Eric Holder, Professional Racialist


As bad as the Fast and Furious debacle is, there is another part of the Eric Holder story that deserves equal attention.

Namely –

Attorney General Eric Holder is a racialist. In fact, he is a professional racialist.

Note that I am not calling Holder a racist. That’s different. A racist is a person who believes there are significant differences in abilities or character among people of different races, attributes those differences directly to race, and almost always believes that his own race is somehow superior to other races. That’s not Holder.

A racialist, on the other hand, as the term is used here, believes that racism is itself the primary driving force of events, behaviors, and outcomes in all societies. Anywhere there is a perceived injustice or inequality of outcomes, a racialist looks first to racism as the underlying cause. To an avid racialist, any other contributing factor is either subordinate or is itself tied to racism in some other form at some other time or place.*

Eric Holder is well known for his claim that we’re a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race, for his documented race-biased pursuit of justice in the DOJ, and for his recent sniveling whimper that Congressional calls for his resignation over Fast and Furious are race-based. Through these behaviors, and because of his position as US Attorney General, Holder is a quintessential professional racialist.

As expressed by AR Ward and others, professional racialists variously use race as the basis for earning a living, making speeches, writing articles, winning elections, and determining policy. Their worldview is grounded in the notion that racism, specifically white racism, explains virtually all of society’s political and economic ills. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are perhaps the most visible, but other prominent professional racialists are Cornel West, Alan Johnson, Michael Eric Dyson, and Tim Wise.

Racialists, professional or not, use “racism” as their ever-ready trump card, instantly putting their target on the defensive. It works. The epithet racist is nasty and cutting, with an ugly sound that calls to mind Ku Kluxers, black-and-white images of 1950′s police with barking dogs, water cannons, and state governors (all Democrats, by the way) blocking the entrance of African Americans to public schools.

Old-fashioned virulent racism is all but gone now, and good riddance. But the Left is fairly teeming with racialists and racialism. Some professionals, like Jackson and Sharpton, owe their livelihood — indeed their whole raison d’être — to sniffing out and spotting perceived racism as if they were some sort of cultural pointer dogs. In fact, with old-time virulent racism so rare, these professional racialists have had to purposefully extend the definition of racism to include race-blindness.

As AR Ward puts it:

Of course we should all be anti-racist, but [racialists] don’t share the same definition of being anti-racist as most Americans. [To them], everyone in our society is either privileged (whites) or oppressed (“people of color”) because of racism. Since they think the driving force of privilege and oppression is race, naturally their enemies are those who are blind to race (almost always whites). So, according to the racialists, to be blind to race means being blind to racism.

To most people, race-blindness aligns well with the morally worthy I-Have-A-Dream vision of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who called for the day when people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Unfortunately for professional racialists, their influence, power, income, and self-righteous self-image can last only as long as Rev. King’s vision remains out of reach. It is in the racialist’s own self-interest, therefore, to perpetuate at least the perception of racism in America. And that’s what they do, viciously slandering any political movement that does not adhere to their racialistic worldview.

In particular, the Tea Party Movement (TPM) is anathema to racialism. The TPM holds that free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility constitute the path to greater well-being for all Americans. This TPM credo has nothing to do with race. To the TPM, this implicit race-blindness is a feature, not a flaw. But to racialists, any race-blind political movement must be, by definition, racist, and the TPM in particular drives some virulent racialists into apoplexy. See for example the 1-minute video at this link, wherein avid racialist Janeane Garofalo becomes delusional about the Tea Party Movement.

So then …

How should people of good faith deal with professional racialists like Sharpton, Jackson, and lesser racialists like Garofalo? Well, how about going on offense? When they cry “Racist!” without cause, cry “Racialist!” right back at them, but with good cause. As an epithet for these angry, bitter people, racialist is accurate, deserved, and puts them on the defensive, which is where they belong — for a change.

Now while racialists like Sharpton, Jackson, and Garofalo are certainly annoying and get a lot of media attention, they do only moderate damage. They are often the billboards of their own buffoonery. And their flailing rants against the Tea Party Movement arguably draw new members to the Conservative cause as well as (re)energizing current members.

Eric Holder, however, is another matter.

