Tag Archives: racism

Self-Inflicted Victimology a Mental Disorder?

9 Mar

The following is an excerpt from a column by Mychal Massie, titled “Black Racism Is a Mental Disorder”.

Mychal Massie is an ordained minister, and was founder  of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The complete column can be found at http://mychal-massie.com/premium/black-racism-is-mental-disorder/

 

Excerpt:

I am reaching the conclusion that just as liberalism is a mental disorder so, too, is the reflexive apoplexy of many blacks who are quick to accuse whites of being racist. The majority of blacks in America today need to take a strong regard of themselves in the mirror. They must ask themselves how well they are being served by self-inflicted victimology, self-segregation, self-limiting behavior, and a rejection of modernity. They must ask themselves how the aforementioned behaviors make them feel.

Black Americans as a near whole are the angriest people both individually and collectively that there are in the United States, if not in the world. And the primary causal factor of their angst is what nebulous white people are doing to them.

The tragedy is that it’s not the whites; it is they who are holding themselves back. But in the case of victimology, there must be an oppressor because without same there cannot be a victim. Specific to that point, without white scapegoats their anger would have to be turned toward themselves. Without whites as scapegoats they would have to face the truth that they are their own worst enemy. They would also be forced to face the truth that the very liberals they support are committed to eroding the fabric of their future families.

[End of excerpt]

Advertisements

Only Black People Can Solve the Problems of Black America

31 Jul

From the pen of the wise Dr. Walter Williams, black conservative extraordinaire:

“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. I’d like for the president, the civil rights establishment, white liberals and the news media, who spent massive resources protesting the George Zimmerman trial’s verdict, to tell the nation whether they believe that the major murder problem blacks face is murder by whites. There are no such protests against the thousands of black murders.

There’s an organization called NeighborhoodScout. Using 2011 population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 crime statistics from the FBI and information from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies in the country, it came up with a report titled “Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America.” (http://tinyurl.com/cdqrev4) They include neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, Houston, St. Louis and other major cities. What’s common to all 25 neighborhoods is that their makeup is described as “Black” or “Mostly Black.” The high crime rates have several outcomes that are not in the best interests of the overwhelmingly law-abiding people in these neighborhoods. There can’t be much economic development. Property has a lower value, but worst of all, people can’t live with the kind of personal security that most Americans enjoy.

Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about “having a conversation about race.” That’s beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though “breakdown” is not the correct word, as the family doesn’t form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.”

More on Obama’s Damaging New Education Initiative

15 Aug

More words of wisdom from Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, and a well-known black conservative.  Dr. Williams has written a column on the state of black education in America, entitled “Obama’s Educational Excellence Initiative”.  Ironically, I just posted an item referring to Heather MacDonald’s expose of this same initiative.  This is serious stuff.  I have excerpted Dr. Williams’ column below, but you can find the complete column at

 http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/obama-s-educational-excellence-initiative.html

 Excerpts:    [Bolding is mine]

President Barack Obama recently wrote an executive order that established a White House initiative on educational excellence for black Americans that will be housed in the Department of Education.  .  .  .  Though black education is in desperate straits, the president’s executive order will accomplish absolutely nothing to improve black education. The reason is that it does not address the root causes of educational rot among black Americans.  .  .  .

The president’s initiative contains not one word about rampant inner-city school violence, which makes educational excellence impossible. During the past five years, Philadelphia’s 268 schools had 30,000 serious criminal incidents, including assaults — 4,000 of which were on teachers — robberies and rapes.  .  .  . Similar stories of street and school violence can be told in other large, predominantly black cities, such as Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland and Newark.

If rampant school crime is not eliminated, academic excellence will be unachievable. If anything, the president’s initiative will help undermine school discipline .  .  .  .  [F]or example, if black students are suspended or expelled at greater rates than, say, Asian students, it’s a “disparate use of disciplinary tools.” Thus, even if blacks are causing a disproportionate part of disciplinary problems, they cannot be disciplined disproportionately.

Whether a student is black, white, orange or polka-dot and whether he’s poor or rich, there are some minimum requirements that must be met in order to do well in school. Someone must make the student do his homework, see to it that he gets a good night’s rest, fix a breakfast, make sure he gets to school on time and make sure he respects and obeys his teachers.

 

 

Here’s my question: Which one of those requirements can be accomplished by a presidential executive order, a congressional mandate or the edict of a mayor? If those minimal requirements aren’t met, whatever else is done is for naught.

