Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Racial Narratives Of The Left

Mike S

Member
The Liberal Super Nova - http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-liberal-super-nova/?singlepage=true

Consider just two news items that reflect the modern liberal implosion: the Trayvon Martin case and the Elizabeth Warren fraud. Both tell us a lot about liberal notions of race. In the former, the media did all that it could to construct a racial fantasy: on the one hand, Martin was to be a preteen model student, eating Skittles, when gratuitously assassinated; Zimmerman, on the other hand, was a white gun-toting German vigilante out to racially profile blacks and shoot them “like a dog.” The goal was to prove again that America is a dangerous place for young black men, given the ubiquity of roving white shooters, and, in a larger sense, to remind us of the ongoing need for the entire liberal idea of guilt and reparations.

Absent, as it had to be absent, was the truth: Martin was a suspended, not a model, student. He bragged in social network pages of both drug use and violence, and was kicked out of school for possessing “a burglar” tool from school. He likely beat Zimmerman to a pulp and did not cry for help, but rather was on top of one who far more likely did. Zimmerman suffered head wounds and a broken nose. He was Hispanic (had he spiced up his name to Jorge Zimmerman, he would probably not be in jail). He was not a racist vigilante, but a nervous neighborhood watch monitor who assumed that black youths had recently burglarized his middle-class community. He found himself in a fistfight with a 17-year-old, fit youth who was pounding his head to the pavement. And then he shot the attacker who was not armed.

Whether that act was reckless endangerment, self-defense, involuntary manslaughter, or second-degree murder, a jury — not the commentary of Al Sharpton or Barack Obama — will decide. What we do know, however, is that almost nothing that the media and the Congressional Black Caucus told us about the case proved true. The notion of a white male berserker on the hunt for preteen candy-eating blacks lost in the rain was critical to the racial narrative. And in a larger sense, there could be no collective worry about frightening statistics of black-on-black crime, vastly disproportionate black-on-white crime incidence, and soaring illegitimacy, incarceration, and single parenthood. The pathologies of the underclass minority community, then, are critical arguments for compensation and reparation for an elite careerist class such as the Congressional Black Caucus — all of which brings us to the Warren embarrassment.

You see, in our sick world the two incidents are somewhat connected. Because of the pathologies of the inner cities and disparate rates of success for some minorities, a pink Elizabeth Warren can con victimhood. There are impediments, of course, to inventing a victimized identity: intermarriage and immigration have made irrelevant the neat distinctions of black/brown/white. The soaring success of Punjabis, Chinese, Japanese, and Southeast Asians has rendered the old liberal dogma — non-white=a bleak future of racist oppression without massive government intervention — obsolete. There is a rising awareness that Great Society remediation worsened, not ameliorated, the struggle of the underclass. Millions of so-called white youth who grew up under affirmative action are unlikely white oppressors, who daily stifle the aspirations of minorities, or who perpetuate 19<SUP>th</SUP>-century oppressions, or who have helped created a Western system that no one seeks to join or wish to benefits from.

Yet Warren — pink and blond — managed to con Harvard University and the law profession in general. What was brilliant about her scam was its utter cynicism about modern liberalism.

“Race” for Warren is a Foucauldian construct. It did not even matter that she lied about the meaningless 1/32 drop from a mythical great, great, great grandparent. It did not matter that she did not even attempt the Ward Churchill-like effort of dressing up in buckskin and playing Indian. Instead, she knew the university and so she knew it was essentially a racial fantasyland where upper middle class elites can fabricate oppressed backgrounds, often through mere assertion, hyphenation, and accentuation, to take a guilt-ridden class to the cleaners, in the unspoken bargain that in return the latter can continue to enjoy their rather insular lives apart from the world of Trayvon Martin.

The result was that Warren was a minority with all its accruing perks because she said she was and to question that would be racist, reactionary, you name it. When pressed, family lore and high cheekbones were cited. But no matter, in postmodern thinking there are no facts, just competing discourses. And hers was just as valid as the old white male doctrinaire reductionist creed of asking for proof of ethnic heritage.

