Basically Good is what many White Americans seem to think they are. Sometimes they Make Mistakes or Slip Up but they Mean Well. They are not evil, not even a little bit – except of course for a few bad apples with Emotional Problems or a Warped Development.
But they do not extend this to blacks. Blacks are Born Bad and have to fight against it their whole lives. As it turns out most manage to be good most of the time. Kind of. If you do not look too closely. But they are always in danger of Slipping Back. They always have to fight against that crack in their souls, their Flawed Moral Natures. When one of them does something bad it is not due to Emotional Problems or a Warped Development – no, instead It Just Goes To Show what their true nature is.
In this case whites are far more clear-sighted about blacks – because they are Massively Delusional about themselves.
In the old days white people believed in original sin. That means that all men, as sons of Adam, are Born Bad and have to fight against it their whole lives. As it turns out most manage to be good most of the time. Kind of. If you do not look too closely. But they are always in danger of Slipping Back. They always have to fight against that crack in their souls, their Flawed Moral Natures. When one of them does something bad it is not due to Emotional Problems or a Warped Development – no, instead it just goes to show that man has a sinful nature.
But then sometime between 1900 and 1970 – probably like 1955 or 1968 – the angels came down from heaven and kissed each white person. Or something. And now white people are Basically Good.
They no longer have to read their Bibles: if most white people think something is all right, then it must be Okay To Do – even when it is stuff they used to think was wrong for hundreds of years, like divorce, abortion and homosexuality. Because white people are Basically Good! See how it works?
Way back in Ancient Times, like before colour television, white people used to do all kinds of terrible things, things that were not mere Slip Ups or Simple Misunderstandings – stuff like Jim Crow, slavery, genocide and colonialism. But then the Angel’s Kiss or Something wiped all that away. Wiped away not just the blame and the need make it right, but even the bad side effects, like racism and self-serving moral thinking!
It also wiped away their evil nature so now they no longer do stuff like that. So much so that “evil” now almost seems like one of those words from the old days, like “dropsy”, “tariffs” or “virtue”.
That is why when I say bad things about white people it can only be out of hatred! It could not be because it is true! Not when white people are, you know, Basically Good!
– Abagond, 2010.
See also:
Abagond 
But then sometime between 1900 and 1970 – probably like 1955 or 1968 – the angels came down from heaven and kissed each white person. Or something. And now white people are Basically Good.
LMAOOOO!!!!
LikeLike
Haha that part is hilarious.
LikeLike
lol!
LikeLike
Very funny! “back in the ancient days, before color television’ haha! This is good stuff. Laughing to keep from crying at the ridiculous horror of it all…..
LikeLike
This post was awfully sarcastic. More so than you other posts wrt white-thought processes, commenting and the sort.
It was funnier than the others. especially “Way back in Ancient Times, like before colour television..”
Priceless
LikeLike
Interesting post. Regarding how you describe white people’s view of black people, I doubt most white people consciously think that way, but I figure that most of them make unconscious assumptions based on that kind of thinking.
As for this bit, however…
They no longer have to read their Bibles: if most white people think something is all right, then it must be Okay To Do – even stuff like divorce, abortion and homosexuality, which had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years.
So Abagond are you saying that these three things are wrong? And do more black people think they are wrong than do white people?
LikeLike
I got into a debate not long ago with a guy who looked at me and said, “Don’t you wish it was the 50s again?”
The really annoying thing is that, like me, he’s old enough to remember the 50s.
LikeLike
Heh. From where I’m standing, they’re still evil.
LikeLike
This is getting funnier day after day! I don’t know about your american whiteys, but here in Finland we’re bad to the bone.
Just few days ago one guy shot three in McDonalds drive-in because they got into an argument whose car has more power in the engine. Ok, the shooter was a gypsy just recently released from prison after killing his ex-wife, but a finn never the less.
In the 50’s there was nice cars, good music, some good films, Marilyn Monroe, something else, but for majority it was not fun. I mean, the regime was really tight. How to dress, how to talk, how to walk, how to be, how to think etc. Lo behold, if anybody said that blacks and whites could be friends!!
Besides, wasn’t it somekind of communist secret plan to make kids listen that awful negro jungle music called Rock’n’roll? Yes it was, they said so in the 50’s!
LikeLike
Good one Abagond.
There has been a spate of shootings in England by two white men with scores to settle. One of them Derik Bird took potshots at random people, among them his own twin brother, in the space of an hour. The other, a man known to have a grudge against police evaded capture for at least 7 days despite a nationwide manhunt. He goaded, taunted the police right under their noses. When he was cornered, gun in hand mind you, it occurred to me that even then, they still wanted to reason with him and talk him out of it, a man who had made a direct threat to the police and public. The gunman took his own life. Had that been a black man they would have peppered him with bullets and called it a day. Contrast that with the white cop in the States let off for shooting to death an unarmed black man.
What struck me in both incidents was the reticence of the wider public and police, read white, to label these two men evil. Between them they managed to kill 13 people and injure many others in a month, not even the Taliban or black men claimed that many British lives.
I’m amazed at the leeway accorded these two monsters!
If whites are evil, it’s redeemable, blacks are damned! When they commit these acts, they target and harm indiscriminately, yet retain their holier than thou image.
White meltdowns are legendary, they tend to claim/affect many lives, usually over a little slight most of us wouldn’t lose sleep over!
Disgusted in London
LikeLike
Interesting analysis Merrimay. So much so I had to re-read Abagond’s comment again and began to see the thread in a ‘different’ light.
Cheers for that.
I believe the crux of Abagond’s post lies within these lines, the concluding paragraph:
“That is why when I say bad things about white people it can only be out of hatred! It could not be because it is true! Not when white people are, you know, Basically Good!”
This kind of brings us back a little bit that no-one wants to be ‘criticised’…Where’s Titan??
The individual, who has a blog, who talks about these things whether historical or in the present ‘is’ or ‘becomes’ a ‘pain’ because he is holding up a ‘mirror as a reflection’.
Whites in this instance (but it can be any group by race, class etc) can hold up their own ‘mirror’ and see a ‘different’ reflection to the one Abagond has shown. In fact if need be Whites do not even have to come to the ‘mirror’ at all, if they do not want to.
And to conclude, if a White person was to do the same, as the Wise & Jensen of this world. Then they will be viewed as a ‘nuisance’, as many who also view Abagond here, irrespective of what he syas and does here can be used for ‘good’ – depnding off course on the ‘hearts and minds’ of those reading his words off course.
Hmmm!!!
LikeLike
Isn’t that a picture of Anne Frank?
LikeLike
@Hathor:
Yes, it is.
LikeLike
@MerriMay:
Spot on.
LikeLike
Wickedly funny post. Spot on.
LikeLike
Normally, I lurk but something Eurasian Sensation said didn’t sit well with me.
Eurasian Sensation, with all due respect, I believe Abagond, as a black person living in a predominantly white environment, is well-qualified to draw factually-based conclusions regarding white attitudes toward black people. I respectfully disagree with your statement that most white people don’t consciously think about blacks in the manner Abagond described. For example, in the U.S., social workers are far more likely to remove children from the care of black mothers than white mothers. See Center for the Study of Social Policy study. Black children comprise 30% of the foster care system although blacks constitute less than 15% of the U.S. population. If whites* do not consciously think of blacks as inherently flawed, why is there such a striking statistic? (*I would also include POC who have internalized the same beliefs about inherent inferiority.) The decision to more frequently remove children from their black mothers’ care appears to be motivated in part by conscious beliefs about who (which race) is more capable of being or becoming a good mother. Who is perceived as “essentially” good, or capable of becoming so, and who perceived as a lost cause?
Social workers don’t interact with only lower-income families. They can also intervene at the request of another adult, regardless of the targeted family’s income level. If the social worker is involved, there’s a reason, yet the results of such intervention appear to break down along racial lines (as opposed to the parenting skills in question).
Stereotypical representations of motherhood in the U.S. present white women as the default nurturer and black women as negligent, irresponsible breeders [with variations on whether they’re drug-addicted, violent and/or prostitutes]. It may at first appear to contradict the mammy (nurturer) stereotype but mammies are asexual; black women who have sex (e.g., moms) are jezebels.
For another example, black children in the U.S. are expelled at a higher rate than any other race, even though non-black children commit the same infractions. School Suspensions. The link leads to a New York Times article directly addressing the selective enforcement of school policy, and it includes a graphic based on statistics from the National Center for Education, breaking down expulsion rates by race. Again, how is this not a conscious belief about the inherently flawed nature of black people, if children are being punished more severely than their counterparts for the same infractions?
Sometimes, the white students commit worse offenses, yet their expulsion rates remain lower than black students’: According to the Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Health and Human Services … white high school students are seven times more likely than blacks to have used cocaine; eight times more likely to have smoked crack; ten times more likely to have used LSD and seven times more likely to have used heroin. In fact, there are more white high school students who have used crystal methamphetamine (the most addictive drug on the streets) than there are black students who smoke cigarettes.
What’s more, white youth ages 12-17 are more likely to sell drugs: 34% more likely, in fact than their black counterparts. And it is white youth who are twice as likely to binge drink, and nearly twice as likely as blacks to drive drunk. And white males are twice as likely to bring a weapon to school as are black males. (Quote pulled from link above).
Given these statistics, why are black children being expelled from school at higher rates than any other race, including whites? Why are white students allowed to continue their education, despite committing illegal acts, while black children aren’t? In the U.S., education often leads to greater economic opportunities – why are black children being denied access at a greater rate than any other children? Who is deemed as worthwhile and salvagable by being kept in school, and who is written off as a wasted effort? Those statistics highlight the gulf between fact and perception. It can validly be argued that white American consciously believe whites are basically good and blacks are inherently flawed.
