Search Box

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

How white liberals don't see blacks as individuals

I explained in February how "white guilt" itself is proof that certain people -- the ones who feel that guilt -- regard blacks as not quite human. Those same liberals also tend not to see blacks as individuals.

When a lot of white people -- especially liberals -- see a black person, all they see is: black. Alarm bells go off in their heads and they think, don't be racist! Be friendly! Don't show your fear! Say something nice!

Liberals never really look past a black's race, and just see a generic black person to whom they must act nice in a phony (liberal) way.

(By the way, I don't blame blacks who meet enough of these types for resenting whites.)

Liberals always give blacks the benefit of the doubt, then maintain that this attitude makes them "open-minded." In fact, it makes them the opposite. While they pride themselves on not being "judgmental," they really aren't even seeing the blacks as individual human beings.

They avoid criticizing any black, because they know that doing so would open them up to the inevitable charges of racism, their worst nightmare. And they completely avoid the minefield of group differences, for the same reason.

And, of course, because liberals never see past race, they accuse their opponents of doing the same.

In fact, it's only when you're willing to get to know a lot of people individually, and see what they're like without putting blinders on, that you can draw realistic conclusions about group differences in behavior, personality, and so on. That's how it works for people who actually do keep their minds open.

Whenever liberals see a black person they're way too preoccupied going into don't-show-the-dog-you're-afraid-of-it mode to actually notice anything about the person they're talking to. Which, when you think about it, is essentially denying any humanity to that person.

But in defense of the liberals, it's hard to think clearly when you're in a state of panic.

I admit, this post is a bit of an exaggeration of liberal behavior. But the salient point is that it's fear that drives liberal behavior: the fear of blacks, the fear that the blacks might realize that they are afraid of them, the fear that the blacks might realize that they consider them alien in some very elemental way, and the fear that the blacks might lash out at them somehow. And those basic fears actually bespeak a racism which is far deeper than any mild recitation of statistics does.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of a liberal I know who hates Eminem because he's "culturally appropriating" rap, which, according to her, is meant for blacks only. Never mind that plenty of black rappers have featured in Eminem's songs, clearly having no problem with him. All that matters to liberals such as her (and she isn't even black!) is the fact of race, irrespective of what the individuals directly involved think.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
You're so right. And the whole idea of cultural appropriation is ridiculous and ridiculously one-sided to begin with. Nobody ever says nonwhites are guilty of it whenever they use a refrigerator, a car, an airplane, or a computer.

Anonymous said...

I've made this point to her and she replied that it's fine for blacks to use refrigerators, cars, etc because whites have power over blacks - it's only not OK for us to use black-invented stuff because they don't have power over us. According to that logic, surely it must be wrong for whites to have emergency blood transfusions, since the scientist Charles Drew was black?

Actually, why stop at race - why not quit using stuff invented by women, disabled people and queers, if we don't belong to those groups? Why not build a world where we all have to constantly research who invented what before we use it, refuse to buy it if it wasn't from 'one of us', and punish people who carry on using something from a social group they're not members of? Let's stick labels on items of clothing, musical instruments, electronics, etc like "Beware - these antibiotics were discovered by Indian researcher! Not for non-Indian patients!", "not for neurotypicals - smartphone developed by autistic man", "this painting is by an HIV+ artist; interested buyers must have HIV", and so on. I'm sure that would produce a really open-minded, tolerant world where we really treat each other as equals. It totally wouldn't exacebrate things for minorities at all. White, straight men need to start only buying stuff produced by other white, straight men and boycott all products developed by women, gays & blacks. Not boycotting would only make them appropriative and disrespectful.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
The idea that whites have "power over" blacks is also ridiculous. Yes, whites do better economically, on average, than blacks. But until this past January, Barack Obama had power over me. And I've never had "power" over a single black that I know of. Police officers have power over people, and politicians have power over people, but those occupations are not exclusively white. The MSM has quite a bit of persuasive power (though that does seem to be dissipating a bit, thank goodness). Does that mean that Anglos can say anti-Semitic things but that Jewish people, who occupy the most powerful positions in the media, should not be allowed to say critical things about Anglos? (That doesn't seem to be the way it works.)

Every suggestion you made is no more ridiculous than what it currently being suggested by the Left.

Mark Caplan said...

Black rappers may rap in only a sub-Saharan African click language and get paid in barter: so many woven baskets of yams per gig.

Mark Caplan said...

