Rodrigo Kazuo and Meg Perret found their classroom environment at Berkeley hostile, even when their professor was lecturing on Karl Marx (!), because the Western canon is exclusively composed of works by dead, white, European males, not a single person of color or transgendered individual makes the cut.
Because a majority of founders of Western thought were gay, Black women…
BTW, have you noticed more ‘persons of color’, homosexual, transgendered or perhaps gender-confused folks in your favorite television shows of movies?
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
I remember my Father (who had some bigotry issues) railing against the infusion of Black folks in 60’s and 70’s TV in much the same way. He said it was much the same in the 40’s and 50’s with Jewish people. They went from being 3% of the population, to a significant minority of those in entertainment media. (He, of course, forgot that the only work many Jewish folks could get was in the entertainment field!)
And it was much the same with Black folks. 13% of the population, but represented numerically larger in the entertainment media in the 70’s.
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
My questions are these: Does the actor bring quality to the role, or further the plot? Or were they just added because of political correctness?
And now we have this infusion of gay/transgender etc. folks. Some are quite entertaining, but in my humble opinion, some are just over-the-top. And included for shock effect and/or political correctness.
Which does a disservice both to them in their sexuality or color, and to the audience by their inclusion for political reasons.
Stepin’ Fetchit meet Myra Breckenridge.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some folks I find clever, and entertaining, regardless of ethnicity or bent. Others are just plain annoying. I won’t give you specifics – you probably have your own.
A couple generations ago, Black people were largely invisible, or stereotyped, and gays (etc.) were just flamboyant characters. No mention was made of their sexuality.
But now it seems we’re out of the box, for certain.
There’s a popular cable series about polygamy.
What’s next, pedophilia and bestiality?
Where do we go from here?
We should be inclusive of different cultures and sexuality. As long as it reflects percentages and social mores.
Of course, I’m a libertarian. (Until mandated) I can always change the channel.
I enjoy a good political discussion. Or even a debate. Unfortunately, in today’s climate, they often regress into name-calling, accusations and loud pronouncement as akin to grade school’s “Oh YEAH? Yeah!”
Why does this happen? Back as early as the 80’s, political enemies would do the “Oh Yeah” thing across the aisle, then adjourn to the neighborhood bar to share a beverage or two, and tell each other how great and principled each one was.
It’s become a sharper exchange, now. One where one might be reviewing the dark bar parking lot for the presence of ‘friends’ as well as enemies!
The reason? People no longer seem to subscribe to agreeing to disagree, because whatever the political cause, it’s become their RELIGION.
Want to annoy a Roman Catholic? Tell him he’s a papist, and that the Pope IS indeed fallible. A Republican? That he’s a shill for corporate lobbyists, and therefore has no soul. A Democrat? That most any policy foisted upon this nation by the current President is extra-Constitutional and illegal, and he deserves to be impeached, convicted and imprisoned.
Their response will undoubtedly be you don’t like him because he’s Black, and you are therefore racist. And that makes any argument you present invalid.
And that will p*** you off!
No more are there rational, reasoned exchanges back and forth regarding policies. Now it’s all name-calling and telling people what they believe is B.S.
It indeed may be, but that is not a way to discuss and argue.
THAT should be everyone’s mantra.
Kent (of Kent’s Hooligan Libertarian Blog) recently mused regarding the subject of animals, their ‘rights’, and his wearing of buckskin and eating animal flesh. And the spurious arguments of radical vegetarians. The money quote, to wit:
“I know how many vertebrates died for me to make my jacket. Three deer, a pig (for the brains I used to tan the hides), and an elk, which is where the sinew used to sew the jacket came from. (Various numbers of yellow jackets were also crushed when I rung out the wet hides during tanning.)
“How many animals died due to the farming or manufacture, and transportation, of your cotton, nylon, or hemp clothing? Habitat loss, agricultural chemicals, the trucks and factories and fuel all took a toll on animals. Both of us wear clothes that resulted in death. At least I own it.” (end)
Now, I’ve no argument with the rank-and-file vegan or fruititarian with regard to their lifestyle choice. Some varieties might be healthier than my choices. But, some seem bent on making me change my lifestyle choices, because they see theirs as the true way. Much like a religious zealot. Or a
global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate disruption (or whatever they are calling it this week) zealot.
As with any other good for you philosophy – when tied to a political agenda, it loses it’s purity.
Because it’s for the children. Or Mother Earth. Or Gaia. Or whatever they are calling it this week.
MY (libertarian-philosophical) choice is generally to leave others alone. I try to pass this knowledge onto to others who are receptive to it. If they are not, that’s their business.
Learning to leave others alone to their business is freeing. And less stressful.
It’s for the children, ya know!
(I’m gonna go have a bacon cheeseburger now! With onion straws, cheddar, barbeque sauce and mustard. And crisp French fries. Your choices may vary. And that’s okay.)
