I recently came across a diary titled; "Liberal Racism: 25 Things I Learned After I Wrote About ISIS and White Racism at the Daily Kos"
I wanted to comment on this but unfortunately there was no way to post a comment so, I thought I'd write a diary to address the points. There were quite a few, so I'll try to hit on as many as I can.
The author begins with this: "It is far more difficult for white liberals and progressives to look in the proverbial mirror and to take a personal inventory of their own possessive investment in whiteness, and how they reproduce white supremacy as a lived ideology."
On that comment alone I have to take issue. I wrote a book on this very subject a year ago. I didn't find it difficult in the least in looking back and taking personal inventory of where I came from and the attitudes of the people that I knew. I really can't say that I know of many liberals that have any difficulty in addressing this. It's probably what distinguishes them the most from their conservative counterparts, and why they they hold their liberal inclinations. I find almost every conservative that I meet, dodging that issue that sits at the core of their being and their cultural past. Below is the link to the book I'm talking about.
Growning up White in Racist America
With regard to issue #1:
1. White people are very sensitive. Many of them get very upset and angry when you tell the truth about racism, white supremacy, or white privilege. Never speak plainly and directly to liberal racists. They may wilt.
Some white people are very sensitive to it. But I've never once had any difficulty in speaking plainly to a liberal about this. The author uses the term liberal racist in making his case, but fails to recognize that he's begging the question. He is assuming the truth of his statement without first proving that liberals are racists? If you want to make a case then by all means, do it. But don't rely on a logical fallacy to do it for you.
2. Liberal racists and their allies believe that it is “unnecessary” to comment on the plain on the face fact that black Americans were burned alive in much the same as ISIS did to the captured Jordanian, Muadh al Kasasbeh.
Once again, he begins with "liberal racists" and their allies, (whoever those may be) claiming they don't comment on the burning alive of black Americans in lynching episodes with the same horror they save for the captured Jordanian pilot. This is totally false, as I have posted the very question on Facebook with links to Lynchings including the Waco Horror involving the murder of Jesse Washington in Waco. He was 17. I've transcribed the entire EJI website and they've sent me their hard copy report. So making this blanket sweeping statement about "liberal racists" and their allies is not engaged in this issue is false. I'm sure I'm not the only liberal that has studied this issue and written about it.
3. Addendum to the above. The spectacular lynchings of black Americans by white people were “a long time ago” so it should not be discussed anymore lest white people be made uncomfortable. For the White Gaze a long time ago is compressed to 50 years.
You're hearing that from conservatives that want to brush it away. Not from Liberals.
4. Be prepared for the deflection and dismissive comment that, “everyone knows this stuff! Why are you bringing it up!”
Again. You hear that from conservatives.
5. If you want to talk about racism and how black folks were subjected to horrific violence by white people—much of it worse than what ISIS visited upon Muadh al Kasasbeh—during Black History Month, one must get permission from white people first. This is especially true during Black History Month because black folks tend to get too confident and back sass white folks during those 28 days.
When did you or anybody ever ask my permission to write about this? I've written about on this site, Facebook and published my own book on this subject. I have no idea where you come up with this.
7. If you talk to white people about racism you should speak in the same tone and manner as Bill Moyers.
I've NEVER felt a need to consult with Bill Moyers before writing anything let alone the tone in which I write it.
8. Second Bill Moyers rule. White folks, especially liberal racists here on the Daily Kos and elsewhere, will only believe something is true and appropriate to discuss if a white man like Bill Moyers says it is.
What is your fascination with Bill Moyers? Why would you think that any liberal needs a hall pass from Bill Moyers to write on any subject?
9. Third Bill Moyers rule. Well-documented events, such as horrific violence against black Americans as committed by whites, only occurred if a white person says they did. The white speaker effect is very real in America’s racial discourse.
I don't feel the least bit threatened by my white race in writing critically about my white race and the torture that members of that race inflicted on others NOT of that race.
10. “Class issues” and “real progressive politics” trump any concern about race and racial justice.
Wrong. Social justice trumps class issues and real progressive politics whatever those may be. Social Justice is at the top of the liberals thinking. EVerything grows out of that.
11. Daring to talk about the burning to death murder of Muadh al Kasasbeh by ISIS and how it resonates with the burning to death murder of thousands of black people by white Americans is a type of “black racial narcissism”.
This is total bullshit, as I've written about that exact subject and posted not only opinions but graphic photo's as well on Facebook and other sites.
12. White supremacists and liberal racists have much in common with their rage at the premise that a black person would dare to talk about white on black lynchings in the United States and ISIS.
I get the White supremacist thing, but you have yet to demonstrate the liberal racist. You simply say it as if it is a given. Again you are begging the question. You assume the truth of the conclusion without proving the premise. The Hallmark of modern liberalism is social justice. Everything else flows from that.
13. White supremacists and liberal racists at the Daily Kos channel much the same animus and rage at black folks who tell them things they do not want not want to hear. The former are just more honest; the latter pretty up their racial ugliness just a bit more.
More nonsense. I've seen zero examples of what you're saying. Nobody at this site that I'm aware of who identifies with liberalism has ever done any such thing. Illustrate animus and rage toward black folks for me. If they did, they wouldn't be liberals. You can't claim the mantle of liberal and be a racist at the same time. The two things are mutually exclusive. A liberal that hasn't rejected racism isn't a liberal.
14. Liberal racists—like their Right-wing compatriots—will derail, distract, and obfuscate your claims.
Your claims come without any demonstrable evidence that what you're saying is true.
15. Liberal racists—like their Right-wing compatriots—also use standard troll tactics such as picking on one word in a title or other questions of grammar and emphasis to avoid dealing with the facts you have presented.
