The latest race issue is whether or not the President was wrong to jump in on the Zimmerman case...but not a peep about lane.
"Students, who spoke with Campus Reform at the University of Colorado, suggested Obama had misstepped in giving attention to one case while ignoring the other.
I feel maybe President Obama made some bad decisions regarding his comments during the Trayvon Martin case, said one student. Personally i don't think he should have commented on the Trayvon Martin case. I thought that was a little out of line for a president, so no I would say he shouldn't make a comment.
Another student suggested that national media had intentionally played-up Martins case while ignoring Lanes."
Students question Obama?s statement on Trayvon Martin, silence on Chris Lane shootings
As today is the anniversary of MLK's 'I Have A Dream' speech....
Historical Perspective on Race:
1. Progressives' view of race was that there were inferior one's whose birth rates would lower American IQs....and this was a major argument for eugenics. They looked to some kind of efficiency to streamline society, some lock-step management that kept society like an army, and did away with individuality.
It was this view that bound progressivism, National Socialism, and fascism and was responsible for the similarity of so many of the programs of FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini.
2. But once the horrors of the holocaust were revealed, the American Progressives....calling themselves Liberals at this point, tried to hide from their past...and, in fact, tried to claim that the Left's past actually belonged to the Right. Owning the media gave them the cover necessary to pull that off.
3. But after the Second World War, American intellectuals reversed their views on race. No longer was a race's intellect fixed, nor the basis for superiority/inferiority, but now, all races were equal, and any disparities in income, achievements, etc., had to be attributed to "racism," and the intellectuals were not only going to provide attribution (to whites) but were going to be the champions of the minorities, and fight evil....whether it existed or not!
a. The new doctrine was that American racial policies, especially in the South, were the reason for the disparities, the differences, the inequality.
This was, and is, the Liberal vision.
4. So...while earlier socioeconomic differences were attributed to genetics, now any differences were attributed to racism. In neither era were alternative explanations taken seriously by the political intelligentsia. In fact, if differences between blacks and whites in income, crime, education, etc., were attributed to any social or cultural causes but white racism, or 'systemic racism,' well, Liberals were shocked, and dismissed it as "blaming the victim." And that would end the debate.
5. If heredity was the orthodoxy of the earlier, Progressive era, then environment is the reining orthodoxy of the Liberal era. To be clear, 'environment' only referred to external contemporary environment, certainly not to any internal or cultural environment of minority groups themselves.
a. If minorities were seen as the problem in the earlier explanation for differences, now, it was the majority that was seen as the explanation for any differences.
6. In 1944, Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal, published what became the 'bible' of the Liberals. In "An American Dilemma," over a thousand pages long, Myrdal explained that it was "a white man's problem," and "little, if anything, could be scientifically explained in terms of the peculiarities of the Negroes themselves."
Myrdal, "An American Dilemma," p. li, 669.
a. Liberals, as is their wont, jumped on the opportunity to single out America as the beast of the world. 'Life' magazine used "An America Dilemma" to show that America was "a psychotic case among nations."
David Southern, "Gunnar Myrdal and Black-White Relations," p.74.
b. As usual for the pronouncements of the Left, it was based on mythology. "For example, the number of blacks lynched in the entire history of the United States would be a fraction of the Armenians slaughtered by Turkish mobs in one year in the Ottoman Empire, the Ibos slaughtered by Hausa-Fulani mobs in one year in Nigeria not to mention the number of Jews slaughtered by mobs in one year in a number of countries at various times scattered throughout history."
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 89-90.
b. "While specifically black-white relations in the United States- especially in the South- were more polarized than black-white relations in some other countries, there were even more polarized relations between other groups that were not different in skin color in many other places at the times, the Balkans and Rwanda being just two examples in our own times." Ibid.
7. Racial problems in America were understood to be, fundamentally, problems inside the heads of white people.
And, actually, the good nature of those white people was what made the explanation palatable: they wanted to see all people progress, be successful, and equal in every way, so the majority, the white people, accepted the patena, "white guilt," and signed on to higher taxes, income redistribution, governmental and bureaucratic strictures- constitutional or not.
a. No longer would all people be considered equal under the law. Now, some people were more equal than others...a la George Orwell. Quotas became, and still are the outcome of these policies.
