Answering Al ... Again

This is a continuation of my previous post. It is in reply to Al Mackey's comments to me at his blog.

Well, Al, yes you fit the description of a flogger. You use your blog to verbally flog white Southerners whose view of history is different from yours. You don't do it as much as some other floggers, but you do it.

I admit to a bit of curiosity why it is Prof. Robertson's business (whoever he is), or yours, what other people's proficiency in history or logic or any-freaking-thing else is. If it doesn't infringe on you in some way, why the interest? Is it just history, or does it stick in your craw for somebody to teach or learn English, or creative writing, or sociology, or astrophysics in a manner you disagree with?

I didn't read your stuff about Gettysburg. I'm particular about whose history I read. Reading about it from historians and/or teachers with a self-appointed thought-cop mentality and a biased agenda doesn't interest me. Sorry.

You said the subject of your post was not a discussion of race, it was bashing African-Americans because of their race? Really? Where/how are Michelle Obama and the New Black Panthers bashed because of their race? This appeared to be criticism of the public schools bending over backward to accommodate "black" curricula insisted upon by people who aren't qualified, such as the first lady and the panthers. You floggers certainly don't have a lot of patience with unqualified folks pushing a curricula you don't agree with. This is the same thing.

Perhaps the mention of Mrs. Obama was because she has a history of interference in the schools, i.e.,  her imposing nutritional standards on schools, despite having no education or qualifications in nutrition. As it turns out, one school district after another is opting out of her guidelines because the lack of fats in the meals leaves the children hungry. I guess she, not being a nutritionist, doesn't know that fatty acids are essential nutrients. Is saying that bashing her for her race, or for her unqualified authoritarian meddling?

What African-Americans are "bashed for their race" by the person citing Uncle Tom's Cabin, etc., and *how* are they bashed for their race in that passage you pasted?

The closet thing to bashing-for-their-race that appeared was the Dan Williams comment pasted by Andy, which includes a racial slur to describe MLK, and rejoices about King's murder, whether genuinely or facetiously is unclear. But the actual "bashing" that I see, if you can call it that, doesn't bash King for his race, but, presumably, for his deeds or actions, which Williams speculates are not saintlike, and are recorded in King's sealed FBI file. So the racial slurs themselves are the only bashing -- the rest of Williams's comment could be written about a white person in a similar circumstance, so it is race-neutral. 

And when you get down to it, how does one bash African-Americans for their race? So often, what liberals call "bashing them for their race" is actually criticism of actions or behaviors (like Mrs. Obama's school lunch meddling), which aren't determined by race, so far as I know. However, a lot of what's considered "racism" by liberals such as yourself appears to be people's lack of patience with the racial double standard, the accommodation, even the enabling and enforcing, of lower standards for blacks, that has prevailed since the civil rights movement and the great society -- AND the prohibition against speaking about, or even noticing, the lowered standards. (I should clarify that I believe the enabling, etc., is far more a function of white liberals than blacks).

Here are some things white people aren't supposed to notice, let alone comment on, under penalty of being labeled a racist who bashes blacks because of their race.

If you point out that the black illegitimacy rate has climbed to over 70 percent since the 1950s (when it was about 20%), are you bashing blacks because of their race?

If you point out that the Great Society and similar public policies have brought a dismaying decline and untold and misery to the black community, especially in inner cities, is that bashing blacks because of their race?

If you point out that any criticism of blacks by whites is prohibited by cultural forces (employers, the news media, the government, etc.), regardless of how true and deserved, is that bashing blacks because of their race?

If you point out that today, more blacks are murdered by blacks in a single year than were lynched in over 80 years, is that bashing blacks because of their race?

If you point out that the national mainstream news media focuses and magnifies, even obsesses over, white on black crime or victimization (James Byrd, Trayvon Martin), but ignores far more and far worse black on white depredation (the Knoxville horror, the Wichita horror, the Eve Carson murder, the Lauren Burk murder, the Bob and Nancy Strait murders, the Elizabeth Hutcheson murder, the Antonio Santiago murder and on and on and on) -- is that bashing blacks for their race?

If you point out the number of racial hate crimes that are not true but planned and staged, especially on college campuses, is that bashing blacks because of their race?

No. If it is bashing at all, it is bashing behavior, attitudes, outcomes, results, etc., not race.

Because of the draconian enforcement of silence (loss of jobs, expulsion from school, etc.) white people have had to keep silent for decades about the continued degeneracy of the black community under liberal "great society" policies for the last half century and more -- and its effect on whites and the country as a whole. They have noted but weren't allowed to comment on (or their comments were ignored) the journalistic double standard in the coverage of racial news and issues.

Whites have been doubly reluctant to criticize what clearly deserved criticism because, along with official and societal protection of blacks from that criticism has come the demonization of whites as "racists." It is a circumstance whites are not allowed to question, not allowed to dispute or disprove. The demonization of white Southerners has been particularly virulent.

But the situation has finally become so intolerable, and the justifiable outrage of whites has been building so much, that they have begun to break their silence little by little. It has come at at time when there is an avenue for expressing their views -- the Internet -- that still largely accommodates free expression and hasn't yet become a tool for the entrapment of evil racists... Thus, white people have begun to voice criticism.

Most of what you pasted here was not race bashing. It was understandable criticism.

It is a certainty that people like yourself and Andy and your PC-lapping fellow travelers will ignore the fact that the criticism is about behaviors and attitudes -- often of the enablers more than of blacks themselves --  and call it racism. Know what? More and more people don't care anymore. THEY can tell the difference between actual race hatred and their criticism of criminal behavior or encouraged and enabled incompetence, even if people like you can't. Or won't.