|
This essay is not intended to be a hit job on the libs. It’s just that whenever I see blatant phoniness and transparent pandering, no matter where it comes from, I feel compelled to throw the bullshit flag, y’know? See the problem with me is I happen to be a thinker. Genuine racism is odious, and a demonstration of ignorance, superstition and poor upbringing. On that premise all reasonable people agree. However, manufactured and/or agenda-stimulated racism as a newsworthy subject is a bit worn out and disingenuous, don’t you think? The term has been so misused that it’s practically meaningless except to the (oh so) politically correct far left loony tunes. To them it’s still fashionable—and relevant even though I suspect they’re faking it. Keeping in mind that I consider both political parties as goofballs, I wonder if today’s minorities know that Lincoln was Republican, and that the biggest opponents to integration were Democrats; namely, Orville Faubus, Robert “KKK” Byrd, George Wallace, and Al Gore Sr. to name a few. Anyway, the way the comic-opera liberals and race hustlers throw the word around, it’s lost power these days at least with normal people like me. The media hasn’t figured that out yet. They don’t realize that we skip the article and change the channel. I just pulled out my dusty Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to look up the term, to wit: Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. To me the definition means that bias can go either way—positive or negative. AND can be directed toward any race yet it still seems “fashionable” and within the “rules” to call me cracker, honky, white devil, and suggest that I can’t jump. Truth to tell I’m comfortable enough in my own skin that none of those terms affect me. I simply consider the source, and chalk it up to ignorance or fear. Keep that in mind. For instance, when I lived in Saudi Arabia there was a common belief among the Saudis that Westerners (actually European-Americans) were superior when it came to understanding and applying scientific principles. The Saudis called this perceived phenomenon, which they assigned to people like me, blue-eyed technology. Some in America assign the same so-called superior science attribute to Asians mainly because we run into so many brilliant engineering and science students from the Orient. One of my longtime friends and colleagues from India tells me this perception is faulty because we only see the cream of the crop. Intellectually I know he’s right, but I still find it difficult to ignore my stereotype. Since I’ve never heard the term used to refer to those native to the African Continent, one could define those all encompassing stereotypes / perceptions / opinions as racist. See what I mean about the definition going either way? In the technology example “positive” stereotyping applies to Europeans and Asians, and “negative” stereotyping (by omission) applies to Africans. It happens all the time because of our human condition to form opinions based on teaching, history, and/or personal observation. Unfortunately, much (if not most) of the negative stereotyping comes from the former—teaching, both at home and in school. Sometimes teaching is based on historical accounts and other times so-called teaching is based on what a group with an agenda wants to “spin” about a historical account. Often ignorance is the main culprit. AND we humans have shown we can learn to be ignorant if being ignorant satisfies some personal need or agenda. It should figure, therefore, that we should be equally offended by either positive or negative opinions—but we aren’t! Sounds like hypocrisy, right? Here what I mean: if it’s said one group has big wieners they don’t mind, but if it’s said they have big nose holes they do. (Aside: By the way, a female trainer on a television show about weight loss is quite attractive, but man-oh-man does she have some nose holes.) Some comments may be race-related, but not racist. What I mean is making a comment based on pure fact is race-related; for example, Swedes tend to have fair complexions. The word “tend” illustrates the comment is a generalization. However, opinions about an individual based on (usually bad) behavior are often jumped on as “racist” by the liberal politicians and media who take every opportunity to further their agenda. Here’s what I mean: You know those tattooed and pierced hip-hop dudes on BET with lousy language skills where “d” replaces “th” at the beginning of a word and “f” replaces “th” at the end of a word? From my own personal observation and worldview I consider them all ignorant and lacking in home-training. Is that accurate and fair? Maybe not, but it sure as hell fits the description of a teen who cowardly shot my cousin in the back as a ritual for a gang initiation. Where the hell were you then Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpten? Do I detest the little a-hole? Absolutely, but it’s because of behavior not race. But when I see others who look and act with the same arrogance I can’t help but transfer that feeling to them. See how it starts? Here are some examples of racism I’ve personally heard from liberals: 1) A black athlete marches out of the locker room in some kind of flashy, avant-garde attire, and a white reporter (instead of just shutting up) says, “You have to be black to wear something like that.” The comment is followed by others about how great and/or handsome the athlete is. (Later the same reporter, over a cocktail, snickers to his companion and makes an off-the-record remark suggesting you’d have to be black to be stupid enough to dress that silly); 2) A black defensive lineman has a great series and the announcer says, “He’s a