And then there’s also a former police chief who sued his government employer, claiming he was pressured by the mayor (a white woman) to pull over black motorists but to avoid ticketing the white city residents, even those suspected of driving while intoxicated; he stated he was fired for refusing to cave into the pressure: “Shortly after White was hired as the Ladue Police Chief, he had several conversations … in which [the mayor] advised him that she wanted ‘those people’ to be pulled from their cars so that others would see what was going on and avoid the City of Ladue,” according to the complaint in St. Louis County Court. “White understood ‘those people’ to be African Americans found within the city’s limits.
“Thereafter, White was advised that when the previous Police Chief was in office a concerted effort had been made to arrest as many of ‘those people’ as possible.”
White says Ladue’s racial profiling data back up his claim.
According to city data from 2006, the year before he became chief, 22.5 percent of the traffic stops made by Ladue officers involved African-Americans, though African-Americans made up just 1 percent of Ladue’s population and 10.7 percent of the state’s population.
In that same year, 48.3 percent of those arrested after a traffic stop in Ladue and 42.7 percent of those searched during a traffic stop were African-Americans.
Within 2 years, White says, his efforts to eliminate race-based traffic stops brought the city within a more reasonable range of statewide demographics. White said in 2008, 14.5 percent of Ladue’s traffic stops involved African-Americans as did 38.6 percent of traffic stop-related arrests and 37 percent of searches. Courthousenews.com: Racial Bias Rampant, Ex-Police Chief Says.
Again, who was given a pass for breaking the law (no tickets) and who was punished (ticketed/fined/arrested) for belonging to the “wrong” race?
I believe Abagond is right.
LikeLike
@ Hm:
I’m not sure if you missed a nuance in what I wrote.
What I meant is that I don’t think most white people think consciously in terms of “white people are basically good but black people are basically flawed and can slip back into evil”.
Consciously, I think most white people tell themselves that they think black people are basically good, just as white people are.
However, their actions often indicate that UNCONSCIOUSLY they actually do think all these negative things about black people. They just have trouble admitting it to themselves on a conscious level.
I get a sense of that amongst many (not all) of the people who vehemently oppose Barack Obama. Some hate him simply because he’s black. But there are others who hate him, but are not thinking “I don’t like him because he is black”; they are thinking “I don’t like him because he seems shifty/socialist/weak/untrustworthy/etc”. In reality they think he is those things because he is black, but they won’t fully admit it to themselves. That’s why when they are called out on racism they get angry, because they have convinced themselves they are not racist.
LikeLike
Sorry – I mistyped (I’m sleep deprived, sorry). I didn’t link to the study, I linked to the interview discussing the study. Here is the report: Center for the Study of Social Policy findings.
The study “documented both stated and operational assumptions that African American children would fare better if removed from their families and communities. Reminiscent of the 19th century child rescue ideology that led to the separation of tribal and immigrant children from their families and communities, this way of thinking has a long history in child welfare. This powerful belief system allows the child welfare system to operate in ways that disadvantage African American families.”
If whites didn’t believe that black people are fundamentally flawed and irredeemable, then why is there this pervasive belief that black children are better off living away from their families and communities? A set of beliefs has resulted in systemic, disparate, race-based treatment.
The statistics are supported by federal government findings: In child welfare, a 2003 United States Department of Health and Human Services report stated that African-American children are 15% of America’s child population but account for 25% of substantiated child welfare cases and 45% of children in foster care.
Another federal government report confirms that African American children are twice as likely to enter foster care than White children, even though children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and neglect, and that Black children remain in foster care longer than other children. U.S. GAO report. In contrast, Caucasian children, who constituted
60% of the U.S. child population, accounted for only 36% of the children in out-of-home care.
If whites do not see blacks as essentially bad, and whites as essentially good (or salvageable), how do you explain the wide-spread practice of removing children from black families and predominantly black environments, while allowing children in predominantly white environments/families to remain (even though they are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and neglect)?
LikeLike
@Eurasian Sensation,
I didn’t miss the nuance regarding conscious thought versus unexamined, imbedded beliefs. I agree that people with unexamined racist beliefs will cast about for racially-neutral justifications but how does that work when dealing with same nucleus of fact? I find the school expulsion/criminal offense statistics particularly telling.
I also believe that creating policies that state that black children will fare better when removed from black families and communities, is also based on a conscious belief rather than an unexamined bias. I believe this is so when studies repeatedly show that the abuse and neglect children experience is the same, regardless of race, yet white children overwhelmingly remain in white families and communities.
On another front, if there is a white mayor directing a white police chief to pull over black motorists but not to ticket white residents, even if they’re breaking the law, that’s not a subconscious belief. It’s an acknowledged, racist belief which she attempted to enforce through the police department. I do not believe that example is exceptional.
LikeLike
@ Eurasian Sensation
“I don’t like him because he seems shifty/socialist/weak/untrustworthy/etc”. In reality they think he is those things because he is black, but they won’t fully admit it to themselves.
I think there are some people who don’t like President Obama because he’s black, but I heard the same descriptions coming from (white) Republicans about other Democrats, too. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden: shifty/socialist/untrusworthy, Jimmy Carter and Hilary Clinton: socialist/weak.
Look at the criticisms of George W Bush: stupid or simple/lazy (takes too many ranch vacations)/uncaring. People said similar things about Reagan, and say them about Sarah Palin.
II voted for both Clinton and Obama, and would vote to re-elect since I don’t think the economic problems are HIS fault. It’s just political nature to blame whomever is in office.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
Hm and MerriMay both give excellent examples (Thank you both!). More examples here:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/some-facts-about-racism/
No one consciously thinks like what I wrote in the post – who could? It is so utterly brainless. But that is just the thing – they act as if they do!
There are good and serious moral arguments for and against divorce, abortion and homosexuality, but that “most white people think it is all right” is not one of them. Not even close. Yet most white people seem to think at just that level.
Abortion, divorce, homosexuality, what I think or what most black people think are not at issue here. What is at issue is the style of moral thinking outlined above which many white people seem to believe at some level.
LikeLike
@ Hm:
You’ll get no argument from me that there is a whole lot of conscious and willful racism about. But I’m inclined to think that the most of the racism of most white people in this day and age is in the form of, as you nicely put it, unexamined embedded beliefs.
But I’ll also say straight up that I’m not American and don’t know many white or black Americans, so I’m in no position to strongly argue whether you are right or wrong in this. I do not have the first-hand experience of the American racial environment, so my opinion is only based on my sense of people in general.
LikeLike
if most white people think something is all right, then it must be Okay To Do – even stuff like divorce, abortion and homosexuality, which had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years. Because white people are Basically Good! See how it works?
Yep.
Kids out of wedlock? OMG that’s so ghetto. Until it’s your kid and your sister’s kid with children, then it’s a “societal trend”.
Watching with interest as the trend now is swinging back to larger families for upscale yuppies. Having a lot of kids? Isn’t that what Mexican immigrants do?
No, if you give them names like Ione and Daisy and Dot and Sebastian, it’s trendy and demonstrates you can afford them! http://www.slate.com/id/2451
LikeLike
And you think of yourself as what, Abagond? Basically evil? 😀
And this…
They no longer have to read their Bibles: if most white people think something is all right, then it must be Okay To Do – even stuff like divorce, abortion and homosexuality, which had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years. Because white people are Basically Good! See how it works?
…is pure homophobic and sexist nuttery.
People – of any color – didn’t say, “Oh, OK. Let gays do their thing.” Gays fought tooth and nail for that right and are STILL fighting for it. Abortion rights weren’t handed down by the Supreme Court because white people were doing it and it was thus considered OK. In fact, I have some rather shocking news for you, Abagond: abortion rights have been under assault for more than thirty years now and, with every year that passes, they get more restricted.
This is hardly stuuf which suddenly became “OK to do” because of race.
As for divorce, correct me if I’m wrong here, BUT AREN’T YOU DIVORCED? Are you SERIOUSLY telling us that 1) divorce is wrong (even though you apparently practice it) and 2) that the only reason society allows it in the first place is because white people like it?
Oh, and finally I really enjoy the ethnocentric concept of what’s right and wrong. “Right” and “wrong” obviously being laid out quite clearly by that highly afrocentric institution, the Catholic Church, and their interpretation of that most African of texts, the Christian Bible.
Sorry, abagond, but your ethnic and sexual prejudices really came through on this one.
LikeLike
@Eurasian Sensation,
I need to move to where you live. Where I live, white people say this kind of stuff out loud.
For example, I had someone tell me, a propos of nothing, that the Ku Klux Klan got had an undeserved bad reputation and he ought to know since his uncle belonged. That conversation took place in this century.
@Abagond,
You’re welcome for the links. Where I live, I guess a lot of white people are utterly brainless because I have often heard any number of them utter statements similar to what you wrote. I live in a predominantly-white, Midwestern state. I think we’re in some kind of time warp. I can’t wait for the Civil Rights Era to hit.
LikeLike
Let me guess: Indiana?
LikeLike
Thad:
Seems I must have hit a raw nerve if you are going to bring up my personal life. I am not divorced, but even if I were, so what? How does that affect anything of what I said? That is pure ad hominem.
Also, what in the world does the Catholic Church, much less its degree of Africanness, have ANYTHING to do with what I wrote?
I made VERY SURE I put the word “MANY” right in the first sentence before the word “white” but it seems you misread it to say “ALL” anyway!
Are there White Americans fighting against abortion and gay rights? Yes, of course. But the strange thing is, unlike you, most of them would probably pretty much agree with this post (except for the parts about race), though they would frame it as a religious and secular thing.
