Quite a remarkable story that’s worth passing on: How I Was Smeared, by Harry Stein. The man gave a talk in which he told a story about his son and an English teacher who thought Huck Finn “a ‘racist’ book … the word ‘nigger’ appearing with appalling frequency.” Because of the presence of the “N” word in the talk , and because some journalists and others wanted to push the man who hosted it out of the running to become Alan Greenspan’s successor, Stein became the butt of newspaper articles that in substance accused him of racism.
Posted by Jim Kalb at December 09, 2002 05:57 PM | Send
[Here’s the e-mail I just sent someone about this blog entry:]
“THIS ARTICLE, ABOUT HOW EASILY THIS McTEER GUY WAS BORKED, IS A MUST-READ.
“A heartbreaking, shocking, and outrageous story all at once: In this piece by Stein, one sees how everyone sickeningly jumped automatically and without hesitation on the PC bandwagon, and WHY they did — to feel morally superior, no matter in how cheap a way. He who feels inadequate — 90 percent of the population, in other words — needs his ‘fix’ of self-esteem-of-the-moment any way he can get it, even if it’s the dirtiest crap on the street. He’s got to have those ten minutes of feeling good about himself before having to face himself again in the mirror, and be alone with his terrifying, self-accusing thoughts once more.
“They who did that to Stein and McTeer are people without moral fiber, who have never known how it feels to have a clear conscience. It is such as they who make up the inertial mass we’re confronted with in the immigration debate — pathetic creeps really, who don’t think and are unreachable by reason no matter how sound, and are certain to disappoint every expectation of morality, fairness, or respect for truth.
“This article shows in microcosm why the battle over immigration common-sense is so very difficult. These are the blind, deaf, dumb creeps and moral reprobates whom we must battle against.”Posted by: Unadorned on December 9, 2002 9:34 PM
I find a huge hypocrisy in the liberal creed of ‘not judging anyone’. These people deem themselves qualified to judge the very value of one as a human, and label people as moralless, soulless, basically worthless people. Yet it is not acceptable to assume that a hijacker (100% of the successful hijackers in US are Arab) may be dark-skinned. That would be racial profiling, which is so unfair to one’s basic worth as a person. Umm, OK.Posted by: remus on December 10, 2002 12:01 AM
Unadorned wrote: “and WHY they did — to feel morally superior, no matter in how cheap a way. He who feels inadequate — 90 percent of the population, in other words — needs his ‘fix’ of self-esteem-of-the-moment any way he can get it, even if it’s the dirtiest crap on the street.”
May I suggest that attributing other people’s supposedly objectionable actions to a “need to feel superior” is exactly what liberals do all the time. For example, Clinton, every time he saw whites not behaving in the prescribed liberal way (for example, if they were concerned about minority crime, or failing to show enough support for David Dinkins, or upset about uncontrolled immigration), would say that “people have a need to look down on others.” This kind of comment simply dismisses the possibility that there is an objective world that people are responding to. No, their reactions to minority disorder or uncontrolled immigration and so on are only due to an inner neurotic need they have to “feel superior.”
Since this is a false argument used by liberals, I would be hesitant to use it on liberals. However, one caveat. We all know that many of liberals’ attacks on non-liberals are really a projection of something they harbor in themselves onto a hated conservative Other. So maybe in this case Unadorned has it right!Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 10, 2002 2:57 AM
I’ll take these liberals seriously when they start banning rap artists for saying racist, hateful and violent things about white people.Posted by: S.R. Prozak on December 11, 2002 10:44 PM
Mr. Prozak, it is completely understandable that blacks say hateful things about whites. It is the product of centuries of oppression, and it is as justified as the Muslim extremists’ September 11th attack. Their suffering is our fault, of course.
That is the argument, at least.Posted by: remus on December 11, 2002 11:20 PM
Yes, that’s the argument, and aside from its historical ignorance and unbalanced application of absolutist principles, it’s great, I’m sure.
My opinion has changed, however: I think blacks and whites and all other races should keep apart. This way, we will never fall prey to globalism and the worldwide mall-culture it will bring. Capitalism unchecked will turn the world into a giant Wal-Mart, but at least we’ll all be the same tan color.Posted by: S.R. Prozak on December 14, 2003 7:09 PM
Why is it that the voices of intelligent blacks who were contemporaries of Mark Twain are now ignored today? For comments by Booker T. Washington, an acquaintance of Mr. Twain:
Michelle Malkin also cites Ralph Ellison in her take on this controversy:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1037Posted by: Joel LeFevre on December 14, 2003 10:32 PM
I note that SR Prozak on Dec. 14, 2003 is replying to a comment made to him on Dec. 11, 2002.Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 15, 2003 10:11 AM