Another component of education reform is the teaching, in the classroom, of multi-culturalism or multi-cultural diversity. Parents are asking, "What is it?" Here, we will explore the meaning and result of multi-culturalism or multi-cultural diversity. To give parents and citizens some idea, the greatest experiment in multi-culturalism was conducted in the former state of Yugoslavia, much of the population of which was Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. These three ethnic groups lived in harmony for many years, until multi-cultural diversity was introduced. Yugoslavia is now no more, with bloodshed and war the result.
Multi-Culturalism in the Classroom
With the education reform, ie, systems education, came a plethora of new phrases, one being multi-culturalism or multi-cultural diversity. What is it? Is it just a new name for "melting pot"?
In the classroom, children are being taught that we are a pluralistic society. Plural meaning more than one of something, such then indicates that a pluralistic society is a society of many societies or cultures.
And this is what children are being taught — we are a society of many cultures, of many ethic groups or tribes ... Japanese, Chinese, Pilipino, Asian, German, French, English, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Swedish .... the list is endless, each "tribe" with its own origins and culture.
For instance, Black students are being taught the dances and chants of their "native" African tribe, even though most are more than a 150 years beyond the borders of Africa, even though these children are AMERICANS by birth.
So, German children are being taught their culture; Japanese children their culture; Spanish children their culture; and so on — each ethnic group its own culture from the time when the tribe was "pure". Many schools are now sporting "ethnic" clubs: Spanish Club, German Club ... if you aren't that ethnicity, you can't join. Many will remember that one of the goals of Hitler was a "pure" Aryan society!
What multi-culturalism teaches children is that America isn't a "melting pot" — one society of many ethnicities, living side by side as one culture — that we are a society of many different tribes, each tribe with its own culture.
Should parents be concerned about their child being taught multi-culturalism or multi-cultural diversity? In a word — yes.
A nation will not long stand when it is a society of many cultures or tribes. Multicultural diversity sets one culture against another, as it did in Yugoslavia with the Croats, Serbs and Slovenes. It's called "divide and conquer". Once the various tribes are at odds with one another, it is easy for those seeking power and position (a despot) to walk in and take over as the various tribes consider each other more of a threat than they do a despot.
America or the United States, which-ever one chooses to call it, was established as "One Nation Under God; Indivisible...". We are one nation, one culture, whether we are of German, French, English ... ancestry. Once we became American citizens, that is what we are. We aren't German-American, Spanish-American, or any other type of hyphenated American.
If our nation is to survive as a nation, our children must be taught that we are one society, one culture of many different ethnic people; that we must all live together in OUR American culture.
Lynn M Stuter Education Researcher Washington State
Long before multi-culturalism because an infamous buzz word most large cities in the US were voluntarily divided into ethnic areas; Polish town, Italian town, Jewish town, and so on. First and second generation immigrants preferred to live in an area of the city where others spoke their language and shared their old world "culture." Those folks were not hostile to their adopted country, which they loved, but merely using their free choice to live among their "own" where they felt comfortable. This was not so much segregation, as it was a preference. In a couple of generations the, by then, higher educated children and grandchildren of these original immigrants inter-married with other "cultures" and moved up and out of the ethnic sections and into the more affluent suburbs. It was a natural progression called Americanization. The public schools supported this process then by leaving their hands off this natural progression. Pre-WW2 teachers never mentioned the different cultural backgrounds of their students. Children were only introduced to and taught the American culture.
The multi-culturalization of today is a deliberate social engineering scheme by government to keep us all at each other's throats and it begins in the schools. This, to me, is the most dangerous of all new-fad educational programs as it propagandizes and sets in cement and encourages bigotry by stopping a natural process which, if left alone, would solve itself, as it once did, by assimilation.
Socialism, on the other hand, has much to gain by revolutionary tactics of divide and conquer (multiculturalism). It is able thus to pass legislation which makes central government a leviathan, growing larger and larger each year, which, after all, is the aim of socialism. Once all the legislation is in place then the iron boot of totalitarianism can come down on the face of our citizens and the Constitution will be merely a nice piece of paper, held in esteem but mostly disregarded. Marxism used this tactic in every country it went into. It worked for the last one hundred and fifty years and it still works. It is our job to stop it.
Multicultural Education in the Classroom
Is the following in your school, in your child's classroom? Maybe it isn't called "Passports" in your school, but by whatever name it is known, it is undoubtedly the same, and for the same goal — the production of a "world citizen".
When my kids were still in public school, the grade school did a big, school-wide project called Passports. Each class studied one country in depth for a couple of weeks, integrating all subjects around it. Then, for a week, the class became that country and the students visited one another.
Prior to their visits, they had to fill out a passport application, as much like the real thing as they could make it. The students were to bring a photo of themselves, if they could, and provide a physical description of themselves. The information requested included birth date and Social Security Number. I told my kids they were not to supply their SS number. Other parents were also concerned and complained. The children were told to just make up a number.
My girls went through this for two or three years. Theoretically, this could be a pretty good activity for learning geography, history, and culture. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. After the first Passports, I quizzed my daughters on what they had learned. My oldest was in 5th grade. Her class was Egypt. She did learn quite a bit about Egypt, but could not remember learning a thing about any of the "countries" her class had visited. The only thing my then second-grader could remember about visiting Egypt was, "They barter there." She also could remember nothing about any other class.
I quizzed my second daughter on her own "country", the Ukraine. She could not tell me what continent it was located on. She did not know the races or religions of the people, nor what were their industries and crops. She knew nothing about their history or governmental structure. What had she learned? How to count to ten in Russian and how to write the words for the numbers one through ten in the Cyrillic alphabet. (Integrated with spelling and math?) It was basically a travelogue from the teacher's trip there.
I complained big time about this at the LIT [Learning Improvement Team] meetings. (I was an LIT member.) The 5th grade teacher told me that if all that the other kids got out of his class was that that they barter in Egypt, he had achieved his goal for the project. "Someday," he told me, "your daughter will probably have to work with someone from Egypt or somewhere else in the world. What is more important, that she can locate their country on a map or that she know something about that person’s culture?" The principal intervened and said, "Hopefully, both." I think he saw I was about to blow a gasket.
They were sensitive about my criticisms and tried to push the academics a little more the next year. The teachers were asked to send a list of their academic goals for the program home to the parents. Unfortunately, there was little improvement. [A side note: That year, they selected Maundy Thursday of Holy Week for the Passports Parent Night. How's that for cultural sensitivity?]
By the last year we were in the public schools, my youngest daughter (third one) was in second grade. She had a real flake of a teacher who is heavily into the whole reform ideology. She chose Japan for their class and totally obsessed over the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They read the 1000 cranes book and folded cranes. She even had them doing bomb drills in class (something I didn't find out till much later.)
The entire exercise was a colossal waste of time. It was three weeks of fun and games. Of course, the kids loved it! The final straw is that the teachers responsible for coming up with the idea and organizing it were given a big award from the district's multiculturalism committee.
Is this really happening? You bet it is!
Marda Kirkwood Kent, Washington ---
Three weeks of class time, and if all that the child learned was that Egyptians barter, that was okay? To a parent who believes schools are for the purpose of educating the child, this is unacceptable. But when one understands that schools are no longer there to educate, but there rather to condition the child to a perceived environment, then the above makes perfect sense!
Multiculturalism and Marxism -- Part I by Professor Frank Ellis
[Joe McCarthy may have been a drunk and everything else. He used a shotgun rather than a rifle. But what's been coming out of the Soviet Union since the fall of the Iron Curtain supports much of what he claimed back in the 1950's about communist activity in the United States. -- Insight magazine, 23 September 2002.]
No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency towards multiculturalism or multiracialism. Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who support multiculturalism either do not know this, or, what is more likely, realize that if they are to transform Western society into strictly regulated, racial-feminist bureaucracies they must first undermine these societies.
This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union was. Just as every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate every aspect of our lives. Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as tightly as a prisoner in the gulag. Today's "political correctness" is the direct descendant of Communist terror and brainwashing.
Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.
What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicbeskaya pravil 'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control in education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure that all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianism. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.
As Mao Tse-Tung, The Great Helmsman , put it, "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's little red book is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought and by the late l980s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the other "isms" -- anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious.
Today's dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.
Some have argued that it is unfair to describe Stalin's regime as "totalitarian," pointing out that one man, no matter how ruthlessly he exercised power, could not control the functions of the state. But, in fact, he didn't have to. Totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and concentration camps; it was a state of mind in which the very thought of having a private opinion or point of view had been destroyed. The totalitarian propagandist forces people to believe that slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance is knowledge and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the world. And once enough people are made to think this way it is functionally totalitarian even if a single dictator does not personally control everything.
Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is tolerance and diversity. Indeed the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as communist revolutions did. Judicial activism undermines the rule of law, "tolerance" weakens the condition that makes real tolerance possible; universities which should be havens of free enquiry practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time we find a relentless drive for equality: [Homer], the Bible, Shakespeare, and "rap" music are just texts with "equally valid perspectives." Today Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment would have been repackaged as Crime and Counseling.
In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence. The purpose of the l930s and the Great Terror [of the French Revolution ] (which was Mao's model for the Cultural Revolution) uses violence against "class enemies" to compel loyalty. Party members signed death warrants for "enemies of the people" knowing that the accused were innocent, but believing in the correctness of the charges. In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in The Horror of Sorrowing (p. 143), the state's view of this class was "not one of them was guilty of anything, but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything." Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.
This, of course, is the beauty of "racism" and "sexism" for today's culture attackers -- sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations. The charge of "institutional racism" is no different than declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people. "Racism" and "sexism: are multiculturalism's assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same. If a crime can be collectivized, all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are today's version of the Russian peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone, they "belong to the race that is guilty of everything."
The purpose of these multicultural campaigns is to destroy the self. The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or today, PC-man. Once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary; we reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.
The Russian experiment with revolution and totalitarian social engineering has been chronicled by two of that country's greatest writers, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn. They brilliantly dissect the methods and psychology of totalitarian control. Dostoyevsky's The Devils has no equal as a penetrating and disturbing analysis of the revolutionary and totalitarian mind. The "devils" are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand. The ruling class seeks to ingratiate itself with them. The universities have essentially declared war on society at large. The great cry of the student radicals is freedom, freedom, from the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality, freedom from the past.
Russia's descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise. Dostoyevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted, but Solzhenitsyn experienced them firsthand. The Gulag Archipelago and August 1914 can be seen as histories of ideas, as attempts to account for the dreadful fate that befell Russia after 1917. Solzhenitsyn identifies education, and the way teachers saw their duty as instilling hostility in all forms of traditional authority, as the major factors that explain why Russia's youth was seduced by revolutionary ideas. In the West during the 1960s and 1970s -- which collectively can be called "the 60s" -- we hear a powerful echo of the mental capitulation of Russia that took place in the 1870s and continued through the revolution. One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation ).
Truth is not something to be established by rational enquiry, but depends on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural universe, a person's perspective is "valued" (a favorite word) according to class. Feminists, blacks, environmentalists, and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth because they are oppressed. They see truth more clearly than the white heterosexual men who "oppress" them. This is a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat's moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie.
Today, "oppression" confers a "privileged perspective" that is essentially infallible. To borrow an expression from Robert Bork's Slouching towards Gomorrah, blacks and feminists are [as] "case hardened against logical argument" as Communist true believers are. Indeed, feminists and anti-racist activists openly reject objective truth. Confident that they have intimidated their opposition, feminists are able to make all kinds of demands on the assumption that men and women are equal in every way. When outcomes do not match that belief, this is only more evidence of white-male deviltry.
One of the most depressing sights in the West today, particularly in the Universities and the media, is the readiness to treat feminism as a major contribution to knowledge and to submit to its absurdities. Remarkably, this requires no physical violence. It is the desire to be accepted that makes people truckle to these middle-class, would-be revolutionaries.
Peter Verkovensky, who orchestrates murder and mayhem in The Devils, expresses it with admirable contempt: "All I have to do is raise my voice and tell them that they are not sufficiently liberal." The race hustlers, of course play the same game. Accuse a liberal of "racism" and "sexism" and watch him fall apart in an orgy of self-flagellation and Marxist self-criticism. Even "conservatives" wilt at the sound of those words.
Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it comes to "racism." You are guilty until proven innocent, which is really impossible, and even then you are forever suspect. An accusation of racism has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century Salem.
It is the power of the charge of "racism" that stifles the derision that would otherwise meet the idea that that we should "value diversity." If "diversity" had real benefits, whites would want more of it and would ask that even more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants. Of course, they are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism; they are in headlong flight in the opposite direction. Valuing diversity is [a] hobby for people who do not have to endure its benefits. ---
Multiculturalism and Marxism -- Part II by Professor Frank Ellis
A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a large growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society even more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the ideas of the West.
How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had a massive system of censorship -- the Communists even censored street maps -- and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the inhabitants of "people democracies" soon learned.
The situation in the West is not so straight forward. There is nothing remotely comparable to Soviet-style government censorship and yet we have deliberate suppression of dissent. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney have all been vilified for their racial views. The case of Professor Rushton is particularly troubling because his academic work was investigated by the police. The attempt to silence him was based on provisions of Canadian hate speech laws. This is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the Soviet Union. To find it in a country which prides itself on being a pillar of Western liberal democracy is one of the most disturbing consequences of multiculturalism.
A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bartold Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges, street wise, straight-shooting lady policemen, minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men. This is almost a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealized depictions of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.
Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolute in its pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies. Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions:
First, Multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.
Such a society would be well on its way to being totalitarian. It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in "white male hegemonic discourse." Rather than the bald totalitarianism of the Soviet state we would have a softer version in which our minds would be the wards of the state; we would be liberated from the burden of thought and therefore unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness.
If we think of multiculturalism as yet another manifestation of 20th century totalitarianism, can we take solace in the fact that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed? Is multiculturalism a phase, a periodic crisis through which the West is passing, or does it represent something fundamental and perhaps irreversible? Despite the efforts of pro-Soviet elements, the West recognized the Soviet empire as a threat. It does not recognize multiculturalism as a threat in the same way. For this reason, many of the assumptions and objectives remain unchallenged. Still, there are some grounds for optimism. For example, the speed with which the term "political correctness" caught on. It took the tenured radicals completely by surprise, but it is only a small gain.
In the long term, the most important battleground in the war against multiculturalism is the United States. The battle is likely to be a slow war of attrition. If it fails, the insanity of multiculturalism is something white Americans will have to live with. Of course, at some time whites may demand an end to being punished because of black failure. As Professor Michael Hart argues in The Real American Dilemma (published by New Century Foundation), there could be a racial partition of the United States. We might find that what happened in the Balkans is not peculiar to that part of the world. Race war is not something the affluent radicals deliberately seek but their policies are pushing us in that direction.
I have argued thus far that the immediate context for understanding political correctness and multiculturalism is the Soviet Union and its catastrophic utopian experiment. And yet the PC/multicultural mentality is much older. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke offers a portrait of French radicals which is still relevant 200 years after he wrote it: "They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pass it off with a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear of the duration of a building run up in haste because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery."