LikeLike
What’s funny is that when you do point out the evils of white people from history to today, it’s seen as almost a sin. It’s a sin so terrible some, if not most, will breakdown into little pieces. To them the truth is more horrible than happiness.
I love how they quote the bible when certain issues come up as if to excuse their insanity and ignorance. I also love how they think that the news is their best source of information pertaining to blacks and browns.
Some have no problem parading their shear ignorance and delusions with almost no shame. If that isn’t a cry for mental health, I dunno what is.
LikeLike
I am not divorced, but even if I were, so what? How does that affect anything of what I said? That is pure ad hominem.
When you imply that something is evil or incorrect but engage in it yourself, Abagond, that is not an ad hominem.
And you’re back together with your wife then? That’s good news. If you’re not, then I’d say you’re divorced in fact if not in theory and again, it makes me wonder why you’d consider divorce to be something that’s evil.
Also, what in the world does the Catholic Church, much less its degree of Africanness, have ANYTHING to do with what I wrote?
Your claim is that somehow these “evil” things – divorce, homosexuality and abortion – are now universally accepted as “good” (or almost universally) among white people because white people do them. And yet, there is not a more historically white or European institution than the Catholic Church and the Church is foresquare against all these things, isn’t it?
So I’m wondering how you square your belief that these behaviors are OK now with the fact that the most traditional white religious institution on the planet opposes them.
Either the Catholic Church isn’t white and European anymore (which would be odd, considering the fact that you pretty much consider every other institution or philosophy founded in Europe which once supported slavery to be eternally and irredeemably white and European) or your contention that these things are now OK because white people say they are is so much hot air, Abagond.
But the strange thing is, unlike you, most of them would probably pretty much agree with this post (except for the parts about race), though they would frame it as a religious and secular thing.
I take it you’ve never actually chatted to those white folks, Abagond, because the vast majority of white people I’ve met who are against divorce, homosexuality and abortion consider these things to be a frontal attack on WHITE “family values”.
This is extremely obvious in the literature these people produce, Abagond. And alot of those “good folks” go a few steps further and complain that it’s “the n*****s and the Jews” who are supposedly undermining white American family values by supporting divorce, abortion and homosexuality.
So no, Abagond: white people as a whole do not support these things and those that do so not see them as being targeted primarily by other whites.
Christ, man, this isn’t news. I know this and I live in Brazil. How has the racist raving of the white Christian right somehow passed you by, Abagond?
LikeLike
Why is there a picture of Anne Frank? I don’t get that part.
LikeLike
And for the record, I myself am foursquare behind abortion, homosexuality and divorce. 😀
LikeLike
Both sides of the US culture war frame the opposition as racist.
LikeLike
Anne Frank is my poster child for this post because she died in a Nazi death camp, one of the clearest examples that whites are not Basically Good.
So she works at that level. But there is more:
The summer before she died she said:”Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.” To her credit, though, she understood how mad that sounded – she was, after all, in hiding from people who wanted to kill her because she was the “wrong” “race”.
LikeLike
Thad:
You are maybe the most literate person here so I should not have to tell you this, but since you keep missing my point, I do:
Please reread the post. Pay particular attention to these two passages whose meaning seems to escape you:
First:
“Basically Good is what many White Americans seem to think they are. “
Note the word “many”. “Many White Americans” does not mean “white people as a whole”. It does not even necessarily mean “most”. This is a common mistake made by my white readers, despite their supposedly high reading scores, but I did not expect it of you whose livelihood depends on carefully reading and understanding what others write.
Second:
“They no longer have to read their Bibles: if most white people think something is all right, then it must be Okay To Do – even stuff like divorce, abortion and homosexuality, which had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years. Because white people are Basically Good! See how it works?”
I nowhere imply that I, Abagond, think divorce, etc are wrong. What I said was that they “had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years”. True, “had been seen” is passive voice with no agent given, but I think everyone here assumes that I have not been alive for “hundreds of years”, so it cannot mean me. And since the paragraph is about white people and what they think is right and wrong, it probably means them. And that would be right: before 1900 very few whites regarded divorce, abortion and homosexuality as “Okay To Do”. Now MANY do.
LikeLike
I do believe humans are born good and innocent. But this innocence is lost really quickly; you cans see the first signs of it by they reach the age of 4.
Also, I do believe there are good people, as individuals. However, a group of people is never (or rarely) good.
I also believe people rarely care about the things that don’t concern them or their group.
If you take all of this, it becomes clear it’s not difficult for whites to think and act the way they do.
PS-It was an interesting article, Abagond, but I certainly did not like the “even stuff like divorce, abortion and homosexuality, which had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years” rant. I mean… Don’t get me started on it. I don’t want to derail the subject.
LikeLike
And that would be right: before 1900 very few whites regarded divorce, abortion and homosexuality as “Okay To Do”.
Wrong, Abagond. All three have a loooong history. In some periods and cultures some were forbidden, in other times and cultures they were allowed, etc. The situation before 1900 is certainly not what white world was like for hundreds and hundreds of years. Take homophobia, for example. It was alive and well in certain times and places, sure, but it didn’t take its modern shape that long time ago (you could say late 19th century was bad for homosexuals, but it wasn’t really like that before).
LikeLike
Thad:
The Christian right is racist, so what? This post is not about them. The MANY whites I talk about in this post feel they “no longer have to read their Bibles”. Does that sound like the Christian right to you?
LikeLike
Mira:
When I say “had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years” I am thinking of white Anglo Protestant culture from like 1600 to 1900. Please note that we are talking about White Americans here. I know the ancient Greeks, etc, had a different view. On the other hand my thinking about those times is probably overly affected by the Puritans and Victorians and not the somewhat looser times in between.
LikeLike
Yes, the Christian right is racist, Abagond. It is also mostly white, correct? And what is their argument re: abortion, homosexuality and divorce? Do they argue that these things are now acceptable because “most white people agree that it is”?
No.
They argue that they are an attack on the “white family” and the looney-toon fringe argues that it’s an attack masterminded by an alliance of blacks and jews.
So how does this quite observable fact fit into the argument that whitre people support abortion, homosexuality and divorce and that these three things are thus now accepted by society in general anbd white people in particular?
And that would be right: before 1900 very few whites regarded divorce, abortion and homosexuality as “Okay To Do”. Now MANY do.
Fine. And yet your point is that this change occurred principally because white people looked around, saw other white people doing it and said “it must be good then”.
That’s a completely ridiculous take on what really occurred. These things were fought for, tooth and nail, by minorities (perhaps not divorce, but certainly abortion and homosexuality). They are by no stretch of the imagination a “white” thing. Nor do the people who support these things – many of which are NOT white – do so because of their supposed racial content. Women support abortion because it’s their choice and bodies at stake. Gays support homosexuality because they are tired of being killed, bashed and jailed for loving people of their choice. And straight men of all colors who support these things do so because they think they are correct and just.
I dare you to find one comment – just one, anywhere on the net, Abagond – where some white person is saying “Hey, I support abortion and homosexuality because it’s a white thing.”
One, Abagond.
I mean, it seems to me that if your theory has any validity at all, you should be able to find at least ONE comment of this nature.
Because, I assure you, I can find entire white websites devoted to the idea that all this is a black and jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race.
The MANY whites I talk about in this post feel they “no longer have to read their Bibles”. Does that sound like the Christian right to you?
To tell the truth? Yeah, actually it does. It associates whiteness with Christianity in a very similar fashion and the dodge that you’re talking about “many” versus “all” is so thin it’s transparent. It’s the logic of an RR who says “many black men are rapists and criminals – please note I said ‘many’ not ‘all’.”
LikeLike
What you’re basically saying, Abagond, is that the drag queens of The Stonewall revolted against homophobia not because they’d been beaten, jailed and even killed by the police while society at large looked on and cheered: you’re saying that they didn’t even revolt. You’re saying that gay rights, such as they exist, were handed to them on a platter by the “many” white people who all of a sudden rose up one morning and declared homosexuality to be good.
I mean get real, man. That’s a ridiculous concept! To the degree that we have a lesser amount of stigmatization towards gay people these days it’s because gay people FOUGHT for that to occur. And you’ll note that gays still do not have anything like equal rights or protection under the law.
In fact, I’ll lay you odds that more GAY men have been lynched by hate groups in the U.S. than black men over the last three decades. Not to engage in the Opression Olympics here, but you seem to think gays have it good and have some sort of universal or majority approval. That’s certainly not the case.
LikeLike
To Hmmm:
Another federal government report confirms that African American children are twice as likely to enter foster care than White children, even though children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and neglect, and that Black children remain in foster care longer than other children. U.S. GAO report. In contrast, Caucasian children, who constituted
60% of the U.S. child population, accounted for only 36% of the children in out-of-home care.
I actually looked up both reports… the GAO report does claim that “children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and neglect..” however when I looked up the report that the GAO report cited I found:
National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect race
Severity of Outcomes from Endangerment Standard Maltreatment:
Statistically meaningful race/ethnicity differences occurred in four levels of
harm attributable to Endangerment Standard maltreatment.
Serious harm. The incidence of Black children seriously harmed (9.1 per
1,000) is nearly 2 times the incidence of White children with this outcome (4.8 per
1,000), and it is 1.6 times the incidence rate for Hispanic children (5.7 per 1,000); both
differences are statistically significant.
Endangered. Black children were considered to be endangered by
maltreatment at a significantly higher rate than either White children or Hispanic
children. An estimated 18.1 per 1,000 Black children were endangered by maltreatment
during the NIS–4 study year, which is 1.8 times the rate of 10.2 per 1,000 White children
and 1.6 times the rate of 11.2 per 1,000 Hispanic children.