...The yams are roasted over an elephant-dung-fired grill. The dung smoke has the double advantage of repelling mosquitoes and most likely your relatives from from joining the yambecue. After the feast, the family all goes out and acquires cholera in the untreated sewage that trickles down the middle of the unpaved street.

John Craig said...

Mark --
"Grill" sounds suspiciously Western, unless you're referring to just large rocks.

I"m afraid cultural appropriation, like racism, is a one way street, and the term only applies in one direction.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, I never felt power over my Malaysian surgeon either, when my white body lay paralysed under his knife. But that's the difference between how libertarians and *classical* liberals think of society compared to how Marxists and social liberals do: we see people as individuals, they see people as belonging to groups. They can't resist making Bourgeois vs Proletariat analogies all the time (White vs Black, Male vs Female, Straight vs Gay, etc). It seems they believe that a white hobo has more privilege, and thus power, than a black judge. Their argument is that the white hobo doesn't suffer from *systemic* oppression whereas the black judge does (if that's the case, why is he even a hobo? If 'The System' favours him that much, shouldn't he have a home?)

Marxists are convinced that someone from a minority group can never overcome their 'oppression', be it race, gender or whatever else. Radical feminists especially hate women who refuse to consider themselves oppressed because it undermines their movement: they call them "handmaidens of the patriarchy". It's pathetic: imagine if Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Sheikh Hasina or Helen Clark had spent their lives moaning about oppression instead of getting on with their jobs. The idea that all 'oppressed' people need to obsess over it rather than try to move on holds them back in life. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the person believes they'll be rejected due to their background, they'll be less likely to try and so they'll necessarily be less likely to succeed.

Of course, whenever I've had online conversations like this with Marxists, they usually launch into ad hominem attacks and accuse me of being highly privileged and of never knowing any oppression. I'd love to see their faces if they found out that I'm actually a gay, disabled transsexual with a migrant background (who simply refuses to identify as a victim). Yup, I'm just oozing with privilege! #sarcasm

- Gethin

Anonymous said...

RE the cultural appropriation, I read an article today that you might like: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/in-defense-of-cultural-appropriation.html

White artists have been fired and had their art burned because they drew paintings depicting historical events involving non-white people. It seems the only way white artists are now safe from being harassed is by ignoring the existence of anyone non-white. It used to be that whites were considered racists for not being inclusive of other races; now whites are considered racist if they do feature people from other races in their art. Catch-22.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
You have a migrant background? May I ask what it is?

Yes, whenever I hear about white privilege, I always think of the white have-nots, and wonder why their privilege never got them anywhere.

And yes, cultural appropriation is just more insanity from the Left. Just one more way for them to show how exquisitely "sensitive" they are. But, like everything els win Left World, it works only in one direction.

Anonymous said...

I've been a UK citizen since birth but was born outside the UK. I've spent a third of my life outside the UK, in various European countries, and have considered moving to either Canada or New Zealand. As a result, I have no real allegiance to any country or sense of patriotism (patriotism is often considered a good thing, but I reckon it only fosters xenophobia). When I hear immigration debates in the UK, it's usually phrased as 'immigrants' vs 'people who were born here', and I'm never sure which group I belong to since I only have UK citizenship.

I was talking with a SJW German speaker about the languages that are very easy to understand if one knows German. The conversation was fine when discussing Afrikaans and Dutch, but the temprature suddenly dropped when I mentioned Yiddish. Apparently, it's "cultural appropriation" for non-Jews to try to speak and understand Yiddish (not that I have any intention to try to learn the language: too much effort for too little gain). I don't understand why learning Yiddish is considered cultural appropriation but learning, say, Arabic isn't? It's rather sad that languages are now considered intellectual property.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I'm sure other Britishers' attitude toward you have to do with your ethnicity more than your country of birth.

These days morals seem to be whatever the Left decides they are. And there's absolutely no sense of universal principles involved; it's all, as Steve Sailer says, about who/whom.

Anonymous said...

I once had someone after finding out about my condition say "differently abled" when visiting relatives in the US. I just nodded and went along with my day.

When you see the Ted Talks and Newsweeks articles promoting blatant anti-psychiatry, mental illness denial 2.0, you wonder why do they permit it? Why are there non-austistic people buying this all up? The guy who wrote one of the latest and most awful books "Neurotribes" wasn't even autistic. Why would the masses eat this all up or permit it to even exist or have any recognition?

But considering that, according to Alex Jones at least, there are people out there who spend 10 million dollars on a bucket of maggots with rotting puppies inside, and there are people who have become very wealthy selling these buckets of maggots maybe even invited to the homes of your local senator, it does not become so surprising people have bad tastes.