Of course, multiculturalism is far from being a solution to racial and cultural conflict. Quite the contrary, multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in the last century, a hell that man, having abandoned and in revolt against God's order, builds for himself and others.
Source. "Fact, Fiction & Fraud," July 2000, as cited in the Nov. & Dec. 2000 issues of The Schwarz Report. (Emphasis added.)
For more on the war being waged against Whites of European descent, see Cultural Marxism vs Western Civilization (below).
For more on the Italian Communist theorist whose "March Through the Institutions" for "Cultural Hegemony" is being implemented by the multiculturalists in order to bring down Western, Helleno-Christian civilization, see Antonio Gramsci
To see how Greek "intellectuals" -- like their spineless counterparts in America -- are tripping all over themselves to be "accepted" by their establishment masters, see "Kissinger: A 'Progressive' Greek"
For more on how the "utopian experiment" of communism took the lives of over 100 million innocent souls in the 20th century, see the recently published The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press.) for a precisely documented account of this unprecedented -- and as yet unpunished -- outrage against humanity.
Some editorial comment on the importance of homogeneity:
The following was written by John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius" in The Federalist, No. 2
"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions and watered it with innumerable streams for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. ...
"With equal pleasure I have often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." (Emphasis added.)
We beg the reader to consider that when being exhorted about the marvels of "diversity" and "multiculturalism," -- social constructs that even a cursory reading of history will show have always led to bloodshed, division, and strife -- he is most likely being "sold" something that will work to the benefit of the huckster pitching this myth, and to the ethnic, ideological, or social group to which the huckster belongs.
Does Obama's Win Signal the End of Racial Preferences? La Shawn Barber Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The people have spoken.
On November 4, 2008, 51 percent of Colorado voters defeated a measure that would have ended state and local government race- and sex-based discrimination and preferences in hiring, contracting, and admissions. Fifty-eight percent of Nebraska voters passed a similar measure, and 53 percent of the nation's voters chose Barack Obama over John McCain to be president of the United States.
The biracial Obama has risen through the political ranks very quickly. Does his win signal the end of government-sanctioned race preferences?
Under a so-called equal opportunity policy, some government entities factor an applicant's race into hiring and admissions decisions in the name of skin deep-only diversity. No matter how well-intentioned, the very idea should be offensive to reasonable people. Being hired or admitted under a lower standard that inevitably results from such a practice is insulting to blacks.
Some believe Obama's win signals the end of race preferences. If America is "tolerant" and progressive enough to elect a black man as president, surely we can do away with race preferences. The American Civil Rights Institute's Ward Connerly told the San Francisco Chronicle that Obama's win "says to every black kid that you don't have to believe any longer that you can't accomplish anything…It decimates victimhood."
Others disagree. You've heard the rumblings and read the stories: Obama's win doesn't mean we should end race preferences. As columnist Ruben Navarrette wrote, "That kind of thinking starts with the epidemic of Americans patting themselves on the back for being enlightened enough to elect an African-American president."
On one point, Navarrette is correct. There are some whites patting themselves on the back for voting for Obama. But race preferences are not the cure for what ails us.
The problem with preferring one race over another for any reason is twofold. First, race preferences are unconstitutional (violation of the Equal Protection clause). Second, the educational and employment disadvantages preferences are supposed to eliminate aren't necessarily tied to a person's race. Individuals of all races face disadvantages.
Perhaps there's a compromise that will help the disadvantaged of all races and of both sexes without discriminating against people based on these factors: economic affirmative action. Obama has hinted that class is more important than race in the context of providing equal opportunity.
"I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed," he told ABC News.
During the campaign, Obama said that privileged children like his daughters didn't need race preferences. In an interview with The Politico, Ward Connerly sounded hopeful that Obama would support economic affirmative action and oppose race preferences.
"[Obama] is a very, very bright man who thinks through the nuances of issues and I cannot help [but to] believe he realizes the inherent flaw in race preferences. If you listen to him carefully, you cannot help but think he is really torn by this issue, and that he is leaning in the direction of socio-economic affirmative action instead of race preferences."
Class-based affirmative action would benefit people across color and gender lines and encourage what should have existed a long time ago: a colorblind government. I wouldn't wager on it, but I hope Obama's win will at least encourage people to seriously discuss ending government-sanctioned race preferences.
Getting Beyond Race Walter E. Williams Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Despite the fact that President-elect Barack Obama's vision for our nation leaves a lot to be desired, the fact that he was elected represents a remarkable national achievement. When the War of 1861 ended, neither a former slave nor slave owner would have believed it possible for a black to be elected president in a mere century and a half, if ever. I'm sure that my grandparents, born in the 1880s, or my parents, born in the 1910s, would not have believed it possible for a black to be president and neither did I for most of my 72 years.
That's not the only progress. If one totaled black earnings, and consider blacks a separate nation, he would have found that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world's 16th richest nation. That's just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans have been chief executives of some of the world's largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, headed the world's mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black. A few black Americans are among the world's richest people and many are some of the world's most famous personalities. These gains, over many difficult hurdles, speak well not only of the intestinal fortitude of a people but of a nation in which these gains were possible. They could not have been achieved anywhere else.
Acknowledgement of these achievements is not to deny that a large segment of the black community faces enormous problems. But as I have argued, most of today's problems have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination. That's not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated but as my colleague Dr. John McWhorter said in "End of Racism?" Forbes (11/5/08), "There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on." The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.
The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks.
Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people. Led by guilt, college administrators, employers and others in leadership positions, in the name of diversity, buy into nonsense such as lowering standards, racial preferences and acceptance of behavior standards they wouldn't accept from whites. Maybe the election of a black president will help white people over their guilt feelings so they can stop acting like fools in their relationships with black people.
"It's amazing to me—almost unreal," Representative John Lewis said about Barack Obama's impending victory a few days ago.
Not to me. I lost the ability to even conceive of Barack Obama not becoming president two Aprils ago.
Yet what many have told me I was missing was The Role That Racism Still Plays In This Country. For months now, for example, newspaper stories quoting working-class whites refusing Obama their vote because of his color have been showing us what is still "out there." And never mind polls where whites surmised that their friends wouldn't vote for a black man, subconsciously associated black faces with negative terms, and so on. The big bad "out there."
All of this has been a manifestation of how people "in here" consider it a duty to stress that racism is not entirely extinct, despite Condoleezza, Tiger, and the massive black middle class. The implication is that we seek an America in which none of us even notice color.
The question is whether the total eclipse of racism is either possible or necessary. It is neither, and Barack Obama's victory is a lesson in how the word racism has drifted beyond its core meaning into something more calisthenic than proactive.
It was one thing when legalized segregation and disenfranchisement were outlawed in the mid-60s. This was a massive undertaking, but people devoted their lives—sometimes literally—to making it happen.
It was something else when, in the wake of this, racism became socially taboo in most segments of American society. Sure, there are lapses. But anyone who thinks there has been anything short of a seismic shift in America's racial relations since the 60s should take a look at Mad Men. The very fact that it is news that there remain people who wouldn't vote for a black man shows that we live in a different world than 40 years ago.
The new frontier, however, is apparently people's individual psychologies: Not only must we not legislate racism or socially condone it, but no one is to even privately feel it.
The problem is we can't entirely reach people's feelings. The social proscription has changed a lot of minds, especially of younger people who never knew the old days. But an America where nobody harbors racist sentiment? The very notion goes against everything we know about human hardwiring: Distrust of the other is inherent to our cognition.
Psychology has provided us with no method for rewiring brains to eliminate that. After describing one of countless studies revealing subliminal racial bias, Nicholas Kristof recently intoned "there's evidence that when people become aware of their unconscious biases, they can overcome them."
Oh, really? "Can," OK—but how often do they? How do we reach everybody? Do we mean overcoming bias so thoroughly that a test looking for what's "out there" would not still reveal it? It's a utopian pipe dream.
Now, if this racism of the scattered and subliminal varieties were the obstacle to achievement that Jim Crow and open bigotry were, then we would have a problem. But yesterday, we saw that this "out there" brand of racism cannot keep a black man out of the White House.
Might it not be time to allow that our obsession with how unschooled and usually aging folk feel in their hearts about black people has become a fetish? Sure, there are racists. There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on.
I know—what about "societal" racism? Well, if we can now relax about the backward folk "out there," then maybe Obama in the White House can help open up an honest discussion about the role racism does not play in black communities' problems.
Obama has come in for some criticism for not putting forth a "black" agenda—i.e., one designed to combat "racism" in various ways. It's because he knows that paradigm has no useful application to our times.
The harsher penalization of crack than powdered cocaine that has put so many black people in jail needs revision, but it was not created by racists: The Congressional Black Caucus helped pass it. Newark's schools are not failing because of racism, when New Jersey funds them as liberally as schools in the suburbs and most of the teachers and staff are black.
America has problems and our new president knows it. However, is America's main problem still "the color line" as W.E.B. DuBois put it 105 years ago? The very fact that the president is now black is a clear sign that it is no longer our main problem, and that we can, even as morally informed and socially concerned citizens, admit it.
There is nothing at all "unreal" about this. It is, after all, what we were supposed to be working toward. We must embrace it.
Race Still Matters Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Monday, November 10, 2008
Last Tuesday, history was made with the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. Watching the concession and acceptance speeches was extremely memorable. McCain sounded more like a statesman at that moment than any other time in his campaign. Obama's speech was powerful but the tears of the listeners were the most amazing aspect of the event. Some Americans could not understand the tears of Oprah Winfrey or Jessie Jackson; they even had the temerity to assess these expressions from thousands of blacks as proof of black racism. Others declared that Jesse Jackson's emotional meltdown was counterfeit because of his mean-spirited remarks about the president-elect captured on a live microphone, off camera, by Fox a couple of months ago.
To understand the euphoric expressions of the thousands that rejoiced simultaneously around the nation, we must remember the cultural context in which these folks have lived. The level of their personal joy is commensurate with the level of their past pain. Many whites minimize the deep sense of rejection, shame, and inferiority that many blacks have felt all their lives. Yet, unless you have walked in their shoes, no one should deny what these people have experienced. Facing prejudice, injustice, and the social baggage that comes along with being black is still a daunting task 40 years after Dr. King's assassination.
The thousands who shed tears of joy at Obama's victory speech said by their response that we are closer to King's dream. They also simultaneously demonstrated that we have not fully entered into a post-racial political era. The fact is that we are in a very dangerous moment in American history.
Two very different sub-cultures could either collide and explode, or create an opportunity for racial healing and real change. The only glue that can possibly heal our current social breach is a working unity among Bible-believing Christians of all races.
Without a structured leadership intervention, our problems will only get worse. In fact, in less than one week after the election, things are already starting to spiral out of control. The talk about Obama's socialistic roots and his worldview has created a sense of pain within the heart and soul of many black Christian leaders. In their view, racism has motivated many white evangelicals to attack Obama. They have listened to conservative and evangelical radio and television programs that have painted President-elect Obama an "anti-Christ" figure.
On the other hand white evangelicals are expecting a surge of legal measures designed to restrict our freedom to preach the gospel. In addition, many evangelicals are concerned about any number of fomenting conspiracies.
The Bible-believing Church can turn things around. She can negotiate a truce, and evangelical Christian leaders can bridge this divide. Just as in Dr. King' day in which the black church rose to the challenge, a united Church (black and white) must arise to complete King's dream.
In order to pull this off we must have immediate high level summits, strategy sessions, and prayer. This has to occur now. We must invest our time, energy, and resources in creating a new diverse coalition of Christian leaders. All this must be done, as we avoid acting out stereotypes set by our critics.
The liberal press and Hollywood seem addicted to portraying the religious Right as un-American and un -- Christ like. In addition, the evangelical movement has been painted as anti-black, anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-gay -- anti-everything but lower taxes and war. But the average reporter or screenwriter has apparently never been in an evangelical church and is certainly not in touch with the dramatic transition that is already occurring at the grassroots level in the nation today.
The evangelical movement is building bridges and alliances with people and organizations that some might find surprising. But this story won't be on the cable channels or the evening news. In truth, many black churches do not embrace the perspectives of Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. The new black church is led by an exciting new breed of gifted leaders who are up to the task of leading in the 21st century.
While we count down the days to President-elect Obama's inauguration, let's take four simple, but important steps:
1. Decide to break free from past prejudices.
2. Pray for President Bush and President-elect Obama daily.
3. Engage in building cross-cultural relationships with other Christians.
4. Pray that the Church moves forward to lead the charge toward the change America needs.
Now that the election is over, let's trust that God will guide, direct, and empower a racially unified Church as His agent of healing! Let's love one another, act strategically, and show the world that Jesus is real.
Racial Psychodrama Mona Charen Friday, November 07, 2008
Twelve years ago, the most popular man in American political life was an African-American -- Colin Powell. A four-star general who had served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as national security adviser, the Brooklyn-born Powell had presidential timber written all over him. A number of leading Republicans -- Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp leap to mind -- talked him up at the time. New Hampshire polls of Republicans in 1995 showed Powell leading the pack. Powell declined to run and Robert Dole got the Republican nod that year, ultimately losing to Bill Clinton. Exit polls suggested that Powell would have defeated Clinton by 50 to 38. (I did not climb on board the Powell bandwagon because he was insufficiently conservative for my taste -- a judgment that has been amply vindicated.)
It's important to remember this history lest the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency be interpreted as evidence that "only now," 45 years after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, is the nation ready for a black president. Yes, it's wonderful that we're ready now. But it's equally or more wonderful that we've been ready for a long time. We've had two black secretaries of state (not that the Republicans who appointed them get any credit for that), black CEOs of major corporations, black TV stars like Oprah Winfrey advising millions on how to live with integrity (as she sees it), black radio hosts (on all sides), black movie stars, black doctors and lawyers and teachers and astronauts. Yes, segregation and racism were facts of life within living memory, but this country set its face against that history hard and fast and almost completely. It has been for so for my entire life.
I'm proud of my country for living down its racist past. And pace Michelle Obama, there has been a lot to be proud of -- even in that category -- for a very long time. What is less admirable is the sycophancy one sees among some. Shelby Steele has identified the tendency among some whites to seek "racial innocence" at the hands of blacks, and we certainly saw it in play throughout the drama of Obama's campaign. "Bargainers," Steele explains, "make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence." Some whites are so pathetically grateful for this bargain that they quite lose their heads. Instead of being truly beyond race, and treating African-American candidates exactly like everyone else, they demonstrate their continuing racial consciousness by shameless toadying.
Something like that afflicted the press during this election year. Nothing would be permitted to impede Obama's victorious procession toward the White House. He was a green first-term senator? We won't mention that (even when we decry Sarah Palin's lack of experience). He skirted 130 decisions, voting present, during his time in the Illinois Senate? No problem.
He broke his promise to accept public financing of his campaign? Just evidence of his fundraising "prowess" (AP) or ability to "set records" (New York Times).