Reference page 4-28 on this report:
Click to access nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf
So in other words serious harm and/or endangerment to the child is almost twice as likely to occur among Blacks than Whites. Let’s contrast that to the foster care figures you cited: “African American children are twice as likely to enter foster care than White children..”
So it sounds like the figures for serious harm and/or child endangerment come pretty close to matching the figures for admitting children into foster care.
LikeLike
There are many White Americans who believe that man is fallen/imperfect and innately greedy and corrupt. Many conservatives believe this, as encapsulated in the constrained vision explained by Thomas Sowell (the belief that people need to be constrained by institutions because they are corrupt). However, the White twist on this is that it is always “those other people” who are really corrupt. Their own greed is excused, it’s good even.
Then there are the white liberals, many of whom say that everyone is basically good but they still believe that deep down, minorities need more help to be good and smart and capable than white people. They tend to have a very simple-minded view of minorities. Neither white conservatives nor white liberals see us as being fully human or as “good” as they are.
LikeLike
Otherwise, not being very religious myself, I don’t really get what either you or Abagond is really trying to prove with this whole homosexuality, abortion, and divorce debate.
Well, what I am trying to prove is quite simple: there is no link between race and the acceptance (to the degree that there is any acceptance) of abortion, homosexuality and divorce.
@Danila
Then there are the white liberals, many of whom say that everyone is basically good but they still believe that deep down, minorities need more help to be good and smart and capable than white people.
So may we assume that you’re against affirmative action, then?
LikeLike
With regard to all this talk about Abortion, homosexuality. I do not understand the argument and/or teh reason being applied by some commentators.
Further, I would have to ask the ‘Why’ question.
Why that particular part of the script?
and not the subsequent two paragraphs:
“Way back in Ancient Times, like before colour television, white people used to do all kinds of terrible things, things that were not mere Slip Ups or Simple Misunderstandings – stuff like Jim Crow, slavery, genocide and colonialism. But then the Angel’s Kiss or Something wiped all that away. Wiped away not just the blame and the need make it right, but even the bad side effects, like racism and self-serving moral thinking!
It also wiped away their evil nature so now they no longer do stuff like that. So much so that “evil” now almost seems like one of those words from the old days, like “dropsy”, “tariffs” or “virtue”.
Personally, and this is my opinon, I think Euro Sensation question was genuine, but one of the commentators is merely just utilising ES comments for his own personal ends…………………………..as usual
LikeLike
@Uncle Milton,
I don’t want this to derail into a discussion about the foster care system. It’s impressive that you sought out a cited report within the GAO report in order to justify the over-representation of black children in the foster care system. Oddly enough, a number of government entities are treating the disproportionate impact on black families as problematic – and for some reason the focus is on systemic flaws rather than on the individuals involved.
You rely on statistics from the 4th National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect report to show that black children suffer a greater degree of harm than white or Latino children.
However, the study also noted the shortcomings of the definitions relied upon to assess the harm: “The NIS applies two definitional standards in parallel: the Harm Standard and the Endangerment Standard. […] [The Harm Standard’s] principal disadvantage is that it is so stringent that it provides a perspective that is too narrow for many purposes, excluding even many children whom CPS substantiates or indicates as abused or neglected.
“[…]The central feature of the Endangerment Standard is that it counts children who were not yet harmed by abuse or neglect if a sentinel thought that the maltreatment endangered the children or if a CPS investigation substantiated or indicated their maltreatment. In addition, the Endangerment Standard is slightly more lenient than the Harm Standard in allowing a broader array of perpetrators, including adult caretakers other than parents in certain maltreatment categories and teenage caretakers as perpetrators of sexual abuse.” NIS-4.
So the Harm standard excludes some children who the CPS believes are abused. This would conceivably include white children. Therefore, the lower reported incidence of white children meeting the harm standard is not a reliable indication that fewer white children are actually being abused. The Endangerment standard includes children not yet harmed by abuse or neglect but determined to be endangered anyway. So the higher percentage of black children classified as such isn’t necessarily proof of greater actual incidence – it seems instead to rely on the discretion of individuals…who may or may not have strong racial biases. Also, the Endangerment standard includes non-parental caretakers, whose race doesn’t appear to be indicated. Thus, the higher percentage of black children under either standard is not solid proof that black parents are a greater danger to their children than white ones.
Given the pattern of applying higher standards of conduct to blacks than whites in other areas (as shown in the school and police chief examples but which can also be seen throughout the U.S. criminal justice system, e.g., more prosecutions and convictions, more severe sentencing for black defendants than white ones for the same crimes), it is not unreasonable to believe the same skewed, selective application is also in effect when evaluating whether to involve CPS, which standards to apply, and which consequences to enforce.
In fact, the GAO report found that “[b]ias or cultural misunderstandings and distrust between child welfare decision makers and the families they serve are also viewed as contributing to children’s removal from their homes into foster care.” The other main factors cited were poverty and difficulty accessing services needed to keep families stable and children safely at home (like permanent housing). GAO Report.
Hmmm… perhaps bias or cultural misunderstanding and distrust directly contributes to the harm/endangerment standards being applied more frequently to children of black parents – rather than blacks being more savage, er, abusive than whites.
Further, “States reported that the ability to use federal funding for family support services was helpful in keeping African American children safely at home.” Findings. This would tend to run counter to the violent-black-parent stereotype and the belief that black children fare better away from their black parents.
You cited statistics showing lower incidents of harm for non-black children, thereby justifying their lower percentages in the foster system. However, the GAO report showed Native American children were removed from their families at a rate disproportionate to their representation in the general population (2% in foster care but Native Americans total less than 1% of U.S. population) and when compared to their white counterparts. While Latino and Asian children may be underrepresented nationally, where their populations are higher, in certain counties and states, their separation from their parents, and placement into the foster care system, is also higher than their white counterparts’. GAO data analysis.
What’s driving these discrepancies?
LikeLike
To Hm
It’s impressive that you sought out a cited report within the GAO report in order to justify the over-representation of black children in the foster care system.
The reason I did so is because this quote:
“Children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and neglect, according to the Department of Health and Human Services..”
conflicted with other data I had seen in the past.
You rely on statistics from the 4th National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect report to show that black children suffer a greater degree of harm than white or Latino children.
Yes it was the latest available.
I’ll try to read both reports in more depth. I’ve been having some issues with Adobe Reader on both reports.. (Font errors..)
LikeLike
And with regard to my earlier comments:
“With regard to all this talk about abortion, homosexuality. I do not understand the argument and/or the reason being applied by some commentators”.
The reason I do not really understand it because I believe Abagond is correct to suggest that the Western world being based upon Christainity could not openly accept openly such doctrines (abortion, homosexuality etc)because it contradicted the bible.
There is not even any need to refer specifically to the Catholic church either. Since this would have been the same with the rise and the movement of the Protestantism, which was a counter to Roman Catholicism.
With the revolution of ‘science’ and the move away from religion. Many aspects of that which was viewed as ‘taboo’ ie homosexuality, abortion could now be viewed in a different light.
This is not to say that EVERYONE aggreed or accepted this ‘new morality’, but there ws a shift nonetheless.
LikeLike
“I do believe humans are born good and innocent. But this innocence is lost really quickly; you cans see the first signs of it by they reach the age of 4.
Also, I do believe there are good people, as individuals. However, a group of people is never (or rarely) good.
I also believe people rarely care about the things that don’t concern them or their group.
If you take all of this, it becomes clear it’s not difficult for whites to think and act the way they do.”
Co-sign. Especially the bolded.
LikeLike
If you switch “white people” with “women” and “black people” with “men”, I think this post could also serve as a perfect statement of both the traditional Western patriarchal view as well as the current Third-wave feminist view of the two genders (feminists wind up echoing alot of the memes of old-style Western European patriarchal attitudes about the two sexes.)
LikeLike
Thad (& Bay somewhat):
You continue to misread what I wrote.
If I say “Many whites do x” that is not some backdoor way of saying “ALL whites do x”. If you are going to misread what I plainly wrote do not call it a trick on my part. You are only tricking yourself.
There is no secret shift in the post from the “many” in the first sentence to “all” later on. The sentence about divorce, abortion and homosexuality should make that plain as day since everyone knows that the white Christian right are against those things.
Further, if I say “whites do x” it does not mean “ONLY whites do x”. That is another common WHITE misreading of my words.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/reading-while-white-this-blog/
LikeLike
Abagond, it seems to me that your point was pretty clkear: you seem to think that there’s a racial component involved in the relatively greater acceptance of divorce, homosexuality and abortion.
You made that quite clear. Whether it’s all or many doesn’t change that.
And, I’m sorry, I think that is a silly idea, given what actually occurred and especially given the fact that these things came about due to FIGHTS and not due to some notional white majority handing them down as gifts.
LikeLike
Wrong. This post says NOTHING about what blacks do or think. NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
LikeLike
Just as it said NOTHING about the Catholic Church but you brought that in too.
LikeLike
As previously pointed out to Thad he only picks a particular part of what Abagond wrote, to blindsight the issue at hand. Hair splitting chapter infinitum!
The subject at hand is the sanctimonuous belief of a LOT of whites to hold themselves and all who look like them to a higher authority, to the exclusion of other races. There are examples of that on an almost daily basis.
LikeLike
Affirmative action has nothing to do with my statement.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“As previously pointed out to he only picks a particular part of what Abagond wrote, to blindsight the issue at hand. Hair splitting chapter infinitum!”
I will be honest if he picked parts out, and hair-split, so that it made sense, then I would not mind.
However, it is clear that this ‘tactic’ is to cause confusion (including to himself that he cannot even remember what he says), to be used a personal attack and/or veiled insult and so on and so on.
