Don Imus

[The Wrath]

I'm surprised the whole incident hasn't been blamed on global warming yet.

The looney left tends to make rather bizarre connections. I remember hearing Sharon Stone blame the box office failure of Catwoman on George Bush.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Moose

[Moebius]

While nappy-headed ho is certainly an insult, not everyone understands it as a racial insult. If there is a change in how 'nappy' was originally used, a lot of people have yet to see the memo. That means they use the term with no racial connotation. That’s not like a gentile saying, "You're jewing me." It's more like Randal from Clerks 2 saying, "porch monkey."

Yeah but that's like saying you didn't know that a "faggot" no longer mean a bundle of sticks, or that you didn't know that "chink" was a racially offensive word for the Chinese. I'm willing to bet that 99% of African Americans know that the word "nappy" has a racial connotation.

[Moebius]

As for my perceptions on racism in the black community...you can disagree if you like, but the fact is that neither one of us can prove it. You say you think whites are more racist...okay then, prove it. Before you demand that I prove my own belief, based on something other than personal observation, then you must be prepared to do the same. I am not obligated to prove my stance, because I explicitly said, from the very beginning, that it was a personal observation. But don't you dare call me a racist for declaring my own observation unless you are prepared to prove me wrong. Because in order to disprove my claim, you would have to simultaneously prove the opposite claim...namely that whites are more racist than blacks.

Look, we don't have to disprove anything that was never proven in the first place. You were the one that made the claim that blacks were more racist than whites, and the only proof was your "personal experience". Now, I've already told you why that would be the case. Furthermore, me and Korther brought up our own experiences only to make the point that personal experience is a poor and completely subjective indicator, not to prove whether blacks or whites are generally more racist. The only thing we have to prove is that your personal experience is in all likelihood so biased as to make it essentially irrelevant -- not that whites are more racist than blacks.

However, I WOULD like to also point out that my personal experience, while not necessarily more accurate, is probably much more neutral than yours, given that I'm neither black nor white. But then, I don't go around making generalizations on entire races of people based only on my personal experience.

[Korthor]

To be clear, in my recent post I wasn’t calling Moose a racist. I was calling him a reverse-reverse racist.

People asked, what’s the point of the term “reverse racism,” much less reverse-reverse-racism?

I think there are some useful distinctions.

Racism is based on the idea that one race is inherently superior to the other.

Reverse racism (e.g., Sharpton or affirmative action programs) in no way invokes this belief. If anything, their condescending attitude implies something negative about racial minorities. While their effect might be racist (discriminating against majorities), their motivation is a sense of entitlement based upon histories of victimization.

That’s why I coined the term reverse-reverse-racism. I define it as a sense of outraged entitlement that interprets any injury by the “PC-police” as an offense to “privileged” (to use the language of reverse-racists) communities everywhere. It is sometimes called in the press “angry white male syndrome.”

What is the tipping point between legitimate outrage against Sharpton and “reverse-reverse-racism”? It requires a judgment call, just as it requires a judgment call to distinguish between legitimate objections against Imus’s racism and the racial pandering of Sharpton.

For me, the tipping point was when Moose took this opportunity to start talking about how racist he thought black people were. I interpreted such a comment as reverse-reverse racism. Moose’s comments, like those of Sharpton’s, reveal more about his own state of mind than race relations in America.

[Thales]

To be clear, in my recent post I wasn’t calling Moose a racist. I was calling him a reverse-reverse racist.

People asked, what’s the point of the term “reverse racism,” much less reverse-reverse-racism?

I think there are some useful distinctions.

Racism is based on the idea that one race is inherently superior to the other.

Not so. Racism is the idea that one's personal worth, positive or negative, is dictated by one's race.

Reverse racism (e.g., Sharpton or affirmative action programs) in no way invokes this belief.

There are lots of racists who believe whites are inferior in one way or another. Malcolm X called whites "blue eyed devils", for instance.

If anything, their condescending attitude implies something negative about racial minorities. While their effect might be racist (discriminating against majorities), their motivation is a sense of entitlement based upon histories of victimization.