Warren, you see, was the twin of Trayvon Martin. Because we as a society, despite a trillion dollars spent, have a poor track record of keeping Trayvon Martin, and fifty-percent of the urban minority class, in school, away from drugs, and prepped for an equal shot at the good life, we compensate by allowing an overdog like Elizabeth Warren to be a safe surrogate Trayvon Martin — especially because she is white, blond, fuzzy, non-threatening. And so, presto, the Harvard faculty has a pet “Native American” to feel good about. The dimensions of that fact of race and affirmative action were well known to Barack Obama throughout his career, and are not hard to fathom in his own memoir.
 
Race really has nothing to do with this. Individual A, armed with a gun, accosted individual B who was minding his own business. You seem to imply that individual A was acting in self defense (after instigating the encounter), but do not allow that individual B could have acted in self defense.

Assigning any possible combination of races to individuals A and B does nothing to change the particulars of the case. Why are you trying to push some agenda?
 
I do not know enough about the particulars of the case to comment. However, I politely suggest that the "us-them" language that so often appears in this forum (usually with the "left" cast in the light of the "bad guy") is not helpful at all.

More specifically, it is not at all helpful to see the world in "tribal" terms - breaking down the world into two camps - the good "us" and the deceived, misled, or just plain evil "them". This only creates strife and division - we should discuss the specific issues and lay the language of demonization behind. Yes, even the relatively mild form of demonization that is entailed in the OP.

Having said this, I confess that it is all too easy to think in tribal terms, and I find myself doing it from time to time.
 
Wrong!

The manipulation of race relations by the left has everything to do with this.




My agenda is the truth. Do you have a different one?

Well, I prefer to treat people equally regardless of things such as skin color or race... I don't know if that is an agenda, but it's something I feel strongly about. You keep going on and on and on about race, but what does it matter? Someone is dead and another is in jail. No amount of media manipulation will change that.

I'd also point out the truth that many people are killed every day in the United States. Why are you constantly focusing only on this one? If you were really compassionate about the victims of violence, shouldn't you focus on preventing the crimes rather than justifying them?

Plus, you keep mentioning Liberals. This happened in America, the Liberals party is in Canada and the UK.

Your arguments seem to hinge on the assumption that crimes against certain races are somehow more "wrong" than others. That's a very ignorant position, so perhaps you can adjust your stance somewhat more in line with civilized society.
 
Mark, I think you are mostly right here. I have followed this case from the beginning. Zimmerman doesn't stand a chance at a fair trial and it's the fault of the mainstream media. They made it racial. Ever heard the term 'white hispanic' before this case???? :eeeekkk

I would say at the most Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Following people in your neighborhood and carrying a gun is a BAD idea. :nono2
 
Why are you constantly focusing only on this one? If you were really compassionate about the victims of violence, shouldn't you focus on preventing the crimes rather than justifying them?

I'm focused on this case because it's the one that is current. If you had known me several years ago you would have seen me focused on the Duke Lacrosse rape case. You remember how that was reported, falsely reported, in the very same way?

Plus, you keep mentioning Liberals. This happened in America, the Liberals party is in Canada and the UK.

No, I don't keep mentioning Liberals, I mention liberals.


Your arguments seem to hinge on the assumption that crimes against certain races are somehow more "wrong" than others. That's a very ignorant position, so perhaps you can adjust your stance somewhat more in line with civilized society.

You seem to have missed the point. It's the liberal media reporting that hinges on the assumption - more like a cardinal belief - that crimes against certain races are more "wrong" than others. That's the basis of hate crimes legislation, and the reason why crimes are reported, or not reported, the way they are. I'm not advocating that, I'm rejecting it.
 
I'm focused on this case because it's the one that is current. If you had known me several years ago you would have seen me focused on the Duke Lacrosse rape case. You remember how that was reported, falsely reported, in the very same way?

For what it's worth, I have read about this case maybe twice in the mainstream media, with practically no focus on race (it's largely been a debate about gun control and the "stand your ground" laws). Where I keep hearing about it, ad nauseum and with heavy focus on the supposed racial aspect, is in blogs and forum posts. I don't think it's the media to blame for this; I think the problem is people who insist it must be about more than it is.
 
I think the problem is people who insist it must be about more than it is.


It's about exactly what I've said it's about, media bias and a liberal narrative. If the attitude is "nothing to see here, move along" then the media will never change their ways. And liberals won't change ther ways either, because they benefit politically from the manipulation of news.
 
