Soylent Green is people.
America is white people.

Funny, “hackneyed” and “reprehensible” are precisely the adjectives that occur to me on the rare occasions when I defile myself by reading something Goldberg wrote.

“Well a lot of people thought that the Bush Justice Department sort of got us back to the point where we were — we were being reasonable.”

Sure.  It’s so much better to pretend the only problems America has are related to voter fraud…by ACORN, MoveOn, and the Democrats.  And we can’t forget those “community organizers” either…

Besides those darkeys just don’t realize we Republicans are the party that really reflects their views and values…hello?  Party of Lincoln?...well, except for that whole Southern Strategy thing, but that was Nixon’s idea anyway, and you can’t hold Republicans responsible for that forever, can you? 

And don’t forget, we Republicans love the wetbacks…when we’re not stirring up resentments among white voters so we can exploit them for our own gain…

(...and let’s just pretend it isn’t a stone cold fact that almost every single bigot who was a Democrat in the 50’s/60’s/70’s is now a Republican…and it isn’t because they all had a change of heart either…)

MoDo has always seemed like an intellectual lightweight to me, but she’s reached the point where her work is just a joke, and an unfunny one at that.

As has been the case with most stories lately, Big Hollywood had the best/most unhinged reaction:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/02/19/im-a-racist-coward/

“So…let me get this straight.  If I’m a racist coward because I don’t want to talk about race all the time, don’t want to even think about it, just wish all racism would go away, and everybody just get along as if we we’re all just human beings…and truly do want to judge people not based on skin color, but on the content of their character… Does that mean Dr. Martin Luther King was also a racist?  If he were here today, and repeated those words about ‘content of character’ …would Eric Holder call Dr. King a coward?

I hear Eric Holder’s words and I get a chill up my spine.  It doesn’t sound like freedom from racism to me.  It sounds like reverse racism.  It smacks of concepts like “reparations”…”affirmative action” (code for racial preferences)…and “get-even-with-‘em”… So, Mr. Holder, what can I infer from your words…but a tacit warning?

This, Mr. Attorney General…this is what you want to stir up?  You should be ecstatic for the ultimate affirmative action as reflected on November 4th.  White guilt to a very large extent enabled a charming but inexperienced young socialist to assume the reins of the most powerful nation in the world.  And still we are cowards because we don’t talk about race enough?
Dude - are you off your meds??”

Awesome.

I can hold Republicans responsible for their Southern Strategy for at least as long as they keep doing it.

From the pre-emptive strike department: Yes, Republicans, you were once the Party of Lincoln.  It is also true that many of the most unregenerate segregationists were Democrats.  A funny thing happened in the sixties and seventies though—the hard-core segregationists like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, may they enjoy the oblivion that is their due reward, all left the Democratic party for the Republicans.  The ones who stayed, like Senator Byrd, have been explicit in their apologies for and recantations of their words and deeds.

And for all y’all who are made uncomfortable when made to confront your own privilege (as I have strived to do in my own life)?  Suck it, assholes.  Legal segregation is indeed gone.  Still, somehow, Christian white men are in the positions of authority and power.  A white man with a criminal record can more easily find work than a black man without one.  African Americans, especially men, are wildly overrepresented in our enormous prison population.*  If you find yourself thinking, at this point, “Well, they do do a lot of crimes,” please find the strength to not type it here.  Learn what happened to black Americans.  Learn that free black people in the pre-war South had to petition the legislature for permission to stay in their states, and that many lived in fear of discovery when that permission was refused and they stayed anyway.  Understand that the rights and the generational transfer of wealth and all the advantages that you take for granted are not theirs not because they are undeserving but because people who look like you and me took those things from them.

One last thing: Please, please shut the fuck up about Black History Month?  Pretty please with sugar on top?

*Seriously, even overt police states don’t lock up as many of their people as we do.