Spending more money on education cannot replace poor parenting. If it could, black academic achievement wouldn’t be a problem. Washington, D.C., for example, spends .  .  . more than any state, but comes in dead last in terms of student achievement. Paul Laurence Dunbar High School was established in 1870 in Washington, D.C., as the nation’s first black public high school. From 1870 to 1955, most of its graduates went off to college .  .  .  . During this era of high achievement, there was no school violence. It wasn’t racially integrated. It didn’t have a big budget. It didn’t even have a lunchroom or all those other things that today’s education establishment says are necessary for black academic achievement.

Numerous studies show that children raised in stable two-parent households do far better educationally and otherwise than those raised in single-parent households. Historically, black families have been relatively stable. From 1880 to 1960, the proportion of black children raised in two-parent families held steady at about 70 percent .  .  .  .Today only 33 percent of black children benefit from two-parent families. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; today it’s 72 percent.

Too many young blacks have become virtually useless in an increasingly high-tech economy. The only bright outlook is the trickle of more and more black parents realizing this and taking their children out of public schools. The president’s initiative will help enrich the education establishment but do nothing for black youngsters in desperate educational need.

[End of Excerpts]

 This emphasis on preserving the legacy of racism by the current administration is really disturbing.

 

 

 

Watch Out, Education! Government Wants to Help Again

15 Aug

I recently read one of the scariest columns I have read in a while.  It discusses the government’s assertion that wherever “disproportional” disciplinary measures are found in our schools, it must be because of racism.  And the government is going to get to the bottom of it.  Led by none other than Arne Duncan himself. 

 This column is quite long, but also quite eye-opening – and maddening.  It is written by Heather MacDonald, a City Journal contributor, and is titled simply “Undisciplined”.  The government action, if followed through on, is bound to set the cause of education of our “underclasses” back even further than it has been pushed back already. 

 I cannot begin to fully excerpt this column, so I just provide the first several paragraphs for you.  Please go and read the full article to see what damage the government is going to do next to our education system.

 http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_3_school-discipline.html

 First several paragraphs:  [Bolding is mine; content in brackets [ ] is mine]]

 The Obama administration undermines classroom order in pursuit of phantom racism.

In March 2010, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced that his department was “going to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement.” .  .  .What was the pervasive racial injustice that led Duncan to present himself as a modern-day [Lyndon] Johnson? Black elementary and high school students are disciplined at a higher rate than whites are. To Duncan, that disparity can mean only one thing: schools are discriminating.

And so the Departments of Education and Justice have launched a campaign against disproportionate minority discipline rates, which show up in virtually every school district with significant numbers of black and Hispanic students. The possibility that students’ behavior, not educators’ racism, drives those rates lies outside the Obama administration’s conceptual universe. But the country will pay a high price for the feds’ blindness, as the cascade of red tape and lawsuits emanating from Washington will depress student achievement and enrich advocates and attorneys for years to come.

This past March, Duncan released some newly gathered national discipline data. The “undeniable truth,” he said, was that the “everyday educational experience for many students of color violates the principle of equity.” The massive media coverage of Duncan’s report trumpeted the discipline disparity—blacks were three and a half times more likely to get suspended or expelled than their white peers—as convincing evidence of widespread discrimination. (The fact that white boys were over two times as likely to be suspended as Asian and Pacific Islander boys was discreetly ignored, though it would seem to imply antiwhite bias as well.)

The Department of Education has launched investigations of at least five school systems because of their disparate black-white discipline rates. The Department of Justice has already put the Barnwell, South Carolina, school district under a costly consent decree, complete with a pricey outside consultant, and is seeking similar control of other districts. The theory behind this school discipline push is what Obama officials and civil rights advocates call the “school-to-prison pipeline.” According to this conceit, harsh discipline practices—above all, suspensions—strip minority students of classroom time, causing them to learn less, drop out of school, and eventually land in prison.

The feds have reached their conclusions, however, without answering the obvious question: Are black students suspended more often because they misbehave more? Arne Duncan, of all people, should be aware of inner-city students’ self-discipline problems, having headed the Chicago school system before becoming secretary of education. Chicago’s minority youth murder one another with abandon. Since 2008, more than 530 people under the age of 21 have been killed in the city, mostly by their peers, according to the Chicago Reporter; virtually all the perpetrators were black or Hispanic. In 2009, the widely publicized beating death of 16-year-old Derrion Albert by his fellow students sent Duncan hurrying back to the Windy City, accompanied by Attorney General Eric Holder, to try to contain the fallout in advance of Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics (see “Chicago’s Real Crime Story,” Winter 2010). Between September 2011 and February 2012, 25 times more black Chicago students than white ones were arrested at school, mostly for battery; black students outnumbered whites by four to one. (In response to the inevitable outcry over the arrest data, a Chicago teacher commented: “I feel bad for kids being arrested, . . . but I feel worse seeing a kid get his head smashed on the floor and almost die. Or a teacher being threatened with his life.”) So when Duncan lamented, upon the release of the 2012 discipline report, that “some of the worst [discipline] discrepancies are in my hometown of Chicago,” one could only ask: What does he expect?

