Is This Racist?
Posted on May 24th, 2005 in General by ComptonFellah ||
KTK, posting at the liberal blog Lean Left, writes:
(Unfortunately, Sowell failed to use the required current catchphrase, “up-or-down vote,” but I’m sure his GOP masters will give him credit for a sincere effort.)(emphasis)
What would you think if someone had said, but “Al Sharpton failed to use the required current catchphrase, “up-or-down vote,” but I’m sure his Democrat masters will give him credit for a sincere effort”?
This was in reference to Thomas Sowell, specifically to his recent article on the judicial nominee hold up in the senate. I fully admit that I may be biased here because Thomas Sowell is someone I highly admire, so I take criticism of him seriously.
Racist or not racist, it is yet another example of how liberals tend to use racial overtones when they speak of dissenting minorities.
May 24th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
No, but thanks for asking.
I agree that there is a history of the use of innuendo or ambiguous phrases to cast racial aspersions, but that wasn’t my intention here. (I also don’t think it’s a particularly liberal characteristic. I suspect examples are far easier to find from conservative sources; I also find it an increasingly common conservative tactic to cry “racism” when minority conservatives are criticized for any reason.) However, unintended meanings come unbidden when language admits of them, especially language with racial baggage attached, and I should have been more aware of that. In response to your concern, I have changed the language on the post you quote - not to a more positive description; I still think Sowell is a suck-up and a smarmy hack - to avoid racial ambiguities. Thanks for raising the point. You are right that I should have worded it another way, and I was wrong not to do so.
All that said, though, I find it ironic that you are worried about “racism” in one word of my post criticizing Sowell for his utterly bizarre claim that discussing the actual qualifications of judicial nominees is a form of “bigotry,” for explicitly analogizing it to racism, for wedging in an absurd list of equally [non-]bigoted acts that have absolutely nothing to do with the judicial nominations, and for claiming that the Democrats have committed the moral harm of denying Republicans the “right” of confirming bad nominees. That is an abuse of moral discourse, and a trespass on any honest understanding of “bigotry,” far worse than my speculation on his motives for committing it. I don’t think I’m a racist, but I’m certainly a “bigot” in Sowell’s idiotic understanding of that term - and Sowell is an ass.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Thanks for removing it Kevin.
As for your question, Sowell was referring to an essential part of bigotry that does characterize Democrats actions in the senate and in general. It wasn’t specifically racial bigotry, but bigotry in general he was referring too.
May 26th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Where are your comments about “racism” when “Black conservatives” say Blacks are “stuck on a plantation” of some type or “dont’ think for themselves”?
Man, it seems like “Black conservatives” are making an industry of “victimology”, the same thing they claim they don’t like.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Victimology is very different than cries of racism, nobody here is trying to escape personal responsibility or trying to put the blame on others, this is a seperate issue and it’s best to keep the two seperate.
As far as racism goes, I personally just hate the ‘holier than thou’ attitude from the left. I am not saying racism is only a factor of the left, I am saying that it is not particular to any one group of people, in other words, racism is a bipartisan factor.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:24 am
I think there is a larger question here. Is the depiction of Sowell in the entry accurate? That is, did he argue that qualifications are irrelevant both normatively and descriptively? If so, then we have bigger fish to fry than the use of the word “master”. Whether you hate the use of the term or not.
June 3rd, 2005 at 7:58 am
Kevin wrote:…”and for claiming that the Democrats have committed the moral harm of denying Republicans the “right” of confirming bad nominees. That is an abuse of moral discourse, and a trespass on any honest understanding of “bigotry,”
The Senate is suppose to give advice and consent, that means an up or down vote. It says nothing about filibuster, in fact filibuster is not even in the constitution. There is supposed to be equal power between the 3 branches, but the idiot 7 have usurped the constitution and the majority.
You say ‘Bad Nominees’ by whose definitions, Ted ‘Hick’ Kennedy ? Or that paragon of leftist virtue Charles Schmuckie Shumer ?
The Senate democrats have done nothing for four years except stonewall, obstruct Bushes judicial nominees for the courts. But now the race card has reared it ugly head. This I think is a smoke screen to cover the real agenda of the left and that is to push even further the envelop of human dignity as far as abortion is concerned. They have lost the last election, to morals, they lost the congress, they have lost the Senate, and they are now losing their main pillar of a platform.
Isn’t it funny, the democrats say they are all for raising up the minorities, ‘level the playing field’, ‘its all about the family’ all neat sounding, touchy-feely cliche’s and that is all they are. They,The Democrats, never solve any problems. The minorities they are supposedly trying to help are still in the same situation they were 40 years ago,only in some cases even worse, they exacerbate them to keep themselves in power.