Early in his career, he was listed as a member of the socialist New Party? New Zealand papers picked up on it. Didn't make it into our major media. He supported the most extreme abortion agenda of any candidate in modern American history and then lied about it? Not relevant. He enjoyed close ties with ACORN, a group that is facing criminal charges of vote fraud in a dozen states? Yawn.
As for his thoroughly repellent associations with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and others, it was considered very bad form to mention them. Even John McCain refrained from raising the Wright issue for fear of having his "racial innocence" compromised.
As a result of this racial psychodrama played out in our national politics (among other reasons), we are now about to have the most left-wing president in history. We can only hope, for his sake and for the country's, that his left-wing positions were adopted out of expedience, not conviction, and that President Obama will decide that success requires him to tack to the center.
Mourning in America Burt Prelutsky Friday, November 14, 2008
It's been a while now since the election took place, but it's still not easy for me to come to grips with it. Strangely enough, I slept okay the night I learned that Barack Obama had defeated John McCain. It was only when I awoke and realized that Sen. Obama would soon be President Obama that the nightmare began. I truly felt overcome with grief, the kind you feel when a loved one dies. In this case, the loved one was America.
I have been listening to conservative commentators on radio trying to put a good face on it. At times, they've sounded like they're angling for the same White House dinner invitations they got from George Bush. But perhaps they're just hoping if they do enough kissing up, they can somehow dissuade the Democrats from passing the misnamed Fairness Doctrine. I think they might as well expect that Al Gore and Robert Kennedy, Jr., will acknowledge that global warming has been a gargantuan hoax.
Liberals, after all, never admit their mistakes, never take responsibility for, say, destroying public education or taking an axe to the black family structure. But, then, liberals never take responsibility for anything. If they did, they'd be conservatives.
I know that a lot of Republicans are busy playing the blame game. Some, myself included, are pointing fingers at John McCain for running the lamest presidential campaign in memory. Others, not I, are pointing at Sarah Palin, while a few are singling out Mike Huckabee, suggesting that if he had dropped out when he should have, Mitt Romney would have won the primaries, thus preventing McCain from getting to do his dead-on impression of Michael Dukakis.
Some people simply blame the economy for Obama's victory. They may be right, but I'd prefer not to believe that a sizable number of Americans think that electing a Socialist is a really clever way to solve a financial crisis.
Many of my friends and colleagues are already looking to 2012, vowing to learn from the mistakes of this campaign. Perhaps in four years, I'll find a reason to share their optimism, but, frankly, I doubt it. When I look at the election numbers, I see no reason to believe that things will improve by then. After all, in spite of hearing how brilliant, how inspiring, how charismatic -- and how I hate hearing that word applied to a politician! -- Obama is, he's the same guy whose friends, wife and religious mentor, combined with his nearly blank resume, should have kept him in the Illinois state legislature with all the other Chicago-based grifters.
The numbers, I'm afraid, tell the tale. When it came to young voters, 69% went for Obama; Jews, 78%; blacks, 96%; Catholics, 54%; Hispanics, 67%; females, 56%; 90% of Muslims. When you factor in birth rates, I'm not sure that in 2012, Republicans will get more votes than Libertarians.
Looking back, I think the left-wing cancer took root in the 1960s and the funeral took place on November 4th. That's why I'm having a really hard time putting up with people who are so darn jubilant about Obama's victory. To me, it's as if they're dancing on America's grave.
I know that a lot of people will regard me as a racist for being so depressed over the election result. I am probably the least racist person in America. As I've always said, people who hate others because of their race, religion or national origin, are just plain lazy. After all, once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than that for despising them.
Besides, it does no good to deny being a racist. Once you have to deny it, you've already been labeled. But I have to ask, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and I had been upset about it, would I be branded a misogynist? The fact is, I would have been less upset if she had been elected. But that's only because I only object to her politics and her voice. Her circle does not include the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan and Rashid Khalidi. Aside from Hillary Clinton's colleagues in the Senate, her only questionable associate is Bill.
Now that American conservatives have become an endangered species, I'm wondering if Obama and his gang of compassionate liberals will give us the same consideration they give polar bears and snail darters.
One of my friends wondered how it could be that I wasn't thrilled to see millions of black people, including Jesse Jackson and all of Kenya, in rapture over Obama's victory. I told him it's one thing for Obama to garner 96% of the black vote when he's running against a Republican such as John McCain, but quite another when he got 91% of the vote in the primaries when he was running against a liberal such as Sen. Clinton. That, to me, reeks of racism, and I see no reason to celebrate it.
I went on to say that it often seems to me that it's only conservatives who ever took to heart Martin Luther King's fervent wish that we all learn to judge our fellow men by their character and not by the color of their skin.
I concluded by telling him that he had every reason to be ecstatic that a man who shared his politics was elected, but that Obama's color shouldn't enter into it, and that if I and many like me were disgruntled about the election, it had nothing to do with Obama's pigmentation, everything to do with his character and his leftist agenda. We elected a president, after all, the leader of the free world, not a prom king.
If there is one bright spot in all this, it's that I won't have to spend the next four years listening to John McCain begin every sentence with "My friends." The sad truth is, I pick my friends far more wisely than we pick our candidates or, for that matter, our presidents.
THE CULTURE WAR 2001-2002
"BRING BACK THE GREEKS." "The one and only antidote to the spiritual toxins poisoning our civilization today, is a return to Greek scholarship. Bring back the Greeks!" says Bruce S. Thornton, professor of Classical and Anthropological Studies in the Department of Foreign Languages and Philology, at the University of California at Fresno. This interview is, in effect, an alarm being sounded by another "Hellene" (in the true sense of the word). More and more such men and women are coming to the realization that the millenniums-old "cultural capital" bequeathed to us by the Greeks must not be dissipated: It must be cherished, replenished, and used to save humanity from destroying itself. Hellenism is the only "ism" that is universally accepted and sought after by every living being on this planet. No other method of ordering society has had such world-wide appeal. That is why the entrenched, malevolent minority of elites who hold power today, and looks upon humanity as an economic commodity -- a herd to be kept ignorant of its past and bred only to be consumers -- is doing everything possible to REMOVE CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP FROM THE SCHOOLS. Read this interview to learn more about this vital subject, and to see how those of us who care can fight back.
CONSTANTINOS BARBIS, historian, author, and lecturer, gives the following statistics that will never be seen by the masses so long as power continues to be in the hands of the crypto-Marxist left, or, for that matter, the neo-conservative "right" in Greece. These statistics fly in the face of the Simitis government's distortion of history. What follows is a comparison of the penal records of the "liberal and progressive" government that ruled Greece from 1929 to 1935, and the Metaxa "dictatorship" of 1936 to 1940: From 1929 to 1935, there were 37 murders, 4 death sentences, 16,550 people were arrested, 8093 were jailed, 2219 filed charges of abuse while imprisoned, and 630 persons were exiled. From 1936 to 1940, there were 0 murders, 0 death sentences, 1035 people were jailed, 2 filed abuse charges, and 850 persons were exiled.
So much for the "Hitler-like dictatorship" of John Metaxa. Remember, it was this man who uttered his famous OXI (NO!) to fascist demands for submission, while our leftist comrades fled to the hills where they were supplied and funded by the likes of Marshal Tito and "Uncle Joe" Stalin. Their stated objective was to bring Greece into the Soviet sphere of influence. Had their side won, instead of the bars and brothels of Greece and Western Europe being filled with Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Yugoslav, and Russian prostitutes, many of our Greek wives, mothers, and daughters would be practicing this "profession" as well.
CULTURAL MARXISM VS WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Is the romp through Afghanistan the last hurrah of a culturally hollowed out superpower? It is difficult to believe otherwise after considering the facts laid out by Patrick J. Buchanan in his new book, The Death of the West. Mr. Buchanan has strong opinions, but his opinions are based in facts, unlike those of his equally opinionated opponents, who have bought into the multiculturalist dogma of the evils of Western civilization wishful thinking. Mr. Buchanan rests his case on demography and immigration and on the multicultural attack led by Cultural Marxists on Western history, values, and institutions.
Demography is destiny. In 1960 people of European stock comprised one-quarter of the world population. Today white people make up one-sixth of the world population [actually, some estimates put the figure as low as 12% ed.]. By 2050 people of European descent will comprise less than one-tenth of the world population. Whites are shrinking into a minority even within their own countries. Massive uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration, together with collapsing fertility rates of whites everywhere, foretell a vanishing race.
In the U.S., whites are no longer a majority in California. Many are now leaving the state looking for a place to live that bears some resemblance to the country they grew up in. Before a lifetime passes, there will be no place [to go]. In 1998 [that bought-and-paid-for moral degenerate], President Clinton, boasted to a cheering Portland State University audience that by 2050 whites would be a minority in America. "No other nation in history," he said, "has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time."
A changing racial composition would not mean the death of the West if immigrants from Third World countries were assimilating: but the "melting pot" no longer exists. Discarded as racist and hegemonic, the "melting pot" has been replaced by the multicultural "salad bowl." As Jacques Barzun wrote in his recent history of Western civilization, From Dawn to Decadence, "not even native-born whites are being assimilated to their culture."
Americans are largely unaware, but Cultural Marxism reigns in our universities and our public schools. The old Marxists blamed capitalists and the economic system for oppression and exploitation. The new Marxists blame the white race and Western civilization itself. As ["philosopher" and liberal guru] Susan Sontag (among others) puts it, "The white race is the cancer of human history." Ms. Sontag is highly respected by American intellectuals [sic]. A survey found her to be the most respected intellectual of our time. She was awarded a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant."
Cultural Marxists assault not only our history but also the family, the chastity of women, and Christianity; important pillars of our civilization. Cultural Marxists use education, entertainment, and the media to create a new people that shares their values. Mr. Buchanan thinks that the Cultural Marxist revolution will succeed but be short-lived, like Soviet communism, because it is based on lies and the disregard of reality. Mr. Buchanan's optimism seems contrary to his facts and, perhaps, is an expression of his fighting spirit. The test is whether people respond. Does anyone care, or is the future too scary to be acknowledged?
A case can be made that the situation is worse than Mr. Buchanan says. In the U.S., native-born whites already are second-class citizens in their own country. Unconstitutional group privileges have arisen based on race, gender, and disability. White males no longer have equal rights. As the current chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission says, "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." The protections in our legal system that make law a shield of the people, not a weapon in the hands of government, have largely been eroded. But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism. Demonization of the whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to break up Western civilization. But teaching hatred has other consequences. Demonization has already demoralized some whites, making them ashamed and fearful of their skin color.
By the time whites become political minorities, decades of demonization will have prepared the ground for legislation prohibiting their propagation and, perhaps, assigning them to the gulag as a final solution to "the cancer of human history."
None of this is ordained. Faculties could replace multicultural propagandists with real scholars, and legislation could halt or reduce immigration to assimilable numbers. Is Western civilization worth the effort? Does anyone any longer know what Western Civilization is?
Source. The Washington Times. by Craig Roberts. 9 January 2002. p.A14 (Emphasis added.)
For a must see account of the war against our Western, Helleno-Christian world by the "politically correct" culture-annihilators, see Multiculturalism and Marxism (above).
For more on the battle plan being followed in the assault on our Helleno-Christian civilization by the cultural Marxists, see anything on Gramsci below.
As an example of how "Cultural Marxists use education, entertainment, and the media" to destroy our Helleno-Christian civilization, read the introduction to "How the 'Grekili' Stole Christmas" before linking to the article.
E.U. FORCES HOMOSEXUALITY ON ROMANIA. On 20 December '01 the BBC reported that "human rights campaigners in Romania were celebrating their victory in getting a Ceausescu-era law which criminalized homosexual practices scrapped." The law, article 200 of the Romanian penal code, was repealed "under fierce pressure from the European Union." The E.U. made abolishing the statute a precondition for the country's pending membership in the European superstate.
Romania has historically banned homosexual behavior, and public attitudes among Romanians toward sodomy are decidedly negative. In 2000, a nationwide survey found close to 90% of Romanians would not want to live next door to a homosexual.
"We need healthy young people in mind and body, like any civilized country, and we must try to protect them from contamination by such serious sinners," said a spokesman for the Romanian Orthodox Church. When asked about the E.U.'s role in coercing Romania to jettison its anti-homosexual laws, the spokesman replied: "We want to join the European Union, not Sodom and Gomorrah."
"GAY DAYS" AT SANTA ROSA HIGH. Anti-homosexual activist, attorney Scott Lively, gets a glimpse into "the brave new world of sexual diversity in California schools." What is especially worrying is that this kind of degeneracy is not confined to "off-the-wall" California, but is spreading like a cancer throughout America. Even worse, this metastasizing process is being aided and abetted by U. S. politicians, educators, and, yes, even prominent and not-so-prominent religious leaders. The only hope is that the American people -- who have so far shown themselves to be little more than lemmings -- finally wake up and take back their nation, their culture, and their children.
GRAMSCI AND THE U.S. BODY POLITIC. Who is Antonio Gramsci? You'd better learn!!! Why the interest in Gramsci? This study gives a short bio and a quick glance into the mind of a diabolical genius whose theories are being used to convert America (and the rest of the Western world) into a class warfare arena where the dominant Helleno-Christian culture is methodically being marginalized. Understanding Gramsci, "you will understand the 'peculiar' and 'weird' theories that are in vogue today."
GRAMSCI: A METHOD TO THE MADNESS. Behind the many maddening attacks on the West's popular Helleno-Christian culture is Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci's strategy for achieving the total state. Gramsci (1891-1937), described as "...the most significant Marxist thinker since Lenin," diverged from purist Marxist theory by insisting that, given food in his belly and a marginal existence, the average worker would never bestir himself to revolt. No, said Gramsci, it is through the undermining and domination of their institutions that the masses must be guided into the anthill. Destroy their faith in religion, undermine the educational process, erode the strength of the family, take control of the means of communication, and you will soon reduce individualistic humanity into an amorphous, easy to subjugate, mass of aggressive consumers and docile citizens. Then, and only then, can the process of remaking society into the New World Order of a Marxist/Socialist "paradise" begin. One need not have a degree in Political Science, nor the brains of a genius, to see that his planned "March Through the Institutions," in order to "capture the culture" is working.
GRAMSCI'S GRAND PLAN for gaining "cultural hegemony" over our Helleno-Christian civilization is explained in this article by philosopher, theologian, writer, and researcher, Fr. James Thornton. Antonio Gramsci--"the most significant Marxist thinker since Lenin"-- broke ranks with traditional Marxist theory by stressing that the domination over the institutions of culture is of far greater importance than class or economic considerations. When one looks at the sorry state of our Western Culture, and considers how our once inviolate institutions have fallen into disarray, one can appreciate the diabolical genius of Gramsci's strategy.
"It will be necessary to replace Latin and Greek as the fulcrum of the formative school, and they will be replaced. But it will not be easy to deploy the new subject or subjects in a didactic form which gives equivalent results in terms of education and general personality-formation from early childhood to the threshold of the adult choice of career. For in this period what is learnt, or the greater part of it, must be -- or appear to the pupils to be -- disinterested, i.e. not have immediate or too immediate practical purposes. It must be formative, while being "instructive" -- in other words rich in concrete facts." (No abstracts, you see, just "concrete facts" needed by the consumer-worker drone of the future.) Selections From the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (SPN). Int'l Publ. 1999. p 39f.