The problem with this is the fact that it was the Western idea of individual rights that for the first time made it clear that slavery was wrong. Slavery has been the norm throughout human history, so there have been victims of all races through out human history. The way it's played up today, it's as if America was the only country that had slaves, and it's as if America (and Great Britain) doesn't deserve the monumental credit for understanding that it's wrong and why that it's wrong and then making great strides to put an end to it. You may not realize this, but it's not obvious that it's wrong. Thousands of years of human history attest to this fact.

America deserves great credit for the strides it made against slavery and racism. This is one of the things that makes American stand out, and this is what is ignored by modern intellectuals today. Modern intellectuals smear America anyway they can, and that leads to lots of the strife we have in America today.

Peikoff has even made note of the fact that lots of Europeans view Americans as racist, and he attributes it to our leftists intellectuals who teach these ideas to Europeans who end up as students in our universities.

That’s why I coined the term reverse-reverse-racism. I define it as a sense of outraged entitlement that interprets any injury by the “PC-police” as an offense to “privileged” (to use the language of reverse-racists) communities everywhere. It is sometimes called in the press “angry white male syndrome.”

I don't follow this. "Angry white male syndrome" is the racist liberal mantra used to denounce any opposition to increased government. It's quite rational to be angry about that.

What is the tipping point between legitimate outrage against Sharpton and “reverse-reverse-racism”? It requires a judgment call, just as it requires a judgment call to distinguish between legitimate objections against Imus’s racism and the racial pandering of Sharpton.

There is no balancing act here. Racism is wrong, period. It is wrong regardless of who believes it. It is the left, the multiculturalists, who are big time racists today. They are fomenting racism in our universities.

For me, the tipping point was when Moose took this opportunity to start talking about how racist he thought black people were. I interpreted such a comment as reverse-reverse racism. Moose’s comments, like those of Sharpton’s, reveal more about his own state of mind than race relations in America.

Moose's belief is based on his experience, and is not an illogical statement. He may be wrong, he may be right. I don't think his point is particularly important either way, because most Americans get along quite well.

So long as people believe their personal worth is wrapped up in their race, there will be a problem, and that is the foundation of the diversity movement. We have to guard against the postmodernists who are trying to divide us based on race, because that’s really what’s behind the Duke case, the Rutgers situation and numerous other events over the last few years.

[RationalBiker]

To be clear, in my recent post I wasn’t calling Moose a racist. I was calling him a reverse-reverse racist.

What you should do is refrain from calling him anything derogatory and stick to addressing his argument. Personal attacks are a violation of forum rules.

[Moebius]

America deserves great credit for the strides it made against slavery and racism. This is one of the things that makes American stand out, and this is what is ignored by modern intellectuals today. Modern intellectuals smear America anyway they can, and that leads to lots of the strife we have in America today.

I agree that America deserve props for integration, but particular praise should be given to the early civil rights leaders, nearly all of which African Americans, for standing up for reason. That's really the bottom line -- it's completely irrational to judge people's worth based on their race, at least in the modern society. The mainstream America only reluctantly agreed to this logical conclusion.

To be honest, if you were a minority in America, you'll probably see that racism is still very prevalent in the United States. Particularly in the area of law enforcement, job advancement, college admission, and interracial dating. I detest people that play the race card every opportunity they get just as much as anybody. But then, I rather if this issue was talked about than if everyone just sat around and pretended that racism no longer exists.

You're right, a lot of the strife today comes from the constant psychological badgering the we receive about political correctness. It's a natural defensive reaction. But the root of the problem is still the very real problem of racism in the United States.

[Char Kinris]

In terms of fundamentals, this editorial is spot on (h/t to Cox and Forkum):

Imus isn’t the real bad guy

Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.

By JASON WHITLOCK

Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

[Edit: While I'm delighted you posted the article as it was quite the good read, copyright laws and forum rules prohibit quotng an entire article so I trimmed it to an acceptable level. Thanks for the link!]

Edited April 16, 2007 by Groovenstein

[FeatherFall]

Yeah but that's like saying you didn't know that a "faggot" no longer mean a bundle of sticks, or that you didn't know that "chink" was a racially offensive word for the Chinese. I'm willing to bet that 99% of African Americans know that the word "nappy" has a racial connotation.