As US Attorney General, Holder runs our Department of Justice. That’s serious. The exposé Injustice, by J. Christian Adams, has received scant media attention amid the Fast and Furious investigations, but Adams’ serious, highly credible book shows that as a professional racialist, Holder has abused his AG position as an opportunity to correct past racial injustices by committing new ones.

As Adams writes (in the Injustice introduction section):

The DOJ’s dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case — a case I brought and ultimately resigned over — gave the public a glimpse of the racially discriminatory worldview that characterizes this influential government agency. But the publicity surrounding that case was unusual. Until now, no one has fully conveyed to the American public exactly how deep the rot goes in the Civil Rights Division, and the many disgraceful scandals that have unfolded behind its closed doors.

The end result when racial extremists dominate such a powerful division of federal law enforcement is, in a word, lawlessness.

Impervious to sanctions and penalties handed down by federal courts, the DOJ Civil Rights Division feels unconstrained by department regulations or even by federal law. We now face the Orwellian situation where government lawyers brazenly ignore and subvert the law they have sworn to uphold, and where a leading civil rights protection agency discriminates against some racial groups while it favors others. This is not only lawlessness, it is the most dangerous kind of lawlessness — for history shows that once a nation’s laws cease to apply to the law enforcers, individual liberty does not survive for very long.

The Fast and Furious debacle may well bring Holder down, but if it does not, perhaps he should explicitly rename the Department of Justice with the more accurate name Department of Revenge for Past Injustices, or DORFPI. The acronym could be conveniently pronounced “dorf-pie” or “dorf-pee”. Catchy, no? And fitting, either way.

AG Holder’s deliberate corruption of our DOJ is one of the prime reasons that the Obama regime must be voted out in 2012.

——————————————————————————-

Afterword:

By the definition and discussion of racialism in this blog, am I somehow claiming that the last vestiges of racial, religious, and ethnic prejudices in America are gone? Of course not. But so what?

The best counsel I know of for victims of prejudice appeared in a decades-old newspaper column written by Thomas Sowell. (I’m relying on memory here since I can’t seem to find the actual column via Google). Sowell, himself black, wrote that the best advice he had ever received about prejudice was given to him when he was still a boy. It came from an old Jewish woman who told him “Don’t wait for them to love you.”

Sowell followed that advice rather well. He is, of course, a world-class economist, now at Stanford, and he is a superb conservative writer. I’m now enjoying his latest book, The Thomas Sowell Reader.

As more and more people follow the advice of that nameless old Jewish woman, professional racialists like Sharpton, Jackson, and Holder will be put out of business, and they’ll have to find another way to make a living. Bummer.

————————————————————————————-

* Some authors have used the term liberal racism instead of racialism to mean virtually the same thing. A superb writer, and incidentally a high school classmate of mine, Jim Sleeper, wrote a book with the title Liberal Racism in 1997. It stands as a benchmark on the subject, written by a decidedly Left-leaning person, which gives it all the more credibility since it is sharply critical of the mainstream Left for “getting race wrong”.


Comments

  1. TruConserv says:

    Interesting article.

    I especially appreciate your keeping the New Black Panther case an issue for the public to consider. Keep in mind that all four of the defendants in that case failed to show for the first trial, thereby giving the CRD a default judgement victory. The CRD then dismissed three of four convictions during the appeal process. The fourth defended was allowed to plea down.

    That was a disgusting display by the CRD.

    Do you have more examples where race was the likely cause for specific actions by the CRD?

    A point of order, and NOT an attack on the value of your article, is required for the definitions you provide for Racism, Racialism and Racist.

    Racism is the beliefe that one race is superior to the other.
    Racialism is the that belife that not only do races exist, but also that there are significant differences between them. However, racialism does not argue on race is superior to the other.

    A racist is a practicioner of racism.
    A racialist is a practioner of racialism.

    The definition you provide for racism is too soft. The definition you provide for racialist is a butchered, telephone-game version of the actual word.

    Holder is absolutely a social racialist. He believes that society treats races differently and that each race has a different “social reality” that informs how they, and their communities, approach aspects of societal living, including how they interact with police.

    To say that Holder thinks the practice of racism – the beliefe that one race is superior to another – is the cause of all evils is simply imprecise. It’s a distinction worth learning.

    Again, I like your argument and am grateful for anyone who can draw attention to the ills of the CRD in general and the New Black Panther case in specific. I just like it when words are used with precision and when tortured language is restored.

