The Bizarre Story Of A USDA Worker

Remove all ads!

Wait, a question - when did Mrs. Sherrod resign exactly?

 

?? Beck says that Obama hates collectively, historical white cultures?? Is Obama an historian? I took Beck's comments to be relavant to the US (at least in some way) and his presidency. Are there documents written by Obama somewhere that has his particular view of the "collective history of white culture?" I'm still not clear about this white culture business. Maybe when Obama was a student a Harvard. Is it Italian Renaissance "culture?" Norman culture in the Middle Ages? Maybe Obama "hates" the Norman culture of the Middle Ages? Let's include the Vikings as well - Norse culture.

Beck, of course, refuses to say what he meant:



You didn't answer it either, NOG (But I hear the sound of tap dancing somewhere in the distance). But this isn't really about the Norman culture of MA; It's about "culture" in AMERICA, isn't it, NOG? IMO, Beck's comment was racist, and quite revealing about his view of race. It's little wonder he refuses to explain it.

 

Chandos, grow up. I wasn't tap-dancing, I was issuing a random guess., meaning, 'I haven't a clue... maybe something along the lines of...?' Thus the:

July 19th, some time around 4-ish, maybe closer to 5.

 

That means so much to me coming from you.

"I guess he means the white culture collectively," was not a very good comment. If you don't know, you should just say you don't. The least you could do his take ownership of what you say, rather than trying to pass it off onto me. Nevetheless, the point before us was if Beck's comment was racist. I think it was. If you don't agree, that's fine, it's your opinion.

 

I don't think that everythhing that comes out of Beck's mouth is trash, but some stuff certainly is. The "Obama hates white people / culture" stuff is, of course, trash. That said, . . . .

we use the term "black culture" all the time, and it's just as vague and useless a term as "white culture" -- the cultural practices of the Somali people I teach are vastly different from those of the Sudanese people I teach, and all of them are far, far removed from the gangbanging culture of the inner cities that has been popularized by rappers and TV.

I would argue that if one is to discuss "white" culture, one is contrasting it to the cultural practices of certain identifiable groups such as "Blacks", "Hispanics", "Asians", "Muslims", etc, who are all certainly identifiable as NOT being white (overall, anyhow) and yet within themselves they are no more homogeneous than "white's". The term can be used for the default middle class culture of the United States, the "baseline" if you will, of the country. I'm not saying that such use is accurate, fair, or logical, but there are those who use it -- sometimes even me.

 

Thank you for the good post, LKD. In my opinion, your remarks are well-thought out. I don't use the term "black culture" though, (even though I'm a white boy who loves the Blues), since I would not be sure how to define it anymore than I would white culture. I never think of my American middle-class values as being exclusive to my "whiteness." There are millions of American middle-class Asians, blacks, Arabs, etc, with whom I share the same middle-class culture and values. To think in terms of white culture, or black culture, or Middle-Eastern culture is to craft divisions within our own society based upon the distinction of race.

We've often had ethnic groups, but they were largely defined by national origin: Irish, Italian, Jewish, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. And they were/are natural divisions within a singular society [American], and as a result of immigration, they have made American culture pluralistic, rather than singular. Having ethnic divisions within a society is not necessarily the same thing as racial divisions. Even when we speak in terms of Hispanic culture, we are referring to a regional culture with its own language and set of regional customs, which can be broken down into finer divsions by country of origin - Mexico, Brazil, Peru, etc.

My point is that dividing a given society by race is not very helpful, and can lead to racism and even segregation. Saying that Obama "hates white culture" is just another way of saying "he's not one of us." I believe that is exactly what Beck meant when he made that comment. But that's my take on it. Someone can certainly hold a different opinion.

 

I don't watch/listen to Beck (although I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy him), but I can't help but think he is making fun of Kanye West in his famous rant that "George Bush hates black people"

 

Snook - The above clip of Beck saying that Obama hates white people and white culture was during the Gates blow-up. So there is a serious context for it. It's not really about two morons exchanging ignorant comments on "Entertainment Tonight."

 

If Beck is trying to illustrate the stupidity of comments like those made by Kanye West by demonstrating that the reverse statement is moronic, he has failed, because he didn't stick his tongue firmly enough in his cheek when he said it. People are taking his statement seriously. Sometimes I wonder -- is he taking it seriously too? With Beck, sometimes you can't tell. No matter what, it's a stupid position to take.

What we had here with this poor woman, as I have said before, was the fascist ideal of Political Correctness coming to bite a minority in the bum. As they cheered when certain individuals (exercising their rights to free speech and not promoting hate at all) were publicly pilloried and financially ruined, now the unfairness has come full circle and hit one of them. It reminds me of the whole cycle of terror from the French Revolution -- those who were cheerfully sending their opponents to the guillo ... guilla . . . head chopper! one day found themselves mounting the same damn steps. You reap what you sow, thought police fascists!