So when a Clarence Thomas, Condalezza Rice, Janice Rogers Brown, comes along they are stonewalled by the party that supposedly is helping the Minority.
These Nominees all at one time or another were stonewalled by the democrats as being “Bad Nominees”, why are they bad nominees ? They are conservatives, they believe in the original version of the constitution, they believe the constitution should be interpreted as written and that it is not a changing document as the left would have everyone believe.
These nominees do NOT believe that there is some kind of fuzzy language in the 14th ammendment that permits the murder of the unborn.
These nominees could be any color, it would not matter. First, Bush appointed them, reason number one. Second, they hate Bush and has been dubbed him as an illegitimate SELECTED Candidate(it doesn’t matter to them that it was ALGORE who started the recount in Florida in 2000 and it was ALGORE who went to the courts to steal the election), and this is why the Senate lefitsts oppose them.
It has been said, that the Senate democrats, or all democrats for that matter, are intellectually dishonest, in other words nothing but a bunch of liars.
June 3rd, 2005 at 1:39 pm
New to the blog, nice site.
Sowell is lost in the motion.
June 21st, 2005 at 8:07 am
I think if everyone would just think five more minutes per day about the world and how beautiful it is, if there wouldnt be just one racist anymore!
August 8th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
What is exactly special about Thomas Sowell? Is he above criticism now because he makes money writing books and articles popular with his target demographic of white conservatives?
–Cobra
August 16th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Similar things have been said of liberal blacks. For example, black conservatives love to use the “plantation” analogy when describing black democrats.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I like Thomas Sowell, I like the way he writes no matter if I agree with his opinion
or not. But I do feel the comment “masters” is an insidiously holier than thou
comment made becasue the author feels that he is above racism so he
can critisize by using racist terms.
August 24th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
The statement is par for the course. The black inter-group politic now allows the right to debase blacks conventional wisdom - derriding it as a new slavery. Blacks to the left are characterized in ways that liken them to shiftless, non-thinking, ignorant sharecroppers. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton move from being activists to being “pimps.” The traditional black “leadership” are only spoken of in a way that you would expect them to all look like Amos ‘n Andy.
On the flip side, the reverse of this politic is the characterization of the minority of blacks who align with white conservatives as “sellouts,” “uncle toms,” “bootlickers,” etc. Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice become cartoons rather than accomplished people. Black conservatives over all become two dimensional representations.
However, if we are child’s logic, we can say “they started it” or “they do it too,” regardless of what side of the fence you’re on. It’s a little ridiculous for black conservatives to charge racism in how they are responded to because so much of what they earn their keep on is related to criticizing conventional black wisdom and leadership in a way that is more harsh and cartoon ridden than realistic. Also, on the left you find a far greater diversity, from the suit and tie “advocates” to the afro types with bullhorns to the book nerds and so on. On the right you find a stunning similarity of opinion and talking points, one that mirrors the white leaders of the conservative movements. It would be nice to see some dissent every now and again.
So, to answer the question, is there racism in attributing something Sowell says to his “masters.” Yes. There is plenty of racism to go around. It comes from two sides of a dumb, counterproductive political dynamic. The left-right thing is tired and not useful, but it carries on as both sides accuse the other of doing what they both do: Scandalize the motives of each other.
October 14th, 2005 at 2:26 am
How wonderful it would be if the brightest and most powerful black minds/activist/commentators/entreprenuers etc did what we wished that Malcolm and Martin had done? - Come together, and collaborate on some unified, viable, workable solutions to the SITUATIONS that impede progress for Black Americans. In doing so, they could help lift the boat of benefits for all americans because more black independance translates to more liberty for all Americans. When given camera time, Black liberals and conservatives spend way too much time denouncing each other, ofetn in very personal terms, (see Jessies Jackson and Peterson), calling names and - traditional racist language coming up - shucking and jiving, shilling for their white powerbrokers in the republican and democrat parties to be takin seriously by everyday blacks in the trenches. Why should we believe that they have OUR BEST interest at hand when they behave that way? Malcolm, though he didn’t always subcribe to his own logic/philosophy on this, suggested Black public figures show restraint when commenting on actions/motives/methods of other prominent blacks for whom they are in disagreement with. That advice has been embraced by both sides however, it applies only with regard to thier political afiliation (democrat/republican). They have way too much alligiance to the parties than they do to the concept of “Black Empowerment”. Imagine Colin Powell, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Condelezza, Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, TD Jakes, Magic Johnson, Jay-Z, Richard Parsons, Barak Obama, George Fraser, Star Parker, Lashawn Barber, Stanley Crouch, Tony Dungee, David Robinson…working collectively to help move this country forward. Notice those who are conspicuous by thier absence from this list (the two Jessies, Al, Louis, Mychael Massie).