Nope, it’s really not like that. The other two words were used much more where I have lived, and always as derogatory substitutes for gay or Chinese. On the other hand, there was no reason for me to conclude that my friend calling his own hair nappy, or someone calling a white person nappy was a racial insult. The people I have heard say 'nappy' do not level racial insults at each other, especially when they simply didn't apply.

I am fairly certain this dual-interpretation is the result of a few people looking for a reason to be offended, a few people actually being offended and a bunch of people seeing that and thinking they should be offended. So that bunch of people remove the word from their active vocabulary. Wait a decade or two and you have a new widely accepted racial insult. The fact that a lot of people I know had no idea of the racial connotations supports the notion that the popular use of the word is in transition.

Edited April 16, 2007 by FeatherFall

[Thales]

I agree that America deserve props for integration, but particular praise should be given to the early civil rights leaders, nearly all of which African Americans, for standing up for reason. That's really the bottom line -- it's completely irrational to judge people's worth based on their race, at least in the modern society. The mainstream America only reluctantly agreed to this logical conclusion.

Particular praise should go to the Founders of the country, and philosophers like John Locke, and by extension Aristotle. The Declaration of Independence lays down the foundation of freedom and the reason why racism is wrong. The founding ideals of America are fundamentally at war with slavery and racism. Without the right ideas, you can't defend freedom. When Martin Luther King said (from memory) "We should judge men by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" he had it exactly right, and when he echoed the words of Jefferson "We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal..." he was evoking the foundational ideas of America. Lincoln did the same thing at Gettsyburg when he wrote "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

The foundation of America is what gives it its moral strength.

To be honest, if you were a minority in America, you'll probably see that racism is still very prevalent in the United States. Particularly in the area of law enforcement, job advancement, college admission, and interracial dating.

Any more than any other country? More than, say, Japan?

I detest people that play the race card every opportunity they get just as much as anybody. But then, I rather if this issue was talked about than if everyone just sat around and pretended that racism no longer exists.

The two don't go together. Playing the "race card" means using race as an excuse for something, usually with the intent of inculcating guilt. You can talk about race without "playing the race card".

You're right, a lot of the strife today comes from the constant psychological badgering the we receive about political correctness. It's a natural defensive reaction. But the root of the problem is still the very real problem of racism in the United States.

You don't eliminate the problem, to the extent it exists, by endorsing its foundation. This is the problem. Postmodernism, specifically multiculturalism (aka diversity, and pcism), seeks to divide. This is one of the reasons why when you said there was racism in college admissions I was thinking, yeah, against white males, and there is extreme racism within many of these universities. Environmentalism, multiculturalism and feminism are the big leftist causes today, especially the first two. Environmentalism is probably the worst, since it’s just an attack on mankind as such.

At the end of the day, it'd be nice if there world were free of such things, but to actually achieve this end, you have to promote the right ideas. The wrong ideas will just create more of the same.

[Antonio]

But the Imus fuss was not about initiation-of-force censoring. They didn't violate his rights or initiate any force.

By the way, you might be taking Mrs. Angelou out of context. (In the clip), she didn't say or answer that the government needs to provide more censorship. Rather, she said that, as individuals, we have to censor what we say or we will "not be given a microphone." If you run off your sponsors/profits, your employers will no longer give you a microphone - therefore you need to censor yourself. If this was Angelou's message, you could hardly disagree with her point.

Imus's treatment is the exact way people say animal abusers should be treated: shunning, but no violation of the abuser's rights. There then is irony in damning the assumed motives of Imus's detractors.

To be sure, there should be no question that people who have reacted negatively to Imus' remarks - activists, sponsors, etc.- are within their rights to do so. That doesn't make it right though. We should not be talking about law but about ethics.

Same goes with Maya Angelou's comments. Her call for "society" to censor is collectivist pressure. Folks of her ilk also tend to be the ones who call for government to enforce their morality.