Wrong again. I'm not picking on any single word that you have offered. I'm critiquing the entire premise of your argument. Right now you have avoided entirely presenting anything close to fact. You simply state "Liberal racists" as if it was a fact. Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument. Therefore, to beg the question is to argue fallaciously. Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses. More generally, a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side. You offer circular reasoning to make your case. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful. Your approach to making your case undermines your entire claim.
16. White supremacy’s reflection is very ugly to most white folks—especially those who have not disowned Whiteness.
The concept of White Supremacy is not simply ugly, it's a sign of stupidity. However the concept of White Supremacy is a conservative idea. Not liberal. And here's why:
Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense.
Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.
The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo, in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/ 5’ s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept . It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it. The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.
Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative. Letting go of the past is difficult to do. An entire race of people becomes an easy scapegoat for one’s own failures. Hate is passed on from one generation to the next. Parents teach their children to hate. The cure for hate is education, so every attempt to keep schools segregated was an important factor. Every attempt to desegregate schools was blocked. This comes from a friend of mine. He's Professor Robert C. Smith from the University of San Francisco. It's from his book "Conservatism and Racism:and WHY IN AMERICA THEY ARE THE SAME THING
Since he's spent years studying philosophy and has a PhD in African American Studies, I'm going to put more credence to what he say's than what you've offered. Hope that doesn't offend you, but I'm far more interested in rational explanations than logical fallacies and irrationality.
Integrated schools are a way of leveling the playing field and a sign of equality and equality is a challenge to the social fabric. The more narrow the view point, the more ignorant the person becomes and the easier it is to promote fear and fear promotes hate. Fear always promotes hate. The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order.
21. Right-wing racists are much more honest, and thus easier to deal with, than liberal racists.
Really? You still haven't demonstrated the liberal racist. Maybe you could do that for us at some point? Until then, I'm afraid I reject your premise.
22. At some point in the conversation, white privilege deems that white folks who are unhappy with how a person of color dares to talk about racism will somehow be magically transformed into the real “victims”.
I've never had that problem. I've always been able to openly discuss this nations sordid past. Again, you're making wild assumptions. I know of a lot of conservatives that want to avoid the subject, but I've never met a liberal that did. EVER.
23. The rules for how white supremacy and white racism should be discussed must always be set by white folks so that they can be told what they want to hear, their assumptions about their goodness and innocence validated, and their egos stroked.
Oh please, that's simply false.
24. Racist River Dancing. At some point, a liberal racist, will call you a “nigger” in everything but name. Liberal racists are very good at calling blacks who make them upset “niggers” by using many more than just one efficient word. I grant liberal racists the permission to call me a "nigger" if they are sufficiently aroused to anger. It is much more efficient than the racial river dance--it will also keep their teeth white.
At some point? What point is that? And what do they use to replace the N word? Give us an example of what you're claiming. What the hell is the racial river dance? And why would you let anyone use the "N" word toward you? It's the nuclear bomb of racial slurs. And WHY would I or anybody accept the premise of the liberal racist? You make that claim with no examples to support it?
25. Liberal racists at the Daily Kos get very upset when you write an essay that—gasp!—gets attention, goes viral, has many comments, or “hits”. Because of course, the only reason someone writes something online at the Daily Kos is to work in obscurity. Moreover, never be a black or brown person who writes something “popular” and critical about white racism at the Daily Kos. Remember that haters are always gonna hate.
Again your "liberal racist" premise/conclusion is rejected. What you are having a hard time with is an honest critique of what you're saying. You don't get an automatic pass on this subject because of your own race, and your comments are open to criticism as are anybody's. Right now, I've taken issue with the entire premise of your "essay". I think it's a demonstration of false reasoning. It's an exercise in circular reasoning and logically fallacious. You don't seem to understand the concept of begging the question. You can't logically make the claim of liberal racist as a conclusion, without having proven that as a premise. You skip the premise entirely and go straight to the conclusion which is "liberal racist". It's a ridiculous way to argue a point.
A wise person told me that “the ultimate disrespect is to look at someone and lie to them”. I have, however reluctantly, come to the conclusion that liberal racists prefer lies to the truth. Consequently, they are not worthy of any respect.
You've come to this conclusion have you? You've drawn the conclusion that a "liberal racists" prefers lies to the truth. But here's a little truth for you; you haven't demonstrated the truth of your premise. You haven't shown me, or anybody the truth of the label "liberal racist". You've written an entire piece here based on this premise without once demonstrating the truth of anything that you've said.
If the Daily Kos is indeed a cathedral, many of its members will condemn you, calling thee a heretic if you dare to talk critically about whiteness and white privilege. In many ways, white liberals are of the same faith as white conservatives on matters of justice and the colorline—separated in belief from one another only by virtue of their membership in a different denomination.
The Daily Kos is hardly a cathedral. Most of the people here wouldn't be caught dead "worshipping" any ideology which is probably why they come here. And you are welcome to offer any criticism you can logically put together. But you don't get a pass for posting anything that doesn't pass logic and rational muster. In other words, your own words are wide open to criticism and that criticism has nothing to do with race, but purely with assertions that you make, without any demonstrable evidence to support them. That's as it should be. All things are open to criticism. As for White liberals and conservatives being of the same "faith" on matters of justice and the colorline, you obviously don't have a clue as to the polar opposites that they operate from. The liberal is not your enemy. He's the ally of the person of color and every minority. If you don't understand that much, you have a long long way to go. Don't look to the conservative for any help. You don't fit their model of social change that they are willing to adapt to.