David Thompson


Blog powered by Typepad

« Secret Identities | Main | At Last »

November 17, 2008



"This seems a good point to ask which of the above sounds less bigoted and insulting. Less racist, if you will."

Heh. Spot on.


We had no idea you were so aggressive, you patriarchal racist you. :)



I doubt anyone who knows me well would think of me as burly or inclined to fisticuffs, and at risk of ruining my new image of strapping heroism I should point out the youth was fairly easy to turf out onto the street. (I suspect it helps if you’re not the one being targeted and have the advantage of surprise. In fact, the sense of unexpectedness was kind of pertinent.) But I was struck by how the ladies were silent and utterly inert during the teenager’s aggression, yet they somehow found the courage to berate me, no doubt guessing I wouldn’t start throwing Mars bars at them.


I agree. We should treat people as individuals, not as generic representatives of some designated group - victim or not. Have you seen this?


Brian H

Excellent post.



Thanks for that; I hadn’t seen it. I suppose it illustrates where you can end up if you start from the kind of collective identity premise mentioned above. In fact, if you start with the premise I mentioned it soon becomes difficult to see how one might avoid sounding like an idiot. See, for instance, the unhinged convolutions of Amanda Marcotte and her readers as they try to make it clear they aren’t at all racist on in any way insensitive:



It’s the dance of Victimhood Hierarchy and it involves a great deal of calculation and self-inflicted stress. Similar dances are quite popular at Feministe and other doctrinaire leftist sites. Maybe that’s what the ladies in the newsagent were doing – frantically calculating which group had been aggrieved.


In the 1930s, for example, a motivated, intelligent black man could not get into college only — ONLY — because of his ancestry, which happened to include more pigmentation than a European's.

Ergo, the solution to this bigotry is to lower the academic standards for people with that same ancestry. Not work to ensure that entrance boards could not take race into account, but to lower the academic standards.

Please explain why that is the appropriate remedy to the problem.



“Please explain why that is the appropriate remedy to the problem.”

I suspect it’s a remedy to a different problem altogether, i.e. of what the grievance industry would face once all practical, defensible measures have been completed – i.e. unemployment and loss of funding, status, etc. The idea, I think, is to defer redundancy indefinitely by making sure as many people as possible are fixated by race, “diversity,” language, etc., and by redefining racism in such a way that the ostensible problem can never be resolved.


Good on you! That was incredibly brave - I wouldn't have been able to do something like that myself.

And those two ladies can only be described as - if I may borrow the term, and at fear of misusing it - having a lot of chutzpah.

(Apologies to any Jewish people reading this, if I've misused the term!)

...They didn't even take into account that you were defending an Indian man?


David, did you see this comment left at PW?


"Of course racism = prejudice + power. Note the "ism". Racism is a political philosophy. It is the expression, in America at least, of white-race superiority. What made Hitler a racist rather than just a bigot was the notion that Aryans were superior - and that this superiority needed to be recognized and expressed in political terms. So to in the US - it was white supremacy - as a philosophy, that underlies racism… No overarching theory that ones race is inherintly superior, no plan to impose that view politically, and/or no power to do so, and it isnt "racism" - it is just bigotry... I sense that the only people who are resistant to this obvious truth or those who are itching to be able to throw the "racist" charge against lots of people - hopefully lots of black people, so that the charge become so diluted and meaningless, that one escapes its charge even when rightly accused of it."



Gosh, it’s very close to doublethink. At first I wondered if it was a joke, but it follows a standard pattern. Let’s see… Racism is only racism if (a) it’s part of a supremacist political programme and (b) if it’s something done by the dominant group, i.e., by people with white skin. So, if a gang of black youths in a predominantly black neighbourhood in a predominantly black country were to set about a white kid, or a Hispanic kid, or a Chinese kid, and beat him to death while screaming racial abuse, that wouldn’t be racism, but merely “bigotry”. This, apparently, is an “obvious truth” and those who “resist” that truth do so in order to get away with being racist, as formulated above.

It’s a ‘heads-I-win-tails-you-lose’ kind of deal.

Shave the Forest

"No overarching theory that ones race is inherintly superior, no plan to impose that view politically, and/or no power to do so, and it isnt "racism" - it is just bigotry."

So I'm waiting in a dark alley with a gun, a knife and a gang of mates – and I STILL don't have any power? What a rip.



It's probably unwise to even begin to try and rebut the silly comment you quoted. But, as I understand it; the young Adolf Hitler developed a pathological hatred of Jews because the Jews he met, at school in Linz and later in Vienna, were 1) more economically successful than him, 2) more intellectually sophisticated than him, 3) more artistically gifted than him, and 4) better at attracting women than him. His racist fantasies of domination grew from resentment at his own failure and under-achievement.


Shave the Forest,

“What a rip.”

Yes, that’s the gist of it. It’s the “obvious truth,” you see. Maybe if you had some kind of cannon?

J. Peden

"racism = prejudice + power"

Where I come from, racism is a kind or type of prejudice. So the equation makes no sense: "racism = racism + power".

And, sadly, my attempts to dictate what reality is by sitting around making up defintions of words have somehow never worked, either.


J Peden,

“And, sadly, my attempts to dictate what reality is by sitting around making up definitions of words have somehow never worked, either.”

That’s the nub of it, really. It’s an attempt to distort language to support an absurd claim, by framing the issue in such a way that the absurd conclusion is the only permissible one. Hence the additional claim that those who “resist” this “obvious truth” are trying to camouflage their own unspeakable urges. It’s much the same manoeuvre as the “male privilege” and “white privilege” arguments. If you dare to dispute the reasoning, such as it is, you must “therefore” be part of the oppressive system and are not to be listened to.


Here are 3 excellent articles regarding Affirmative action.




Rich Rostrom

There's an endemic distortion of language here. "Affirmative action" != "racial quotas fulfilled by discriminatory treatment".

The term arose because it was considered insufficient for an institution that had arbitrarily excluded some group merely to stop that practice. The institution ought to take "affirmative action" to include that group - to advertise openings in that group's media, or recruit at that group's schools. This was agreed to be the meaning of "affirmative action" in the relevant U.S. legislation, passed in the 1970s. Sen. Hubert Humphrey was one of the sponsors, and famously remarked that he would eat a copy of the bill if it was ever interpreted to require racial quotas.

That is why I always refer to "racial quotas" rather than "affirmative action".

Also: Gaffee has a point. If one regards racism as in "ism", as an ideology, then yes, it is something that is generally found among the ruling group rather the ruled. The latter do not need a theory or rationalization for their feelings or program. The ruling group do need such a theory; at least they did if they were white Anglophones, who felt guilty about slavery.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon Link