It's simple. If you don't like what Imus says, you don't keep listening. If that means that "society" (or a lot of people) choose not to listen and ratings go down, then the free market has spoken. But based on what most leftists/liberals and minority pressure groups advocate, it would lead for calls for government intervention.

We should all be allowed to say whatever we want. If you don't like it, then go away and leave me alone.

[The Wrath]

Everyone who is criticizing my view and demanding that I prove it is completely neglecting the fact that I included "in my own observation" in my original claim. My claim was that MY OBSERVATIONS have indicated to me that blacks IN GENERAL TEND TO BE more racist. That's another thing people seem to be leaving out...the whole thing about it being a general observation, not one to apply to all blacks.

I am not obligated to prove the validity of my own observations. I have never met anyone on this board and, as such, it would be quite impossible for me to prove to you what my own observations have been. I didn't make the absolute claim that "blacks are more racist." If I had made that claim, I would be obligated to prove it. But I didn't. Therefore I am not required to do anything.

You were the one that made the claim that blacks were more racist than whites, and the only proof was your "personal experience".

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

I claimed that, in my own observations, blacks tend to be more racist, and I never claimed to have anything that constituted proof of its absolute veracity.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Moose

[The Wrath]

I define it as a sense of outraged entitlement that interprets any injury by the “PC-police” as an offense to “privileged” (to use the language of reverse-racists) communities everywhere.

Once again you fail to provide an example where I claimed that I am entitled to restitution of some kind.

For me, the tipping point was when Moose took this opportunity to start talking about how racist he thought black people were.

Yes, it is obvious to everyone that I "think black people are so racist." Seriously man, you need to work on your English comprehension skills.

[Moebius]

Particular praise should go to the Founders of the country, and philosophers like John Locke, and by extension Aristotle.

Yes, the founders laid down the philosophical foundations. But obviously people like Jefferson and even Aristotle owned slaves, so either they were hypocrites, or they simply didn't consider slaves their fellow man. I'm inclined towards the later. Fact is, even after slavery was abolished, minorities were not "equal" in the United States for nearly a century. It's one thing to say that all men are created equal, it's quite another to risk life and limb for fight for those ideals. That's why I consider the civil rights leaders to be the single most important force that brought about the modern era of equality.

Any more than any other country? More than, say, Japan?

Is American more racist than other countries? I really couldn't tell you. Maybe if you found some way to quantify racism, then we can compare across countries. I will say though that since Japan (and Asia in general) is a very homogenized society, racism is never really a problem there. But even if you were to prove somehow that the Japanese are more racist than Americans -- so what? What does how racist other countries are have to do with America? Is murdering one man justified if your neighbor murders ten?

[Moebius]

The two don't go together. Playing the "race card" means using race as an excuse for something, usually with the intent of inculcating guilt. You can talk about race without "playing the race card".

You're missing the point. Playing the race card means using race as on excuse when in fact it has nothing to do with the situation. And the more often people do that, the more defensive the mainstream becomes. So the next time I point out something that actually is racist, the white American will simply write it off simply as a joke, an accident, or an isolated incident (ie. "oh he was just kidding", or "he didn't mean it that way", or "well that's just one guy").

You don't eliminate the problem, to the extent it exists, by endorsing its foundation. This is the problem. Postmodernism, specifically multiculturalism (aka diversity, and pcism), seeks to divide. This is one of the reasons why when you said there was racism in college admissions I was thinking, yeah, against white males, and there is extreme racism within many of these universities. Environmentalism, multiculturalism and feminism are the big leftist causes today, especially the first two. Environmentalism is probably the worst, since it’s just an attack on mankind as such.

Actually Asians are shafted far more severely than white males when it comes to college admission and affirmative action, but that's by the by. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by postmodernism or multiculturalism specifically, but if you're saying that promoting tolerance and respect for other cultures is the foundation of racism, then I'd have to disagree. If, however, you're talking about institutionally enforced quotas that use force to achieve arbitrary diversity percentages, then sure, it is divisive (you don't right one wrong with another wrong). But that's hardly the cause or the foundation of racism.

[RationalBiker]

Is murdering one man justified if your neighbor murders ten?