HALLMARK CARDS of Kansas city obviously believes that "assisted suicide," followed by "assisted grieving for suicide," have created a marketing opportunity. As a result, they've come out with a new line of cards for the "suicide market." The idea has been tested in six cities, with the cards appearing on shelves under the "suicide" category. The company reports "an overwhelmingly positive response." The news item does not say whether there will be the usual sideline of humorous cards ("Hooray! She finally did it!"). According to conservative editor and author, Richard John Neuhaus, "Hallmark's decision is a testimony ... to our culture's continuing determination to mainstream the aberrant in the hope that the very concept of the aberrant will one day be eliminated." (For more on "mainstreaming the aberrant" see "Gramsci's Grand Plan." )
"HELLENISM WILL NEVER DIE" says Classics professor Victor Hanson, who with his colleague and fellow Classics professor, John Heath, discuss their book Who Killed Homer? with Davlos correspondent, Nancy Biska. "[Hellenism] is the first and last hope for Mankind. ... We are so fortunate that those 'relatively poor' Greeks of the 8th to the 4th centuries B.C. developed such a brilliant and indestructible civilization. ... [It is] the one and only institution in the world under which we can all unite while adhering to the principles and values of the West that they bequeathed to us. We are all Greeks now, whether we want it or not!"
"HATE CRIMES" legislation advocate, Harvard law professor Allan Dershowitz, speaking in St. Louis on the need to obtain information from suspected terrorists, made this profound observation (according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 5 Nov.'01): "Even torture may not be off the table as an information-gathering tool." In an article on the same subject, the Washington Post, referring to the dismay felt by some federal authorities over the refusal of various terrorist suspects to divulge their secrets voluntarily, wrote that "alternative strategies" were being discussed. Some of these "alternative strategies" include "using drugs or pressure tactics, such as those employed occasionally by Israeli interrogators, to extract information."
Shortly thereafter, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department would monitor conversations between attorneys and their clients in terrorism cases, something some have described as "[a] grotesque and blatant violation of longstanding criminal procedure and constitutional law." Not long after that the administration announced that it would authorize secret military tribunals for foreigners charged with "terrorism," either in the U.S. or abroad. The media, meanwhile, almost from the moment of the tragedy of September 11th, has kept up a steady harangue about "hate groups," and their connection -- if any -- to the attack. ("Hate groups" have become nothing more that code words for 1st and 2nd amendment proponents, Confederate flag defenders, Religious Americans -- especially Christians, those who consider homosexuality a sin, pro-lifers, advocates of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and anybody who looks back upon pre-1960s White Euro-America with fond remembrance.)
Political analyst Samuel Francis, writing in Chronicles magazine (Feb. '02), concedes that though "most of these extraordinary measures so far proposed or adopted are against foreign terrorists, [the ruling elite], having demonized law-abiding and nonviolent dissidents on the political right as members of 'hate groups,' ... may well find it expedient to use [these] 'precedents' ... to justify locking up or silencing political forces that have nothing to do with terrorism but a great deal to do with defending the right to keep and bear arms, resisting the New World Order, protecting national sovereignty, opposing immigration, or upholding traditional cultural symbols and icons. In the minds of the ruling class, there is little practical and virtually no moral difference between American militias and similar groups on the unreconstructed right, on the one hand, and the Islamic mass murderers of Al Qaeda, on the other. There is, quite literally, no telling what the ruling class will do or how far its greed for power will reach once it has liberated its mind and conscience -- as well as its actual policies -- from whatever constitutional and legal restraints it has so far been unable to shatter."
As far as that self-proclaimed defender of human rights, Dershowitz, is concerned, on a Fox-TV interview (23 March '97), during which he defended the O. J. Simpson verdict (even after saying that "if O. J. were poor, he'd be in jail today"), this culture-destroyer arrogantly proclaimed that: "Justice is a process, it is not an end result. We say that sometimes we have to free the guilty in order to ensure that the process works efficiently."
Where was the "process," you hypocrite, when you advocated the possible use of torture as an "information-gathering tool" in St. Louis?
HOW THE "GREKILI" STOLE CHRISTMAS
A sampling of a Christmas without Christ in "Greek" TV programming on Christmas Day in Greece. Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and Communist genocidal mass- murderers Mao and Stalin, could not have done a better job of promoting the New World Order's war against Hellenism and Christianity.
OLD AND NEW AMERICA came out to vote in the 2000 election. The Old America supposedly "won" that time, but as more people are brainwashed into the secularized collective by a determined, well-organized, totalitarian elite, the future holds little promise for the Helleno-Christian values upon which America was founded.
"QUEER SEX" was the title of a school workshop conducted by Massachusetts state health and education employees in March of 2000. The program was part of the annual conference of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network-Boston (GLSEN-Boston). At this event, attended by students as young as 14 and their "teachers," any misconception about how homosexual militants are "simply fighting intolerance" was immediately dispelled. As an example, pederasty was promoted in a video narrated by a 7th-grade girl who unwittingly promoted the lie that man-boy love was an accepted practice among the ancient Greeks. After the video, an adult assured the attendees that "there is nothing wrong with an adult approaching adolescents for sex." (For the truth about Greece, read a short introduction to "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" before linking to the article.) What follows is a small sampling from across America of similar initiatives by homosexual activists pursuing an increasingly open and defiant program to recruit children into their "lifestyle," and who are being aided and abetted by the American Establishment in their goal.
In the rural Rio Bravo-Greeley Union School District in California, parents of 15 students seeking to transfer their children out of the classroom of a militant "gay" teacher were denied the right to do so by a decree issued by the state. The students complained that the teacher "rubbed" their backs, and placed his arms around them when they would ask questions in class.
Parents across the U.S. are incensed over the wide-spread showing of a lesbian-produced film titled It's Elementary: Talking about Gay Issues in School. The video, which is being shown to children from 1st grade through middle school, is all about teachers giving pro-homosexual instruction in the classroom.
According to GLSEN, as of January 2000 more than 600 gay and lesbian student clubs meet regularly in schools throughout America; up from fewer than 100 in 1998. Some school boards tried to withhold their approval for these clubs, but backed down when threatened with law suits. So far, and to our knowledge, only one school board has succeeded in thwarting such activity, but it did so at a high cost to other students: it abandoned all extracurricular clubs rather than yield, but this is the exception.
Four Portland, Oregon, public school teachers protested in Sept. of 1999 that their school district's "Sexual Diversity Committee" was promoting homosexuality by insisting on books promoting the "gay" lifestyle be used in the classroom, and by rejecting books presenting Christian or other contrary points of view. The teachers charge that they have been aggressively "harassed" ever since.
A transsexual high school teacher was dismissed for discussing "sex-identity" issues, and for openly and graphically discussing his own sex-change operation in class. He sued and received a $150,000. settlement from the school board.
In the "Mathematics" section of the Project Organizing Handbook, a widely-circulated teachers' aid, the following "math" story-problem was recommended: "If 10,000 people marched in the Gay Pride March in 1990 and 25,000 in 1992, what was the average increase? The Handbook openly -- and, it seems, without fear of opposition from the pusillanimous denizens of "the home of the brave" -- recommends that teachers insert "The use of gay/lesbian specific situations in explaining mathematical procedures."
At a 1998 GLSEN-Boston conference, New York kindergarten teacher Jaki Williams said that teaching 5-year-olds about homosexuality is important because children at that age are "just developing their super-ego" and "that's where the saturation process needs to begin." [ Saturation!!? Of 5-year old kids? This is Bejing-style indoctrination, pure and simple.]
In the January 1999 issue of Young Children, authors B .J. Cahill and R. Theilheimer offer this "politically correct" advice on how teachers should respond to the question from 5-year-old Tommy about whether he can marry his best friend, Sam, when they grow up: "Tommy and Sam can choose to live together when they grow up. There are men who prefer to make a family with another man instead of with a woman. And they love each other just like other families. They can even have a wedding if they want."
In Jacksonville, Florida, parents of high-school students objected to the pornographic and scatological filth called "poetry" written by that blatantly homosexual sodomite, the late and unlamented Allen Ginsberg, being assigned to their children in an English class. In September of 2001 they got the full (and usual) treatment: They were made to feel stupid and uncouth by the diploma-mill hoodlums of the school's English Department, who assured them that what this America-hating, piece of shit had written was worth learning. Ginsberg loved to brag "I sleep with young boys" at every opportunity given him by the naive and stupidly "open-minded" and "tolerant" Americans his kind are hell-bent on destroying. He was obsessed with his anus, and wrote all about the many uses he'd put it to through the years. He also fantasized in his poetry about having sex with his mother, and wrote about her bowel movements in graphic detail. This man is to literature what the stuff that sticks to the heels of your shoes when you walk through a dog kennel is to your brand new wall-to-wall carpeting. Yet his pornographic scribbling is being taught in high schools and universities throughout America today. Of course, the parents in Florida ultimately had to yield to the "experts" who insisted that Ginsberg had "greatly influenced the development of modern American poetry," and deserved to be taught to their young.
Although this blurb is zeroed in on what's going on in the schools of America concerning homosexuality, the same nihilistic message of death is being huckstered to the citizens of that once great land by their media, their politicians, and their corporate "captains of commerce and industry." Even the majority of their churches have not been able to withstand the conspiratorial onslaught against the Helleno-Christian values that created America and made her the bastion of liberty and decency she was until not so very long ago. Those who still believe, even at this late date, that all of this is simply the way things are naturally developing are either incredibly naive, or, as we say in Greece, hiding behind their finger.
To give us a hint as to what such people described above have in mind for America's children, take a glance at the revealing vision of the future made by the Boston-based Gay Community News in its February 1987 issue: "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. ... Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."
THE DWINDLING LIGHT OF HELLENISM
The Portland Public Schools' "Baseline Essays" tell us that the Greek philosophers "fell at the feet of the Egyptians" in order to learn from them.
WILHELM ROEPKE MEANS "CONTRA GRAMSCI." At last the work of one of the most important economists of the past century is beginning to get the recognition it deserves. Roepke (1899 - 1966) was forced to leave Nazi Germany because he was vehemently opposed to Hitler's policy of concentrating power in a centralized and oppressive bureaucracy. He had no confidence in any system which collectivized authority, whether that be socialism, communism, or group-think decision-making of any kind, including capitalism. Against this "anthill" syndrome, he championed local institutions, small towns, rural and local communities, family, church and neighborhoods.
His market principles -- like E. F Schumacher's (author of Small is Beautiful) -- are grounded in the theory that "the market flourishes best when it is protected by tradition and local prejudice against the predations of the State and Big Business."
This thinking stands in total opposition to Antonio Gramsci's dictum that only by undermining and ultimately dominating their institutions, and by ridiculing and destroying their traditions and faith, can the masses be led to the collectivist/Marxist "paradise" of the future. Of course, such Gramscian and Marxist mental masturbation has brought rampage and ruin wherever the people have been forced to live under its idiocies. Whereas, in the case of Roepke the opposite is true. When he returned to Germany after the war he became the driving force behind that country's postwar economic miracle.
WILHELM ROEPKE'S WISDOM. Excerpts from the writings about or by the man we here at TGR refer to as "the Samuel Johnson of Economics." Writings devoid of the pompous dictates and latitudinarian orthodoxies of the "usual suspects" of guileful economists with an agenda inspired by a self-serving worldview, a deluded self-aggrandizement, and a misapprehension of reality. The fact that what Roepke espouses has been tested and proven carries no weight with such people. These are the kind of 3rd raters Edmund Burke was referring to when he lambasted the ersatz "progressives" of his time "... who have cold hearts and [a] muddy understanding" of human nature. People whose motto should be: "Don't confuse us with the facts." Well, the "facts" show that were Roepke's economic theories to become policy, the world would be a better, safer, and more humane place by far.
YUGOSLAVIA taught us that there is no such thing as a multicultural nation. Certainly what has made the United States a great nation is its cultural heritage. The talents which immigrants brought to America from various cultures blossomed in the context of our [Helleno-Christian] culture. We are a product of Western civilization and Christianity, both of which evolved in Europe [from Hellenic roots]. Our own derivation of this civilization emphasizes individual rights and responsibility, strong family bonds, limited representative government, religion separated from state, a strong sense of community, free enterprise, private property, the rule of law and reason, and a common language with which we communicate this cultural heritage. To be an American citizen (or, as an immigrant, to aspire to be one) is to join these cultural bonds, not import alternatives. The only real alternative is the eventual dissolution of America -- which if history is any guide, will likely occur under conditions of savage hostility. From David Hartman. "Reflections on a Texan's visit to Bosnia." January 1999.
Academic Mismatch I Walter E. Williams Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Which serves the interests of the black community better: a black student admitted to a top-tier law school, such as Harvard, Stanford or Yale, and winds up in the bottom 10 percent of his class, flunks out, or cannot pass the bar examination, or a black student admitted to a far less prestigious law school, performs just as well as his white peers, graduates and passes the bar? I, and hopefully any other American, would say that doing well and graduating from a less prestigious law school is preferable to doing poorly and flunking out of a prestigious one.
Professor Gail Heriot, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights commissioner and member of the University of San Diego law faculty, addresses academic mismatch in her article "Affirmative Action in American Law Schools," in The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues (2008). Citing UCLA law professor Richard Sander's research, Professor Heriot says that at elite law schools 52 percent of black students had first-year grades that put them in the bottom 10 percent of their class as opposed to 7 percent white students. Black students had a higher failing and dropout rate, 19 percent compared to 8 percent for white students. Only 45 percent of blacks passed the bar exam on their first try compared with 78 percent of whites. Even after multiple attempts, only 57 percent of blacks succeeded in passing the bar.
Professor Heriot points out that this tragedy is reversed when black and white law students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school. They earn about the same grades. When these students with the same grades from the same-tier school took the bar examination, they passed at the same rate.
In the name of affirmative action, diversity and multiculturalism, black students are being admitted to law schools where their academic credentials are far lower than whites. The LSAT, which ranges from 120 to 180, is an admissions test for most law schools. According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, the mean LSAT score at Harvard, Stanford and Yale law schools was 170. In 2004, nationally only .03 percent of blacks scored that high compared to 3.1 percent of whites. Overall the mean LSAT score for blacks is 142; for whites it's 152. Many blacks admitted to top-tier law schools are brought into a highly competitive environment where the chances for success are quite remote. In order for second- and third-tier law schools to have what they see as their quota of black students, they must in turn lower their admission standards. As a result, those black students wind up in the bottom of their class. It is truly a vicious, mean agenda, where black students, who would be successes at a second- or third-tier law school, have been recruited and admitted to the highly competitive environment of first-tier schools in the name of diversity and turned into failures.
Think of it this way. Suppose you asked, "Williams, would you teach me how to box?" I say yes and the first matchup I arrange for you is against Lennox Lewis. You might have the potential to ultimately be an excellent boxer, but you're going to get your brains beaten out before you learn how to bob and weave. It's the same with any student -- black or white. He is less likely to succeed if he is placed in an academic environment where his credentials don't begin to match those of his peers. He is likely to do much better in a slower paced, less competitive environment where he might receive more personal help.