I’m glad that Pam posted a link to the transcript of Holder’s comments, so that I could be assured that this: <blockquote>Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in two many ways, a nation of cowards.<blockquote> had been corrected.  Seriously, I know that it’s a minor error (which wouldn’t've been caught by spellcheck), but it does make me feel as if I’ve heard nails on a chalkboard.  How many ways?  Two many?  Three many?

Anyway, having got that off my chest, the substance of Holder’s comments was spot on, and it amuses me to see the apoplexy of the right-wing pundits.  And, Megyn Kelly?  She’s one of the few that can put “Bush DoJ” and “responsible” in the same sentence, and with a straight face, too.  Interesting what you can do when you don’t let pesky little facts get in the way.

If I’m a racist coward because I don’t want to talk about race all the time, don’t want to even think about it, just wish all racism would go away,

Yes, Breitbart.  You answered your own question.  Being so afraid of something you dare not speak its name, don’t even want to think about it, just scrunch your eyes shut and concentrate on the mantra “race race go away come again another day…”, is by its very definition acting like a coward about race.

So did right-winger Jonah Goldberg, who called Holder’s statement ”both hackneyed and reprehensible.”

Translating Wingnutese:

“Reprehensible” = questioning America’s self evident absolute perfection.
“Hackneyed” = accurately.

@Opoponax: Ha! “Race, race, go away” is brilliant.

It would be fabulous if people who freak out about being forced to confront their privileges while simultaneously railing on affirmative action took a few minutes to learn something about what “affirmative action” means, in addition to checking out some statistics on the imbalance in this country that is clearly visible by racial lines.

Affirmative action is not supposed to give more jobs to underprivileged people. It is supposed to widen the applicant pool to people who are not ordinarily reached. That does carry the expectation that more minorities will be hired, of course, because minorities are not all screw ups who blew their chance at being middle class in elementary school or whatever the hell bigots think they did. Affirmative action is not a quota system. There are many kinds of affirmative action; the kind least often used at any point used quotas. It was deemed ineffective, and ditched.

The way I described affirmative action to a class I was teaching was went like this: In America, being white is like 0 - no inherent disadvantage in it. It’s like being Japanese in Japan. It’s the majority, it’s the “norm,” and black people especially are at -1, because there is a disadvantage built into our society. Non-bigots can see the white privilege in America. What affirmative action policies attempt to do is take the -1, add 1, and hence bring blacks to 0, same as white people. These policies are NOT adding 2, or giving black people an advantage ahead of white people. I’m not sure this makes as much sense typing as it made speaking, but it sunk in with my undergrads.

I love the way that Goldberg chose to reference black history month.

We even have something called “Black History Month” — the occasion for Holder’s remarks to begin with — when America is supposed to spend a month talking about the black experience.

Yeah we have a month dedicated to celebrating blackness, so everything is a-okay.  What she failed to do was consider what these so-called conversations entail.  Companies like Walmart and Coke have readily commodified it for profit. A school has a dress up like a slave day and most recently a college posted signs dividing drinking fountains into coloured and whites.  This is the kind of conversations that we have in black history month.  They hardly speak about the experience of the peoples of the African Diaspora or the ways in which we are still and exploited discriminated people today

Affirmative action is not supposed to give more jobs to underprivileged people. It is supposed to widen the applicant pool to people who are not ordinarily reached.

By far the most diverse workplace I was ever in was when I worked for UCLA, which has a very strong affirmative action requirement in hiring.  Not, “You have to hire less-qualified minorities,” as conservatives love to claim, but “You need to show that you reviewed resumes from a diverse group of people.”  And, surprise surprise, it turns out that when you cast your net further and make sure you interview Latinos, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, etc., you end up with a larger pool of qualified people to work with!  At the job I was in, the department head was Japanese-American and the two second-in-commands were Latino (I think Mexican, but I can’t remember) and Filipino-American.