    Holder is a racialist, and there should be no room for a racialist in government. We should treat all “races” the same and we should expect every race live up to the same standard of behavior. (I put races in quotes because genetically, as the human genome project revealed, there is but one human race. The variences between what were traditionally considered races where cosmetic only.)

    FWIW: I hold the same low opinion of eugenicist, and hope you do as well.

  2. Conservative American says:

    ANOTHER superb article, dleeper47, full of truth, wit, deep analysis and giving a voice to real Conservatives! Bravo! :-)

    Ignore “TrueConsev”. It’s a liberal who thinks it’s articulate and intelligent when, in fact, it is a propagandist for the liberal left who likes to read it’s own empty tripe. I’m sure that you don’t need me to figure that out, LOL!

    You keep writing ‘em, I’ll keep reading ‘em!

    • Thanks, Conservative American, for your kind words. I’m glad to get (almost) any kind of feedback, but your encouragement helps me keep on writing!

      Keep up the good fight!

      • Conservative American says:

        I don’t think that you realize how good you are at writing articles with original content, dleeper47! You are functioning at a professional level. Your work is better, more original and more thoughtful than most of what I see at major internet media websites like National Review Online! If you keep writing articles, and word gets out, you are going to put SA on the map in a really big way!

        Keep up the good work!

      • True Conservative says:

        I like what you’ve written here, as stated above.

        The challenge for an emerging writer is whether he can find an audience outside his base. When your writing is so crisp, your logic so tight that even your ideological opposite has to say “he has a point, it’s just one I don’t like,” then you’ve hit your stride. It’s easy to get the church choir to sing with you – the challenge is to get the sinners humming and tapping their toes as well.

        Those lessons I learned as a professional journalist and later, while in law school, as an editor of a Constitutional law journal.

        Many of my posts that have driven the extremist crazy on SA have not been where I disagree with them on the substantive issues, but where I encourage them to throw away the arguments that make conservatives look foolish (poor logic, for example) or where the argument is based on demonstratively false claims.

        For example, in my personal life and in my faith I hold that marriage is the union of one man to one woman. I do not argue that if man is allowed to marry man then man must allowed to marry dogs. I draw an intellectual line in the sand where arguments that lose conservatives credibility and votes must be eschewed.

        As conservatives, we have the advantage of being right, if we stay true to our principles and present cogent argument, we will prevail.

        Your article has the cogency that is needed, but I coach you, again, to use language with precision. When the liberals can’t argue with your logic, they will go after your facts. When the can’t argue with the facts, they will go after your logic. When neither is assailable, they will go after your core intelligence.

        It’s neither unfair or unexpected that they will do so. The good news is that you can preemptively estop these attacks by self-checking your work. Even where you pick up a word, phrase or definition from a source you trust, check it yourself to ensure it has the right meaning.

        For example, this well-written article would be even better with stronger, more precise use of the definitions of racism, racialsim, racist and racialist. It would be easy to edit this article while not only preserving the core argument (Holden is a racialist who needs to go) while making it immune to criticism.

        I offer these comments to see you grow as a writer. If I were a liberal, I’d let you falter. If I were a wingnut, I’d go the fanboy route and praise you simply because you were critical of a man I, too, am critical of.

        In the world of writing – fanboys suck. They never push you to be better and they reward less than best efforts.

        If you read my comments carefully, taking criticism professionally, you will see that I am encouraging you to do better, not worse. I want stronger conservative voices, not weaker ones. You will not always agree with my comments, and I will from time-to-time be wrong. But I will always be honest.

        After all, I’m a conservative. I don’t need spammy lies and half-truths to prove my points. (CF: con am!)

        • Conservative American says:

          ROFL, ROFL, ROFL! :-)

          Now THIS is your funniest one yet, LOL!

          YOU are going to advise dleeper47 about writing???

          First of all, you intellectual capacity is far, far below that of dleeper47. Secondly, you could try your whole life and never write as well as dleeper47. We’ve seen your work, TC, LOL!

          TC wrote: “I offer these comments to see you grow as a writer.”

          ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!! :-)

          Hey, why don’t you try growing yourself as a writer first… up to the level of dleeper47!