Very rarely does he use it to get to the ‘facts’. There are times when he should use this analysis for his own views but fails to do so, since obviously it would ultimately contradict his own very thoughts.
LikeLike
Wrong. This post says NOTHING about what blacks do or think. NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
I`m sorry, did I say that it did? My point, Abagond, is that you seem to situate gay and women`s rights as something which occurred due to a benevolent white Establishment.
Is this not your point? If it isn`t, great, but it certainly comes across that way.
THAT is my point.
LikeLike
Thad:
The post does not directly address that point. That is not what the post is about. Why is it that MerriMay and others – who most likely have less education than you – understood this post immediately but you still do not?
LikeLike
Well, according to the black muslims whites are basically evil – white devils. Nobody has gone around the world conquering, killing, and oppressing on the level they have so their arguement goes. They show no remorse for what they have done, and try to detract from the fact that they are evil by blaming POC for the problems they helped create. This is because they were created in a lab by a mad scientist called Yakub, if memory serves. This is complete dehumanizing insanity of course. But it really is no different from the way many whites, unconsciously of course, think of black people.
Personally, I find this very scary, because if blacks are deeply flawed they are a little less than human, and when you think that way its easy to dismiss say, a police officer beating the hell out of a little girl for kicking a shoe at him, or tasering a pregnant woman, or punching a teenager in the face because she’s a big, black and dangerous animal.
It’s easy to turn your back on the inner city because “they’re animals, let them lose their souls.” and to not educate them or provide them with adequate healthcare. We should all beware the dangers of stripping any person or goup of people of their humanity. Of being enablers of racism, sexism, ageism and any ism. Because ‘isms are what lead to genocide.
LikeLike
Abagond, I GET the point that certain activities are seen as benevolent when whites do them and noxious when blacks do them. I just don’t think that divorce, homosexuality and women’s rights have anything at all to do with this point.
I think those were piss-poor examples with which to illustrate this case. These things did not become “basically alright because white people considered theem to be so” as your post implies. They became LESS stigmatized because people – of many different colors – fought tooth and nail for them. And the LARGEST group of people who probably would like to see these things revoked in the U.S. is – ta da! – white.
Hell, you want to talk about a double morality, just look at drugs. Cocaine is an addiction, crack is a crime.
LikeLike
Great post, Poetess!
LikeLike
@ poetess
Is “Yakub” a derivation of Jacob?
Was the mad scientist Jewish?
LikeLike
Got it in one, King!
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Great post, Poetess!”
Why is it a great post because it absolves White of their behaviour for the past 500 years or so.
Something which you have been trying to do on this board.
I am afraid there is a big differnce between the victims of genocide etc calling their oppressors ‘White devils’ than the oppressors not only calling Blacks inferior, but bringing into sction systems to make the lives of \bBlack people even worse.
Its niave to think there can be any comparison.
LikeLike
J, I hate to break it to you, but I was born in 1967.
I think you’re talking about some other white guy’s behavior.
By the way, aren’t you the dude who thinks Jensen is correct when he says white people shouldn’t see themselves as white? Well, if that occurs, why chould anyone take responsability for white peoples’ behavior? What white people?
Can’t have your cake and eat it too, J. Can’t expect people to give up the white identity AND feel guilty for things white people did 500 years ago.
As for me, I’ll concentrate on what I’ve done myself, thanks.
But hey, you get reparations on the ballot J, and I’ll vote for it. 😀
LikeLike
Cheers..but I do remember you suggesting it was a ‘pipe dream’ and Blacks would be better using the gun rather than the ballot to achieve its end…
Now you want to vote for it.
Just to show how your humour belies your lack of reasoning skills. Whether you vote for reparations is not going to make any difference since taht is not how the process works in international law.
Let me guess you were reading from your miniature screen again??
LikeLike
Always wanted to vote for it, J, PROVIDED it can get on a ballot somewhere. Which, as we’ve discussed before, simply isn’t going to happen.
IIRC, my exact words were “I’d rather see Yank money go to reparations than to guns”.
But again, it ain’t gonna happen. If there were that much political power behind the idea of reparations, reparations wouldn’t be needed as the reparation crew would effectively be in a position to elect whomever they want and run the government the way they like.
As I’ve said before, reparations are based on the false notion that someone is going to force the U.S. to pay for the crimes of the past. Hell, no one can even force the U.S. to pay for the crimes it’s doing TODAY, so good luck with that one.
But, as I’ve said in our original go-’round, J, you get it on the ballot and I’ll vote for it.
I’ll also vote for paying Vietnam the war reparations that were promised to it by the U.S. – and never paid.
LikeLike
on Sun 30 May 2010 at 15:00:12 Thaddeus
1/
The only way to get the U.S. to give reparations would be to force it to do so. If the assorted black movements trying for reparations have THAT much power, why not just take the coutry’s government over instead?
on Mon 31 May 2010 at 02:28:57 Thaddeus
2/
J: Its not also clear to me how you can reconcile reparations as an issue across the world and Blacks acting within the remit of the law to obtain it?? Surely you are not advocating that Blacks pick up guns and obtain the monetary that way??
Thad: Personally, I’d think blacks would have a much better chance that way – though still not a very good one.
Would you like to take the time to show me where you wrote:
“IIRC, my exact words were “I’d rather see Yank money go to reparations than to guns”.
Lets hope you fare better in you search for your own quotes than you did with someone elses ie searching for Diop’s
LikeLike
Sure, J. What post did you take those from again? It was in that discussion, either slightly above or below the posts you cite.
As to why you think those cut ‘n pastes are so horribly racist, that’s anybody’s guess. We’ve been around and around on the reparations issue and it boils down exactly to what I said above: if black people and their allies had the political power to force reparations, they wouldn’t need to: they could just take over the state and do as they please.
But refresh my memory as to where that discussion took place and I will happily drag out the quote.
LikeLike
“STUF-U”
…once again
LikeLike
Well, J, thanks for nothing then.
Here’s the comments, all on the 25th of May, all on the same thread regarding concentration camps for Japanese Americans in WWII. Please note that all this was said close to a week before those comments which you’ve strategically cut’n pasted J:
Summing up, I think reparations, while a wonderful idea in theory, is a complete stoner’s pipe dream in practice.
…
I think the reparations demand is unworkable in reality. Show me how it will actually play out and I’ll change my mind. In theory, if I could give 1,000,000 dollars from the U.S. treasury to each black american, I’d do it, if only to see yet another nail stuck in the coffin of American imperialist ambition.
…
Hey, if you can convince the U.S. government to seriously contemplate giving 6.000.000.000 dollars to black people as reparations for slavery, I’ll vote for it. Whatever, man. Just don’t blame me for the likely results which – unless I’m greatly mistaken – will be white Americans saying “We no longer have a historic debt to black Americans”.
Pwned again, J.
LikeLike
Now let’s see J whine that those weren’t my exact words. And he’d technically be right: “I’d rather see Yank money go to reparations than to guns” is not EXACTLY the same as “In theory, if I could give 1,000,000 dollars from the U.S. treasury to each black american, I’d do it, if only to see yet another nail stuck in the coffin of American imperialist ambition.” It’s the same damned sentiment, however. And note that I mentioned twice that if I had the power to give reparations or vote for it I would.
So much for the red herring, eh J? 😀
LikeLike
I basically agree this is how the majority of whites. That I have interacted with think.
LikeLike
Yeah Joe, but again, the same thing could be said of most of the AMERICANS I’ve interacted with.
Hell, Ana and I even joke about it. A famous Brazilian sociologist and historian once labeled Brazilians “the Cordial Man”, given the way we use cordiality to avoid conflict. Based on that, Ana and I have labled Americans “The Innocent Man”.
No matter what their color or gender, Americans are never guilty of anything worse than good intentions. It’s true: ask nearly any one of them.
So while I’m not surprised that white Americans believe that they are “basically good” when it comes to racism, I think that this is an American trait in general.White and black Americans believe that they are “basically good” when it comes to imperialism. for example. And American men of all colors believe that they are “basically good” when dealing with women.
It’s the country’s greatest cross-cultural myth.
LikeLike
With regard to
“Now let’s see J whine that those weren’t my exact words. And he’d technically be right”
Thanks, just a little assist, my two quotes do NOT come from Japanese Americans post.
Anyhow back to the topic concerned ‘Basically Good’
LikeLike
Thanks, just a little assist, my two quotes do NOT come from Japanese Americans post.
So what? You were fully engaged in the Japanese post debating this topic with me a full week before those quotes you culled were uttered. It’s not like you hadn’t read them before.
Your point was that I’d never said I was in favor of giving money to the descendants of slaves. In fact, I said that three times. My point is and always has been that reparations are a bad strategy because they ultimately count on your enemy’s being nice to you. Any other way of making reparations occur involves having more force – political or otherwise – at hand than the U.S. government. If you can pull THAT off, you don’t NEED reparations: you can control the State.
I’ve made this point a half dozen times, J, and you insist on claiming that it means I’m against reparations themselves on moral grounds.
Get it right: I’m against reparations because it is the strategy of suckers. The idea of getting the U.S. government to dedicate 6 trillion dollars to attempting to level the playing field between whites and blacks is not in and of itself offensive to me. It just ain’t ever going to happen, J.
But as I said above (which you erroneously claimed I’d never said before), get it on the ballot and I’ll vote for it. I’d rather see that cash going onto public works of any sort than into American imperialism.
LikeLike
A funny, sarcastic and on point poke at white denial but you lost me at “stuff like divorce, abortion and homosexuality, which had been seen as wrong for hundreds of years.”
Black people were not seen as human for hundreds of years, does that make it a universal truth or is it a truth to whom it is convenient? You talk about the self absorption of whiteness but you seem to be guilty of the same short sightedness.