My current company, the Giant Evil Corporation, does make at least some efforts towards diversity, but they still have a ways to go.  In our department of 18 people, we have two (2) Filipino-Americans, and that’s it.  The larger division that we’re part of is probably one of the most diverse because it depends heavily on artistic ability.  It’s easier to have color-blind hiring when you judge the artwork first and then look at the name attached.

You should be ecstatic for the ultimate affirmative action as reflected on November 4th.

Because the only way an unqualified black man like Obama could be elected in a landslide is by affirmative action.  No possible way he earned it.

Yep, we’re a post-racial society, all right.

I hate to say it but Eric Holder hit it dead on the button.  I do agree we should focus on how far our country has come from racial injustice. Although you cannot change 300 years of racial injustice, completely in 40 years of laws and rights (racial justice).  We have come along way but racism still exists; though in a different form.  Racism is now underlining racism, and is not seen as it was displayed in the 70s, 60s, 50s, and so on.  You don’t really have racism causing physical problems in people lives, although you still have emotional racism existing.  Since we cannot make it a requirement (law) for people to change there mind or even speak truthfully on how they feel about different races, we as Americans (African-Americans, European-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Indian-Americans) do act cowardly towards race.  Until people can change there thoughts and understand diversity means you have to force your self to learn about other races, stereotypes of other races, why different races are different from your own race; this country will never move forward on racial justice.  Again, since we cannot and have not made this a requirement by law, people have a choice to be diverse.  In an economy and nation were different races are the minority this rarely happens, and this is why racism is still in existence. Focusing on how far we have come will not change the majority or minority race minds on racism in this country.  We do indeed act as cowards when it comes to race and diversity because it’s a choice to be diverse, and diversity should be in everyone top 2 priorities; although diversity is often not.  I am glad we have someone in a political position as Eric Holder to make comments as he did, and try to help change American’s thought process on race (minds) so we can make our country truly diverse; which right now mentally we (US) are not diverse as a country.

Gah.

Goldberg’s comments don’t bother me, nor do any from the rightwing lonnie bin, because they’re totally expected and totally predictable.

That isn’t to say that what they’re saying isn’t loathesome and depressing… it’s just pointless to get to wound up about people who don’t get and not wanting to get it when they don’t get it and don’t want to get it.

Those aren’t the cowards, those are just the evil fucking bastards.

The cowards are the folks who SHOULD know better, but for some reason, don’t.  And it includes a lot of Democrats.

See, here’s the problem… if you’re white, and generally a well-intentioned liberal minded person, and you heard what Holder said and then internalized it as meaning, “He’s saying all white people are the devil,” then you are a coward.  You are a coward because you are buying into the reactionary crap that’s been force fed to us since America has existed.  And the crap is that silly message you buy that says that anytime an African-American wants to have a frank discussion about race, it means that they want to come at you as an adversary and destroy you.

We aren’t post-racial.  Not by a long shot.  I wish we were.  I hope we will be someday.  I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime.  But I do think things can get better, and I think that unless you are actively working to bridge the gap, you aren’t doing your job.  And bridging the cap entails a lot more than just voting for the black guy for POTUS.  It means getting out of your comfort zone and not ignoring the pink elephant in the room and actually being willing to talk about this stuff honestly, and from a position that seeks understanding based on mutual respect, and not from a position that treats any challenge to your comfort zone as an automatic attack on your entire race or your character as a person.

Pam,
Your initial selection from Holder’s speech left out the middle of that paragraph:

It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more-(emphasis added)</blockquote

Perhaps you didn’t think that part was important, since that part was in accord with what Goldberg said here:  <blockquote>Second, to the extent we don’t talk about race in this country the primary reason is that liberals and racial activists have an annoying habit of attacking anyone who doesn’t read from a liberal script “racists” or, if they’re lucky, “insensitive.”

Holder and I would agree with Goldberg in this (well maybe not the “primary reason” but an important one, as Holder acknowledged in his remarks at these points:

We know, by “American instinct” and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character.
. . . .
Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear. The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly diverse, would be greatly enhanced. I fear however, that we are taking steps that, rather than advancing us as a nation are actually dividing us even further. We still speak too much of “them” and not “us”. There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest.