I have frequently made this argument only to be asked: If top-tier colleges don't have racially different admissions policies, how are they going to have enough black students? My response is that's their problem. Black people can't afford to have our youngsters turned into failures so that in the name of diversity race hustlers and white liberals can feel better.
Academic Mismatch II Walter E. Williams Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Last week's column demonstrated the harm, suffered by black students, that results from law school race-based admission policies. The bottom line was that black students who might have done well at lower-tier law schools were recruited to more highly competitive law schools and turned into failures. One might be tempted to place the full blame for such callousness on deans of law schools, but the true villain is the American Bar Association.
The American Bar Association is the accreditation agency for all law schools. If a law school has not been accredited by the ABA, it is ineligible for federal funding; its students are ineligible for student loans; most states do not allow graduates of a non-ABA-accredited law school to sit for the bar examination. As Professor Gail Heriot says in her article "Affirmative Action in American Law Schools," in the Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues (2008), "A law school that is not in the good graces of the ABA is thus not a law school at all."
George Mason University Law School's experience provides an excellent example of ABA abuse. In 2004, the ABA summoned the university president and the law school dean before its Accreditation Committee and threatened the institution with revocation of its accreditation for its supposed lack of diversity. Shivering in their boots, the GMU administration reported a diversity improvement since the ABA's site visit in 2000. Their entering class of 2003 was 17 percent minority and their 2004 class was 19 percent minority and they had appointed a diversity czar. Despite these efforts, the ABA was not satisfied. They complained that of the 99 minority students admitted in 2003, only 23 were black, and of the 111 minorities admitted in 2004, still only 23 were black, even though, in 2004, 63 black students had been offered admission.
Virginia has two other major public law schools, College of William & Mary and the University of Virginia. They did not win the ire of the ABA because unlike GMU, they practiced a racially discriminatory admissions policy. The Center for Equal Opportunity monitors racially discriminatory college policy. Their publication, "Racial and Ethnic Preferences at the Three Virginia Public Law Schools," reported that at the University of Virginia, a student with a LSAT score of 160 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.25 had a 96 percent chance of admission if he or she was black, but only a 3 percent chance of admission if white. At William & Mary, a black with a LSAT score of 155 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 had a 92 percent chance of being admitted while a white with the same credentials had a 3 percent chance of admission. At GMU, not having racist policies, the chances for admission were roughly the same. Blacks with a LSAT of 155 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 had a 53 percent chance of admission while similar whites had a 50 percent chance.
The bullying practices of the ABA are truly a wicked, disgusting perversion. George Mason University Law School, which does not practice racially discriminatory admissions policy, is brought on the carpet by the ABA whilst University of Virginia and William & Mary, which have racially discriminatory admissions policies, have little problem. The sad fact of the matter is the ABA holds enormous life and death power over law schools and they must cave in to ABA demands or else.
Several years ago, I taught "Economic Foundations of Legal Studies" at George Mason University Law School. I have attended many of their lecture series and social functions. As such I can attest to the high quality and moral stature of their faculty and administration. It pains me to see my very distinguished colleagues being forced to cave in to the racist demands of the American Bar Association.
The High Cost of Racial Hype Thomas Sowell Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sometimes you don't know when you are lucky. Certainly I did not consider myself lucky when I left home at seventeen and discovered the hard way that there was no great demand for a black teenage dropout with no experience and no skill.
In retrospect, however, those days of struggling to earn money to pay the room rent and buy food left little time or energy for navel-gazing over things like "identity."
All this came back to me recently when I saw a font-page story about middle-class blacks worrying about their racial identity. There, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, was a picture of a black teenager whose mother was fixing his bow tie as he was getting dressed in a tuxedo, in preparation for a cotillion.
I never had the problem of wearing a tuxedo to a cotillion, so it was hard for me to empathize with their angst.
When I was that kid's age, I had real problems that taught me real lessons to remember when times got better, not navel-gazing problems that can distract you from reality for a lifetime.
Apparently there are middle-class blacks who spend a lot of time and energy worrying about losing their roots and losing touch with their black brothers back in the 'hood.
In one sense, it is good that there are people who think about others less fortunate than themselves. That's fine but, like most good things, it can be carried to the point where it is both ridiculous and counterproductive for all concerned.
In a world where an absolute majority of black children are born and raised in fatherless homes, where most black kids never finish high school and where the murder rate among blacks is several times the national average, surely there must be more urgent priorities than preserving a lifestyle and an identity.
During decades of researching racial and ethnic groups in countries around the world-- with special attention to those who began in poverty and then rose to prosperity-- I have yet to find one so preoccupied with tribalistic identity as to want to maintain solidarity with all members of their group, regardless of what they do or how they do it.
Any group that rises has to have norms, and that means repudiating those who violate those norms, if you are serious. Blind tribalism means letting the lowest common denominator determine the norms and the fate of the whole group.
There was a time when most blacks, like most of the Irish or the Jews, understood this common sense. But that was before the romanticizing of identity took over, beginning in the 1960s.
Back in 19th century America, the Catholic Church took on the task of changing the behavior of the poverty-stricken Irish immigrants, in order to prepare them to rise in American society. As this transformation succeeded, employers' signs that said "No Irish Need Apply" began to disappear in the 20th century.
The Jewish community likewise made many efforts to change the behavior of immigrants from Eastern Europe, to enable them to better fit into American society-- and to rise in that society.
The Urban League and other black uplift groups made similar efforts to prepare their fellow blacks to rise in American society. In fact, those efforts began to pay off in dramatic reductions in poverty among blacks, even before the civil rights laws of the 1960s.
The unanswered question is why an approach with a proven track record, not only in American society but in various other countries around the world, has been superseded by a philosophy of tribal identity over-riding issues of behavior and performance.
Part of the problem is the "multicultural" ideology that says all cultures are equally valid. It is hard even to know what that means, much less take it seriously as a guide to living in the real world.
Will time and energy spent on rap music and wearing low-riding baggy pants like guys in prison-- as badges of identity-- provide as good a future for young people as learning math, computers and the English language?
Romantic self-indulgence and self-deception are things that some people can afford when they reach the point where they can afford identity angst. But millions of other people will remain mired in poverty if they believe such notions.
Mental Chains and Civil War La Shawn Barber Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves. -- Harriet Tubman
The physical chains of American slavery may be broken, but the mental chains are still there. That's the message of filmmaker Janks Morton's 84-minute documentary, What Black Men Think.
Stereotypes and myths perpetuated by the government, the media, and so-called black leadership about black men fuel an "undeclared civil war" between black men and women, according to Morton. The film features man-on-the-street interviews, interspersed with commentary from conservative and moderate black writers like Shelby Steele, actor Joseph C. Phillips, Jesse L. Peterson, John McWhorter, Armstrong Williams, FOX News analyst Juan Williams, former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele, Mychal Massie, and Earl Ofari Hutchinson.
Morton was inspired to make the documentary after hearing an alarming and well-known statistic. While watching a C-SPAN debate between Juan Williams and professor and author Michael Eric Dyson, he heard Williams say that 70 percent of black babies were born out of wedlock. Morton said he didn't believe him until he looked it up.
But Morton found that other statistics, just as alarming, were misleading. For instance, the Justice Policy Institute released a study in 2002 that became big news. According to the study, there were more black men in prison than in college. Morton dug deeper and found that there were 805,000 black men in college and 757,000 in prison that year. But Morton believed the more relevant statistic was how many black men of college age were in prison. He looked at the numbers for 2005 and found there were 473,000 black men between the ages of 18 and 24 in college and 106,000 in prison.
What Black Men Think also attempts to deflate the hype surrounding interracial marriage. What percentage of black men marry white women? Some people interviewed guessed as high as 30 percent, but the actual figure is 5.3 percent. With the government's own statistics, Morton tackles other misperceptions and reveals the truth about the percentage of black men who graduate from high school, infect black women with HIV because of "down low" behavior, and pay child support.
Pop quiz: What's the #1 killer of blacks? If you guessed heart disease or AIDS, you're wrong. It's abortion: 363,024 black babies were slaughtered in the womb in 2005. Although black women are roughly 13 percent of the female population in the United States, they account for over a third of all abortions. Why isn't this widely reported in the media? (Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is briefly mentioned in the film. Read about The Negro Project below.)
While Morton acknowledges serious problems in the black community, from the glorification of gangster rap to high illegitimacy and crime rates, the documentary provides a means to open a dialogue between black men and women and to urge blacks to question what they read and hear, especially from so-called black leaders (including the NAACP).
A recurring theme throughout the documentary is turning to self to solve problems and not to the government. Morton and others discuss how the gains of the civil rights movement were squandered when blacks became conditioned to rely on the government rather than on themselves, the way they had to during Jim Crow. Some of those interviewed pointed to the free love, if-it-feels-good-go-for-it era of the late 1960s, which had a devastating impact on the black community. The most urgent problem today is the collapse of the family, not racism.
Given the heavy representation of black conservative commentators in the film, no doubt Morton has been accused of catering to blame-the-victim views. But if a thing is true, it's true no matter who says it. What Black Men Think has the potential to inspire people to do their own thinking and question the status quo.
Change the way people think, and things will never be the same. ---
Marching for life and against the "Negro Project" La Shawn Barber Monday, January 23, 2006
On January 8, 2006, I attended the Justice Sunday III conference at Greater Exodus Baptist Church, a predominantly black church in Philadelphia. Reverend Herbert Lusk preached passionately against abortion and called it murder. Today, I will attend the Blogs4Life Conference, then head to the National Mall for the March for Life rally. I hope to see a large number of the kind of people who nodded in agreement with Rev. Lusk's sermon.
Black women are three times as likely to have abortions as their white counterparts. Blacks and Hispanics are about 25 percent of the population, yet they account for 57 percent of all abortions. Aside from the fact that abortion is murder, there are two very important reasons why black people should be represented in great numbers at the March for Life rally:
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was the ultimate white supremacist
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America makes a futile effort to deny that its founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Eugenics is a pseudo-science that claims some races are genetically superior and more fit to survive than others. As a eugenicist, Sanger's goals were to discourage the "unfit" and "inferior" from reproducing. In her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, she called for segregation of "morons, misfits, and the maladjusted" and sterilization of "genetically inferior races."
Can you guess which race in particular she considered genetically inferior?
Sanger even suggested that the federal government pay "obviously unfit parents" not to have children and advocated limiting and discouraging "overfertility of the mentally and physically defective."
In 1916, Sanger founded the Birth Control League, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. She appointed a man named Lothrop Stoddard, a Nazi sympathizer, fellow eugenicist and author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy to the Board of Directors. At some point, after Adolph Hitler's atrocities against the Jews became known, Sanger changed the league's name to Planned Parenthood, because "birth control" was too closely associated with eugenics.
More controversial is Sanger's "Negro Project," devised in 1939. The eugenicist set out to implicate black ministers and doctors in her efforts to spread her message of contraception, sterilization, and abortion in the black community. "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members," she wrote.
People in poorer areas, particularly the South, were producing "alarmingly more than their share" of babies. Sanger was able to enlist black men such as W.E.B. Dubois and Dr. Adam Clayton Powell (a minister) to her cause. Even Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a part to play. In 1966, he received an award from Planned Parenthood, writing, "There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."
Margaret Sanger's project worked better than she could have hoped. Not only do black women have abortions at higher rates, a solid 90 percent of black voters shamelessly cast ballots for the Democratic Party, an unabashed supporter of Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood targets minority women
Sanger would be very proud of what her modest Birth Control League has become.
The Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population figures from the 2000 Census:
"In nearly two-thirds (62.5 percent) of the comparisons, the communities with a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic had a higher percentage of blacks than the state did as a whole.
In Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio, the communities containing all of the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics had much higher black populations than their respective states, while Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming -- all of which have low black populations -- have none of the organization's abortion facilities.
Two states with high black populations -- Louisiana (32.5 percent) and Mississippi (36.3 percent) -- also have no Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, due in large part to the strength of pro-life forces in that part of the nation and state laws that restrict access to abortion, according to Jim Sedlak, executive director of STOPP International."
Even after her death, Sanger's Negro Project lives on. Black ministers and so-called civil rights organizations that support Planned Parenthood ensure that minority women remain targets. Carlton W. Veazey is a minister, supporter of Planned Parenthood, and president and CEO of an organization once called the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, now disguised as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
Veazey founded a program called the Black Church Initiative, purportedly in response to the high pregnancy rate among black teens. According to RCRC's web site, the initiative "encourages and assists African American clergy and laity in addressing teen childbearing, sexuality education, unintended pregnancies, and other reproductive health issues within the context of African American culture and religion."
For the first time in its 95-year history, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which once fought to protect black lives, took an official position in favor of abortion in 2004.
While black liberals and so-called men of God continue to align themselves with Margaret Sanger's "offspring," I intend to campaign for the protection of all unborn babies, no matter what race or genetic inheritance. ---
Digging Up Democratic Skeletons La Shawn Barber Thursday, February 07, 2008
[V]irtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat. -- Bruce Bartlett
Democrats, seen as the civil rights party, supported slavery, opposed civil rights legislation, instituted the "Black Codes," and created the Jim Crow system. The Republican Party, in contrast, was founded in opposition to slavery, and supported post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement-era legislation.
"All of the racism that we associate with [the southern] region of the country originated with and was enforced by elected Democrats," writes Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. In Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past, Bartlett goes deep into the history of the Democratic Party and attempts to set the record straight.
Bartlett discusses the motivations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to maintain slavery and how Andrew Johnson ("a Democrat his whole life") tried to block post-Civil War legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves. He includes obscure figures like Senator Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina, whose "consistent theme…was that black men had some sort of compulsion to mate with white women," and Senator Theodore Bilbo from Mississippi, whose "permanent resolution of the race problem" in 1938 was to send blacks back to Africa and/or create a 49th state for them "somewhere in the West."
Woodrow Wilson, a liberal who implemented progressive reforms while in office, also instituted racial segregation throughout the federal government. And Bartlett notes that Wilson's attorney general "did far more to repress free speech and political freedom" than Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican, ever attempted. But when was the last time Hollywood made a movie about A. Mitchell Palmer?
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a "reputation for being a progressive on the race issue," wasn't much better on civil rights. He appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. Republican Dwight Eisenhower, "conventionally portrayed as having done nothing for blacks during his eight years," passed civil rights bills in 1957 (the first since Reconstruction) and 1960. Eisenhower also sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Bartlett praises Democrat Harry Truman for signing an executive order establishing a presidential committee on civil rights, an unpopular move in the party, but spares none for President John F. Kennedy, who receives far more credit on civil rights than he deserves. Kennedy did nothing substantive on civil rights, contends Bartlett, and what he did do was largely symbolic as he tried to avoid antagonizing Southern Democrats. He credits President Lyndon B. Johnson for "finally repudiating both his own segregationist past and the Democratic Party's" in the wake of Kennedy's assassination.
