice (if you mean racial harmony, low crime, prosperity, for all).

    It’s still a big problem. I sincerely don’t get why blacks have this massive difference from whites or hispanics or asians. This is probably fodder for justifying bigoted views, but I really am baffled by this cultural difference.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  268. In my view, one who identifies themselves by race is engaging in the same type of destructive group identity politics that fuels the left. The racist KKK, Black Panther and La Raza members have much more in common than they would want to admit. They all engage in the ridiculous mindset that superficial characteristics are somehow more significant than characteristics that denote choice. A person cannot control their skin color so it would be foolish to identify like minded individuals based on this characteristic.

    Think about it. How stupid do you have to be to think “well this guy is lazy, ignorant, loud, obnoxious and an asshole, but he’s the same skin color as me so I’m not going to object to him marrying my sister. But, if some kind, intelligent, freedom loving, patriotic, gentlemen, who happens to be black, tries to marry her I’m going to have a problem.” It’s no different than the leftist who sees and interracial couple and says, “oh that’s sweet.” Why is that sweet? Why do you care what color they are? why should something so superficial and meaningless be so significant? The things we choose have significance, while the things we are born into tell us nothing meaningful about each other. Racists and PC leftists have a lot in common, because they only see groups and color. Individualism is the answer and racism is antithetical to individualism.

    StickeeNotes (2e9fe0)

  269. [...] Goldstein’s post about Robert Stacy McCain, in which he writes: Frey called McCain a racist . . [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Jeff Goldstein’s Views of Language Will NOT Prevent You from Being Misinterpreted (e4ab32)

  270. This discussion over RS McCain has concerned me, as I defend conservate ideas and do not wish to see to see them tarnished by possibly gravely flawed representatives.

    Well, I attempted to read McCain’s quote with the most sincere and generous spirit I could muster. It was not difficult for I am unfamiliar with his writings and also I have known the sort of Southerners who wish to defend the Confederacy from the standpoint of honorable notions, for example dealing with states’ rights, federalism, Northern ‘meddling’ and so forth. So I can kind of see where such a person may be coming from, added to the fact that he is taking on the discussion of race, which may make him an easy target for the eagerly smearing, SPLC leftist sort. (Indeed, LGF comes to mind.)

    Well, here is the result. The passage starts out in a way that actually seems to provide a solid out for McCain on the racism charge. That is, he talks about how the media’s forcing interracial images could be taken by some as ‘naturally revolting’. I probably wouldn’t share that feeling, but, fair enough, I could reasonably gather that he is talking about strong reactions to media efforts to socially engineer a view within people of the South (or wherever) which might be patronizing, too race oriented, flagrantly ideological, and so forth, not to people of the black race. However, he then eliminates that possible intepretation with the following line: “The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM.” Um… yes, I think this is racism. It is to take a strongly negative view, i.e. opposing acceptance into a family, of a person precisely on the basis of race and nothing else. Her color, her genes, her biological traits are what she is reduced to and are disfavored. If one cannot quite clearly see that this is racism, albeit certainly not one of its most ostentatious and virulent manifestations, then it seems they either have not correctly defined ‘racism’ for themselves or are blinded by their own prejudgements of this issue.

    I, therefore, think conservatives / classical liberals must brace themselves and confront the reality that this fellow has unequivocally made statements that fall outside the boundaries of what decent people may defend. That might be a bitter pill for some who have shielded him against attacks in the past, but so be it. Res ipsa loquitur.

    David P. (2527dd)

  271. [...] take for instance Patterico’s whacking The Other McCain for “racist thoughts.” I’ve don’t know Patterico, however I consider his blog to be indispensable reading and [...]

    Every Brother Courageous - streiff’s blog - RedState (8eaf85)

  272. [...] take for instance Patterico’s whacking The Other McCain for “racist thoughts.” I’ve don’t know Patterico, however I consider his blog to be indispensable reading and [...]

    Every Brother Courageous | Liberal Whoppers (d16888)

  273. [...] take for instance Patterico’s whacking The Other McCain for “racist thoughts.” I’ve don’t know Patterico, however I consider his blog to be indispensable reading and [...]

    Every Brother Courageous | WTF?! Obama (2423b3)

  274. [...] noted that Paul has a defender in Robert Stacy “Emmett Till Had it Coming” and “It’s not Racist to Oppose Interracial Dating” McCain. Share and [...]

    Today in the Tranformation of the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Davis : Lawyers, Guns & Money (d65a4c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9947 secs.