What Hasselbeck should have said to Goldberg

Even as Obama-god heads toward the Democratic nomination and the American empyrean, it’s as though the entire black community is determined to convince us of their unfitness to live in this society.

Here and here are news articles with video about Whoopi Goldberg’s face-off with Elizabeth Hasselbeck on The View this week about the N-word. Goldberg insisted on the right of black people to say “nigger” in public, and she used the word several times by way of illustration. The idealistic Hasselbeck, the show’s token conservative, protested Goldberg’s racial double standard and said that we live in the same world. Goldberg energetically replied that blacks do not live in the same world as whites and that, considering blacks’ still serious problems, it is an unfair imposition on them to say that they do. The funny thing was, Goldberg said that when blacks say “nigger” to each other, it is a form of affection, so it’s ok. But if the word is an expression of affection, what does it have to do with blacks’ “problems,” and why do their problems justify them in using it?

Hasselbeck showed courage and principle in staying with the issue and not backing off. But she didn’t quite get to the core of the argument.

Here is what she should have said that would have blasted Goldberg’s arrogant double standard to smithereens:

So please tell me the rules we’re supposed to live under, Whoopi. Are you saying that blacks are free to say the N-word to each other, but that if a white person gets within ten miles of saying anything that remotely sounds like the N-word, he gets instantly fired from his job? Is that right?

So what you want is that whites and blacks live under two completely different set of rules. Blacks get to say freely, in public, what whites are destroyed for saying.

That just doesn’t work Whoopi. Whites did not turn this society on its head getting rid of white supremacism, only to put themselves under black supremacism.If blacks start using, in front of white people, a word that whites can have their lives ruined for saying, whites aren’t going to stand for that. So they’ll tell you that you can’t use it, that it’s totally unacceptable for you to use a word that they are forbidden to use. And if you keep using it, then, human nature being what it is, white people will start using it too, just to show that they are not going to submit to this black supremacism. And if blacks get outraged about whites’ using the N-word, the relations between the races will just break down, won’t they, and all the work we’ve done for the last 50 years to create racial equality and racial comity in this country will be lost.

Whoopi, what makes a society is that people live under the same rules. If blacks are now saying that they want to live under completely different rules than whites, then they are saying that they don’t want to live in the same society and the same institutions as whites.

You can’t demand integration and equality, AND demand to live under a separate set of rules.

Do you want black people to be included equally in all the institutions of our society, or do you want black people to live in their own instititutions, separate from whites? Because by your own logic, what you’re demanding is racial separation.

You can’t have it both ways, Whoopi. Which will it be?.

- end of initial entry -

Mark Jaws writes:

Your hypothetical response to Whoopi Goldberg was fantastic. You wouldn’t believe how much of your output I absorb and digest and then convince myself of their being of Mark Jaws origin. Your blog has been very inspirational to me.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

So please tell me the rules we’re supposed to live under, Whoopi. Are you saying that blacks are free to say the N-word to each other, but that if a white person gets within ten miles of saying anything that remotely sounds like the N-word, he gets instantly fired from his job? Is that right?

So what you want is that whites and blacks live under two completely different set of rules. Blacks get to say freely, in public, what whites are destroyed for saying.

Question: Who are we trying to convince by such a response? Whoopi and blacks, or whites? I don’t see how responding to Whoopi and blacks in general in that way would ever accomplish anything even remotely close to the apparent intent. Whites could counter blacks with this style of argument till all of our faces turned blue, and it still wouldn’t have the effect of convincing them that to get along with whites they must hold themselves accountable to certain rules of decorum and decency which apply across the board regardless of one’s race. Invariably they’re going to see this demand on blacks to observe a certain set of (white) standards as an attempt by whites to arbitrarily enforce a white set of standards over blacks.

Besides, Whoopi Goldberg is in no way a reasonable person, so to attempt to reason with her is as futile as trying to reason with Jesse Jackson. Indeed, she’s made a certain name for herself by going against the grain—her passionate fiery speeches at anti-war and pro-homosexual rallies on Capitol Hill and so forth, in which every third word is a purposely offensive expletive; where her whole demeanor is the very essence of hateful irrationality and in-your-face black female arrogance. If Ms. Goldberg, as a black woman, can live her life in such a way and get away with it, enjoying the level of fame and success she does, then what makes us think that we could ever convince her of a better way for her black brethren?

And to the average black person’s mind, why would they need to get along with whites anyway, to preserve peace and good order and societal stability?

LA replies:

I’m not expecting such a speech to get blacks to sign on to some universal abstract code of common behavior. I’m expecting it to push blacks back and get them to see that they can’t get away with their games any more, that whites are not guilty any more, and that they can’t be pushed around.

I’m surprised that Mr. Morris doesn’t think that such speech by whites as I recommend would be shocking in today’s hyper PC context and change the present dynamics of things a good deal.

The purpose of such statements by whites is to change whites, to get them to stand up for themselves, AND to change blacks, by getting them to see that whites aren’t afraid of them. I do believe that if whites ‘splain things to blacks and if blacks see whites stop being suckers, that will significantly change black behavior toward whites and their notions of what they can get away with.

I recommend that Mr. Morris read Gedaliah Braun’s thoughts on race relations. He points out that blacks express anger at a much higher level than whites do, anger that for the blacks is just their usual “acting out,” but that the whites stupidly interpret as indicating a really serious grievance that must be attended to, because if such anger were expressed by a white person it would be really serious. Thus blacks through their acting-out are able to manipulate whites, because of whites’ racial guilt combined with their lack of emotional understanding of what blacks’ emotional signals really mean.

To put it simply, blacks easily hustle whites. And why shouldn’t they do this? Since whites are better at the verbal and mechanical intelligence that is rewarded by society, why shouldn’t blacks use the skill they’re superior at—emotional manipulation—to get one-up on the whites? Which of course requires that the whites, for their own well-being, get wise to the blacks.

Terry Morris replies:

Uh, well, uh, it looks like you’ve taken me to the woodshed here. Alls I can think of to say at this point, besides, “Let me aks you another question” is … STOP OPPRESSING ME!!!

Nah, good response. I definitely agree with you that whites should not allow blacks to manipulate us any longer.

Robert B. writes:

What you noted is something that I and my ancestors have noted for many generations. It is why I always stood in amazement of the behavior of middle class whites toward blacks. Having employed blacks for more than 200 years in this country—as domestics, horse trainer/stable boys, machinists, etc. it has always been very clear to us. Blacks behave just fine and are quite nice—just as long as society holds them to our standards. And society must never back down. Hence today’s problem blacks. What used to be called “shucking and jiving” by blacks themselves was/is a form of con job, if you will. This is where the black man promises to be good, but only if you give him what he claims he needs. Of course just as soon as you give it to him, he now needs something else. Very real lessons concerning this are in the Uncle Remus stories of old, I do not mean the Disney version, I mean the real versions. Contrary to what Wikipedia has to say about Uncle Remus stories being considered racist by mid 20th century America, I was told these stories by my nanny—who was black and from the south.

Middle America has never had much contact with blacks (in the north any way) up until very recently and they therefor have no acculturation in dealing with them. Usually, they are fearful of the angry black male stereo type and give in to the usual blackmail.

James W. writes:

I have seen a fair number of legitimately educated, very competent young white people go to using the term nigger routinely in addressing each other. I’m sure it is their statement that they are tired of the controversy, and all the people who make hay out of it.

LA replies:

Or they’re saying, since blacks keep using it around us, we’re going to use it too.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 21, 2008 12:38 AM | Send