[End of Excerpt]

 The opportunity for the federal government to create mischief in the name of goodness appears to be entirely unlimited.

Random Thoughts from a Close Observer

28 Jul

Another excellent piece by Thomas Sowell.  A collection of observations, the totality of which can be found at www.Creators.com

 Dr. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.  A black conservative economist (a rare breed), he has published several excellent books and essay collections.

 Some excerpts from this column:  [Bolding is mine]

 Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Even squirrels know enough to store nuts, so that they will have something to eat when food gets scarce. But the welfare state has spawned a whole class of people who spend everything they get when times are good, and look to others to provide for their food and other basic needs when times turn bad.  .  .  .

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States. The other report said that the American Olympic team has uniforms made in China. This latter report received far more attention, both in Congress and in the media.

People who lament gridlock in Washington, and express the pious hope that Democrats and Republicans would put aside their partisan conflicts, and cooperate to help the economy recover, implicitly assume that what the economy needs is more meddling by politicians, which is what brought on economic disaster in the first place. (Skeptics can read “The Housing Boom and Bust.”)

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”  .  .  .  .

Those who talk as if more people going to college is automatically a Good Thing seldom show much interest in what actually goes on at college — including far less time spent by students studying than in the past, and a proliferation of courses promoting a sense of grievance, entitlement or advanced navel-gazing and breast-beating.

One of the most dangerous trends of our times is making the truth socially unacceptable, or even illegal, with “hate speech” laws.  It is supposed to be terrible, for example, to call an illegal alien an “illegal alien” or to call an Islamic terrorist an “Islamic terrorist.” When the media refer to “undocumented” workers or to violence committed by “militants,” who is kidding whom — and why?  .  .  .  .

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Then he proceeded to generate fear among businesses for years on end, with both his anti-business rhetoric and his anti-business policies. Barack Obama is repeating the same approach and getting the same results — namely, an agonizingly slow economic recovery, as investors hang on to their money, instead of risking it in a hostile political environment.  .  .  .

There seems to be something “liberating” about ignorance — especially when you don’t even know enough to realize how little you know. Thus an administration loaded with people who have never run any business is gung-ho to tell businesses what to do, as well as gung-ho to tell the medical profession what to do, lenders whom to lend to, and the military how to fight wars.

[End of excerpts] 

Anything to add?

 

Being Against Obama Is Being Racist?

25 Jun

 

Michael Barone is a political analyst for the Washington Examiner, and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.  He just wrote a piece called “Obama Backers Use Race as Alibi for Ebbing Support”.  I thought it was an excellent essay.  You can find the entire essay at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/obama_backers_use_race_as_alibi_for_ebbing_support

Here are excerpts from that piece.   [Bold highlights added by me; content in brackets [] added by me]

As Barack Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney in the polls narrows,  .   .   . it’s alibi time for some of his backers.    

His problem, they say, is that some voters don’t like him because he’s black. Or they don’t like his policies because they don’t like having a black president.  .   .   .   

So, you see, if you don’t like Obamacare, it’s not because it threatens to take away your health insurance, or to deny coverage for some treatments. It’s because you don’t like black people.    

This sort of thing seems to be getting more frequent, or at least more open.    .   .   .

There’s an obvious problem with the racism alibi. Barack Obama has run for president before, and he won. Voters in 2008 knew he was black. Most of them voted for him. He carried 28 states and won 365 electoral votes.    

Nationwide, he won 53 percent of the popular vote.  .   .   .  [I]t’s a higher percentage than any Democratic nominee except Andrew Jackson, [FDR] and Lyndon Johnson.    

That means President Obama won a larger percentage of the vote than   .   .   .  John Kennedy  .   .   .  and .   .   .  Bill Clinton.    

Now it is true that you can go out in America and find people who would just never vote for a black person. But it’s a lot harder than it was a generation or two ago  .   .   .   .    

And you can probably find some people who usually vote for Democrats but would not vote for a black Democrat. But not very many of them   .   .   . 