  3. Need to take issue with your definition of racism: “A racist is a person who believes there are significant differences in abilities or character among people of different races, attributes those differences directly to race, and almost always believes that his own race is somehow superior to other races.”

    Does this mean a doctor who has a black patient who shows signs of sickle-cell anemia and makes a diagnosis (because black are unique in their susceptibility to SCA) is a racist? And if the doctor is actually white and believes that whites are not nearly as susceptible to the disease, does he become a racist because whites are superior to blacks in their resistance to SCA?

    • Conservative American says:

      I suggest, Wilson, that you read again the very passage which you quoted:

      “A racist is a person who believes there are significant differences in abilities or character among people of different races…”

      Sickle cell anemia is not an “ability” nor does it have anything to do with “character”. It is a medical condition.

      Try again.

    • TruConserv says:

      The author’s definition are not expressed very well, he has blurred the distinctions between racialism and racism, making the definition of racist too soft and of racialist too hard.

      A racist is a a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human “race” is superior to any or all others.

      There is no “sometimes.” The core of racism is the beliefe that one “race” is superior to another in some manner.

      Racialism is the beliefe that the races are different, but not necessarily superior to one another. (NB: in the 30′s racism and racialism where synonymous, that is not longer true.)

      Expressed another way: “Racialism is the basic epistemological position that not only do races exist, but also that there are significant differences between them. This is to be contrasted with racism, which also assumes that some races are superior to others; or, in an altered meaning, refers to discrimination based on the concept of race.”

      Racialism does not hold that racism is the root of all society’s ills, but does take a basis in the equally vapid construct “racial reality.”

      Racialist can not see the world as color nuetral, which is why they have no place in government. That’s why Holder needs to go.

      • Conservative American says:

        dleeper47 wrote: “A racialist, on the other hand, AS THE TERM IS USED HERE, believes that racism is itself the primary driving force of events, behaviors, and outcomes in all societies.”

        So the author, as is common, has defined precisely what is meant by the term “racialism” for the purposes of her article so that there will be no confusion among readers.

        As you wrote, TC, “(NB: in the 30′s racism and racialism where synonymous, that is not longer true.)” So the meaning of “racialism” has, by your own admission, changed over time. That makes it entirely appropriate for the author to clarify what she means by “racialism” in the context of the article.

        The fact that you may differ with the clear statement of the definition for the purposes of the article doesn’t negate it’s meaning within the context of the article. All who read the article have been informed of the working definition and the author’s meaning is therefore clear.

        • You’re an idiot.

          This is the English language, not a software program. You don’t get to program the definition of a word, as you would a variable in a algorithm.

          Words take their ordinary and customary meaning.

          The ordinary and customary definition of racialism is the belief that the races are different, but not necessarily superior to one another.

          Don’t take a simple opportunity to improve a well-written article and convert it to your own desire to be a cyberstalking contrarian jerk.

          • Conservative American says:

            ROFL! OF COURSE an author can define a term they use in an article! It’s done all the time, LOL!

            In this case, the terms “racialist” and “racialism” are NOT in everyday, common. A definition of the term as used is quite clearly called for.

            What is important is that there isn’t any ambiguity or confusion when the auther uses terms. Providing a working definition at the beginning of the article enables readers to clearly understand the author’s meaning and intent.

            Case in point: Tell us, TC, which individuals are “Founding Fathers”.

            • True Conservative says:

              They are everyday, common words if you have a vocabulary equal to or greater than a sixth-grader’s.

              I mean that sincerely. These aren’t big words, they come up routinely in the discussion of why liberals suck and how their approach to dealing with race is actually il-liberal, as that word takes its ordinary and normal meaning. Liberals are holding back race relations, not making them better, but I digress.

              When you assign new meaning to words, then you open yourself up for criticism.

              • Conservative American says:

                Let me see if I understand you, TC. You are claiming that “racialist” and “racialism” are common words and that my perception that they are not in common, everyday use is due to the fact that I have the vocabulary of a sixth grader. Is that right? That’s fine. I’ll let your statement stand and readers can judge for themselves how often they encounter the terms “racialist” and “racialism”.