If what you want is meaningful dialogue, you need to be able to listen to differing viewpoints and perspectives as well as talk (or preach) to those with differing perspectives.  Intolerance from the left in discussions on race should be attacked and eliminated.  I demonstrated pretty well in the string on this topic below that there is plenty of intolerance of heresy here.  I would suggest folks here at least acknowledge that the reluctance to speak out has a reasonable basis.  The more I read Holder’s speech the better I like it.

If some people are nervous about Holder wanting the Justice Department to become more active in enforcing existing civil rights laws, good.  Maybe the offenders, innocent of racist intent or not, will be more careful in their own activities.

Yes, you’ve demonstrated your belief that intolerance from the left should be attacked and eliminated.  You’ve also demonstrated pretty well that you are part of the Race Race Go Away camp.  Perhaps you’d be more comfortable somewhere that brown people knew their place and didn’t bother you with their experiences?

kaninchen,
I would certainly be more comfortable in the company of Eric Holder than you.

Then there’s something on which we agree.  Thanks for typing my name out this time, MiddleageLiberal.

So if you want a meaningful dialogue about race, what is it that you want to get out of it?  Gratitude?  Acknowledgement that you personally never enslaved anybody so it isn’t your problem?  People to agree that you’re a special, special snowflake?

See, I figured out eventually that when people who have actually lived with the institutionalized racism in America are talking about what it does to them and how it feels, my job as a white person is mainly to shut the hell up and listen.  I get all up in your shit because you’re white and I’m white and you are wrong with a side of mistaken but you seem to want reassurance that no you’re not really racist.  It’s kind of like the thing we say about rape—women saying men shouldn’t rape them is not going to be listened to so well.  Brown people telling whites about their internalized racism are going to be similarly discounted.  If you’re uncomfortable with that, you probably should be.

If what you want is meaningful dialogue, you need to be able to listen to differing viewpoints and perspectives as well as talk (or preach) to those with differing perspectives.

I’m sorry, you think that Pam—who is by far the most conciliatory and open person who discusses race on the internet—is being hidebound and not listening to differing perspectives?  Seriously?

If so, I’m going to have to agree with kaninchen:  you’re not interested in discussing race so much as you’re interested in being constantly reassured that you’re one of the good ones so you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about any of this.

MiddleageLiberal, you’re a real bundle of joy, aren’t you…

I’m willing to believe you’re middle aged (hell, I am too), but Liberal?  Not unless that word means something completely different in your world than it does in mine.

And to imply that unless The Left eliminates all traces of racism, we can’t even start on the racism of the Reichwing in this country?  WTF?

It wasn’t Air America with a host who commissioned the work of “art” Barack the Magic Negro.

It wasn’t at Obama rallys that people in the crowds were calling for the death of the POTUS candidate from the other party.

It wasn’t Democrats that made tee-shirts comparing Obama to Curious George, or floating the idea that Obama isn’t even an American, or a Christian, or really authentically Black, etc.

When is the last time some black idiots dragged a white man behind a pickup in Texas until he was dead and dismembered?

When is the last time some black students in Louisiana hung nooses from a tree on campus as a threat to white students?

When is the last time some African Americans put on black sheets and burned a cross on the lawn of a white family to get them to move out of the neighborhood?

Question: Who has the biggest problem with race in our society — the left or the right? 

Answer: America, ‘cause it’s a problem no matter what the affiliations of the participants are.  But you don’t decide the Left must be pure before the Right can be tackled…

Reading Dowd’s column - all I could think about was Stephen Colbert’s “I don’t see color- people tell me that I’m white and I believe them.” line. (Used in slightly differing ways by him over the years but it always rings true.
I’ve heard tons of white people and republicans use that type of platitude over and over again.
Most often it’s prefacing something utterly racist and ugly or their reason WHY they are defensive.
It gets so tiresome.