And what about the so-called Southern strategy? Bartlett calls it a myth. There was no strategy "to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged." During his campaign in 1968, President Richard M. Nixon emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and picked Spiro Agnew as his vice president, a man reputed to be strong on civil rights.
The shift in Southern voting patterns from Democratic to Republican had to have been about race, right? According to Bartlett, economic changes in the South were the primary factor. During the Democrats' political reign, the South had been the poorest region. As the South's wealth increased, southerners became receptive to Republican messages of low taxes and small government.
People tend to forget that Nixon pushed to desegregate schools, denying federal aid to segregated school districts. "Just one month into his presidency," Bartlett writes, "any idea that Nixon was pursuing a Southern strategy had been thoroughly discredited."
Unfortunately, Nixon also implemented government race preferences.
Bartlett's meticulously researched Wrong on Race concludes with suggestions on how Republicans can reach out to black voters, including connecting on immigration policy and this stunner: getting behind the idea of slavery reparations. Bartlett tries to make the case on legal, public policy, and political grounds.
If reaching out to black voters has to involve reparations race pandering, don't bother. Despite that shocker at the end, Wrong on Race provides ammunition for Republicans fed up with being called racists. ---
Colorado Voters Will Choose Yes or No on Equality by La Shawn Barber October 01, 2008
Who would have thought in 2008, some 50 years after the country groaned under the strain of dismantling laws and practices that relegated blacks to second class citizenship, the government still would be discriminating against people on the basis of race?
Alive and well is the practice of assessing black job applicants, contract bidders, and prospective college students under standards lower than those used to assess others, all in the name of diversity. Euphemistically known as affirmative action, this practice is odious enough when done in the private sector. But when the government does it, it's time to act.
Ward Connerly, a former University of California Regent, embarked on a mission in 1995 to put government out of the skin color business through state ballot initiatives. Californians voted against preferences in government hiring, contracting, and admissions by 54 percent in 1996. So did 58.3 percent of voters in Washington state in 1998 and 58 percent of Michigan voters in 2006.
The campaigns continue. In March, the Colorado Secretary of State determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CoCRI) had received enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. On November 4, 2008, the people of Colorado will vote on whether their state government may continue preferring members of one group over another based on race and sex.
Amendment 46 would amend the state constitution to read: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education."
Various groups tried to stop the campaign. One group claimed CoCRI signature gatherers duped people into signing a petition to keep preferences. Last month, an administrative law judge threw out those claims.
CoCRI director Jessica Peck Corry said, "Given the lack of evidence presented by our opposition, the court did the right thing by dismissing all of the complaints. We will continue to fight with vigor any and all false allegations against Amendment 46."
Although the terms "affirmative action" and "race preferences" are used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an executive order mandating federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants were treated equally "without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." They were encouraged to cast a wider recruitment net to include in the hiring pool qualified minorities who historically had been excluded. That, and only that, is affirmative action.
The concept as we know it today evolved from a policy set forth by President Richard M. Nixon. In 1971, he authorized the Department of Labor to set specific goals and timetables to correct the "underutilization" of blacks by federal contractors. A quota by any other name…
Today, Republicans are demonized for opposing race preferences, but it was a Republican who got the ball rolling in the first place. Politics aside, Americans can disagree about affirmative action and whether it's still needed in 2008, but there should be no disagreement about government practices and policies that prefer one person over another based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
An Elegy for American Home. . . and American Immigrants Mary Grabar September 28, 2008
The final issue of American Home, the oldest Slovenian newspaper in the world arrived in my mailbox last month. The masthead, as always, featured the Statue of Liberty and the slogan, "American in Spirit; Foreign in Language Only." It proudly announced, "Serving American Slovenians for 110 years." The inversion is deliberate: those of Slovenian heritage living in the United States are American first.
The publishers' statement under the American flag printed in red, white, and blue specially for the occasion, described the mission of the newspaper: "Ameriska Domovina has tried to acclimate persons of Slovenian nationality into American culture, and relate the customs of our Slovenian heritage to second and third generation readers, while championing the cause of an independent Slovenia, and keep readers informed of Slovenian activities throughout the world." It goes the way of other similar newspapers serving central and eastern European communities made up of refugees from the dictatorships of Stalin, Tito, and Hitler.
The newspaper, some years ago, succumbed to a half-English and half-Slovenian format, for those like me, who did not have access to schools to learn to read and write in their mother tongue. In the few years that I have subscribed, I have come to appreciate its notices of activities in the city that includes the largest number of Slovenians in the country. I will miss learning about how Slovenian children learned to be good before the arrival of Saint Nicholas or else expect a visit by the devils. I will miss the corny jokes and recipes, and bragging about American-Slovenians' accomplishments, like earning advanced degrees, getting academic distinctions, serving in public office and the military, and performing in recitals. I will miss reading about the various activities, camps, gatherings, polka masses, singing festivals, children's performances in native costume -- coordinated by volunteer efforts, without a cent of tax money. The newspaper, too, was a "grass roots, independent, and unencumbered newspaper," according to publishers Jim and Madeline Debevec's parting statement.
The American Home's pages exposed me to the history of Slovenia, a tiny country with a distinct culture and language, but one that did not gain political independence until 1991. It had been subject to rule by various monarchies, invasions by Muslims, and finally the communist dictator Josip Broz Tito. Although viewed as benevolent by many, Tito was responsible for murdering thousands of Slovenians, many of them civilians. This half-educated man, rising from the status of machine "worker" to war hero, thought that because of his education largely in communist ideology, he knew what should be done to make the world "as it should be." As is so typical of his kind, he became far more ruthless, acquisitive, and egotistical than any of the monarchs he and his comrades had condemned.
Although I sat in classrooms with children of Ukrainian and Polish immigrants, the history of our people was not told in our public schools in Rochester, New York. While we were treated to the gruesome footage from Hitler's concentration camps, almost nothing was said about the millions--including kin of the students sitting right there in class--killed under Stalin and other communist tyrants. But these regimes, allies in the early part of the war, share the same socialist ideology.
So when you're Slovenian, or another "invisible immigrant," you have to learn the history on your own.
In addition to news about various ethnic activities, the American Home led me to contacts in Cleveland, who told me about books about my country. I bought Joze Rant's The Slovenian Exodus of 1945. He begins by answering the question posed by offspring of Slovenian refugees of 1945 about why their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents had to leave. The Nazis invaded in 1941, seeing Slavs as just another group to be subjugated. The communist Partisans exploited the situation and conducted a "continuous and savage murder spree" on Slovenians. Resistance to Partisan terrorism arose as self-defense in the form of Village Guards. The first mass murders of Slovenians took place in 1943, after Italy's surrender. This is the way Rant describes it:
"The Allies ordered the Italian Army to hand over all its weapons and equipment to the Partisan forces. Because rumors were circulating at the time that the Allies were going to land on the Slovenian coastline and break across Slovenia into Central Europe, the anticommunist forces (Village Guards and Chetniks) were making preparations to aid the Allies in this venture according to their means. The communist Partisans however had already in advance made an agreement with the Germans to jointly resist any Allied invasion. The Village Guards found themselves in a very unfavorable position face to face with the Partisan forces that were now armed with Italian heavy weaponry. The Partisan forces en masse did not aim their weapons at the Germans [as the Western world was made to believe], but on the contrary at fellow Slovenians, the Village Guards and the Chetniks."
Weaponless, and then with Ljubljana Province under German occupation, the Slovenian anticommunists were left "with only two choices: either join the communists. . . or accept weapons from the occupier to be able to defend themselves."
The Home Guard arose from the Village Guards. In the waning days, they fled to Austria. In 1945, members and their families were told by the British that they were leaving their refugee camps to go to Italy. But once on the train, they were locked in the cars--and led to their slaughter by Tito's forces at Cveski Rog. This fact, of course, was buried under Tito's educational dictatorship. Monuments to the Partisans still stand in Slovenia, with a marble monstrosity in the middle of downtown Murska Sobota, my birthplace.
One of the Home Guards, a woman named Irena, was responsible for my family getting here after she sponsored my uncle, who then sponsored us in 1959.
Many of these displaced persons immigrated to Cleveland where a Slovenian community was already well established. But Cleveland, like many Midwestern cities is being transformed. Its immigrant communities were destroyed by rioters at the instigation of those who thought idealistically, as Barack Obama thinks he does, that they know how the world "should be" (quotation from his wife's speeches). Mosques are replacing Catholic churches. The useful idiots see this as a good thing, as an example of "diversity."
Here, in Atlanta, a quarter-mile from my house, I nearly hit a late model Mercedes that had edged out too far from the gas station. A woman with a full black burka, with only slits for the eyes, sat behind the wheel.
I contrast this image of the burka-clad Mercedes driver with my parents and immigrants I knew in Rochester, New York, in the 1960s. Many, like my parents, did not own cars and walked to church and the grocery store, and took the bus to work. The photos of our early years in the United States show family gatherings with my father and uncle dressed in suits and ties; my aunt and mother in dresses, heels, and hose; the kids in their Sunday best.
But today's immigrants insist that America change for them. As I walk through the Middle Eastern Studies department at one of the colleges where I teach, doors plastered with Arabic script and anti "Iraq invasion" posters greet me. I hear the Muslim call to prayer sounded campus wide, honoring Ramadan. Entering freshmen think nothing unusual about this. Workshops on "Understanding Islam" have proliferated since 9/11 and their textbooks, according to a study by the American Textbook Council, overwhelmingly describe the religion as benevolent and peace-loving -- in contrast to Judaism and Christianity. Students tend to see themselves as global citizens.
But some parts of the globe are emphasized more in their educations than others. Students can tell you about some polygamous African chief and the wonders of Islam, but little about Eastern or Central Europe. But if we read books like Rant's, we will see that one of the first tasks of each occupying force in Slovenia -- German, Italian, and Hungarian -- was to instill its own curriculum, with its own language and ideological spin on history, in the classroom.
It's a sad statement that in the land of the free we need to circumvent our own schools. But we still have other means. Please join me in a new forum about the history of "silent immigrants" and our corrupt educational system. Visit my web page at www.marygrabar.com and sign up to be on my list. ---
Supreme Court Justices Save Children from Educationists -- Finally By Mary Grabar 10 Jul 2007
When I went to see my childhood home in Rochester, New York, last Thanksgiving, I knew that the house would be smaller than I remembered. It is, indeed, tiny. As I drove the route I walked every day from Benjamin Franklin High School down Norton Street, down Jewel, to Beach Street, I wanted to weep at the wasteland the once working class neighborhood had become. Many of the houses, always plain and modest, but once maintained in neat yards, were boarded. My sanctuary, the Hudson Avenue branch of the public library, was closed. Otto's, at the corner of Conkey Avenue and Saranac Street, where we used to buy penny candy on the way home from #8 School, closed after the 1964 riots and follow-up outbreaks of violence. In 1974 I walked to Quality Bakery on Joseph Avenue and promised the Jewish owner I would memorize the price list for my interview. I got the job. The business is gone now, indistinguishable from the other boarded buildings.
As a twelve-year-old I had been petrified at the thought of attending Ben Franklin. My fears were borne out when I was locked into French class at the direction of the principal over the P.A. system. In the halls, stampeding students were breaking glass and beating up teachers. The school day atmosphere rippled with intimidation. I was "asked" for quarters at my locker. As I walked home, I was knocked on the head -- for carrying books. In the girls' bathroom I shrank back, as older girls sported "Black Power" buttons. I begged to go to a Catholic school.
Teachers gave up in the classroom, and became satisfied with keeping students in their seats, entertaining them with chin-ups in the door frame or holding rap sessions on free love as my social studies teacher did.
Recently, National Public Radio interviewed high school teachers who had been severely beaten by students. The focus was on "connecting with" and "respecting" students to prevent such life-threatening assaults in the future.
The Supreme Court's June 28 decision striking down racial quotas and forced busing demonstrates a return to sanity -- but after nearly forty years of harm done to schoolchildren and neighborhoods.
Benjamin Franklin had once been a good school, I have been told. But in the early 70s when I started attending it as a seventh-grader, it was a Darwinian jungle. The social experiment of busing, rather than enhancing the educational experience, ended up making a cynic of this A-student. It turned a once diverse blue collar neighborhood of immigrants, new and settled -- from Poland, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Germany, Italy -- Christian and Jewish -- into a blighted area.
I did go back to school, in my thirties, to earn a Ph.D. in English. But throughout my graduate school years I repeatedly heard about the need for "diversity" -- as I had through high school. An immigrant from Slovenia, I walked past posters advertising grants and scholarships, only to learn that they were not for me, even though I had had no scholarship fund set up, nor any encouragement by parents to go to college.
While black and white families may not have broken bread together routinely in their homes in the 1960s, they did live peacefully side by side in the neighborhoods around Clinton and Joseph Avenues. Were my and other parents prejudiced? Yes, they applied their ideas about gypsies to blacks, with my mother using the old story about gypsies kidnapping small children to keep me at home while she shopped at the second-hand stores. But my mother also spoke bitterly of the Italian foreladies who favored their own kind by passing on the easier, more lucrative bundles of suit parts to sew together in the piecework done at Bond's Clothing Factory.
I disagree with Spelman College President Beverly Daniel Tatum's assertion in the Atlanta paper recently that "the likelihood of having either a multiracial social network of acquaintances or at least one close interracial friendship is linked to the experience of attending racially mixed schools." I had no such "interracial friendship." But my Ukrainian best friend moved to the suburb of Irondequoit to go to a safer school. The lunchroom at my high school was markedly segregated. School buses and lunchrooms are still self-segregated.
The social engineers profited, however. They made careers with their theories of forced racial integration and new curriculums based on abstract notions of "diversity." My excuse for a social studies teacher went on to become a prominent union leader for teachers.
And Beverly Daniel Tatum is making the rounds of a publicity tour for her new book, "Can We Talk About Race? And Other Conversations in an Era of School Resegregation."
Cologne's Speech-Killing Politico's Reek of 'Fascism'
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Readers of my blog (dianawest.net) know that over this past week, as a maelstrom of buffeting economic crises has sucked the air out of the news atmosphere, I have been all-but-transfixed by events unfolding in the German city of Cologne. With the unabashed fascination of the rubbernecker, I have watched in horror, combing online foreign press reports and a few favorite blogs (Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugs), as local authorities yielded their charge of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly -- indeed, yielded civic space and civic peace -- to a lawless band of violent leftists, who, in their weekend stint of mob rule, successfully prevented a political rally against the Islamization of Europe from taking place.
What's more, these same authorities, including the mayor of this fourth-largest German city (about 1 million people), yielded to the mob happily and with much self-congratulation. Indeed, Cologne Mayor Fritz Schramma called the episode "a victory for the city of Cologne and a victory by the democratic forces of the city."
Schramma may well count squelching peaceful political discourse with a violent mob as a victory for his city, but there is nothing "democratic" about it, or about the "forces" responsible. This twisting, weasel-use of language, however, is only one example of the campaign of disinformation waged against reality in Cologne this past weekend.