Finding lasting companionship isn’t that simple. Deciding to have children isn’t that simple. And sexuality isn’t that simple.
LikeLike
Right on, Gen!
LikeLike
Gen:
Sorry, but just because white people believe something for hundreds of years that hardly makes it a universal truth to me – that applies as much to divorce, abortion and homosexuality as it does to racism or a flat earth.
LikeLike
Agreed Abagond, I understand what the commentator was attempting, but logically, because it starts from a ‘false premise’, any conclusion would also be ‘spurious’. And as result I found the whole reasoning odd.
LikeLike
Abagond, Gen was hardly proposing that universal truths exist.
LikeLike
TO UNCLE MILTON:
THOSE SO CALLED BLACK CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE ARE BI RACIAL!!! yes they are the BLACK CHILDREN OF WHITE MOTHERS!!!
LikeLike
but let me tell you this: WHEN THEY DO GET ADOPTED OR FOSTERED OUT, THE WHITE PARENTS SAY THEY ARE BI RACIAL NOT BLACK. so while they are in foster care, they are BLACK. when white folks foster them or adopt them they are all of a sudden BI RACIALS.
LikeLike
Thank you Thaddeus. I think my comment was misunderstood a bit.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Gen was hardly proposing that universal truths exist.”
This is more fallacious reasoning and in no way affects the fundamental of what Abagond says when he suggests:
Sorry, but just because white people BELIEVE something for hundreds of years that hardly makes it a universal truth to ME – that applies as much to divorce, abortion and homosexuality as it does to racism or a flat earth
LikeLike
And I forgot to add nor does it make the commentator’s reasoning with regard to ‘logic’ any more the correct
but I clearly understand the attempt which was undertaken by the commentator
LikeLike
Neither Gen nor I ever proposed that what white people believed – for however long – is a universal truth. Quite the contrary, J.
So you want to join us back here on Planet Earth, please?
LikeLike
Who said that you did?
You were the one who made the vacuous comment:
“Gen was hardly proposing that universal truths exist.”
As far as I am concerned with much of your reasoning etc, you might as well be leaving in a flat world
LikeLike
It seemed that Gen was saying that I believed something was a universal truth simply because whites had believed it for hundreds of years. That is where I am coming from on this.
LikeLike
Abagond did, J. Here’s the comment: “Sorry, but just because white people believe something for hundreds of years that hardly makes it a universal truth to me.”
LikeLike
It still does not get us past this vacuous point though:
““Gen was hardly proposing that universal truths exist.”
LikeLike
OK, Abagond, understood.
LikeLike
…And wrong again with the spurious reasoning
Its a Thad ol’ world
LikeLike
And you’re such a comedian, J! Please, tell me again how “Africa” should be spelled “Afrika” because English has no hard “c” sound. Or how about you tell us once again why race is a biological fact because a site which honors nazi eugenicists claims that it is? Or – may favorite – why don’t you explain once again why a post-modern aryanist who eblieves that the Jews are a biological threat to the world is in fact an afrocentric scholar?
J, you never fail to crack me up, man! 😀
LikeLike
To Dude007:
TO UNCLE MILTON:
THOSE SO CALLED BLACK CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE ARE BI RACIAL!!! yes they are the BLACK CHILDREN OF WHITE MOTHERS!!!
All of them..? I find it very unlikely that every the majority of children labeled as Black would fall into that category considering the births of children to two black parents are more than ten times as common as children from a White mother and a Black father. Do you have any data to back up your assertion…?
LikeLike
I see, the paragraph about divorce, abortion and homosexuality was reworded after I posted my initial comment and the message passed to me was not what Abagond intended. And no I didn’t mean that you believe X because whites believed X for Y amount of time, it just seemed like you were denouncing divorce/abortion/homosexuality, which is a result of misinterpretation and that’s pretty much it. I had a gripe with the post, I stated it and hopefully I cleared that up. Now I’m outsie.
LikeLike
To leigh204 and MerriMay:
Merrimay:
When he was cornered, gun in hand mind you, it occured to me that even then, they still wanted to reason with him and talk him out of it, a man who had made a direct threat to the police and public. The guman took his own life. Had that been a black man they would have peppered him with bullets and called it a day. Contrast that with the white cop in the States let off for shooting to death an anarmed black man.
Leigh204
Spot on.
Well Great Britain is not the US. If you think it only White cops killed unarmed Black people in the US, guess again:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/03/31/30732.php
Eric Kleemeyer was killed by Santa Clara Police on January 4th, 2005. He allegedly did not pull over, as he was driving to his mother’s house. He was unarmed and feared for his life, due to a previous beating that went unreported. Police boxed him in a driveway across the street from his mom’s house. He was 22 years old. Without identifying themselves or asking him to step out of the car, they opened fire and shot him 9 times. An ambulance arrived, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
There was no jury trial, and the police officers who killed Mr. Kleemeyer are still on duty.
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Not when white people are, you know, Basically Good!
Well how do you believe Black, Latino, and Asian Americans view themselves…?
I think Thad may be right in that this is more of an American trait than a White trait. European Whites (at least for the groups that I have had broad exposure to.. Irish, Germans, Russians, and Poles..) seem much more cynical and doubtful about human nature in general. Even so.. no shortage of White and Black Americans who routinely read (and at least outwardly..) seem to adhere to the principles of the Bible.
LikeLike
@ Abagond,
this is an absolutely brilliant post! Well done, old chap!
Menelik
LikeLike
With regard to Gen’s comments:
“I HAD A GRIPE WITH THE POST, I stated it and hopefully I cleared that up. Now I’m outsie”
There are a few others here – not arguing according to the ‘facts ie the words on their own merits.
At least you were ‘sincere’ enough to come forward to openly admit your position.
LikeLike
Well if that ain’t the murder calling the thief a criminal… Nice dose of pomposity there, J! 😀
LikeLike
From the Michigan Race Equity Review:
“In several case files of African American families, workers described a parent as “denies history of substance abuse.” The case file contained no documentation of any past or current substance abuse problem. In case files of Caucasian families with similar documentation, workers described a parent as having “no history of substance abuse.”
Source:
Click to access michigan%20report%201%2014%2009%20FINAL.pdf
LikeLike
Uncle Milton said:
“Well how do you believe Black, Latino, and Asian Americans view themselves…?
I think Thad may be right in that this is more of an American trait than a White trait. European Whites (at least for the groups that I have had broad exposure to.. Irish, Germans, Russians, and Poles..) seem much more cynical and doubtful about human nature in general. Even so.. no shortage of White and Black Americans who routinely read (and at least outwardly..) seem to adhere to the principles of the Bible.”
1. I know that not ALL White Americans think this way. That is why I put MANY in the very first sentence. I already went through this with Thad. Scroll up if you want the meat on that.
2. As laid out in the post, the Basically Good philosophy would be a hard position for a black person in America to take – they would come off seeming like Uncle Ruckus of “The Boondocks”: delusional and self-hating.
Even if you flipped the script – put black in place of white and white in place of black – it would still not work. Because the whole point of Basically Good is to achieve moral blindness, to turn a blind eye to the evil done by the Basically Good. So it might work with some American blacks in regard to American foreign policy, say, or blacks who think they are honorary whites, but not more generally. Moral blindness suits those in power, not those getting screwed.
You saw this very split during the 2008 election:
Michelle Obama:
“For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Cindy McCain, hours later:
“I have and always will be proud of my country.”
Which statement fits the Basically Good worldview? Which statement did the white talking heads on television mostly take issue with?
LikeLike
As laid out in the post, the Basically Good philosophy would be a hard position for a black person in America to take – they would come off seeming like Uncle Ruckus of “The Boondocks”: delusional and self-hating.
You misunderstand, Abagond: American black people think of themselves as “bassically good”.
Almost all Americans I have dealt with think of themselves and their people – however they define that – as basically good.
You guys are the world’s Innocent Man. You NEVER do any wrong unless it was tragically caused by good intentions.
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Let me clarify … do you think:
Black Americans think that Black Americans are basically good;
Latino Americans think that Latino Americans are basically good; and Asian Americans think Asian Americans are basically good? Not whether they think someone outside their group or whether Americans as a whole are good.
Because as I read your statement (and as you later clarified to Mira ..) you were referring to White Americans and how they think of themselves.
LikeLike
The cake that I am currently eating is basically good. Chocolate carrot cake. Mmmm.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“You guys are the world’s Innocent Man. You NEVER do any wrong unless it was tragically caused by good intentions”.
Is not this topic tied into the subject of race.??
Yes all groups think they are ‘good’, in a way just like individuals like to perceive themselves as ‘good’. A human-centric experience.
However, in a racist society, the ‘racist’ still feels he is ‘basically good’ and this is what the dialogue is about, not removing the variable of ‘race’.
Then again perhaps I may have missed something – thinking to myself
LikeLike
However, in a racist society, the ‘racist’ still feels he is ‘basically good’ and this is what the dialogue is about, not removing the variable of ‘race’.
J, in a canibalistic society, the canibal feels he’s basically good. In a society that routinely practices pedophilia, the pedophile feels he’s basically good.
Societies normalize their values. This is nothing new.
Where the U.S. is different, however, is in it’s belief that not only are Americans basically good, but that they have some sort of special covenant with God.
LikeLike
Forgive me I do not understand your point vis-a-vis this post. And also I do not understand this comment either
““You guys are the world’s Innocent Man. You NEVER do any wrong unless it was tragically caused by good intentions”.
And hence my question about ‘race/racism’
LikeLike
Sorry, J, I don’t understand your question.
LikeLike
de ja vu…
“Improve you’re English comprehension skills then.”
LikeLike
So what’s your question about “race/racism” then?