My own view is that such voters were more than counterbalanced by voters who felt that, as an abstract proposition in the light of our history, it would be a good thing for Americans to elect a black president.   .   .   .   

I think there is a similar   .   .   .   factor working for Obama this year: Many voters feel, as an abstract proposition, that it would be a bad thing for American voters to reject the first black president.  .   .   .  

What’s remarkable about our politics in 2008 and today is that most voters seem to be making their decisions based on their assessment of the issues and the character of the candidates.    

The fact that some have, at least for the moment, moved away from supporting Obama to opposing him, or remain unsure, reflects not an increasing racism, but the fact that we simply have more information than we had four years ago.  

[End of Excerpts]

I agree – how about you?

Do People Really Matter?

23 Jun

Bruce Thornton wrote an excellent column (“People Matter”, found in City Journal), summarizing a book by Robert Zubrin that critiques the efforts of “antihumanists” to reduce people to pure physical matter, “stripping from people their transcendent value”, and reducing them to pieces of physical matter to be reshaped and controlled by the powerful antihumanists themselves.  Zubrin’s book is called Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism

 This column is well worth reading in full, but I provide excerpts below.

The full column can be found at http://www.city-journal.org/2012/bc0622bt.html

 Excerpts from the column:  [Bolding is mine]

A ruling idea of the last two centuries has been materialism: the notion, as arch-materialist Daniel Dennett asserts, that “there is only one sort of stuff, namely matter—the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology—and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon.” One consequence of this belief has been the rise of antihumanism—the stripping from people of their transcendent value and a reduction of them to mere things in the world to be studied, understood, reshaped—and ultimately controlled.

As Robert Zubrin shows in his valuable survey Merchants of Despair, antihumanism’s reductive view of human nature has underpinned movements like eugenics, population control, and radical environmentalism, all of which have been eager to sacrifice human life and well-being to achieve their dubious utopias.   .   .   .

The mixture of Malthusian and Darwinian theory soon conjured up racist eugenics. At the forefront of the early eugenics movement was Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, who also decried humanist sentimentalism. The “unfit” must be kept from procreating, he argued, for “if these continued to procreate children, inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness.” By the turn of the twentieth century, these ideas had become articles of faith among many liberals and socialists.

Such cruel pseudoscientific theories took a fatal turn in Germany, where eugenics found its deadliest champion in biologist Ernst Haeckel, “an extreme racist, virulent anti-Catholic bigot, anti-Semite, anti-Pole, pro-imperialist, Pan-German fanatic” as well as a “militant atheist.” Haeckel and his followers sought to replace Christian ethics with “Monism,” the aim of which was to further human evolution through Germany’s conquest of inferior races and the elimination of abnormal children and invalids. The ideas also took hold in America, championed by men like General Francis Amasa Walker, president of M.I.T. In 1896, Walker wrote in the Atlantic that Hungarian, Bohemian, Polish, Italian, and Russian-Jewish immigrants were “beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence,” possessing “none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government.” Theodore Roosevelt would later agree, expressing his disdain for “the prevalent loose and sloppy talk about the general progress of humanity, the equality and identity of races, and the like” as the product of “well-meaning and feeble-minded sentimentalists.” These widespread prejudices, buttressed by biased I.Q. tests, ultimately led in 1924 to the discriminatory U.S. law that shut down immigration from countries considered inferior and provided a pseudoscientific justification for race-based segregation.   .   .   .   .  

As Zubrin concludes, antihumanist ideas and programs represent a war against human freedom and global solidarity: “If the world’s resources are fixed with only so much to go around, then each new life is unwelcome, each unregulated act or thought is a menace, every person is fundamentally the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation. The ultimate outcome of such a worldview can only be enforced stagnation, tyranny, war, and genocide.” Contrary to the arguments of the “terrible simplifiers,” as historian Jacob Burckhardt called those who reduce people to mere matter, humans are capable of freedom, creativity, compassion, and love. We should cherish these unique qualities rather than succumbing to antihumanism and self-hatred.

Bruce Thornton is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics and humanities at California State University Fresno. His most recent book is The Wages of Appeasement: Ancient Athens, Munich, and Obama’s America.

[End of excerpts]

Although in the full column Thornton mentions several examples of the tragic results of the application of antihumanist thought, he does not mention the millions upon millions of unborn children terminated by recent population control policies in China, millions upon millions of killings by antihumanist leaders in Russia, China, southeast Asia, and elsewhere during the 20th century, and even the smaller purges taking place here and there across the world today.

 How do you feel about this antihumanist movement?