People on the left tend to be the ones buying these buckets of maggots and statues of buddha made of rat feces while trying to pass it off as art, claiming there is some deep meaning underneath all the sometimes literal shit. I imagine if any people on the right have perverse tastes, its more honest classic stuff like collecting ancient torture equipment or 300 year old books made with human skin.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
It seem that all of modern liberalism is based on the proposition that no human being is any better than any other human being at anything, in any way. Unless, of course, you're a woman, or a person of color, or not normally heterosexual, in which case you can consider yourself morally superior.

And yes, modern art is just a scam. And it's not just the disgusting stuff that involves maggots and the like, but any sort of modern art, dating back to the 1930's or so. It's all just a big edifice built on.....nothing.

Anonymous said...

The arrogation of the term "social justice" also vexes me.

The old definition pre-20th century:
"Justice, which is blind by nature, where a person is given what they are due or not prevented from access to what they have earned or are entitled to as a human right, like if a celebrity's nephew steals your computer, you are entitled to have it back despite not having the same social leverage, or if no matter you are black or white, you will be paid at a job exactly what the salary according to what you have earned. If a man is robbed by bandits, his community ought extend their goodwill and respect for the person to let him regain what he has lost, no more, no less."

It also implies fair treatment or all races, classes, ethnicity and both sexes not by prescribing but by proscribing. It proscribes preferential treatment for anyone under the law as justice is blind. Many Catholic and Ancient Greek philosophers, Muslim theolgicians from the 10th century, renaissance thinkers all spoke of the importance of social justice.

I imagine "social justice warrior" started as a sarcastic slur.

Now what word can we use for all of the above?

-Ga

Anonymous said...

Also "conservativism" and "liberalism" have had their meanings screwed up.

Liberalism used to mean being liberally political. Wanting rapid change and modernization.
Conservativism used to mean preferring slow change and respect for tradition.

What is "liberal" about this so called modern day american "liberalism"? It's neither conservative or liberal, its neither staying put or moving forward, it's not even regressive (like royalist movements in some european countries to give the Monarch back more power) it's going all over the place.

If I had to identify myself politically, I would call myself a liberal, the kind in the old sense.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
I think "SJW" has its own meaning now, a very current term about a very current type of person. The old definition just refers to basic justice. Now it's al mixed up with the false egalitarianism which masquerades as liberalism, but which really has nothing to do with old-style liberalism, which was not base don identity politics.

I say we just stay patient and wait for the real meaning of the term to return.

John Craig said...

Ga --
I hadn't seen your 12:16 comment when I made my 3:09 reply. Yes, agreed, that' exactly what I was thinking, as I said above. I'm an old style liberal too.

Anonymous said...

The question of classic social justice and affirmative action can be answered by changing it to be based on class or a definable concrete circumstances/condition, like if a person cannot afford things because they were robbed of all their savings by a criminal, rather than race or gender, which it should be blind to.

One of the key tenets of classic social justice is charity, which is unsurprising due to it's heavy historical connection with organized religion during the pre modern era. In a pre-modern society without as much centralized governments, public facilities were nearly absent, the places where the poor went were the kind of places staffed by nuns. Organized charity by a non-governmental organization filled in the gap.

They didn't have food stamps back then, so you can see Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther stressing the importance of providing food to the poor so you would see churches in a medieval town running soup kitchens, you have Zakat in Islam as well which is like that. The point may have been to provide services in society what modern governments now do with religion as a pretext or form of organization.

One of the interesting things I found out about "Zakat" is it's also used as the name of the form of taxation in Saudi Arabia. They do not tax according to individual income, but tax 2.5% of what a person's entire capital assets are worth in total and call it "Zakat". I wonder if it is a good idea or not, do you have thoughts? They may have come up with that idea to tax people who are old money living entirely off passive oil money income or inheritance which they have plenty of.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
A net wealth tax is threatened every now and then by the Left in this country, but so far it hasn't gotten very far. It's just a different form of taxation than the income tax. It hurts older people as opposed to people in their prime earnings years, so I don't favor it. But I suppose they could impose a lower limit on it so that it doesn't hurt anyone who wouldn't otherwise be hurt, like, say, $50MM. Another thing it would do is discourage savings, and it would also encourage the hiding of assets. Overall, I think it's a bad idea, I prefer the income tax. Which may be partly a function of that being what I'm used to.