As Mike Malloy said last night- he think that his generation is going to have to die out until some actual progress is made on these matters. I think he may be right but then- there’s plenty of people born in the 70’s (like me) who are still ignorant m-fers. *sigh*

“As Mike Malloy said last night- he think that his generation is going to have to die out until some actual progress is made on these matters.”

...I hate to agree with this, but it seems to be true.  Racism may not be in the genes, but once it’s learned it seems to become an inseparable part of many people’s chemistry, and will remain there until they recycle their atoms back into the universe…

Mnemosyne:

Another important part of affirmative action is not only expanding the pool from which you select qualified applicants but also rethinking the notion of what constitutes a qualified applicant. Old-style academia used to have “objective” standards that were very effective at excluding women and minorities (like requiring expertise in languages that were overwhelmingly taught to privileged white males, or prior work in subfields overwhelmingly studied by white males, blah blah blah. The current generation of tenured literature professors, for example, was largely educated at institutions where it was considered a career-limiting move even to supervise a thesis on a female author…)

And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us

Would this be possible in the blogsphere, or can it only be done face-to-face either one-on-one or in small groups?
Bosworth_Focke

Less likely in the blogosphere because people feel freer to insult anonymously than they do in person.  It is possible, though.  One one site I visit that has predominately conservative posters I was asked why I supported Obama over McCain and I was given a respectful hearing.  But that was probably because I had a history there of reasoned comment and therefore people had some respect for me.  The person who asked really wanted to know my thinking on it rather than asking solely to obtain ammunition to attack me. 

I wish I had said above that intolerance from the left in discussions on race should be resisted rather than “attacked and eliminated” because the impulse to attack and eliminate opposing viewpoints is something I regret from both sides. 

I didn’t mean to suggest I think Pam is “hidebound” because I agree she is reasoned in her essays and discussions.  Occasionally though, as here, I think she misses a piece of the puzzle.  I should have said “if one  wants meaningful dialogue” since I meant to shift away from being pointed directly at her and rather to all those who want more discussion of race. 

But some folk, here as elsewhere, would rather identify racists so as to isolate, punish and politically banish them rather than to change or open their minds.  So, the task is not to understand the paradigm from which a person speaks or acts and to open his eyes to another paradigm but rather to feed that person the correct version of “how it must be”. 

I’m not looking for absolution or for an acknowledgment that I’m not just another version of Pat Buchanan. It’s not really possible for people here to know what I’m really like in the brief exchanges we have.  They take what I’ve written and apply their own assumptions about what I’m like or what I believe based on experiences they have with real people in their lives.  I don’t really take their attacks personally.  For folk in the attack mode the only reason they read what I write is to determine which side of the divide I’m on.  They don’t care to discuss or demonstrate why any observation I make is wrong.  They just want a personal catharsis of attack.  It makes them feel better, though it does nothing to help me or anyone else with an heretical view listen and heed what is being said.

Preaching tolerance in the blogosphere may be pissing in the wind.  I keep doing it though.  Sometimes I’m encouraged by speeches like Attorney General Holder’s.

Yes, you poor thing, you’re just trying to be the voice of reason in an universe of snark and here I am all mean to you.  I prevented you from typing the four hundred thirty words (according to MS Word) above and posting them to this forum.  You have been silenced!

It is a tragedy.  Alert the media.

Clearly AG Holder was 100% correct.  We have been cowards, not just on race but on a host of other issues.  Cowards and bullies ran the country for 8 years.

First step I’d suggest is to cleanse the DOJ of these Regent University bible-thumpers the Bush Administration brought in:

In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people’s civil rights.

“When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was ‘maddening,’ I knew I correctly answered the question,” wrote the Regent graduate . The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division’s housing section—the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.

The graduate from Regent—which is ranked a “tier four” school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place—was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.

Loyal Bushies, all.  Courtesy of Monica Goodling.