"Students, who spoke with Campus Reform at the University of Colorado, suggested Obama had misstepped in giving attention to one case while ignoring the other.
I feel maybe President Obama made some bad decisions regarding his comments during the Trayvon Martin case, said one student. Personally i don't think he should have commented on the Trayvon Martin case. I thought that was a little out of line for a president, so no I would say he shouldn't make a comment.
Another student suggested that national media had intentionally played-up Martins case while ignoring Lanes."
Students question Obama?s statement on Trayvon Martin, silence on Chris Lane shootings
As today is the anniversary of MLK's 'I Have A Dream' speech....
Historical Perspective on Race:
1. Progressives' view of race was that there were inferior one's whose birth rates would lower American IQs....and this was a major argument for eugenics. They looked to some kind of efficiency to streamline society, some lock-step management that kept society like an army, and did away with individuality.
It was this view that bound progressivism, National Socialism, and fascism and was responsible for the similarity of so many of the programs of FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini.
2. But once the horrors of the holocaust were revealed, the American Progressives....calling themselves Liberals at this point, tried to hide from their past...and, in fact, tried to claim that the Left's past actually belonged to the Right. Owning the media gave them the cover necessary to pull that off.
3. But after the Second World War, American intellectuals reversed their views on race. No longer was a race's intellect fixed, nor the basis for superiority/inferiority, but now, all races were equal, and any disparities in income, achievements, etc., had to be attributed to "racism," and the intellectuals were not only going to provide attribution (to whites) but were going to be the champions of the minorities, and fight evil....whether it existed or not!
a. The new doctrine was that American racial policies, especially in the South, were the reason for the disparities, the differences, the inequality.
This was, and is, the Liberal vision.
4. So...while earlier socioeconomic differences were attributed to genetics, now any differences were attributed to racism. In neither era were alternative explanations taken seriously by the political intelligentsia. In fact, if differences between blacks and whites in income, crime, education, etc., were attributed to any social or cultural causes but white racism, or 'systemic racism,' well, Liberals were shocked, and dismissed it as "blaming the victim." And that would end the debate.
5. If heredity was the orthodoxy of the earlier, Progressive era, then environment is the reining orthodoxy of the Liberal era. To be clear, 'environment' only referred to external contemporary environment, certainly not to any internal or cultural environment of minority groups themselves.
a. If minorities were seen as the problem in the earlier explanation for differences, now, it was the majority that was seen as the explanation for any differences.
6. In 1944, Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal, published what became the 'bible' of the Liberals. In "An American Dilemma," over a thousand pages long, Myrdal explained that it was "a white man's problem," and "little, if anything, could be scientifically explained in terms of the peculiarities of the Negroes themselves."
Myrdal, "An American Dilemma," p. li, 669.
a. Liberals, as is their wont, jumped on the opportunity to single out America as the beast of the world. 'Life' magazine used "An America Dilemma" to show that America was "a psychotic case among nations."
David Southern, "Gunnar Myrdal and Black-White Relations," p.74.
b. As usual for the pronouncements of the Left, it was based on mythology. "For example, the number of blacks lynched in the entire history of the United States would be a fraction of the Armenians slaughtered by Turkish mobs in one year in the Ottoman Empire, the Ibos slaughtered by Hausa-Fulani mobs in one year in Nigeria not to mention the number of Jews slaughtered by mobs in one year in a number of countries at various times scattered throughout history."
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 89-90.
b. "While specifically black-white relations in the United States- especially in the South- were more polarized than black-white relations in some other countries, there were even more polarized relations between other groups that were not different in skin color in many other places at the times, the Balkans and Rwanda being just two examples in our own times." Ibid.
7. Racial problems in America were understood to be, fundamentally, problems inside the heads of white people.
And, actually, the good nature of those white people was what made the explanation palatable: they wanted to see all people progress, be successful, and equal in every way, so the majority, the white people, accepted the patena, "white guilt," and signed on to higher taxes, income redistribution, governmental and bureaucratic strictures- constitutional or not.
a. No longer would all people be considered equal under the law. Now, some people were more equal than others...a la George Orwell. Quotas became, and still are the outcome of these policies.