Well, not exactly…
There have been (largely un or under reported) stories regarding the ‘whys’ of the Iraq War. That’s because much of the media (not ALL Biff!) had an agenda.
Then, the NEW YORK TIMES (sacre’ bleu!) actually reported a few weeks ago about the WsMd* that had not been moved to Syria. Or used against us or the Kurds.
Funny how the folks who clamored against President Bush and mocked him and call;ed him a cowboy and a liar aren’t saying much now. (Not that he didn’t introduce many measures like the PATRIOT ACT and it’s illegitimate legislative children to protect us!) At least that would have been a legitimate reason to protest.
And the current President has continued and amplified the PATRIOT ACT. So much for campaign promises…
And let’s not forget the UN voted FOR our incursion on 17 other points, WsMD*, aside! Why didn’t they protest THE UN?
*WsMD – I simply refuse to say WMDs! To my ear it’s as ‘mother-in-laws’, it’s incorrect!
My Father was a bigot. By this I mean he was raised blue collar during the ‘Great’ Depression in a part of the country where everyone was concerned with other’s ethnicity. Who ARE You? What kind of name is that? Where do you come from? It was all about placing you in a neat little box for cataloging. Perhaps it was generational(?)
In the 60’s he would see race riots on the TV news and proclaim, “You know, one day, there will be a war between the Blacks and the Whites!” He wasn’t promoting such a thing. It was just his conclusion based on information he had seen.
As a group, he loathed the ‘activists’, ‘community organizers’ and figureheads who pandered to racial violence. He liked the status quo, as imperfect as it might have been.
Having said that, my Father stopped doing sales, reacquired his teaching certificate, and began teaching again after a 15 year absence. Sixth Grade mathematics in a 90% Black elementary school!
And he loved the kids, and the kids loved him. Many had no father figure at home, and they attached themselves to him, and he to them. Old fashioned dignity and respect asked for and answered. He wore a shirt-and-tie (and a sport coat or suit) every day, when most of the other male teachers (very few) wore polo shirts. Many times he would get permission to take a handful of students out of the city on fishing trips. Because many hadn’t seen two blocks past their ghetto house, and a 3 hour excursion to a bass boat on a desert lake was paradise. The kids would go on-and-on about ‘Retha and James Brown. And my Dad, who had no idea who these folks were, would just shake his head. He was a Glenn Miller kind of guy.
And my liberal friends would laugh and laugh about my Father’s pronouncements about an inevitable race war.
Watts…Selma…Detroit…much of the South…
And then after his passing, Rodney King, Ferguson…
Now, in the interest of harmony, we get THIS:
November 22nd, 2014, the Nation of Islam [NOI] turned Morgan State University [MSU] into a rally for racial holy war.
MSU is a black college in Maryland chaired by black power activist, and former head of the NAACP, Kweisi Mfume. It has 8,000 students. The event was called the Black United Summit International Conference. The event was organized by the NOI and sponsored by the MSU Student Government. NOI leader Louis Farrakhan was the keynote speaker. Several other leaders of the NOI also spoke.
Over 2,000 people attended and heard NOI leader Louis Farrakhan deliver a violent speech calling for race war. Most were extremely enthusiastic about the message.
The student president, student vice president, and leaders of many other student organizations and fraternities were all in attendance. Numerous members of the MSU faculty attended. Also present was Maryland State Representative Jill Carter. (Free North Carolina)
Dad, you may have been right.
I truly hope and pray you are not…
Four Black Republicans who won federal or statewide races yesterday (Tuesday)
Texas’ 23rd congressional district: “GOP challenger Will Hurd appeared headed for a narrow upset victory over freshman Democrat Pete Gallego in a southwest border district that Republicans had made a national target” Hurd won by a 49.8 to 47.7 percent margin.Utah’s 4th congressional district: “In Utah, Mia Love became the first black Republican woman — and first Haitian American — elected to Congress.” Love won by a 50 to 46.8 percent margin.Senator from South Carolina: “South Carolina’s Tim Scott on Tuesday became the first African-American senator to win election in the South since Reconstruction. . . . Scott’s win also made him the first African-American in U.S. history to be elected to both the House and the Senate.”Maryland’s new Republican Lt. Governor is Boyd Rutherford: “Boyd Rutherford was raised in a Democratic family in Democratic Northeast Washington, but the running mate of Republican Larry Hogan says he decided early on that the GOP was closer to his values. Rutherford, who is African-American, came to the conclusion that Democrats saw blacks as victims. ‘I’m not a political and social victim, and I don’t live my life that way,’ he said. ‘They maintain poverty. They keep people in place.
I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it. – John R. Lott, Jr.