Also see “Under Bush, Civil Rights Division Works to Protect… Whites” at TPM Muckraker:

During the first five years of the Bush administration, the Justice Department’s voting section only filed a single case alleging voting discrimination on behalf of African American voters. That’s despite the fact that the section, part of the Civil Rights Division, was created mainly to protect African American voters from discrimination.

And that one case had been initiated under the Clinton Administration.

Dowd is just pathetic.  This,

We need leaders to help us through our crises, not provide us with crude evaluations of our character.

from the person who wrote that Al Gore was “so feminized he is practically lactating?”  But then I guess she’s not trying to get elected President or be any sort of “leader,” so it’s OK for her to engage in “crude evaluations of…character.”

So Holder speaks the truth to <strike>power</strike>media and the response is, “Please stop telling me my bigoted point of view is bigoted, it hurts my feeling.”?

I think there’s a chicken-and-egg quality to this. Lots of white people don’t talk about race much because they don’t have close social friends of other races. But one reason they don’t have close social friends of other races is because they feel slightly uncomfortable or ill at ease around them, due to the lack of talking about race. (And I speak of white people here because I am one and know lots of them, not because I’m saying white people are bad and other people are noble. I have close friends of other races with whom I do talk about race, along with everything else, but I haven’t had a good friend who was black since elementary school - I moved away from big, diverse city to all-white small town, then went to racially polarized, mostly white college - and surprise, surprise, that’s the arena where I’m least comfortable (dare I say, most cowardly) about talking about race - black-white stuff.)

The gross over-reaction to Holder’s speech is pretty telling, and I don’t like what it says.

Wow, didn’t expect anyone to get so mad about MiddleAgeLiberal… Yikes kaninchen, take it down a notch.

Look, I am glad Middleageliberal clarified a bit because that is pretty much how I took it the first time. I like this site because I find it to be more reasoned than a lot of the ones I visit, but what I took middleageliberal to mean and what I read from it was essentially that we also have to make sure people feel like they can talk about these topics with us. Goldberg puts it in a way I would NEVER put it, making liberals *the reason* no one talks about it. But being labeled or questioned as racist does scare people, and it tends to scare the people who mean well, who could easily be our allies, more than the people who don’t mean well.

I’m mixed, neither part of me is white, and even I feel like I have seen instances where people were too harshly judged for simply not knowing stuff, asking the wrong question, etc. I *don’t* mind when people, after talking to me for a while, etc, ask “what is your ethnic background,” because they have a hard time telling, I could be lots of things. I *do* mind when people I have just met say things like “what are you” and act like I’m not a person, but a weird creature. I have also seen people jump down their friend’s throat because they asked, even though they asked correctly.

Remember when there was all that backlash (sorry to even bring it up but it makes my larger point) against the images used in Amanda’s book? The main person (commenter) that could not move on in that thread, if I remember correctly (as usual, please feel free to correct me) was a white woman. She just kept going after Amanda. Most other people had accepted her apology, noted what kind of writing she does in the first place as a reminder of what her ideals are, and seemed to move on. The one commenter wouldn’t move on. And the problem wasn’t so much that the poster couldn’t move on, it was that she was doing it in this blanket way. She wasn’t approaching it like “this is what I think” so much as “this is what I have decided the world needs from you before we can move on.” As a non-white it offended me that this woman would argue the way she was and claim that it was *for* people like myself. In her efforts to be the best liberal she could, it made me not even want to take part in the thread.

If this is the approach people take, this “I know exactly what is offensive in the world and I know it better than all of you,” then yes, we will have a hard time getting these conversations going. Does that mean I blame liberals? No. But I do think we are just as accountable, specifically on this level where it is between friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and readers of the same blogs. It’s really just a practice what you preach thing. This isn’t a problem just among liberals, but if we are going to speak out against injustice and in favor of respect, we also have to practice it.