                The fact is, as you have pointed out, that the meaning of “racialist” and “racialism” have changed over time as have the distinctions between “racism” and “racialism”:

                “Interestingly, though, the use of these terms and their meanings has seen their inversions in history. When the word racialism was coined (Oxford English Dictionary suggests that its first recorded use was in 1907), the word meant “belief in the superiority of particular race.” The word racism (first used in 1936, according to Oxford English Dictionary) is “the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. Further, the Oxford English Dictionary holds the two synonymous, with both meaning “belief in the superiority of a particular race.”

                “However, by the end of World War II, racism started to acquire the same supremacist connotation as racialism – implying racial discrimination, racial supremacism and (their) harmful intent.”

                “However, in the 1960’s, some authors – especially the Black Civil Rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois – defined racialism as the philosophical belief that differences exist between human races, be they biological, social, psychological or spiritual. Note that this is racism’s definition before the World War II. Likewise, he reserved the term racism to refer to the belief that one’s particular race is superior to the other (cf. the inversion of the Oxford English Dictionary definition).”

                http://socyberty.com/sociology/between-racism-and-racialism-whats-the-difference/

                Given this evolution of the meanings of both racialism and racism the author would have been negligent had she not defined those terms for the purposes of her article. Her interest was in avoiding confusion among readers regarding her intent and meaning. Given the author’s definitions, she has been able to clearly articulate her point of view for readers. That having been accomplished, your definitions of those terms are irrelevant.

                As regards your attempts to feign being Conservative, Jane001 summed it up best when she wrote:

                “Jane001 says:
                February 16, 2012 at 11:04 am”

                “…TruConserv, True Conservative… is it possible that you’re fooling a single person on this site?”

              • TruConserv says:

                G-d you are dense.

                The article you quote is a discussion of the etymologies of racist and racialism. Of course she’s going to discuss how they evolved.

                She’s actually chastizing people who confuse RACISM and RACIALISM. She’s agreeing with me – words have meaning and meanings matter.

                Did you catch this part of the article?

                “If one consults the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition), racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations. As such, it entails a belief that we can or may categorize people on the basis of existence and significance of race, but does mean neither a hierarchy, if not a pecking order, between and among the races, nor any political or ideological position of racial supremacy.

                Read more: http://socyberty.com/sociology/between-racism-and-racialism-whats-the-difference/#ixzz1mpze8zOB

                In other words, she agrees with me.

                This is not a big word. It takes the customary and ordinary definition given above – a definition slightly at odds with the given by the author of this SA article.

                The more you fight on this issue, the more you prove my point: when you use words with precision your writing is less open to criticism. When you muddle the definition, and worse yet try to defend the inexact use of the word, you look like a fool.

                That’s you – you look like a fool.

              • Conservative American says:

                Well if she agrees with you, TC, what are you whining about, LOL!

                Have a nice day, True Liberal! :-)

            • True Conservative says:

              Look at it this way – you can give a definition in your writing to help your readers, but you can’t make up a new definition.

              I can’t write an article, and be taken seriously, where I redefine attraction as repulsion.

              No matter how many times I tell the reader my new definition, they will always think I’m a bonehead for not using the “right” word.

              The impact is lesser here, because the definition given is largely correct, but your declaration that an author can use any definition he wants so long as he tells the reader what he means leads to sloppy thinking and muddled writing.

              • Conservative American says:

                Let’s completely shred TC’s feeble arguments now, shall we; always a simple and easy matter, LOL!

                TC contends that there is one current and correct definition of racialism and that he has provided us with that one current and correct definition. That is the biggest bunch of BS ever attempted to be foisted upon readers, LOL! Let’s look at the facts and let’s look at the truth instead of TC’s usual propaganda.

                “Racialism is a term used in different ways by different people. It has no widely accepted, fixed definition.”

                http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Racialist

                What do you know! TC’s misrepresentation that there is but a single, accurate, current definition of racialism, and that he is the keeper of that definition, is entirely debunked with merely a single sentence! Happy trails, TC, LOL!

                To emphasize the point, let’s look at some of the definitions of “racialism” and “racialist” currently on the internet:

                racialism:
                1 – a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
                b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.
                2 – Chiefly British Variant of racism.

                http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racialist

                Definition of ‘racialist’ Princeton’s WordNet
                1. (noun) racist, racialist
                a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

                http://www.definitions.net/definition/racialist

                Meaning of RACIALIST
                Definition: [n] a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

                http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/racialist

                So we see, for example, that even today, Princeton’s WordNet actually equates racist and racialist. Ain’t that something! And THAT is why the author clarified the definitions of racist and racialist, because: “Racialism is a term used in different ways by different people. It has no widely accepted, fixed definition.”