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”
There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:
In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”
The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”
John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”
The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”
Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]
There’s a thesis in popular conservative/libertarian culture that liberals (or at least the current flavor of liberal, the progressive) act(s) based on feelings more than facts, even if the facts deny their feelings. “Oh, those cute polar bears are dying in records numbers, due to global warming!” – even though recent data shows their populations have increased and so have the square footage of ice on which they live. Not to mention they are extremely dangerous to humans, cuteness aside. “If it just saves ONE life.” or “It’s for the children.”, facts aside are other feeling-based statements.
I cannot speak for all conservative libertarians, but, I have on occasion questioned my use and ownership of firearms, looking at how doing so affects my community, my family and myself. And I stuck to my principles. And didn’t buckle to ‘feelings’ about some whack-job shooting up a school by disarming myself.
I did the same process after the accident that killed my daughter. However, I ultimately didn’t give up my driver’s license, my vehicle, or insist others do the same “for the children”.
I see that as counterproductive, and unscientific.
h/t The View From North Central Idaho, John Lott
Free Thinker commented on a recent article on ‘the oppressed’, particularly women, and their reactions to it.
Breda brought an utterly regrettable article to my attention via FaceBook some time ago that reminds me of many articles I’ve read elsewhere and of folks I’ve heard of speaking – claiming to represent the womens community or other “oppressed” communities – preaching the gospel of victimhood loud and proud. This particular special snowflake blurts forth:
“Where are our men? Why are they not protecting us?” Sanchez continued, her voice full of frustration. “Men are failing us. I feel as though we are not being protected.”
Perhaps Sanchez asks the wrong question. After decades of being told by the National Organization for Women and their fellow travelers that women are strong and intelligent individuals, worthy of respect and not needing the oppressive protection of men – just perhaps “Where are our men?” is the wrong question.
We’ve been told to go away. Repeatedly. That our services as protectors were neither required nor desired.
Is it any surprise that an awful lot of men went?
Gender politics has always amazed and confounded me. Obviously, women should have choices, not just accept conscription into wife/mother/caregiver/crone evolutionary status. Unless they choose that path.
I AM a product of my generation. A baby-boomer generation guy, raised in the 50’s/60’s. With largely traditional American values. Duty. Honor. Country. Stand when a women enters a room; hats are removed indoors; open doors for women and children; say “Yes ma’m and No sir – Please and Thank You”.
And treat women and girls with respect due their gender, as the potential carriers of life and less physically strong.
And as equals, as best one can. THAT’S my feminism. (Mine, too! – Guffaw)
Sadly, Feminism has taken the same path as the Democratic Party. In an effort to conscript more converts (more money for the cause) they have been compromised by the Progressive movement.
Feminists have become collectivists, thus eliminating part of their platform.
Women are strong – but guns are bad!
“God created Man, Col. Colt made them equal” Gender nouns aside, feminists need to get this, or they will lose the war against evil. Both men AND women. (end of thesis)
Thankfully, many women are embracing gun culture, in record numbers. It’s the card-carrying, N.O.W. member feminists that have the victimhood agenda. It’s all about raising awareness money for ‘the cause’, however ‘the cause’ is defined. Be it the feminists, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or The American Cancer Society. – Guffaw
If they win all the elections or cure cancer, they lose their power!
At NRO, Frank Miniter examines what the billionaires contributing to gun control groups hope to accomplish, and the playbook they’re using:
In a section labeled “Overall Messaging Guidance,” the guide gives its number-one “Key Messaging Principle”: “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” It further explains this strategy by saying, “It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence in prevention by making that emotional connection.” Its second key principle is: “Tell stories with images and feelings.” The guide says, “Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” They realize they’ve lost the rational and empirical debates about what really stops gun violence and instead want the debate enflamed by emotion.
That’s ever the way, of course; you can’t win the argument with rational facts, so legislate by emotions.
Isn’t this the tack they take with virtually EVERYTHING? After all, it’s for the children!
(re: ‘offensive’ sports team names…)
Just call them the Redskin Potatoes. That way nobody gets hurt.
And no one gets to amputate the dictionary.
Light pink/tan people remain white.
By now you’ve likely seen the suggestion to drop Washington
from the name, because it’s too embarrassing too.
Hypocrisy though is no longer racist, according to The National Council for La Raza, speaking for the United Negro College Fund, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, at a meeting of the Black Congressional Caucus. It remains improper to call mulattos mulatto.
This is cultural Marxism, an effort to control thought and language, by applying opprobrium, cultural taboos and using social constructs designed to pit classes against each other in a power struggle. It leads up to use of force justified by new law, to exercise political control over a population. It’s a very effective political technique and tearing at the fabric of America.
(from Page Nine #136 – Alan Korwin – the Uninvited Onbudsman)
On a similar bent, have you seen the TV commercials for a Blacks Only on-line dating site? Can you imagine the furor if there was a Whites Only dating site? THAT (of course) would be racist!