In a thread from earlier, the one where Amanda was asking liberal dudes to let her know why so many “liberal” men would freak out over abortion, there was a comment somewhere about how, sadly, a lot of people kind of pick a side, and feel like they are on the correct side, and don’t actually deal with whatever issues they may have because they assume they have none just because they have progressive political beliefs. They say they are pro-choice but when faced with it they ended up showing the sexism they didn’t even know they had, etc. I don’t see what middleageliberal is saying as being much different than that.

Or, I’ll say it this way: just because we have good ideas doesn’t mean it easy for people to approach us about said ideas.

Anyway, I thought this was a great post. I am glad that Pam also saw it as inclusive and that he was talking micro not macro. It’s so true that the way people react to things can tell you so much about them. I loved Holder’s comments and would love to talk more with people about these issues so that we can learn from each other.

That — that strikes fear down the spines of many conservatives in this country, because they don’t want the Justice Department taking us back to the day when they get heavily involved in things like…voter registration rights.

Why anyone would think people like this are racist is beyond me. Really it is.

SuperD, I’d rather not, thanks.  I like my notches where they’re at.  They keep me all warm inside.  Besides, I’m taking MiddleageLiberal’s remarks on Mr. Holder’s speech in the context of his other comments on Mr. Holder’s speech in other threads.  His desire to have an honest, open discussion about race seems to stop if any such discussion implies that what he’s saying might be interpreted as racist.  His unwillingness to listen to people like Mr. Taylor or Ms. Spaulding makes me doubt his sincerity, as does his stated, then retracted, desire to attack and eliminate intolerance (of him) from the left.

In other words, that concern troll sure looks awfully concerned.

His unwillingness to listen to people like Mr. Taylor or Ms. Spaulding makes me doubt his sincerity,

A very timely example of what I’ve been writing about.  You take any disagreement with any portion of what Mr. Taylor or Ms. Spaulding wrote and interpet it as an unwillingness to listen to them.  You don’t want dialogue or discussion, you want silent acceptance and you want me to quit writing.  Or at least to go away.  You seem uncomfortable with a forum that is less than an echo chamber.

SuperD: Middleage"Liberal” is a long-time troll.  We have every goddamn right to be angry at him, because he’s an idiot and an annoyance.

On the subject, I’ll freely admit I’m probably not the most enlightened guy in the world when it comes to race - I grew up in a backwater hick town of 80 people, for Shigeru’s sake - but I know a few things: Racism is bad, stereotypes are stupid, and I think that race is, in the end, a lot of bullshit plopped out by people who want something, anything, to feel superior about.  There’s one race in humanity, and it’s the human race.

The problem, as I see it, is that not everyone thinks that way.  There are a lot of people who still cling to stupid, baseless beliefs and get their dander up if you question them on it, or worse, dare to call them what they are.  Is mine a perfect belief?  Hardly.  But I’d say it’s a damn sight better than believing racist bullshit.

I’ve actually managed to distill the entirety of every argument about racism ever into its purest form.  This is why an actual conversation about race is needed - because people need to realize what they don’t know, and what they believe, and why these things could be harmful to ourselves, our country, and our world, and people shouting at each other isn’t going to help that.

Eerie, Blue Fielder.  I got goosebumps. 

@ Blue Fielder

Yeah, your link is pretty dead on to what I have seen. I think that for some people, it is a way of feeling superior. But I personally feel like a bigger problem is that there are big differences in culture. And there are many cultures in this country. I am American, born and raised. But when I got to college (in the city I grew up in), I felt such culture shock. So many of the problems I see on a small scale are really just miscommunications. Its frustrating how hard it is to get people to actually talk about it. Which is exactly what Holder is asking and these people (examples in the post) go into full on freak out.

Also, I do remember seeing middleageliberal in other forums,  but I hadn’t labeled him a troll in my mind. There are a few commenters that I see occasionally that I choose to be wary of, and since he wasn’t for me I chose to take his post in good faith. No one else has to, but I am one of those people in the “please don’t feed the trolls by continuing to argue with them” camp.

But either way I don’t think it changes the point of my response.