                Have a nice day, True Liberal! :-)

              • TruConserv says:

                Too funny – none of the sources that disagree with the definition I provided are considered reputable dictionaries – none would be appropriate, for example, for citation in an academic paper.

                In contrast, the dictionaries that may be cited, give the very definition I provided:

                MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY

                Definition of RACIALISM : a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; also: racism

                AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (fifth ed.)

                a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
                b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

                THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM

                a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
                b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

                COLLINS DICTIONARY (10th ed.)

                The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors.

                See the trend?

                They all align with my definition, and more importantly, do not align with the definition given by the author of this article.

                Just because you’re able to find some discord amongst a few “word presses” does not mean an author can simply create, anew, yet another definition of the word.

                That you continue to argue that you can simply reflects your contrarian – and thereby less than credible – nature.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! Thank you very much for proving my point for me, LOL!

                Your Webster dictionary definition equates racialism with racism! :-)

                “MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY”

                “Definition of RACIALISM : a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; ALSO: RACISM”

                TC wrote: “…none would be appropriate, for example, for citation in an academic paper.”

                Well thank goodness this isn’t an academic paper, LOL! You should be complaining about the absence of footnotes as well then, LOL!

                Furthermore, TC, what you say are “reputable dictionaries” are merely your subjective opinion of what constitutes “reputable dictionaries”. The dictionaries I have cited are dictionaries which are on the internet and people use them all the time. If you want to limit readers to the realm of those who read only academic papers, you are in the wrong place, LOL!

                Have a nice day, True Liberal! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                You honestly need me to explain primary versus secondary definitions? Of what a “see also” signal is?

                That you are still fighting this simply proves my point to the author: use words with precision, don’t get bogged down in battles over definitions, especially when using the usual and customary definition sustains your point.

              • Conservative American says:

                TC wrote: “That you are still fighting this simply proves my point…”

                Au contraire! That you are still fighting this proves that you can’t write and dleeper47 can, LOL! You would write an academic article with bibliography and footnotes. Hello, wrong venue! This isn’t an academic institution, it isn’t an academic paper and SA readers aren’t academicians. This is a political blog and articles need to be written for this audience. dleeper47 understands that and you don’t, LOL!

                If you want your Martinis shaken and not stirred, go to the Waldorf Astoria, LOL!

                I find it humorous that you critique the writing of dleeper47, who has had two articles posted thus far, while you have had no articles posted. Why don’t you earn your stripes as a writer at SA first by submitting an article and having it posted. Then we can see how good YOU are.

                Have a nice day, True Liberal! :-)

              • I’m not in competition with dleeper47 and I wish him only the best.

                The best, of course, would include an absence of spammy cyberstalking posts from you. Seriously, you’re destroying the readability of the discussion threads with your contrarian nonsence.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! And all of your posts, of course, are enhancing the readability of the discussion threads with your pearls of eternal wisdom, LOL!

                Speaking of being contrarian, how is it that you go on and on and on about academic esoterica? Do you REALLY think that readers want to hear you wax poetic about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

        • Thanks for the comments AC and TC.

          AC is right that I deliberately included the paragraph at the top to clarify ‘racialist’ for use in this article, but that definition is not unique to this article. The references by J. Christian Adams and AR Ward use ‘racialist’ to mean virtually the same thing. The reference by Jim Sleeper uses ‘liberal racism’ to carry that meaning, and he uses that phrase as the title of his book, presumably for its eye-catching irony. But he explicitly mentions in the book that some prefer the term ‘racialism’ instead. And that was 15 years ago.

          So the words ‘racialist’ and ‘racialism’ have indeed had multiple meanings and have changed over time as TC says and AC observes. But as Conservatives, I argue we do need a *word*, not a phrase or paragraph that is both a parry and a counter-thrust to the ‘racist’ epithet that Left uses so persistently, recklessly, and self-righteously.

