When blacks scold blacks

Wish I'd said that!

[Reprinted from Issues & Views September 20, 2004]

In "No More Phony Charges of 'Racism'," on the LewRockwell site, writer Gail Jarvis speculates on whether comedian Bill Cosby's strong admonishments to his fellow blacks might signal the end of trumped up accusations of "racism." When others make similar observations about the need for blacks to cease blaming whites for their troubles, might there be less urge to hurl the "racist" label?

Jarvis contends that, in spite of the many blacks who publicly reject the victimhood syndrome, "race hustlers still have the ear of white do-gooders in the mainstream media." He cites an especially patronizing column by author Barbara Ehrenreich, in which she offers the typical liberal laundry list of excuses for black failure, all of which are somehow due to the shortcomings of society. Charging Cosby with indifference to "babies," Ehrenreich calls his rebuke of negative black behavior a "grown-up tantrum."

A white liberal like Ehrenreich, whose proprietary attitude towards blacks is so ingrained, has no clue to the insult she renders, when presuming to play the role of protective guardian to the feeble underdog. So fixed are liberals in their righteousness, they feel perfectly free to take liberties even to scold blacks for scolding blacks. Jarvis astutely observes that, to such whites, blacks "are simply pawns moved around by a cruel society and an uncaring government."

Jarvis explains how the definition of the word "racism" has metamorphosed over time. "How many times," he asks, "can you redefine the same word?" A basic dictionary definition describes "racism" as the belief that abilities are determined by race, and that some races are superior to others. Over recent decades, an aggressive social activism has necessitated a deliberate redefining of the word, Jarvis maintains, "to advance societal goals and tactics," and to manipulate others. Now, "racism" can be defined as existing when any of the following convictions prevail:

• Opposition to racial preferences in hiring and college admissions.
• Opposition to diversity workshops and sensitivity training.
• A belief that societal forces are not the sole determinant of individual achievement.
• Opposition to reparations for slavery.
• Opposition to the elimination of Southern symbols and heritage.
• A belief that the racial mix of a company should not have to match the racial mix of the local community.

This is only Jarvis's short list. He calls these redefinitions of "racism" part of a "process," which suggests that the list might be never ending.

Unless, of course, blacks like Cosby help to set a new process in motion -- one that engages wider public coverage of such people as England's Garth Crooks, for example. Crooks, a black BBC sports commentator (former athlete), like Cosby, recently spoke up at a conference. As reported in London's Telegraph (9/13/04), and in other British media, Crooks condemned the glorification of drugs and misogyny in black popular music, and called rap culture a "deadly virus" that is "killing some of our children." Making a direct plea to young black men, he urged them to grow up and stop playing at being gangsters. "You are pathetic. You are not gangsters or clever. You are kids . . ."

Yet for all the outspoken celebrity figures, down-to-earth realism teaches that without fathers, and without direct guidance, it is unlikely that the stern words of a Cosby or Crooks can begin a process of enlightenment. A helpful process might begin, however, if a self-censoring media would no longer shy away from granting widespread coverage to black-on-black criticism, and be open, instead, to publicizing such remarks as was done in the cases of Bill Cosby and Garth Crooks.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views