I have to comment on the irony of this question given your "number of victims" position in the VA Tech thread.

[Moebius]

I have to comment on the irony of this question given your "number of victims" position in the VA Tech thread.

You misunderstood what I was saying. Read my response again.

[Thales]

Yes, the founders laid down the philosophical foundations.

This is the most crucial thing. Without that, you've got nothing.

But obviously people like Jefferson and even Aristotle owned slaves, so either they were hypocrites,

Jefferson was born into such a situation. He was not a hypocrite, he was a man trying to abolish slavery and did more than almost any other man in history to end it. America is his legacy. Many have argued that he was a hypocrite, but in his time there were laws against freeing slaves, and then there were problems of their survival in a tough world afterward. These are things Jefferson explicitly had to weigh.

As to Aristotle, he believed in slavery, as did the vast majority of men of his time. What Aristotle provided was the metaphysical and epistemological foundations that resulted in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, i.e. he broke the grip of the church on society and brought an age of reason and science.

Despite the fact that Aristotle believed in slavery, he had a very benevolent view of man, and a very sophisticated understanding of society, and how men should interact. His thoughts were for life on earth, and the well being of all men, it's just that he believed some men were better off as slaves due to the benefits of their relationship with others. He was wrong, but his position wasn't obviously wrong.

You said : ” or they simply didn't consider slaves their fellow man.”

Certainly Jefferson did, as he sought to abolish slavery right at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. His anger at it not happening is well known. As to Aristotle, he thought of men as having certain levels of "civility", and that man in the state of nature is less a man than man in society, sort of the opposite of Rousseau.

”I'm inclined towards the later.”

It's not true of Jefferson. It's somewhat true of Aristotle, but he lived in a far distant era, and it's not rational to hold 21st century criteria against someone of that time period.

“Fact is, even after slavery was abolished, minorities were not "equal" in the United States for nearly a century. “

Things change slowly, but change they did, and I wouldn't use the blanket statement "minorities". I don't think it's accurate.

”It's one thing to say that all men are created equal, it's quite another to risk life and limb for fight for those ideals.”

The American Revolution? They pledged to each other, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and went up against the most powerful military in the world. That's more than the civil rights movement had to endure.

Also, if you read Andrew Bernstein’s “Capitalist Manifesto” you’ll find out how bad life was prior to capitalism, and how bad off people were in Europe. Slavery in America was in some ways better than what peasants had to endure, because they were slaves themselves, really. The point being, men treated each other much more harshly in that era than we do today. We live pampered lives by comparison.

”That's why I consider the civil rights leaders to be the single most important force that brought about the modern era of equality.”

That’s just wrong. Think of the relationship of an engineer to Newton. Newton provided the intellectual tools with which the engineer could build much superior structures and devices. The engineer may be great, but Newton was greater. The same applies the great philosophers, who provided Jefferson, Madison, et.al. with the tools to create America, and then Lincoln with the tools to fight slavery, and then Martin Luther King with the tools to bring about complete equality under the law.

Throughout mankind’s history most uprisings have resulted in dead ends, because the ideas weren’t there to establishing a lasting change.

Is American more racist than other countries? I really couldn't tell you.

I want to tell you flat out, I don't think it's very racist at all. Our liberties and equality are very strong evidence of this.

Maybe if you found some way to quantify racism, then we can compare across countries. I will say though that since Japan (and Asia in general) is a very homogenized society, racism is never really a problem there. But even if you were to prove somehow that the Japanese are more racist than Americans -- so what?

The reason I brought up Japan is because I know of people who have had bad experiences there because of their race, although as a rule I don't think it's a big problem. To make it clear, I like modern Japanese culture.

”What does how racist other countries are have to do with America? Is murdering one man justified if your neighbor murders ten?”

It's just a way of gauging your view of America.

I know an Asian girl who says she never experience any racism against her in America, and she's been her for over twenty years. Then, I know a guy who went to Thailand and he said he experienced it against himself quite a bit. He's not the kind of person who worries about it, but he said it was prevalent.