In brief, elected officials from several different countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy), politicians who campaign and win elections on the politically incorrect issue of resistance to the spread of Islamic law (Sharia), were invited to speak in Cologne.
Why Cologne? After a long and contentious battle, the city council last month narrowly approved the construction of a giant mosque complex funded by a group called the Turkish-Islamic Union to serve some portion of the city's 120,000 Muslims. While the American take on any house of worship going up is generally one of approval based on a straightforward belief in freedom of religion, in Europe, given the heavy influx of Islamic populations, there is a political and legal dimension to such mosque construction that we just don't recognize here. For example, Germany's Muslim population is largely Turkish; and it is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who is infamous for having said in 1998, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." Such a declaration of, well, religious war from someone who is now a head of state adds the threat of conquest to any serious mosque debate.
And that's not all. Earlier this year in Cologne, Erdogan declared before 20,000 cheering Turkish expatriates that "assimilation is a crime against humanity." On that same trip to Germany, the Turkish leader also proposed the German formation of Turkish-language schools. What's going on here? If Turkish assimilation is out, is Turkish colonization in? Isn't it the duty of politicians to debate these and other transformational questions within the political process? As a crossroads of Islam and Europe, as a frontline in the colonization of Europe, Cologne becomes the logical meeting-place for such a debate.
But it wasn't to be, not in "democratic" Cologne. As some 1,500 Europeans prepared to assemble to listen to the political opponents of Islamization make speeches last weekend, many more thousands of counter-demonstrators converged on the city specifically to deny rally supporters their right to assemble, and the politicians' right to speak. And yes, by whatever means necessary.
The thugs among the counter-demonstrators mounted a rock-and-bottle attack that shattered windows on a river boat plying the Rhine where the politicians attempted to hold a pre-rally meeting. They blocked urban trains in order to keep rally participants away. They ringed the city center with barricades (tolerated by German police), hurled paint bombs, lit fires and launched violent attacks on some of the participants who managed to draw near the rally location. One would-be rally participant, a Jewish man, sent in an account of his ordeal to Gates of Vienna, writing: "I was wearing my kippah and readily identifiable as a Jew; however, they (the leftist counter-demonstrators) screamed at me 'Nazi Raus.'" He reported they also shoved him, spit on him, and called him a fascist pig. "I was pummeled in the head several times and then shoved to the ground where I was beaten and kicked with steel toe boots in plain sight of police who did nothing." He later discovered he had a broken rib.
And yet, the consensus narrative, dutifully repeated in the mainstream European media, is that it is the silenced and hounded politicians and their supporters who are the "fascists"; while it is the silencers and hounders who are the "anti-fascists."
Such lies and distortions are probably what help convince our own media to ignore such events altogether as just so much marginal "extremism" going on somewhere in Europe. Anyway, how does it affect us? Nothing like that is happening here, right?
Yes and no. As in Europe, huge mosque complexes are opening across the States -- one very recently in Boston and another in Atlanta. Do they portend the extension and entrenchment of Islamic law in the United States? One difference between the United States and Europe is that we don't have street thugs enforcing a code of silence on the subject. That's because of the other difference: We don't have any political parties willing, or even able to discuss it.
Peterson: The 'Scam' Against African Americans Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com Friday, June 25, 2004
Radio talk show host, author and syndicated columnist Larry Elder says critics of economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell owe them an apology and will someday offer it. That includes, presumably, black critics as well. All three men, who are prominent African-American thinkers, as well as talented political and economic analysts, believe that, in many ways, the black leadership in America has failed fellow blacks in a number of ways.
"For over 30 years, Thomas Sowell, currently with the Hoover Institution, and Walter Williams, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, led the charge against the 'victicrat' mindset," Elder writes. "Through decades of weekly columns, books, speeches and lectures before often-hostile crowds, they long argued that racism cannot be blamed for poverty, crime, illegitimacy and under-performing schools."
He adds, "Over 20 years ago, Sowell appeared on William F. Buckley Jr.'s PBS show, 'Firing Line,' and calmly dismantled the basis for affirmative action, arguing it immoral, divisive, and unconstitutional."
He goes on to note that both men, using facts and substantiated data, have proven the black middle class did not spring from racial set-asides or preferences or quotas, urban renewal programs, enterprise zones or welfare benefits. Racism, they point out persuasively, is bad for capitalism.
Yet black political, cultural and social leaders, virtually all of them lockstep Democrats, have used each of these "reasons" as excuses for continued black poverty, low education scores, high drop-out rates, illegitimacy and crime.
As prominent African-American leader, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, says it's all a "scam" -- an apt depiction and, not coincidentally, the title of a new book he's written laying out his case.
In "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America," Peterson argues against today's self-styled "civil rights" establishment in America, which has little to do with the heroes of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
He says the black community's leadership is corrupt, and has called on all African-Americans to rid themselves of the current crop of black leaders and regain control of their own destinies.
Among those Peterson skewers are the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
'Throw off the Oppression'
"It's time to throw off the oppression of the established black leadership and stand for the American ideals of freedom, personal responsibility, free enterprise and moral principles," writes Peterson, who is also the head of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, whose stated goal is "rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man."
Among his observations:
Government and corporate race programs are "a substitute for character."
Immorality is "totally out of control in our communities."
Black music, such as gangsta rap, "elevates the most degrading vices into virtues."
The call for slavery reparations is "absolutely shameful" because American blacks already "live in the most opportunity-rich country in human history." "Black Americans do not need the kind of self-appointed 'leaders' they currently have," he says. "By preaching race hatred and the cleverly packaged ideology of socialism, these leaders have convinced millions of blacks that 'white' America owes them special treatment. These leaders need to be unseated, removed, boycotted, bounced, dismissed, junked and jettisoned."
Peterson has, for years, lead an annual event against Jackson, in which he urges blacks to abandon the "leader."
Some White Blame
Peterson, in his book, also complains of "white cowardice," which he says hurts blacks as well.
As an example, he used an incident with former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., which cost him his leadership role.
In December 2002, Lott praised the late Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat presidential bid, which Thurmond lost but in which he did capture Lott's home state. The Dixiecrat had, like other Southern Democrats, adopted a segregationist platform.
Peterson predicted early in the controversy "that even if Trent Lott killed himself to make amends for his misstatement, this wouldn't be enough for the black racists and liberal crowd."
In a press release issued shortly after Lott's comments, Peterson said he accepted the Senate Republican's apology and said that it ended the matter, as far as he was concerned.
"We should judge people based on their hearts and actions, and unlike many of his detractors, Trent Lott has no history of being a racist," Peterson said in his statement.
But in his book, he points out that "whites have been so terrorized by the politically correct crowd that even when no racism is intended, a white person can find himself crucified by the professional racists."
In another example included in his book, Peterson recalled an incident in which a white aide to the newly elected black mayor of Washington, D.C., used the word "niggardly" instead of a synonym such as "stingy" to describe the city's tight budget spending.
"Instead of simply telling his critics to get a dictionary to learn the real definition of the word he had used, the man apologizes for his comment and resigned," Peterson writes.
In his trilogy, "Race and Culture," "Migrations and Cultures" and "Conquests and Cultures," Sowell traveled the world asking why some groups survive and thrive under the most adverse conditions while others disappear.
"His answer," Elder pointed out, was this: "People who possess cultural capital -- a reverence for education, strength in family, and self-reliance -- endure."
"Their reward?" Elder continued. "Former NAACP President Benjamin Hooks called people like Sowell and Williams 'a new breed of Uncle Tom ... some of the biggest liars the world ever saw.' Liars? For saying that the welfare state has done more to destabilize the black family than Jim Crow laws ever did?"
Still, today's Democrat-leaning black leaders continue to "promise solutions to the grievances and complaints of black Americans, but they fail to produce real answers or resolution," Peterson explained.
"If some blacks wonder why things don't improve despite this 'leadership,' they need to wake up to the fact that these leaders profit by creating and perpetrating hatred and animosity between the races," Peterson writes. "In fact, it is imperative for these leaders to continue creating problems even where none exist. If they don't, they're out of business."
Elder says after writing his own book, "The 10 Things You Can't Say in America," in which he tried to point out some of the same things regarding black problems today, he was avalanched with angry letters from blacks all around the country, most implying he was simply acting as a pawn of whites.
Elder and others point out that many of the nation's top newspapers have "obligatory" and "angry" black writers who harp on similar themes -- "the country screws blacks; banks refuse to lend them money; cops routinely brutalize blacks; the SAT is culturally biased; racist insurance companies practice red-lining," writes Elder.
Congressional Black Caucus
Perhaps nowhere is the fundamental Democrat position of exploiting African-American sentiments more powerful and embedded than in the House Congressional Black Caucus.
The very language used by the caucus, as well as its individual leaders and members, suggests exactly what Sowell, Williams, Elder and Peterson say exists: An implied national racism towards blacks, continued inequality, and constant downward economic and cultural pressure and opportunity.
The Caucus is headed by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. On its Web site bears a statement by Cummings: "We choose to stand up and speak out when others choose to sit down and remain silent. We are the voice for the voiceless. . ."
Who is choosing to remain silent? And about what? Who are the voiceless? Cummings doesn't answer these questions, but since he heads a "black" caucus in Congress, one is left to assume he means African-Americans.
There are more examples. In statements carried on the same site, the caucus:
Makes a point to mention it has been called the "conscience of the Congress," but goes on to call itself the "conscience of the country," as if the nation as a whole was still guilty of mistreating blacks.
Claims its members "work every day on behalf of the American people to achieve equality and justice," insinuating that "the American people" believe there is no equality or justice for blacks.
Says its "agenda is deliberately focused on what we believe are the most pressing issues facing our country," which it says includes -- but is not limited to -- "building wealth by creating new jobs and businesses; universal health care for every American; ensuring equity in the education of our children; strengthening and enforcing our civil rights laws; and providing both homeland and hometown security. Many of these "pressing issues" again imply -- when you measure them against the backdrop of a congressional "black" caucus -- they are inherently skewered against blacks, which is false.
Points out the White House and both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, but promises that, "in light of these obstacles, the Congressional Black Caucus will pursue a pro-active legislative, economic and social policy agenda that seeks to address the difficult policy challenges facing America." So the message is, the Republican Party is anathema to providing economic, cultural and social justice for African-Americans. Concludes Peterson, "Blacks with racist attitudes or chips on their shoulders are doomed to failure in the work world. Blacks who think all whites are their enemies are signing their own warrants of arrested development . . . We must reject the defeatist socialist policies that are routinely advocated by the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, and other socialist radicals."
In short, a new breed of black leaders is advocating a rejection of the Democratic Party because it has not only preyed upon African-Americans, but has abused their trust and loyalty for pure political gain.
Minister: Blacks' Loyalty to Democratic Party 'Unfounded' Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com Thursday, June 24, 2004 (Editor's Note: This is part one of a two-part series examining the relationship between black voters and the Democratic Party, why historically blacks have given almost blind loyalty to Democrats, why their support is unfounded, and how black leaders exploit their own people on behalf of Democrats.)
Few things in politics are certain, but one thing that has rung true for decades is this: Most blacks who vote consistently pull the lever for Democrats. Story Continues Below
But politics reflect the times, and the times, they are a-changin'. Increasingly, blacks are beginning to realize there is another truth about the ethnic group's loyalty to Democrats: It hasn't been a resounding success.
Still, in recent elections - and likely in the 2004 general elections - most blacks could be counted on to vote for Democrats.
Political demographers and analysts know this, and so do Democratic candidates -- so much so that black leaders like Kwesi Mfume, head of the NAACP, has complained recently that the Democratic Party, led by presumptive presidential nominee John Kerry, is taking the ethnic group for granted.
Former newspaper publisher and talk show host Rev. Wayne Perryman doesn't understand why blacks support Democrats so blindly.
In fact in his new book, "Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into the Blind Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats," Perryman points out a number of facts that should have turned African-Americans against Democrats long ago.
Instead, blacks largely shun Republican politicians, though historically the GOP has been much kinder to blacks as a whole.
Perryman says his book is a reflection of a question asked of him by "a group of inner-city young people who had an interest in their African-American heritage, history, religion and culture." That question was: "Why are most blacks in America Democrats?"
In a refreshing breath of honesty, Perryman doesn't offer up warm platitudes or tired clichés. Instead, he prods readers to "answer that question yourself."
But to help all Americans in their journey to discover the truth, the former publisher and talk host provides some examples that not only bear repeating, but should be food for thought for all African-Americans. He writes:
"For 150 years blacks were victims of terrorist attacks by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, including lynchings, beatings, rapes and mutilations" (Editor's note: One of the most widely known Democratic ex-Klansman is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia);
"On the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it; the Republicans gave their lives to ban it;"
Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn't fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket to the White House." History as Proof
Perryman says he researched American history spanning 1832 to 2002 to arrive at his conclusion that Democrats are not real friends or allies of blacks.
". . . I found two familiar strains running through the cultural development of the American Black: the positive and powerful role of Christianity and the little-known and debilitating role of the Democrats -- from slavery through the Clinton administration," he writes.
He also notes current black leaders are also not serving the community well. "These conclusions may not be popular, but they are truthful and, as the Bible says, 'You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.'"
Other black pundits and leaders have also noted that historically, Democrats employ a double standard when it comes to race relations and politics.
Writing in his syndicated column, radio talk show host Armstrong Williams pondered why Democrats were outraged when Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., former Senate majority leader, made an off-handed comment about former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond, but didn't utter a word when Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., praised former Klansman colleague Byrd recently.
"There is no one I admire more, there is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter" than Byrd, Dodd said.
Williams wrote, "For obvious reasons, Dodd neglected to mention that Byrd is a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor did Dodd dwell on the fact that Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or that Byrd broadcast his racial insensitivity by using the N-word during a 2001 appearance on Fox News."
The columnist and talk host went on to note Dodd praised Byrd as a man who "would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation. ... "
"Really? A former Klansman would have been great during the Civil War? Great for whom? I'm not aware of many Klansmen who fought to free the slaves, or to uphold the union, or to protect those basic rights we associate with happiness," Williams wrote, concluding: "It would be nice if the party that demanded Sen. Lott's ouster for praising a former segregationist could be equally outraged when one of their own praises a former Klansman. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to end their double standard on race."
Civil Rights, Poverty and Welfare
Former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., once called the Democrats' chosen black leader Jesse Jackson and his ilk "race-hustling poverty pimps" for their continual support of Democrat-leftist policies that keep blacks on the government's dole.
Other pundits and analysts have also noted that Democrats who say they are the champions of black civil rights have really only led blacks down a road of poverty.
Syndicated columnist Robert Tracinski says liberal orthodoxy espoused by Democrats has failed, and the "ideological momentum has shifted to the right." He says the gauntlet of conservatism has been picked up by "new black intellectuals" like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and John McWhorter.
Larry Elder, a noted African-American author, talk show host and columnist, says critics of Williams and Sowell will someday apologize to them because for years they have correctly characterized the damage caused to blacks by dependency on Democrats.
For more than three decades, Elder writes, Sowell and Williams have "led the charge against the 'victicrat' mindset."