          Of course race is only one characteristic that the Left uses to segregate everybody into various groupings. When they look at people, they see groups first and individuals second, if at all. Black/white/brown/yellow/red color-coding, 1% / 99%, union/non-union, public/private sector, atheist/religious, they pit the groups against each other at every opportunity, fanning the flames of suspicion, envy, victimization, and hate. That technique is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook for fomenting a revolution, and it is distinctly un-American. Our national motto has always been E Pluribus Unum — from many, one. But for about 100 years now, the Left’s implicit motto has been E Unum Pluribus, and they show no sign of letting up. A pox on them.

          (Hey, I think there’s another blog in here somewhere!)

          Thanks again for commenting.

          • Conservative American says:

            Good for you, dleeper47! God bless you for speaking up on your own behalf and on behalf of your superb article!

            Don’t permit liberal Cretins like TC to go unanswered. Stand up for yourself, for what you believe in and for what you write, just as you have done here and now! :-)

          • True Conservative says:

            Racialism and Racialist are the right words, the quibble – and that is all it is – is that Racialist don’t always blame racism for the cause of their racialism.

            The problem with Racialism is not that the left uses the accusation of racism and we thereby need a foil. The problem is that Racialism rejects a color-neutral society. It creates and excuses double standards. It is the epitome of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

            That is the problem with Holder. He has a double standard. It’s not that he thinks racism exists or that racism is the root of all trouble. We wouldn’t care if he felt that way but maintained a race-neutral, fair and balanced approach to prosecutions. He doesn’t. His racialism causes him to think that “races” act and deserved to be treated differently.

            That is a distinction worth retaining. When you are writer, words are your weapons. Use them with precision.

            • Conservative American says:

              As I have stated above, Professor:

              Let’s completely shred TC’s feeble arguments now, shall we; always a simple and easy matter, LOL!

              TC contends that there is one current and correct definition of racialism and that he has provided us with that one current and correct definition. That is the biggest bunch of BS ever attempted to be foisted upon readers, LOL! Let’s look at the facts and let’s look at the truth instead of TC’s usual propaganda.

              “Racialism is a term used in different ways by different people. It has no widely accepted, fixed definition.”

              http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Racialist

              What do you know! TC’s misrepresentation that there is but a single, accurate, current definition of racialism, and that he is the keeper of that definition, is entirely debunked with merely a single sentence! Happy trails, TC, LOL!

              To emphasize the point, let’s look at some of the definitions of “racialism” and “racialist” currently on the internet:

              racialism:
              1 – a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
              b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.
              2 – Chiefly British Variant of racism.

              http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racialist

              Definition of ‘racialist’ Princeton’s WordNet
              1. (noun) racist, racialist
              a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

              http://www.definitions.net/definition/racialist

              Meaning of RACIALIST
              Definition: [n] a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

              http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/racialist

              So we see, for example, that even today, Princeton’s WordNet actually equates racist and racialist. Ain’t that something! And THAT is why the author clarified the definitions of racist and racialist, because: “Racialism is a term used in different ways by different people. It has no widely accepted, fixed definition.”

              Have a nice day, True Liberal!

              • True Conservative says:

                Silly boy – your spammy nonsense won’t play here.

                Too funny – none of the sources that disagree with the definition I provided are considered reputable dictionaries – none would be appropriate, for example, for citation in an academic paper.

                In contrast, the dictionaries that may be cited, give the very definition I provided:

                MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY

                Definition of RACIALISM : a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; also: racism

                AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (fifth ed.)

                a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
                b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

                THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM

                a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
                b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

                COLLINS DICTIONARY (10th ed.)

                The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors.

                See the trend?

                They all align with my definition, and more importantly, do not align with the definition given by the author of this article.

                Just because you’re able to find some discord amongst a few “word presses” does not mean an author can simply create, anew, yet another definition of the word.

                That you continue to argue that you can simply reflects your contrarian – and thereby less than credible – nature.

              • Conservative American says:

                Once again…

                ROFL! Thank you very much for proving my point for me, LOL!

                Your Webster dictionary definition equates racialism with racism!

                “MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY”

                “Definition of RACIALISM : a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; ALSO: RACISM”

                TC wrote: “…none would be appropriate, for example, for citation in an academic paper.”

                Well thank goodness this isn’t an academic paper, LOL! You should be complaining about the absence of footnotes as well then, LOL!