I should also say, there was a black American, Keith Richburg, who went to Africa and experienced very strong prejudice against himself by other blacks. He wrote a book about his experience some years back: "Out of America".

You're missing the point. Playing the race card means using race as on excuse when in fact it has nothing to do with the situation. And the more often people do that, the more defensive the mainstream becomes.

Okay, but its purpose is to inculcate guilt. That's its basic effect. My point is you can talk about race rationally without this sort of baggage.

“So the next time I point out something that actually is racist, the white American will simply write it off simply as a joke, an accident, or an isolated incident (ie. "oh he was just kidding", or "he didn't mean it that way", or "well that's just one guy").

It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome.

”Actually Asians are shafted far more severely than white males when it comes to college admission and affirmative action, but that's by the by.”

Yes, I think you're right. This is because many of them are achievers. The difference is that white males are targeted as the bad guys.

” I'm not sure exactly what you mean by postmodernism or multiculturalism specifically,”

Postmodernism is the dominate philosophy in the West at this time, I don't know about Asia. Or, maybe it's more precise to say it's the dominant philosophical movement of the modern left. Postmodernism is fundamentally at war with the West, and its values. It's at war with reason, and is a nihilistic, destructive philosophy. Multiculturalism and environmentalism are the two biggest movements within postmodernism.

”but if you're saying that promoting tolerance and respect for other cultures is the foundation of racism, then I'd have to disagree. “

You should not, as a blanket statement, promote tolerance and respect for other cultures. You should respect other cultures to the degree that they are worthy of respect. I have no respect or tolerance for the Iranian Sharia law type culture. I have no respect for the Soviet Union's communist culture, nor Nazi Germany. I have a great deal of respect for Great Britain, for modern Japan, for America, etc.

What multiculturalism does is vilify the West, especially America, and prop every other culture up above us. We can't say America is better than N. Korea, because that's racist, for example.

”If, however, you're talking about institutionally enforced quotas that use force to achieve arbitrary diversity percentages, then sure, it is divisive (you don't right one wrong with another wrong). But that's hardly the cause or the foundation of racism.”

Sure it is. It's racism as such. To single out a person's race as the reason we should make note of him is racism. There is even this old racist idea of polylogism that I’ve seen used today, which is the notion that each race has its own logic, and they and they along can understand what each other means.

The example of this very thread, Imus making a relatively mild statement is lambasted beyond all reason for being racist, where he had no prior history of being that way, and then the Duke University case where the faculty and DA of N. Carolina campaigned against the lacrosse team because they were white males. Attacking black females, even mildly, is a federal offense. Attacking white males viciously and maliciously, why that's a good thing.

[Alessa36]

His name is Sid Rosenberg.

thats so funny...I feel racist ish myself as I knew it was some Jewish last name...I hope you guys don't throw me off this web sight..lol

[Moebius]

Yes, the founders laid down the philosophical foundations.

This is the most crucial thing. Without that, you've got nothing... [etc] That’s just wrong. Think of the relationship of an engineer to Newton. Newton provided the intellectual tools with which the engineer could build much superior structures and devices. The engineer may be great, but Newton was greater. The same applies the great philosophers, who provided Jefferson, Madison, et.al. with the tools to create America, and then Lincoln with the tools to fight slavery, and then Martin Luther King with the tools to bring about complete equality under the law.

All human knowledge builds upon previous knowledge. I mean, I guess you could argue that the man that first invented the wheel, or used fire, or established language, was the most important man without which nothing today was possible. I'm not denying the founders credit, I'm just saying that as far as civil rights goes, the people that actually fought the hardest for equality deserves the most praise. You may disagree, and that's fine, since I don't think that's what we should be dwelling on. I have no desire to continue discussing something as subjective and abstract as "who deserves more credit".

I want to tell you flat out, I don't think it's very racist at all. Our liberties and equality are very strong evidence of this.

The reason I brought up Japan is because I know of people who have had bad experiences there because of their race, although as a rule I don't think it's a big problem. To make it clear, I like modern Japanese culture.

The problem with the United States is that it's such a novel entity. It's hard to compare racism in America to most other countries because their population has historically been so homogenized -- both ethnically and more important, culturally.

