By Nicholas Stix
A race hustler going by the handle “B.BarNavi,” who claims to be both a Jew and an Asian, tried to crash the party at The Kvetcher’s discussion of some of my thoughts on race and crime. It was really late at night (or early in the morning, for those who are so disposed), and I was feeling giddy, so I let loose with the sorts of things that most folks would probably like to say to these types.
B.BarNavi { 10.10.08 at 1:34 pm }
As one of them Jew-lib-minority types, I really can’t see this as plain old Fortress-on-the-Hill “they’re out to get us” talk couched in post-racialist rhetoric.
First of all, you can’t make a simple assertion as “hate crime laws favor minorities because colored-on-white crimes don’t count” without citing some damn evidence. Yes, the reverse garners national headlines due to the efforts of clowns like Sharpton, but when something happens in the inner city or the backwater country (where, like you said, the journalists “never enter”), how often are incidents involving parties of different colors (but of the SAME or similar economic status) reported as crime AT ALL, let alone as hate crimes? You try to cite a class angle in this, and while I agree that it’s definitely more of a class issue, where in your post did you qualify it as such, and how?
Then if we’re going to introduce the class issue, we get into the stickier issue of when a poor black/Hispanic gang attacks a wealthier person that only HAPPENS to be white. Or conversely, when a bunch of white fratboys kick around a homeless person of color just for being a damn hobo. To what extent is this a hate crime? Is it based more on class, or is there an element of race in it? What if, then, they were the same color? And in any of these cases, how will law enforcement, courts, and the “durned librul” media handle it?
I should also disclose that I am against the bogus “all crimes are hate crimes” argument. I think it’s significant whether a black man beat up a white man (or another black man, for that matter) because he slept with his wife, or if he was of a particular ethnicity/faith/whatever. Were it the latter, there’s often the increased risk of going on to attack other people in the same category, whereas in the former the risk is only extended to “other people who messed around with my woman.” And what of the person who beat someone “just cause they could”? Don’t they teach you that “motive is everything” in law school?
Fact of the matter is, it’s a damned complex picture we’ve drawn out here, and no amount of ersatz Colbertian color-blindness can change that. Those laws with racial tones are put in for very good reasons.
Also, as an Asian, I find it pretty offensive for self-proclaimed “racial realists” to try to find ideological allies with us. Though we have had economic prosperity potentially hindered by things like affirmative action (admittedly a troublesome policy), the fact of the matter is that we are still a minority in this country, with one foot culturally in our nations of origin, voluntarily or otherwise. This definitively marks us as “the other”, and thus we are subject to many of the same racial dynamics as, say, Hispanics, or black immigrants of African or Caribbean origin.
And PLEASE, everybody, STOP dancing on the grave or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Don’t claim that he was “really a post-racialist” like you, when anyone and everyone who has done their homework on him know that he was a leftist through and through, who HEAVILY criticized the Vietnam War, advocated for the alleviation of poverty in this country, and called to attention the cross-cutting between class and race. (Making him, incidentally, a supporter of affirmative action.) For the sake of the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters (except maybe Sharpton and Jackson, who still Don’t Get It), STOP co-opting him to fit your ideology.
18 Nicholas Stix { 10.12.08 at 6:39 am }
And PLEASE, everybody, STOP dancing on the grave or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Don’t claim that he was “really a post-racialist” like you, when anyone and everyone who has done their homework on him know that he was a leftist through and through, who HEAVILY criticized the Vietnam War, advocated for the alleviation of poverty in this country, and called to attention the cross-cutting between class and race. (Making him, incidentally, a supporter of affirmative action.) For the sake of the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters (except maybe Sharpton and Jackson, who still Don’t Get It), STOP co-opting him to fit your ideology.
I quoted your last paragraph, B. Bar Navi, because it was the only passage of your post that didn’t reek. Although, even there, I could give a damn about “the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters.” Why would I care about a bunch of crooks?
Going back, we find:
First of all, you can’t make a simple assertion as ‘hate crime laws favor minorities because colored-on-white crimes don’t count’ without citing some damn evidence.
Wowie Maui! Of course, you can. If you are seven years old, or just arrived from Mars, evidence may be necessary. But I don’t discuss grown-up stuff with seven-year-olds or argue with Martians.
Then if we’re going to introduce the class issue, we get into the stickier issue of when a poor black/Hispanic gang attacks a wealthier person that only HAPPENS to be white.
Well, I didn’t introduce the class issue in that context at all. (You did read the basis for this discussion before spouting off, right? Right?!) When racist blacks and Hispanics typically attack a white, the victim isn’t “wealthy” at all, or he wouldn’t have found himself in that situation, but in any event, there is no reason to ever assume that the victim “just happened” to be white.
Or conversely, when a bunch of white fratboys kick around a homeless person of color just for being a damn hobo. To what extent is this a hate crime?…
That’s odd. For while I’ve heard of several gang attacks on hobos, none was perpetrated by “a bunch of white fratboys.” The perps were typically black.