MAN!” I’m thinking, no shit Sherlock. Did we think he’s a horse? (NOTE: The announcer doesn’t say things like that when a white counterpart does the same.); 3) On the other side, Rick Barry once noted that a certain blond, blue-eyed player was OBVIOUSLY successful with the ladies. His telecast partner, Bill Russell replied with ho-hum and delicious sarcasm, “Oh, really?” What a great comeback and it went right over Barry’s head. Zoooom! As for me: lmao! Then there is liberal pandering, which is disguised but totally transparent racism. Following are but a few examples of pandering, which if I were African-American would make me cringe. Maybe the most embarrassing cringe-worthy example of pandering of late came from the Australian Open from Chris Evert, Pam Shriver, and Mary Joe Fernandez. Serena Williams is one terrific tennis player, but was described once by John McEnroe as the epitome of a sore loser. Whenever she loses it’s NEVER the better play of her opponent. Instead it’s because: 1) she’s been sick, or 2) has an injury or 3) has an “off” day. The “injuries” seem to mysteriously appear when her opponent gets the upper hand in the match. It’s been going on for years. No matter. The pandering sycophants in the broadcast booth go on-and-on about how courageous she was to continue, and continue to talk about Williams every match thereafter though she’s not participating. Worse, during her matches the listeners are treated to superlative after superlative. Serena this; Serena that. There’s never a mention of any nice play made by the lady across the net. I simply use the mute button, which makes the viewing much more pleasant. If I were Serena Williams I’d ask Evert, Shriver, and Fernandez to knock off the pandering racism, but I think it’s probably too late because Ms. Williams has bought into the hype, and (being of the entitlement generation, which equally defines all races of that age) doesn’t realize it’s simply another incident of liberal racism propagated by three rich white ladies—one-percenters all. Don’t believe me? Listen to the next telecast. My God, it’s sickening. But wait, there’s more from the Aussie Open. Sloane Stephens, a promising 19-year-old American, dumped Serena Williams in the quarterfinals. Williams ranted and raved when things went south during the match, smashed her racquet, and blamed the performance (aided by Evert, et.al.) on a so-called sprained ankle that occurred earlier in the week. When any Williams’ opponent during the week hit a winner, Evert never gave credit. Instead she said that Serena would have retrieved the shot but for her ankle. Funny she never had the slightest hint of a limp. Stephens suggested the shouting and racquet abuse were intended to be intimidating. She also said it didn’t work. Ms. Evert then changed tactics and went on-and-on about Serena being Stephen’s mentor and wasn’t it nice that Serena took the teenager under her wing. This (I assume) because Stephens is also black, which makes sense from a liberal point-of-view. Another example of liberal racism. Ms. Stephens said afterward nothing was further from the truth. Sure the Williams sisters were admired for their achievements on the court, but she most identified with Belgian ace, Kim Clijsters. Stephens, like Clijsters, is a powerful, aggressive “assassin” on the court, and a sweetheart off, admired by all her opponents. As for a mentor, Stephens said that honor belonged to her grandfather. She has great athletic chops, her late father being a former NFLer, and her mother, Sybil Smith, being the first African-American to make All-American in Division 1 swimming when she competed for Boston University. All this liberal pandering and over-the-top insincere flattery is to show (outwardly) 1) how they care, and 2) are superior they are to the rest of us unwashed Philistines. The problem is that I don’t buy their BS because I’ve seen them when they take off the mask. My opinion is that out-and-out blatant racist behavior is more intellectually honest than phony platitudes that don’t match what is said in private. Don’t get me wrong, discrimination based on race, religion, etc. is just plain wrong and isn’t tolerated by any right-thinking person. It’s the dipshits that you have to worry about, and they are legion… If there is one best example of discrimination against a people it’s that of the Jews. They get thrown under the bus by everyone—liberals included—even though (as a group) they tend to be politically liberal themselves. Go figure. Even today they are by far the smallest minority in the world with less than 20 million. They’ve been hammered and hammered since to beginning of recorded history. Yet they persist and become stronger in spite of everything thrown at them. Take a look again at the “superior” part of the racism definition at the beginning of this article. They come closer than anyone to fitting those words. Here’s why: they’ve contributed more to the world in terms of art, science, medicine, and economics that any other single population cohort. As an example Jews represent 22-percent of all Nobel Prize winners worldwide, and 36-percent of US recipients. They were also largely untouched by the Black Plague that started in China and killed a third of those in Europe. Their reward? For surviving they were BLAMED for the black death. Most don’t consider them a “real” minority. I suppose one could say it’s a measure of success when the smallest minority on the planet isn’t considered as such. See, that’s real respect; that’s captured respect not manufactured respect. In the words of Mel Brooks, “May the Schwartz be with you.”
Related Articles -
racism, stereotypes, opinions, race-related, libral pandering, discrimination,
|
