Look, the bottom line is that we’re told that this guy’s a racist - per this here link.
Then you read the column - as in READ THE COLUMN - and it just doesn’t show the guy to be a racist. Just slightly pompous.
There’s a difference.
2 Likes
I think the meaning of the syllable stream “interracial marriage” is clear from context even to those of us who do not believe in the biological reality of race.
5 Likes
The Liberal Media strikes again!
1 Like
Of all the possible replies to this piece, the tedious comments that pop up and try to say that there is no such thing as “race” – or that “interracial marriage” can’t exist, or that it’s impossible to be “racist” – are the most pointless.
Throughout human history, the vast majority of humans have categorized people by what they look like and where they come from. We have a name for this set of categorization, we call it “race.” The fact that this categorization isn’t scientific is entirely irrelevant.
Is anyone denying that this categorization exists? Do you think we shouldn’t refer to its existence? Or that because we shouldn’t categorize people in this unscientific way that we should pretend that race doesn’t exist?
“Race” is just the name of the set of categories humans use when grouping people by color and ethnic or national origin. Deal with it.
6 Likes
The problem with this is:
If you want to say something, say it, If it can be interpreted two ways, then it means two things. Isn’t the onus on Mr “I can’t write to save my life, and my editor can’t edit to save his” here to take responsibility for what he says? or are we to interpret what he means? Isn’t that just pandering?
Off topic: I literally only just got your username.
2 Likes
Read the OP again. Beschizza makes it really, really clear that he’s making an inference from the “conventional” phrase and from previous writings.
He didn’t tell us he’s a racist. He strongly implied he’s a racist based on details of his writing.
If you disagree that’s fine but there’s no reason to throw a temper tantrum about it.
1 Like
I don’t know why you’re going so far out of your way to ameliorate hatred based on ethnicity.
Why the fuck does it matter what it’s “better than” or “worse than”, it’s hatred based on skin color and no amount of “what does a word mean, anyway?” po-mo garbage really makes your argument necessary or insightful.
A cultural anthropologist who hates a black man, but not really, because he’s only hating his social group is as much of a sleazebag as someone who believes in the “inferiority of the black race”.
3 Likes
Maybe he is not racist. Maybe he is just a really crappy writer?
It’s not our fault if you haven’t read enough of his work to see themes appear.
Coincidentally, I believe Cohen’s article could be prescribed as an emetic.
Or used as kindling, if we’re in a “light a candle not curse the darkness” sort of mood.
1 Like
Interesting that you mention the “one-drop” theory. Let’s take my wife as an example, as we just finished the family geneology for 5 generations.
Her matrilineal great-grandmother was black (fairly light, we have two photos), and her matrilineal great-grandfather was full-blooded Cherokee.
4 generations later: typical red-headed Irish girl. No “drops” visible. So much for the “one-drop” society.
1 Like
If he’s not guilty of racism, he’s certainly guilty of bad writing.
I’m still not entirely sure what Cohen is actually, consciously trying to say with that sentence.
I have an oil painting of a monkey dressed as George Washington. I thought it was the output of a singular diseased mind but now I’m wondering…is this an actual thing? (It’s not dancing a polka though.)
Google had no relevant hits.
Is being overly literal just your “schtick”?
There’s some pretty good evidence that a majority of southern whites have some small amount of black ancestry. Doesn’t negate @Medievalist’s point about the fact that Tiger Woods is a black golfer despite being, in the words of Dave Chappelle, “one quarter black.”
3 Likes
Yes?
For example-
“In 1865, Florida passed an act that both outlawed miscegenation and defined the amount of Black ancestry needed to be legally defined as a “person of color”. The act stated that “every person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood shall be deemed and held to be a person of color.” Additionally, the act outlawed marriage, fornication, and the intermarrying of white females with men of color; however the act permitted the continuation of marriages between white persons and persons of color that were contracted before the law was enacted”
It’s more than even looking black. It’s about hating the very possibility of blackness. I don’t understand what point you’re attempting to make.
1 Like
Right, and still banned from some clubs, I imagine.
That’s why this is a thing, a thing that still matters.
2 Likes
Dude, you made your point, and I agree with it, race is stupid. That doesn’t mean some people don’t take the stupid stick and start beating other people with it. You can’t then say, “Oh it’s just an imaginary stick, and anyways, its a stupid stick anyways” It seems that you’re missing the fact that the danger of racism is that it is institutionalized, you can be a white-non racist person and still reap the benefits of privilege. Which is the very reason, this guy is indefensible for not being clear on his meaning and therefore, very clear on his meaning as well.
4 Likes
The “gag reflex line” is immediately AFTER claiming that the Tea Party is not racist. So even if he’s not a racist himself, he’s terribly deficient in logic.
2 Likes
Folks, if you’re going to create sockpuppets, at least don’t have them post the same text as your other accounts. Kiiinda obvious, that.
5 Likes