“Person of color”? Do you mean “black,” Mestizo, or Asian? Of course, “person of color” was until recently a switcheroo of “colored person,” but you pc opportunists are constantly playing word intimidation games within word intimidation games, and last year a pc professional Asian like you insisted to me that an Asian was a “person of color,” just like a black. That’s funny, considering that 99 percent of blacks would not only deny that, but hate Asians’ guts. Then again, pc professional Asians like you, who seek to make common cause with the very non-Asians minorities who routinely victimize Asians, also despise Asians. So, I suppose there’s a sick sort of symmetry to your world, that is. Unlike you, however, I don’t hate Asians.
Those laws with racial tones are put in for very good reasons.
Hell, yeah, to dispossess and disenfranchise whites!
Also, as an Asian, I find it pretty offensive for self-proclaimed ‘racial realists’ to try to find ideological allies with us.
Are you really offended, or just being a tease? If you’re really, truly, deeply offended, then I say, amen! But I don’t believe you. As a professional, pc Asian, you’re just going through the motions, faking taking offense, like faking an orgasm. “I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m … OFFENDED!!!”
(P.S. Because I was at The Kvetcher’s blog, I was on best behavior, but the first thought that came to mind upon hearing this character say that she/he/it—s/h/it, for short, and in order not to be guilty of sexist usage—was "offended" was Patsy Cline’s favorite line, “You must have confused me with someone who gives a shit.” I think that may just be the most important thing one can say to one of these, er, people.)
…the fact of the matter is that we are still a minority in this country… This definitively marks us as ‘the other’, and thus we are subject to many of the same racial dynamics as, say, Hispanics, or black immigrants of African or Caribbean origin.
And what “racial dynamics” might they be? That was just a rhetorical question; I’m not at all interested in your talking point for that one. The more you talk, the more you lie.
P.S. Do these characters throw in phrases like “the other” just to show that they’ve spent time in college? Nowadays, just about everyone under the age of 50 has spent time in college. Hell, even I did!
2 comments:
This is rich. So instead of responding to me on point, you choose ad hominem. To be fair... no, I can't find any reason to be fair, you just called me names without warrant!
"“Person of color”? Do you mean “black,” Mestizo, or Asian? Of course, “person of color” was until recently a switcheroo of “colored person,” but you pc opportunists are constantly playing word intimidation games within word intimidation games, and last year a pc professional Asian like you insisted to me that an Asian was a “person of color,” just like a black. That’s funny, considering that 99 percent of blacks would not only deny that, but hate Asians’ guts. Then again, pc professional Asians like you, who seek to make common cause with the very non-Asians minorities who routinely victimize Asians, also despise Asians. So, I suppose there’s a sick sort of symmetry to your world, that is. Unlike you, however, I don’t hate Asians."
Several points:
1. I am NOT a PC professional Asian. I am actually quite poor and unemployed.
2. Where is the data on 99%? It's probably an exaggeration on the attitudes of Blacks against Asians, but then again, I find it hard to believe that Black hatred for people of East Asian descent is widespread beyond the former riot zones of LA. Do you think middle-class blacks hate us? Do you think a Harvard-graduate black resident of Westchester "routinely victimizes" Asians? Maybe in his hiring policies, but certainly not all black employers would act like him.
3. When I say "racial dynamics" as applied to immigrants, I mean this: though you may be successful in fields of education and income, and some people poorer (darker?) than you are going to want some of that, you're still a long way to go in some very important places where the white majority dominates, and they're willing to keep their positions at your expense (not particularly for racial reasons, might I add, but the effect is the same). Elected office (national and local) are but one of the fields in which immigrant groups have trouble making inroads.
4. I take back my comment about you being ersatz color-blind. It's very clear from your language that you are a racial protectionist. And one who uses stereotypes rather than reason.
5. I guess despite our own legitimate problems, among them difficulty in assimilation and intra-racial/inter-ethnic tension (we hate each other more than we hate others!), you'd rather have Asians unite not on common experiences (whatever that might be), but because those hei-guis (apologies for my Sinocentrism) hate us and/or want to kill us. Can't wait for your next keynote speech at NAAAP!
Contrary to what you might claim me to be, my goal is not to incite hatred of whites (which I do believe is the goal of many who claim to advocate for minorities). I am simply recalling from my own experience that immigrant groups of color, despite their own achievements, are still relegated to a position under that of whites (immigrant or otherwise). This is not necessary due to racist causes, but the effect is much the same. I do not use race-baiting in making this point. To the contrary, I see nothing but race-baiting in your comments towards me. I believe this speaks volumes about you as an individual. My only wish is that those of your ilk do not act towards your intellectual opponents the way you have done (and certainly not a guy like DK, whom I like very much).
"I am simply recalling from my own experience that immigrant groups of color, despite their own achievements, are still relegated to a position under that of whites "
They have equal rights as citizens, which is all you can legitimately ask for. In fact, "immigrant groups of color" can be said to have more rights thanks to rampant political correctness and affirmative action. Those who protest insufficient representation of their ethnic group in any area, that is not due to explicitly discriminatory laws, deserve a cold reaction at best. Since they are effectively demanding greater rights for their group than those of the native population, they can rightly be called race hustlers.
Post a Comment