LikeLike
I am trying to find out why you said:
“““You guys are the world’s Innocent Man. You NEVER do any wrong unless it was tragically caused by good intentions”.
concerning this post??
LikeLike
‘This post’ refers to Abagond’s chosen topic, or was it for some other reason?
LikeLike
BTW, Cracked.com just did a bit on “If Mpvie Titles Were Honest”. Check out how the nailed Kevin Costner’s “Dance With Wolves”:
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/phpimages/photoshop/9/4/3/26943.jpg?v=1
😀
LikeLike
@J
Because it seems to me that thinking oneself and one’s people to be “basically good” and inocent of any wrong doing is an overwhlemingly American trait more than it is a “white” trait.
All peoples do this to some degree, but Americans are really into it.
So given that Abagond lives in the U.S., I’m wondering why he would think that any group of Americans – whatever their color – would admit to their “people” doing nasty sh** at some point in the past.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton:
Indeed Great Britain is not the US, but I’m very regularly amazed at the eery similarities of police incidents in both countries. The Oscar Grant incident could easily have happened in the UK. Until you can cite as many innocent black lives snuffed out as there are white ones, and therein, comparable reasonable doubt duly given each before action was taken(as in the example I gave) then we can talk!
Kleemeyer’s case was tragic, as is every life lost that way, forgive me, i couldn’t open your link, but I presume he failed to stop for a routine check. They gave chase, wouldn’t they at this point assume he’s resisting, and could possibly be armed? Not so the unresisting, unarmed black man on the floor, no?
Both died in a hail of bullets, again compare the two, in the case of the white 22 yr old, hmm, maybe he wore out their patience or something or exhausted his options by failing to stop. The black guy had complied, he was killed anyway.
LikeLike
To MerriMay:
and therein, comparable reasonable doubt duly given each before action was taken(as in the example I gave) then we can talk!
The closest comparison of Eric Kleemeyer’s case would be to the Rodney King incident. You know the outcome of that one presumably. I just double checked the link it works for me. I can post another link:
http://www.siliconvalleydebug.com/story/051506/stories/motherstestimony.html
Not so the unresisting, unarmed black man on the floor, no?
No, he was resisting being handcuffed..I can post a video if you would like.. his friend was quickly and easily cuffed just before Oscar Grant was shot.. but the cops were not able to cuff Grant (for around 30 seconds..) It was not known if he was armed or not until after they searched him. However that doesn’t excuse him being shot… I am guessing the cop panicked. Oakland is a very violent town (the worst in California. When I lived there I was threatened many times. 4 Oakland cops (where the incident occurred ..) were killed in one day, less than 3 months later. The cop was found guilty… but if you look up the California definition of 2nd degree murder it doesn’t seem to apply. Either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter would. (The cop received the latter.. I believe perhaps the former may be more applicable but I have not seen all the evidence…) Apparently you don’t think the cop received enough punishment…what charge do you think he should have been guilty of and why..?
LikeLike
Uncle Milton:
Funny, I would have thought Kleenmeyer’s case was more similar to Sean Bell’s case. Another unarmed black man shot to death by plain clothes officers, he never saw them coming, unlike Kleenmeyer who actually ran from them. In both cases police failed to identify themselves. They were in plainclothes in Sean’s case, it’s not clear in Kleenmeyer’s, if that was why he ran from them.
Sounds like you’re excusing Oscar Gran’t killer, you’re only guessing he panicked. You’re speculating. He’s a trained officer who should have called for back up if he felt overwhelmed! Especially if it’s as you say, a tough area. What of 23 yr old Sean Bell? The officer wasn’t found guilty. At least Kleenmeyer’s killer got some punishment.
I don’t know what kind of due force was used to subdue Oscar Grant to warrant being shot. Are you next going to use his previous records/convictions as justifiable cause? How can you grapple with someone and not know they are armed, if he was, surely he’d use his weapon and not conceal it. They had no proof Oscar was ‘packing’. It’s crucial to know at what point they decided to shoot him.
For every innocent white person dying at the hands of the police, I’m sure there are more of blacks who were shot first and questions asked later.
LikeLike
To Merrimay:
Sounds like you’re excusing Oscar Gran’t killer, you’re only guessing he panicked. You’re speculating. He’s a trained officer who should have called for back up if he felt overwhelmed!
Well of course I am speculating… I didn’t see him testify and I didn’t hear testimony from all of the witnesses nor did I watch all of the available videos. His claim was that he thought he was firing his Taser, which I thought was implausible since he changed his story. He was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It’s possible given the circumstances, that he may have been guilty of voluntary manslaughter which is considered a more severe crime. (which would have been the case if he actually was panicking…) You seem to believe he got off when in reality he may be sentenced to 14 years in jail. Since you seem dissatisfied with the outcome, what verdict do you feel would have been appropriate and why..?
They had no proof Oscar was ‘packing’. It’s crucial to know at what point they decided to shoot him.
In the US a police officer doesn’t need proof that someone is packing… if I reach beyond my back or into a glove compartment or under the seat of my car (even if later it is determined that I was unarmed..) when confronted by a police officer it’s a good possibility that I will be shot. It sounds like you haven’t read much about the case. You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
LikeLike
For those who are interested, here is an article on the stereotyped Canadian coverage of the World Cup. It touches on some of the same themes I have talked about on this blog, particularly Africa as a country and whites as Basically Good while blacks are not:
http://rabble.ca/news/2010/07/coverage-world-cup-left-out-few-african-stereotypes
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
To clarify, the involuntary manslaughter sentence is between 2-4 years. The unlawful weapons use change is what could potentially increase the sentence (mostly because it requires that a minimum of 80% of the designated time be served).
Thad,
As an example, I would wager a guess that more Black Americans will enumerate their (perceived) failings of the Black community than Whites will about the “White” community. That doesn’t exclude either group from thinking that they’re “basically good”, but I think the fact that non-White cultures are more often collective makes them pay attention to how individuals contribute to the good (or bad) perception of the group. American Whites don’t see themselves as belonging to a “White” group, so being “basically good” is an individual effort, no matter how many White people have done something bad in the past (or present).
LikeLike
Jasmin,
Well, to begin with, whites typically don’t see themselves as a community, so it’s very easy for them to slip negative white stereotypes off on “those other whites”. I’m not so sure what you mean by “non-white cultures are more often collective”, though.
LikeLike
LOL at the angels coming down from heaven part!
LikeLike
My sister’s husband Eldon subscribes to the notion that white people are inherently good. Even after his repeated encounters with racism in the job market and his dealings with subpar landlords. I guess he is lucky to have my sister, even if she is overly liberal and flighty.
LikeLike
lol, magically out of nowhere, an angel comes and kisses them on the nose! Love it.
LikeLike
i’m white, ad i see that same mentality in my mom 😡 . She thinks its ok to lock up everyone of a certain race (ex: japanese during ww2, and arabs in NY after 9/11) because a few terrorists who HAPPENED (pure coincidence) to attack america were of the same racial background. I don’t recall us forcing all german americans into poorly constructed barracks for several years while the ‘good americans’ fought during WW2. I just wish nobody saw people for their ethnicities/religions, because we are all made equal and we’re all just as bad as the next schmuck who comes along
LikeLike
Well, I am a white woman and I feel that all black people are ‘basically good’.
So I suppose that makes me a racist or something?
Here is what I know. I learned it from my own experiences in life so forgive me if I can’t quote a textbook for my reasoning. Anyway, here it is….. We Are Not That Different. We love, we hurt, we FEEL the same way. Gos is NOT partial (Acts 10:34).
I grew up in Detroit in the mid 70’s, I was always the minority. What I saw was that black families and white families are the SAME. I used to go to school sleepovers, being the only white girl amongst 7, 8 black girls. You know what the only difference between us all was? It took longer to do my hair in the morning because it was so ‘slippery’.
I LOVED those girls, they are my friends to this day. Remember, racist whites are a dying breed. The new generation, and every generation after that knows better. Acknowledge that truth!
LikeLike
“Way back in Ancient Times, like before colour television, white people used to do all kinds of terrible things, things that were not mere Slip Ups or Simple Misunderstandings – stuff like Jim Crow, slavery, genocide and colonialism. But then the Angel’s Kiss or Something wiped all that away.”
Not an angel’s kiss, unless the Grim Reaper is an angel. The people died. The people always die. I thought you were Catholic? Then these people are in your god’s hands – let him administer justice.
LikeLike
[…] Basically Good […]
LikeLike
”But then sometime between 1900 and 1970 – probably like 1955 or 1968 – the angels came down from heaven and kissed each white person. Or something. And now white people are Basically Good”
LMAO.
I don’t see why a race of people thinks they are better than another? Whites aren’t better than Blacks and vice versa.
LikeLike
@Abagond: So if “white” people are not “Basically Good”, does that mean they are “Basically Bad”? Or are they “Basically Human”, and judgments as “Basically Good” or “Basically Bad” are unfair, as they may not do justice to the complexity of human nature? What about humans in general? What is your view of “human nature”? Is true moral perfection, doing absolutely no wrong whatsoever in even the slightest, either for one’s whole lifetime or for the remaining lifetime following a certain period of learning (which is significantly shorter than the whole lifetime), possible for any human being, or every human being?
LikeLike
NO LITTLE BABY EVER WAS EVIL UNTIL SOMEONE GOT INSIDE THEIR HEAD
LikeLike
@ mike4ty4
I believe in original sin as outlined in the post. Blacks and whites are born with the same human nature. Moral perfection is impossible. Even saints are not perfect – and they will be the first ones to tell you that.
LikeLike
@Abagond
“…I believe in original sin…”
Perhaps its time you added this post to your blog list. Its an out dated Biblical concept which surely has no real place now in this 21st Century?