"Through decades of weekly columns, books, speeches and lectures before often-hostile crowds, they long argued that racism cannot be blamed for poverty, crime, illegitimacy and under-performing schools," Elder said in a Jan. 4, 2001 column.
Many of these problems, Elder and other black scholars and pundits note, began under the tutelage of Democratic presidents and congresses.
For example, it was President Lyndon B. Johnson whose "war on poverty" and "Great Society" programs led to today's massive welfare system, which author Perryman and others argue has kept blacks in poverty, in poor neighborhoods with bad schools, and left them with few options to improve themselves.
"Inner-city blacks, who have given their vote to the Democrats for the past forty years, are left wondering what that party has done to remedy the still-prevalent problems within their community," Perryman writes.
He makes a good case. According to government statistics, for example, blacks prospered under the late President Ronald Reagan, though most Americans wouldn't know that, listening to the mainstream media.
"Some blacks in D.C. say he was a 'racist' and see him as the cause for a lot of suffering in the '80s," charged a June 10 headline on Newsday's op-ed pages.
Adds CNN correspondent Adaora Udoji, in an interview with black leader Rev. Jesse Jackson: "As he left office, a Lou Harris poll found nearly 80 percent of blacks considered his administration oppressive."
Jackson readily agreed, saying Reagan's relationship with blacks was "very hostile."
Earlier, Jackson said Reagan "believed in states' rights and Jefferson Davis" while he believes "in the Union and Abraham Lincoln."
But the facts prove otherwise. "Under Reagan, black adult unemployment fell faster than did white unemployment," noted Larry Elder in a 1999 op-ed for the Ethnic News Watch. "Black teenage unemployment fell faster than did white teenage unemployment. And blacks started businesses at a rate faster than that of whites."
"In 1981," Elder continued, "the nation's poverty rate stood at 14 percent. It declined to 11.6 percent in 1988, Reagan's last year in office."
U.S. Census Bureau statistics concur. "A set of minority economic profiles released by the Census Bureau show that black households had a median income of $19,758 at the time of the 1990 census, up 84% from 1980," The Associated Press noted in 1992. "During that period, white median household incomes climbed 84 percent."
The New York Times also reported on the 1990 Census figures indicating blacks did better economically during the Reagan 80s.
High school graduation rates also increased, records indicate.
Dems = Racism
Perryman argues that Democrats are quick to demand Republicans believed to be guilty of racism apologize, but so far have refused to do so for their party's own racist past.
"The Democratic Party has never offered an apology for their racist legislative practices or their terrorist and lethal tactics -- both initiated by members of their party and their Klan supporters," he writes.
Speaking of Lincoln, Perryman also notes that some "key traditional black colleges" -- such as Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Mo., which was founded in 1865 for Abraham Lincoln -- are named after noted white Republicans who funded and supported them, even as "Democrats were trying to destroy them."
Perryman notes the nation's premier black civil rights organization -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) -- was "founded and financed by three white persons" who rose up in opposition of the Democrats' "racist practices and the lynchings of blacks."
"History reveals the Republican Party has a far more impressive track record in Civil Rights legislation than the Democratic Party," Perryman says.
Next in Part II: Black leaders exploit black Americans
The Great Reparations Scam Phil Brennan Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2002
My Irish ancestors fled Ireland after 700 years of brutality and persecution under British rule. Shouldn't Irish-Americans be demanding reparations from the Brits? Aren't all of us refugees from British tyranny entitled to be compensated for hundreds of years of mistreatment, and for being driven out of our homeland?
I mean, after all, if some so-called black leaders think African-Americans are entitled to a payoff from Uncle Sam for their ancestors' enslavement, why shouldn't Irish-Americans make similar demands of Mr. John Bull for his egregious exploitation of our glorious and sainted race?
Let me tell you why we shouldn't.
To begin with, none of my fellow Irish-Americans suffered at the hands of the Brits (except in my case, where certain British editors endeavored to make my life miserable, even trying to force me to drink warm beer and iceless highballs ("Drink yer beer before it gets cold.").
Moreover, if it hadn't been for my ancestors' flight from British tyranny, neither I nor a number of generations of my forebears would have had the blessing of living and prospering in this land of the free and home of the brave. Thank you, John Bull!
The same thing can be said for African-Americans. As a black friend of mine in Washington told me years ago, "I thank God for slavery - if it hadn't been for that I'd be living in a hut in Africa and probably going hungry all the time." No other blacks, anywhere in the world, live as well as today's African-Americans, and the idea of forcing me and all U.S. taxpayers, black and white, to cough up trillions of dollars in reparations for slavery borders on the insane.
To begin with, I never owned a slave. Not one. Neither did my father nor his father. My maternal great-grandfather, Patrick Carlin, was wounded at Bull Run fighting in the Irish Brigade to free the slaves, and he never recovered from his wounds, eventually dying from them 10 years after the Civil War.
That's my family's reparation payment. Hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans can make the same claim on behalf of ancestors who were killed in that war fighting against the sin of slavery.
The other day they had a rally in Washington demanding reparations for America's black descendants of slaves. What the organizers wanted to be a huge gathering of African-Americans turned out to be a mere corporal's guard, much to the dismay of the demagogues running the show.
What that tells me is that the vast majority of African-Americans couldn't care less about the reparations scam. They're too busy going about their business to waste their time listening to a lot of ranting and raving from the self-styled black leaders who would probably end up with the lion's share of the hoped-for reparations, which, by the way would simply drive this nation into the poor house and ruin the lives of all Americans, black and white.
But what really galls me is this latest attempt to drive a wedge between white and black Americans. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of whites in this country simply won't sit still for this attempt at extortion by a few black demagogues. Unfortunately, many will unjustly react with hostility to their black brothers and sisters at a time when America desperately needs to be unified.
And the issue will inevitably create hostility among blacks for their white brothers and sisters. It's a no-win situation -- except for the demagogues -- who'll make a lot of bucks pushing this pie-in-the-sky scam.
Blame this on these so-called members of the self-appointed black leadership who make a splendid living creating divisiveness between the white and black races. It's their stock-in-trade. They're in it for bucks, and in the case of reparations, there are quite a few trillion bucks involved.
This is a very dangerous situation, and I would hope that all Americans, black and white, will shout NO to this thinly disguised attempt to provoke racial hatred.
Somehow I think that the demagogues may have overreached themselves this time. I hope and pray that the great mass of African-Americans will treat this thing for what it is, a scam designed to exploit them for the gain of its proponents, who know it will never happen but who will pocket a lot of money convincing their fellow blacks it can be made to happen.
It can't be, but they'll play it for as long as they can get away with it.
PHOENIX (AP) -- With one brief criticism of affirmative action, John McCain has brought new attention to ballot issues aimed at dismantling preferential treatment programs for women and minorities.
The question is whether McCain's support for one of those initiatives, in Arizona, will make any difference.
Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is bankrolling the Arizona initiative and similar measures in Nebraska and Colorado, said he hasn't seen any increase in donations or GOP supporters flocking to his cause since McCain spoke up last month.
"We're of course delighted to have the senator's support," Connerly said. "As to whether it translates to any positive or negative effect on us, I don't think so."
McCain's comments also have drawn critics who pointed to comments he made a decade ago calling similar measures "divisive."
The ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska call for amending the state constitutions to ban any hiring practices, university scholarships and other public programs that favor one group over others. Arizona and Nebraska officials are still verifying petition signatures while Colorado has the initiative slated for the November ballot.
Connerly's group, the American Civil Rights Initiative, already has been successful with similar initiatives in California, Washington and Michigan. And he plans to continue four years from now in other states.
Ultimately, Connerly said, "the goal is to try to get either the Supreme Court or the Congress to get the policy changed at the national level."
Connerly said his ballot initiatives would attack programs like the Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprise Program in Tucson. It allows minority and women-owned businesses to bid more for city contracts than other groups and requires prime contractors to make a serious effort to hire them for work.
"Those clearly would be outlawed," Connerly said of the Tucson program. "Any standards that are applied to groups based on race. Any jobs where there are different standards for admissions."
Tucson officials said they crafted the program in response to a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down quotas for minority-owned construction companies. Because Tucson has only a small percentage of minority and women-owned businesses, "you have to adopt narrowly tailored measures to help you overcome that disparity," said Mark Neihart, who directs Tucson's procurement department.
McCain weighed in on Connerly's efforts in late July, saying on ABC's "This Week" that he endorsed the Arizona initiative -- although he added that he had not read the details of the proposal.
Critics accused him of another "flip flop," pointing to a 1998 conversation about similar measures in which he told a Hispanic business group: "Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations."
His campaign officials did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment Wednesday.
Opponents in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska criticize Connerly for billing the initiative drive as a civil rights cause. They say thousands of voters were likely duped into signing petitions because the initiatives were described as a ban on discrimination instead of an attack on programs that help women and minorities.
"If you put things in deceptive terms, like if you say 'We're trying to get civil rights protections for everybody,' then, you know, people say 'yes,'" said Shanta Driver, a lawyer for a Detroit-based affirmative action coalition called By Any Means Necessary. "They don't know those terms mean something completely different."
Driver's group has filed a lawsuit in Arizona seeking an injunction to block state officials from putting the initiative on the ballot. Among other claims, the lawsuit says that homeless people were offered water and food to entice them to circulate and sign the petitions.
In Colorado, initiative opponents filed enough signatures Monday for a competing ballot question that would ban quotas and point systems while preserving support programs for women college students, male nurses and other underrepresented groups. Colorado elections officials are still verifying signatures for that competing initiative.
And in Nebraska, lawyer and GOP presidential delegate David Kramer said he has started challenging the ballot initiative with county elections officials. Kramer said petitioners left signature lists unattended, filled in information for signers and failed to explain the ballot initiative as required by law. His group, Nebraskans United, also has filed a lawsuit challenging the language in the initiative.
"It's misleading," Kramer said. "It talked about what this wouldn't do, instead of talking about the programs it would eliminate."
Effective Interactions With African-American Males Mike S. Adams Monday, October 20, 2008
There is a new course being offered at UNC-Wilmington in the spring semester of 2009. Before I go any further, let me assure you that I'm not making this up. The course, called "Effective Interactions with African-American Males," is offered for credit in both the Social Work and Education departments. Unbelievably, it is offered, not just for senior credit, but for potential graduate credit, too.
A brief course description may help readers understand why I've asserted for years that social work and education are in a tight race to determine which can become the most intellectually vacuous and least relevant discipline in academia.
I've reprinted each of the two paragraphs of the course description with a few questions for the professor (Dr. Lethardus Goggins II) following each paragraph:
"Using an African-centered philosophical worldview and a racial socialization framework, this class will use participatory education to equip undergraduate and/or graduate students, to "better" understand and effectively work alongside and with young adult African-American men. The core tenets underlying this class are racial oppression exists, matters, is ubiquitous and pernicious and that those most affected are often ignorant of this reality."
1. A university course using an "African-centered worldview" is deemed to be chic. Could a course call itself "white-centered" or even "European-centered" and garner the same enthusiasm from the diversity crowd?
2. If your answer to #1 was "no," is the diversity crowd really diverse?
3. Does "racial socialization" include constant discussion of race on behalf of social work professors? If they could ever shut up, could we as a country experience "racial un-socialization"? Wouldn't that be better?
4. Why the derisive quotes around "better"? Is there some suggestion that whites are not at all good at understanding and working around black males?
5. What if I am a postmodernist and believe that racial oppression really isn't an objective truth? What if my truth is that racial oppression exists only in social work and education classes?
6. Are the terms "ubiquitous" and "pernicious" African-centered or European-centered? What about the term "ignorant"?
7. Blacks (about 12% of the population) usually choose a white victim when committing armed robbery. Aside from carrying a handgun, how do whites make those interactions with African-American males more effective?
"Students will critically examine the social and emotional effects of racism on academic, occupational, cultural and relational well-being of African-American males. Students will discuss relevant readings, media analysis, community-based research, and self-reflection. Students will also examine and develop strategies to restore a healthy definition of African-American manhood and its significance for self, family, and community relationships; culminating in a community restoration initiative proposal."
8. Will students in "Effective Interactions with African-American Males" critically examine split infinitives?
9. Will the "relevant readings" in this course include articles by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and John McWhorter?
10. How much class time will be spent on self-reflection?
11. Does today's college student really need to spend more time thinking about himself?
12. Does self-reflection ever lead to self-absorption? Does it ever lead to greater social consciousness, or concern for others?
13. Has there not already been enough talk about African American males' "manhood"? Isn't most of it stereotypical?
14. What would happen if you talked to a member of the Crips or the Bloods about "self," "family," and "community relationships"? Do you think he might pop a cap in your ass? Do you think he might make you his girlfriend?
15. How do I learn more about this "community restoration initiative proposal"? Will it be submitted to a community organizer?
16. And, finally, why were copies of your new course description sent to the Upperman African American Cultural Center? How can we have effective interactions with you when you continue to segregate yourselves from us?
I once believed the diversity crowd when it claimed an interest in bringing blacks and whites together for more meaningful interaction. Now I see them as specious and downright deceptive. I almost detect a colored quality in their statements. ---
Rage At Gov's Force Of A Different Color By Fredric U. Dicker, NY Post October 20, 2008
MEMBERS of Gov. Paterson's State Police security detail are privately claiming to have been victims of racial discrimination by New York's first black chief executive, The Post has learned.
The allegations, outlined to State Police union leaders and widely discussed among the troopers themselves, stem from a shakeup in their ranks ordered after Paterson took office in March. The shakeup led to the assignment of a large number of new, non-uniformed State Police officers to Paterson's security detail, nearly all of whom are black, State Police sources said.
State Police insiders contended that Clemmie Harris, a former trooper and longtime friend and paid adviser to the governor, has repeatedly told State Police Superintendent Harry Corbett who should be assigned to the governor's security detail.
Both Harris, who retired on an unexplained full medical disability from the State Police 10 years ago and collects an $82,400-a-year annual salary, and Corbett, named to his post by Paterson, are black.
"There's now a feeling that you have to be black to get ahead on the governor's squad," a longtime State Police official told The Post.
"A majority of the non-uniformed travel team is minority under Paterson, which it wasn't before," said another source who is close to the State Police leadership. "The professional future for the troopers in the detail, which is a prestigious one, was always moving up to the travel team, but the white officers say that's not possible anymore."
Just 8 percent of State Police officers are black, according to official figures.
State Police Lt. Glenn Miner declined to provide a racial breakdown of the governor's security detail but quoted Corbett as insisting that all hiring for it had been done on the merits and not on the basis of race.
Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield also denied the allegation, insisting, "The notion that any member of the administration has had a hand in selecting the makeup of the governor's security detail is a baseless claim that is absolutely false. The State Police makes those decisions independently."
A source close to Paterson called the allegation "sour grapes" by the once politically favored troopers and said, "You mean it was OK when the governor's security detail was mostly all white?"
The Post recently disclosed that, amid widespread cutbacks in state services, Paterson had approved a massive enlargement of his State Police detail - and the assignment of two State Police drivers to chief-of-staff Charles O'Byrne, who admitted in recent days to failing to pay his state and federal taxes for five years.