”If, however, you're talking about institutionally enforced quotas that use force to achieve arbitrary diversity percentages, then sure, it is divisive (you don't right one wrong with another wrong). But that's hardly the cause or the foundation of racism.”

Sure it is. It's racism as such. To single out a person's race as the reason we should make note of him is racism. There is even this old racist idea of polylogism that I’ve seen used today, which is the notion that each race has its own logic, and they and they along can understand what each other means.

The example of this very thread, Imus making a relatively mild statement is lambasted beyond all reason for being racist, where he had no prior history of being that way, and then the Duke University case where the faculty and DA of N. Carolina campaigned against the lacrosse team because they were white males. Attacking black females, even mildly, is a federal offense. Attacking white males viciously and maliciously, why that's a good thing.

I agree mostly with everything else you said except this last part. Yes, I do think that affirmative action and institutional quotas are racist in practice and completely arbitrary. But I sure you would agree that it's original intention wasn't to hate on white males, but rather an (extremely misguided) attempt at closing the economic and social gap between minorities and whites. It is an irrational solution to an existing problem, and as such cannot be the foundation of said problem -- although it certainly exacerbates it.

Regarding Don Imus -- he had a long history of using racially offensive languages, so it isn't true that he had no prior history of this. However I do agree that the media has exploded this story to a ridiculous proportion, and made Imus a far more important figure than he really deserves to be.

Regarding the Duke Lacrosse players -- at it's heart it is a criminal case about a bunch of rich boys allegedly raping a woman. The racial element certainly garnered the case far more attention, as the issue of race inevitably does, but in the end it's still about rape. Yes I agree that there was a double standard in the way they were treated, which is wrong. But the bottom line is that they were attacked in the first place because they allegedly raped a woman, not because of they're white.

[Thales]

All human knowledge builds upon previous knowledge.

Quite so, and we owe a debt to those who added to human knowledge, especially those who added a lot.

I mean, I guess you could argue that the man that first invented the wheel, or used fire, or established language, was the most important man without which nothing today was possible. I'm not denying the founders credit, I'm just saying that as far as civil rights goes, the people that actually fought the hardest for equality deserves the most praise. You may disagree, and that's fine, since I don't think that's what we should be dwelling on. I have no desire to continue discussing something as subjective and abstract as "who deserves more credit".

If you look at it from the stand point of two criterion:

1> Courage against the odds

2> The innovativeness of the ideas.

Then it should be clear that the Founders did much more. Taking on the British Empire was a daunting and dangerous task. It cost lives in war, and the founders were all risking everything they had, for they would surely have been executed had they lost. The civil rights movement had to deal with tough situations, such as racists, and the police, but it wasn't a war. There was little chance they would be killed.

As far as the ideas go, the founders were pushing forth the revolutionary ideas of John Locke. Locke's concept of rights is the most revolutionary idea in politics. Its advanced human freedom more than any other single idea. The civil rights movement had a watered down version of rights.

Remember, you said "It's one thing to say that all men are created equal, it's quite another to risk life and limb for fight for those ideals. That's why I consider the civil rights leaders to be the single most important force that brought about the modern era of equality. "

The founders risked life and limb big time.

At the end of the day, both are to be admired for fighting for praise worthy ideas, and deserve to be honored accordingly.

I agree mostly with everything else you said except this last part. Yes, I do think that affirmative action and institutional quotas are racist in practice and completely arbitrary. But I sure you would agree that it's original intention wasn't to hate on white males, but rather an (extremely misguided) attempt at closing the economic and social gap between minorities and whites. It is an irrational solution to an existing problem, and as such cannot be the foundation of said problem -- although it certainly exacerbates it.

The intention may have been good, and I used to think that, but I'm far more dubious in hindsight. Even so, even with the best of intentions, you can have the worst of ideas.

The reason I say it's the foundation of the problem, is because they focus on race as though that's important, an attitude which has only become more extreme over time. By focusing on race, they are promoting racism, because they're saying "This is why we should value this guy over this other guy". Well, since race is not important to judging a man, and in reality has nothing to do with an individual's merit, you end up promoting an injustice, while claiming you're doing the opposite.

