Do liberals feel any responsibility for stirring up black violence against whites?
Paul K. writes:
When liberals whip up hysteria over a matter like the Trayvon Martin shooting, do you think they feel any sense of responsibility for the consequences? It seems to me quite likely that many whites—including liberal whites—will pay in blood for the rage stirred up among blacks about this case. I can imagine a liberal seeing this bloodshed in one of three ways: as purely incidental (not at all his fault); as collateral damage (the price we pay to raise awareness); or an actual good in itself (a blow against “white supremacy”).Paul K. continues:
There was something I was thinking about recently with regard to liberal responsibility for stirring up black rage. In 1988, the movie Mississippi Burning was released. It was a left-wing polemic, based loosely on events around the murder of civil rights activists Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney, and as is often the case with such docudramas, many of those who saw it assumed it was an accurate portrayal of events.LA replies:
Of course, the “stirring up of hatred” is one of the key definitions of racism, as well as of hate speech. To stir up hatred against a group is a crime throughout the Western world. Yet no one thinks to accuse liberals , the liberal media, and the black leaders of stirring up black hatred against whites. Mainstream conservatives won’t make the accusation, because it would involve defending whites as a group from something bad that is being done to them. That is something completely beyond the ken and capacity of regular conservatives, because they truly believe that it is wrong to think, speak, and act in terms of race. It is not the least of the ironies of the current situation that, notwithstanding the fact that liberals think that conservatives are terrible racists, in reality the conservatives don’t have it in them even to defend their own race when it’s being demonized.
Thomas Bertonneau writes:
On the topic “Do Liberals Feel Responsibility?”—When I recently argued that liberalism is a sacrificial cult, I was not retailing in metaphor. Once reject the Gospel and Dionysus, whom Girard calls Le dieu de lynchage (“The God of Lynching”), becomes supreme again by default. Of course, liberals, like Pilate, like to keep their hands clean. They therefore delegate the actual dirty business to reliable third parties. They then rhetorically obfuscate the evil under such figures of speech as “random violence” or “altercations gone wrong.” Paul K.’s third possibility is the true description of the case.April 4, 1:10 p.m.
William H. writes:
Liberals feel no responsibility for their irresponsible and reckless actions. Remember 30 or so years ago when they were all up in arms about white rule in South Africa? The whites were vilified daily in the news about apartheid. Well, the liberals realised their goal of black rule. Blacks now are running and ruining the country. Yet, there is not a peep about the problems and the racism against whites there. It is the furthest thing from the minds of liberals today. How many times have you seen anything in the news recently about South Africa’s problems? They care not one bit about the injustices and murders that are going on. They feel, they act, they look straight ahead, and move on to do more feeling, acting, and moving on, never looking back. Their is no reflection, no introspection.Mark L. writes:
It’s interesting that Paul K. mentions Mississippi Burning as an example of Hollywood lefties “stirring up black rage.” I saw the movie twice. The first time was when it initially came out, and while I thought there was something a little heavy handed about it, I still had some lingering liberal ideals, and besides, it featured an interesting blend of drama and action. I particularly got a kick out of the tough-ass character played by Gene Hackman.LA replies:
I saw Mississippi Burning when it came out, and I was repelled by it. I would have walked out of the theater except that I was in a social situation that made that impossible.Lydia McGrew writes:
When you asked whether liberals feel any remorse about stirring up black violence, I was reminded of this article in the Claremont Review. To my mind it is exceedingly disturbing, because it attempts to “rehabilitate” Malcolm X and even to downplay his incitements to violence. The author, Diana Schaub, quotes directly from what is obviously a call for black violence against whites in his “ballots or bullets” speech and then says that it is not a “straightforward call to arms” but a “nuanced thinking through of the alternatives.” She tries to associate Malcolm X’s calls for black violence, including Molotov cocktails and hand grenades, with the Lockean notion of justified revolution against a tyrannical government. Schaub has more to say about her attempted reevaluation of Malcolm X in this interview.Leonard D. writes:
Paul K. asks how progressives “feel” about modern race riots, which is to say blacks rioting when sufficiently stirred up by progressive media campaigns:Ian M. writes:
I have not seen Mississippi Burning nor the scene that Paul K. refers to, but upon reading his comparison between the actual event on one hand, and how the event was depicted in the movie on the other, I was struck by how much more powerful and moving the scene likely would have been had it been depicted accurately. Heaping coals on your enemy’s head, as it were.Matt writes:
Paul K.’s citation of the man-bites-dog case Wisconsin v. Mitchell got me thinking. So-called “hate crime” laws are intended to add an additional charge of heresy (against liberal dogma) on top of the actual crime committed. The problem with this for the liberal is that, as with most other crimes, blacks in actual reality commit this particular crime—that is, racism, a heresy against liberal dogma—much more frequently than whites. So if they were enforced consistently, hate crime laws would have a disproportionate impact on blacks, since blacks disproportionately commit violent crimes with racist motivation. Therefore hate crime laws, intended to punish white male Christians who engage in ungoodthink, cannot be enforced consistently. The spirit of the law and its letter applied to actual reality are in conflict.Sam writes:
I think part of the reason liberals do not feel remorse about this kind of violence is that they do not really believe that blacks are moral agents. They see black behaviors as wholly a byproduct of external social conditions such economic “deprivation” and institutional white “racism.” Hence, when they erupt into violent behavior, this isn’t viewed as some kind of moral failing that needs condemnation. Rather, it is viewed as the inevitable blowback against the injustice of white dominated society. Hence, while they might not view it as a positive good, they will see it as further confirmation of the insidious reality of white “privilege” and institutionalized racism. This is because they don’t believe in moral agency, and they think that such violence only happens because blacks are so horribly mistreated by non-liberal whites, who cannot reasonably expect better behavior from them until they finally renounce all of their unearned white “privileges.”LA replies:
But if the liberals truly don’t believe in moral agency, then why don’t they also see the “racist” behavior of whites as a by-product of social forces over which whites have no control? And why don’t they see their own, virtuous liberal behavior as the by-product of social forces over which they have no control?Kevin V. writes:
Quick note on Mississippi Burning. Not surprised the commentator saw it in Europe as it is one of the American movies always in very heavy rotation there on TV. I would swear it’s on once a month on BBC and Sky.Robert writes:
Of course not. They haven’t felt any remorse since the New Left took over liberalism in the early 1970s. What is important is that in the past liberals were constrained by the fear of a white political backlash. I remember hearing fear in the voices of liberal commentators after the L.A. riots of ‘92, but in fact there was no backlash worthy of the name. Even then they didn’t have anything to fear, thanks in large part to the quisling-like behavior of the Republicans and President Bush. These days they have imported enough votes (with the help of the Republicans) so that they no longer have the least amount of fear of a white backlash. That accounts for the sheer gall of the press coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. They hardly have to pretend anymore. Their victims are politically prostrate and without voice in any hall that counts.David B. writes:
I used to be a liberal, not the far left, but I thought of myself as a liberal. When I saw news of black violence against whites, I would try to ignore it. If not possible to ignore, I would make up excuses and rationalizations.LA replies:
There seems to have been a similar dynamic with the neoconservatives. Thirteen years ago Ron Unz wrote a cover article in Commentary saying that the worst thing that could happen as a result of Hispanic immigration was—no, not the Hispanicization and Third-Worldization of the U.S., but an upsurge of “white nationalism.” To the neocons, an attempt to stop the Third Worldization of our country would be a worse thing than the Third Worldization of our country.Nik S. writes:
Stewart G. writes:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 04, 2012 12:03 AM | Send