                Furthermore, TC, what you say are “reputable dictionaries” are merely your subjective opinion of what constitutes “reputable dictionaries”. The dictionaries I have cited are dictionaries which are on the internet and people use them all the time. If you want to limit readers to the realm of those who read only academic papers, you are in the wrong place, LOL!

                Have a nice day, True Liberal!

              • You don’t understand primary and seconday definitions, nor what a “see also” signal is?

                The point on academic qualified sources goes to credibility.

                Wingnuts like you don’t understand credibility. You’ll repeat anything, from any source, without any critical review.

                That’s why wingnuts must never be allowed to speak as if they are conservatives, because when they do, they make conservatives look foolish. Which is pretty much what you are doing right now.

              • Conservative American says:

                Oh please, TC. You are getting more and more esoteric. Come back down to the real world. You claim to be an attorney and you seem to view everything from the perspective on an attorney. This is not an attorney world.

                TC wrote: “Wingnuts like you don’t understand credibility.”

                Well, TC, as you know, I don’t find it credible when you seek to question the position of Rick Santorum based upon your statement that Santorum has claimed something which he has not, something which you cannot quote him as having claimed. That is a REAL credibility issue, LOL! ;-)

  4. Well, now we’re going to need a definition of superior. When it comes to resisting sickle cell anemia, for example, blacks are apparently terrible at it. Which makes non-blacks superior. Does that make people that believe this (whether it’s true or not) racists? I don’t think so.

    • Conservative American says:

      You forgot something, Wilson. If African-Americans can get sickle cell anemia and Caucasians, Hispanic people and Asian people can’t, that would make African-Americans superior in manifesting sickle cell anemia.

      If you want to be ridiculous there are still two sides even to ridiculous arguments.

      Try again.

    • True Conservative says:

      Sickle Cell is not driven by race, it is driven by genetics.

      Not all Africans or African Americans will get it. (most won’t). Not all members of other “races” are immune to it. (some will get it.)

      It’s like arguing that hemophilia is a white decease because the royal family has poor genes.

      As the human genome project revealed, the distinction of race is wholly wrongheaded and unsupported by science. There is one race, the human race, with various genetic differences (eye color, hair color, skin color, susceptibility or immunity to various deceases, etc.)

      • Conservative American says:

        You point being what, TC?

        • True Conservative says:

          Doctors being on the look out for sickle cell anemia are not racialists.

          • Conservative American says:

            EUREKA! We agree on something!

            “O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
            He chortled in his joy.” ;-)

            • TruConserv says:

              We actually agree on most things political, I suspect.

              We differ on what makes for credible argument, principled debate and winning votes.

              • Conservative American says:

                Based upon our past encounters, TC, there are some pretty wide and fundamental gaps between us both on substantial issues and on ideology. However, it is nice to agree on something for a change, LOL!

                Now if we were on the same side of an issue, have mercy on the soul of the poster or author who tried to make a case against our shared position. It is not impossible that that could happen some day. With the ever-increasingly bizarre poltical landscape, who knows what may pop up next?

                The problem is that people and policies which neither of us would support are usually SO far out that they self-destruct very quickly. Maybe it will get more interesting after the Republican Party chooses it’s presidential candidate and it comes down to Obama versus the Republican. ;-)

  5. The author admits there is a proper place for admitting race plays a role, at least in the credibility of the person making an argument. See if you can detect racialism in the following selection:

    “Sowell, himself black, wrote that the best advice he had ever received about prejudice was given to him when he was still a boy. It came from an old Jewish woman who told him ‘Don’t wait for them to love you.’”

    I think the reader is to infer, from Sowell, that Jews have special credibility when it comes to perspective on racism. Is that “special credibility” based on history, being a Jew, being a woman, being old, or what?

    The reader is also supposed to infer, from the poster, that Sowell also has special credibility when it comes to prejudice, because he is black?

    I think in both of these segments, the race of the person making the argument is provided to the reader to make the argument stronger, or better, or more believable. That’s a kind of soft racialism, no?

    Is it important to you, the person reading this very comment, what MY race is?

    • Conservative American says:

      Give it up, Wilson. You have tried repeatedly to discredit the author and the article and have failed repeatedly. All that you have proven is that, as an Obama supporter, you don’t like anything critcal of his administration. Why don’t you head over to Daily Kos where you can garner some ill-deserved, cheap cheers for yourself.

Speak Your Mind

*