LikeLike
Is true moral perfection, doing absolutely no wrong whatsoever in even the slightest, either for one’s whole lifetime or for the remaining lifetime following a certain period of learning (which is significantly shorter than the whole lifetime), possible for any human being, or every human being?
Yes, it is sir. I am the living embodiment of this! For 59.99 dollars plus tax, shipping and handling, you too can be morally perfect. Full satisfaction guaranteed or your money back! Email; thereisasuckerborneveryminute@gearboxesareus.com!
LikeLike
You know, I am “white”, and when I first found this site I felt insulted by this page. Now that I’ve read more and had a lot more encounters on the interwebs with people who actually believe this trope, that Whites are a morally superior race and Blacks are a morally worthless one, and now I find that idea appalling and infuriating and totally agree with what’s said here on this site. Actually, I always found it appalling but I took the page as a personal attack on me, now I see it as nothing of the sort. There are NO morally superior races. That is a vicious notion concocted to hurt people.
Thanks Abagond.
LikeLike
@ mike4ty4
Glad to be of service.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Anne Frank was Jewish, not white. Why do you have her picture there? Could you do a post on her sometime? Also, once on the Raizals of Colombia. Thanks.
LikeLike
@ Everette F. Pomare
Jewish people are White people. Like the Irish and Italians, Jewish people, at one time, weren’t considered Whites – but now they are. Do your research, son.
http:/www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-America/dp/081352590X
LikeLike
@ Everett F. Pomare
http://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X
LikeLike
@ mike4ty4
Could you kindly explain, from your point of view, why this happens?
Why do many of the white readers treat stuff like the content of this post as a personal attack on them? I really doubt that many black readers take the negative stuff they hear said daily about blacks, for simply being black, as a personal attack on THEM.
I perhaps meet one white American in a hundred where I can talk about this topic. They take it SO personally instead of simply treating it like a discussion of US history and culture.
LikeLike
Oh this is sarcasm i see what you did here.
LikeLike
@Jefe
I think it’s because white people look at themselves as unique individuales but they collectivise everybody else.
So when the reverse happens and they read this blog they immediately assume Abagond is talking about ALL whites and so it’s a personal attack against their character because you know all whites are basically good.
We have been taught from the day we were born that’s it all good.
Our founding fathers may have owned a few slaves but they were basically good. They wrote enlightened documents that applied basicallly to most people.
Our country, our flag, Capitalism, Christianity, Democracy, our way of life and our wars against America’s enemies, it’s all good.
We live in a post racial Era where diversity is celebrated so it’s all good.
We have all grown on this hard road together and we “keep America moving forward, always forward- for a better America, for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light”.
Meanwhile basically good police officers gun down basicaly bad Black men in the streets.
LikeLike
Edit: Meanwhile whites think that basically good police officers …
LikeLike
@Michael Cooper @Abagond
How are the Italians white? They are Latin. As a matter of fact, they are as Latin as the Porto Ricans and South Americans are. In addition, did you know that the French and French-Canadians are Latinos as well? Bet you didn’t know that. How can the French be white? The truth is , that they are not white. The people of Québec and France are Latinos. Let me give you a personal example: Back in high school, I knew three sisters of mixed ethnicity (French and English). Two of them (the oldest and the youngest) looked just like any run of the mill white folks. However, the middle one was a different case. You see, she looked like Latin person from Latin America. If I did not know her, I could have sworn that she was completely Latin. However, she was not. They speak English as a first language, and identify as white, and I respect that. They are some of the nicest people you could ever meet, by the way. Even so, the truth of the matter is that the French are NOT WHITE. They are Latinos. Here is a quick history lesson: After the French and Indian War, the British took over control of most of Canada. For the first few years, the British left them alone, and they kept on acting like if France was still there. However, all that changed when Americans still loyal to the U.K. came to Canada, and began to build places like Ontario and Toronto. Quickly, they became the majority in the country, and ultimately made the French a minority. That is wgy you only see them in Quebec now. They had many rebellions against British rule, and it wasn’t until the late ’60s early ’70s, that they began ti have equality with whites. The only real whites, fyi, are the English, Irish, Welsh, Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, and kindred peoples (Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic, and kindred people). That is who the REAL Caucasians are. Did you know that the French use the accordion in their music, and that it is very similar to Spanish music? Québec is Latin American!
French accordion music
(http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zMFYpECiCAs)
Spanish accordion music
(http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EgY4197SV1w)
Cajun French accordion music
(http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AR37qNFcnU8)
This PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that the French are 100% Latino, and ought to be proud of that fact! They are not white! The accordion is a Latin instrument. Did you know that chicken parmesan is Latino food (from Italy), as is pasta and Canadian poutine (Quebec)? Latin doesn’t always mean Spanish, and not all European-descended people are Caucasian. And, by the way, Pizza is Latino food also, as are Croissants and snails (escargot). Canoli is Latin too, in addition to mozzarella. New York has had lots of Latino mayors already, such as Rudy Giuliani and Bill de Blasio, among others. The first Latinos in NY were the Italians and Sicillians. That is all for now. Just my three cents! 😏
LikeLike
@ Everett Pomare
Anne Frank was killed by White people, even by your definition. That is why I made her the poster child. Her picture is suppose to make the point that Whites as Basically Good is absurd.
LikeLike
@Michael Barker
So how does one broach the subject of US history and culture with Americans, esp. white Americans? I almost try to avoid encountering Americans altogether overseas just so that we don’t have to touch those sensitive topics (and therefore, see them get very defensive). I can count on one hand how many overseas white Americans I feel comfortable discussing this with.
How can we talk about the brutal history of America without having white people think we are talking about them PERSONALLY? Or is their guilt simply that profound?
LikeLike
Anne Frank had a quote about “Despite everything, I believe most people are good at heart ” or something to that effect. When I read this book in grade school I was annoyed at this quote. I couldn’t understand how she could have a thought like that. Especially since her people were being oppressed by Nazis. But I realize today she was just an idealistic and naive youth.
LikeLike
I think that this post implied that most White Americans think it’s OK to be gay (i.e. “if most white people think something is all right. . .”) I believe, on the contrary, that most white folks are very homophobic. I’m gay, and I’m white, and I’ve spent most of my life around (predominately straight) white people, and that’s been my experience with them anyway. I think you’re straight, too, Abagond? Maybe you don’t understand how much homophobia is out there because you aren’t personally subjected to it (a bit like how I underestimate how much racism exists since I’m white).
Also, I noticed in the comment thread, Abagond, that you said you believed (or at least did back in 2010) that there are “good. . .moral arguments” to the effect that being gay is wrong. Really? So (regardless of whether you believe it or not) you think it’s a fair argument that gay people are defective, Abagond; you think it’s a fair argument that gay people have a crack in our soul’s just because we’re gay? If so, that’s appalling.
This might be surprising, but I like most of what you’ve written over the years, Abagond. I like your commitment to truth, and I like how you aren’t afraid to describe white people as we really are, sanctimonious belief in our own “goodness” included. I also know you don’t like white people derailing your posts, and I’ll own that’s what I’m doing here–derailing your post. But what can I say? I don’t like it when straight people minimize homophobia or frame it as somehow reasonable, and that’s what it seems like you’re doing (even if it’s not your main point of your commentary here).
LikeLike
@ Becca
If I wrote this post over again, I would leave out the bit about homosexuality. It has proved to be a huge distraction – or a convenient derailment.
I believe in original sin. So what Whites think of Blacks in the post is not far off. Where they go wrong is not applying the same thinking to themselves. They are the same way, but act like they are Special.
EVERYONE is born with a crack in their souls, whether Black or White, straight or gay. Human nature is profoundly flawed. If you want to think of it in terms of evolution, it is probably for the same reason we have bad knees and bad backs – it is an evolutionary work in progress that still has kinks to work out.
Thinking that you do not have a crack in your soul, or that gay people do not, is part of the Basically Good mindset I am talking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regardless of whether original sin exists, though, there is no good argument that gay people are defective BECAUSE we’re gay. There is no good moral argument that homosexuality is wrong. So you were wrong when you said there was, Abagond. There are only homophobic arguments that say homosexuality is wrong. And if anything, HOMOPHOBIA–not being gay–would be the evidence for something like original sin.
Personally, I’m not religious (so I don’t believe in original sin as “original sin.”) I do agree that human nature is flawed though, and we humans are a work in progress. One of the biggest flaws seems to be in our cultural evolution, in whatever created this tendency for us to oppress each other, for us to be racist, sexist, homophobic, capitalist. I have a crack in my soul because I’m white, because I’m a white racist. I also have a crack in my soul because I’m homophobic toward myself. But there is no crack that comes from being gay itself. It’s not bad to be gay, period.
LikeLike
@ Becca
This post does not assume that homosexuality is immoral.
LikeLike
I’m aware of that. But In 2010, you said there was a good, serious moral argument against homosexuality. You were wrong. There is no good, serious moral argument against homosexuality.
LikeLike
@ Becca
What I said was:
That means on BOTH sides. The same was true for slavery. I said that because otherwise they would not be matters of controversy over which much has been written.
LikeLike
But In 2010, you said there was a good, serious moral argument against homosexuality.
That argument is you and your racist underpinnings. To read your posts, one would think that all homosexuals were white, that’s the problem. Even though oppressed you still manage to be racist. You do not have an inkling as to what these post is about do you?
LikeLike
[…] prefer everyone to forget and how, we’re taught to love our enemy. We’re taught that white people are inherently good people despite…well…everything they’ve done to us in the name of white supremacy and […]
LikeLike
Race has nothin to do with this!! So what the fuck! I asked about a letter dropped of a name. Not gonna play your race game
LikeLike