 

That's certainly one way of describing Breitbart and his cronies, but I doubt you will win many friends calling those who are responsible for posting this about Sherrod "facists." Neverthelss, I share your apparent anger at those who use the internet to "phony-up" and misrepresent a person's character the way Beitbart did to Ms Sherrod. I hope she files a civil suit against Breitbart.

 

I'm not thinking of Breitbart only, I'm referring to the shrill, psychotic feminists who interrupt a professor's lecture and later try to get his pension frozen because he used the word "woman" rather than "womyn" on his course outline. I'm referring to the sort who have their membership card for the NAACP getting a clerk fired for using the term "coloured" while on the phone. I'm referring to people who try to get pastors charged with hate crimes for peacefully expressing a dissenting view on homosexuality. I'm referring to Jews who claim it's a hate crime to even mention the fact that other groups were targetted by the Nazis, or Muslims that claim any discussion of their faith that doesn't fall within their parameters deserves a death fatwa or a trial in a Western Court.

I'm referring to the Thought Police -- those who claim that free speech is a right as long as the person practicing it agrees with them. They are a blight on our society, regardless of their political affiliation. Too long have they had their way. It's one thing to condemn speech that actually advocates committing crimes against someone. It's another thing to condemn all speech that you don't agree with. It nauseates me to the core. The free and open (and sometimes offensive) exchange of ideas and opinions is one of the foundations not only of freedom, but also of a healthy, robust, progressing society. We should all oppose such nonsense.

Make no mistake, though, I believe in being decent and polite -- I most certainly am NOT referring to anyone on this board. I am a firm believer in law and order and adhering to reasonable laws, including calling other members names.

 

LKD - If you say so -- but your comments don't seem to have much to do with the topic. But feel free, "They can't revoke your soul for trying, man," and it's my thread, so burn away, my Canadian friend. There's nothing like a good tirade to clear the air a bit.

 

Ah, I didn't mean to derail the thread, my Texan friend! Let me try to condense the idea down and draw the link.

What happened to Sherrod was flat out wrong. It was immoral, unfair, and disgraceful. My point was that while she was the victim of vicious, unfair smears based on innocent material she said that was taken out of context, she is not the only one who has been made "an offender for a word" -- the PC crowd has been targetting people and ruining their lives for years. I think that even if the person being slimed is totally on the other side of the fence, politically, from an observer, if the smear is unfair, then it should evoke the same disgust from the observer as if it happens to a political ally.

 

LKD - I see the opposite: If this was a matter of PCism she would have gotten a raise, rather than being fired. That is why I HATE PCism. A black woman refuses to help a white farmer? "Just cause, the white person deserved it," for the PC crowd. A white worker refuses a black person? Throw him in the dungeon, obviously a KKK lovin' racist.

This was purely political, at least that's how I see it.

 

Oh, it was definitely political, and juvenile as hell to boot. It was a case of "the left has screwed us over so many times in the past with their PC nonsense: now we'll give them a taste of their own medicine!" But I am a firm believer in "Two Wrongs Don't make a Right", and whoever is doing the smearing earns my everlasting contempt.

When I say PC, I refer not only to the leftist phenomenon, but also to anyone who blows stuff out of proportion (or outright distorts it) in an effort to stifle free speech. That's why I used the Orwellian "Thought Police" image.

 

I see the "Orwellian thought police" as a rightist phenomenon. Orwell himself was a social democrat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

 

I've always thought that was odd as what could be more "totalitarianism" then when the government controls every aspect of your life and that is far more of a leftist philosophy then a conservative one.

 

Nope, that's never been how I have seen it. In the US the right and the left are both fairly conservative - both are for big government, just different types of big government. Notice that the previous 8 years of massive, big government were just fine with "The Right" in America. Especially the expansion of the military-industrial complex, which is a major threat to civil, individual liberties from which the country will probably never recover. The right-wing military police state is with us for good now. Politicians from both sides have more power as a result of that expansion than ever. The Right and the Left are distorted in the US and are both "conservative." Orwell has it correctly, IMO.

 

Totalitarianism is not a phenomenon that is the exclusive purview of either the left or right wings. I believe Orwell recognized this. Both wings can create governments that exalt the collective over the individual, and in both cases it is usually some form of elite who benefits and not the general population.

 

I think that is really besides the point, LKD. The collective nor the individual have much to do with authoritarian, tryannical regimes. A good example of this is the UAE, which just cracked down on Blackberries because the govenment could not monitor what its citizens, and tourists were texting and viewing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...08/02/AR2010080204752.html?hpid=moreheadlines