Regarding Don Imus -- he had a long history of using racially offensive languages, so it isn't true that he had no prior history of this. However I do agree that the media has exploded this story to a ridiculous proportion, and made Imus a far more important figure than he really deserves to be.

Okay, I've only heard Imus once or twice when they aired him over CSPAN several years ago. I didn't really like his show, because he was very cynical.

Regarding the Duke Lacrosse players -- at it's heart it is a criminal case about a bunch of rich boys allegedly raping a woman. The racial element certainly garnered the case far more attention, as the issue of race inevitably does, but in the end it's still about rape. Yes I agree that there was a double standard in the way they were treated, which is wrong. But the bottom line is that they were attacked in the first place because they allegedly raped a woman, not because of they're white.

Well, we have a strong disagreement over this. The evidence never supported the accuser, and the faculty of Duke signed a paper condemning them despite the evidence. Some professors went on the air and rationalized the girl’s charges. None of the faculty defended the lacrosse team. They allowed protestors to protest (intimidate) them on campus. The protestors carried signs promoting their castration. The DA, Nifong, railroaded them. The media went along with all of this, fanning the flames more. The faculty of a university are supposed to be learned professors, who understand that you don't proclaim guilt as your starting point. They aren’t just your average Joe on the street. And, to be sure, there was some black guy who said something to the effect "It doesn't matter if they did it, they're guilty because they are white." Bang! That's it in a nut shell.

[LaszloWalrus]

In regards to the comments on the Duke non-rape case:

I disagree with the claim that the case was fundamentally about rape (except from a legal standpoint). The media circus was about the fact that apparently wealthy whites raped a poor black woman at such a university. It would barely have gotten a mention in the papers if there hadn't been those economic and (especially) racial elements. It probably wouldn't even have been prosecuted without those elements, since the DA Nifong is essentially a rabble-rouser, playing off racial tension in Durham, NC.

I also disagree with the claim that no professors supported the lacross team. A number did, publicly and privately.

[Thales]

I also disagree with the claim that no professors supported the lacross team. A number did, publicly and privately.

Okay, I wasn't aware of those. But, still, the campaign against them by 80 some odd professors was unconscionable.

[Moebius]

Quite so, and we owe a debt to those who added to human knowledge, especially those who added a lot.

If you look at it from the stand point of two criterion:

1> Courage against the odds

2> The innovativeness of the ideas.

Then it should be clear that the Founders did much more. Taking on the British Empire was a daunting and dangerous task. It cost lives in war, and the founders were all risking everything they had, for they would surely have been executed had they lost. The civil rights movement had to deal with tough situations, such as racists, and the police, but it wasn't a war. There was little chance they would be killed.

It is clear that the founders did much more for minorities getting equal rights? Frankly I don't think most of the founders care at all about minorities. There is nothing wrong with your criteria, but you are not in context. It should be patently obvious that someone like say, Martin Luther King Jr. did more for minority rights in America than say, Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson. The comparison here isn't "which is more dangerous, civil rights movement or the American revolution", but rather "who actually did more for minority rights".

The reason I say it's the foundation of the problem, is because they focus on race as though that's important, an attitude which has only become more extreme over time. By focusing on race, they are promoting racism, because they're saying "This is why we should value this guy over this other guy". Well, since race is not important to judging a man, and in reality has nothing to do with an individual's merit, you end up promoting an injustice, while claiming you're doing the opposite.

Yes, almost anybody reasonable would agree that affirmative action is wrong. But it's not theoretically "judging a man based on his race" but rather compensating blacks based on the racism they suffered in the past. Don't bother explaining why that's wrong either, because I already agreed that what ended up happening was that everybody else gets punished for no reason at all.

[gags]

It should be patently obvious that someone like say, Martin Luther King Jr. did more for minority rights in America than say, Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson.

I don't believe that is patently obvious at all. In fact, I'd argue that the philosophical principles set forth by Aristotle and Jefferson did far more for for the rights of all men, whatever their skin color, than anything done by MLK.