Well, I prefer to treat people equally regardless of things such as skin color or race... I don't know if that is an agenda, but it's something I feel strongly about. You keep going on and on and on about race, but what does it matter? Someone is dead and another is in jail. No amount of media manipulation will change that.

I'd also point out the truth that many people are killed every day in the United States. Why are you constantly focusing only on this one? If you were really compassionate about the victims of violence, shouldn't you focus on preventing the crimes rather than justifying them?

Plus, you keep mentioning Liberals. This happened in America, the Liberals party is in Canada and the UK.

Your arguments seem to hinge on the assumption that crimes against certain races are somehow more "wrong" than others. That's a very ignorant position, so perhaps you can adjust your stance somewhat more in line with civilized society.
No amount of media manipulation will change that.

Agreed media can not change what happened.... media could make changes to the positive. I see your from Toronto so i guess what the media shows depends where we are..... We down here can get a lot of junk hype that will sell newspapers etc.

Here (USA) the liberals make an issue of race at every turn.... I will only answer questions of race for medical reasons. Taking a few college classes i was asked my race/ethicy via a form i checked 'other' and wrote in American the girl lined out American and put down what she thought.... The schools are run by the liberals....
 
And liberals won't change ther ways either, because they benefit politically from the manipulation of news.
I trust you are not so naive as to believe that the same could be said about "conservatives" in relation to the issue of manipulating the media.
 
Drew IMO

ABC NBC CNBC CNN ... far left

FOX is closest to the middle

I dont read/listen to the goofy far out right stuff.

I learned to distrust media about 1957. From a doctored photo of Elizabeth Taylor. on the cover of some trash magazine..
 
I trust you are not so naive as to believe that the same could be said about "conservatives" in relation to the issue of manipulating the media.

Conservatives can certainly be guilty of manipulating the news, but the media have been controlled by a liberal ideology for more than fifty years. So has academia and the arts. All of which are used to shape the culture, and shaping the news is part of that. Conservative voices have been small, until recently.

I'm old enough to remember how race related crimes where reported in the 50s and 60s, before the civil rights movement became strong. It was almost a mirror image of today, whites where portrayed sympathetically and blacks in the most negative terms possible. Shaping the news was ugly then, and it's ugly today.
 
While I do not agree that the media has a "left bias" (one man's interpretation of a "left bias" is another man's interpretation of "getting the facts right"), I do agree that one needs to be properly skeptical about the ability of the media to be objective.
 
Race really has nothing to do with this. Individual A, armed with a gun, accosted individual B who was minding his own business.

That's a very judgmental accusation and we won't know until the FACTS come out - not the garbage liberal spin we see in the media.
 
While I do not agree that the media has a "left bias" (one man's interpretation of a "left bias" is another man's interpretation of "getting the facts right"), I do agree that one needs to be properly skeptical about the ability of the media to be objective.


An overwhelming liberal bias has existed for decades.



Mika on the Media: ‘It’s Got a Liberal World View;’ Every Journalist Should Tell Us What their Political Affiliation Is’


"I will say what people aren't saying, it's got a liberal world view...The balance is not there, within the main stream media...That's why we have Fox, because it (MSM) wasn't honest, and there was a reaction to this."
 
That's a very judgmental accusation and we won't know until the FACTS come out - not the garbage liberal spin we see in the media.

That's based on the witness testimonies, as compiled on the police reports. I would be shocked if the truth was far from that.
 
:chin...this again. :confused:

I did hear an interesting quote the other day from a person I do business with. it went something like this......."I don't know about you'all, but I'm about sick and tired of the black people in this country calling us racist.".......:) ah, classic. But I've also heard from others that is you live in my town across the border from Memphis TN, then your automatically racist as well.
 
An overwhelming liberal bias has existed for decades.



Mika on the Media: ‘It’s Got a Liberal World View;’ Every Journalist Should Tell Us What their Political Affiliation Is’


"I will say what people aren't saying, it's got a liberal world view...The balance is not there, within the main stream media...That's why we have Fox, because it (MSM) wasn't honest, and there was a reaction to this."


You keep going on about liberal this and liberal that. According to dictionary.com, liberal is defined as such:
lib·er·al
   [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective

1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Definition 1 is too vague; it only means something is changing. Definition 2, no such party exists in the USA. Definition 3 is essentially self-defining. Definition 4 seems pretty good, allowing for individual freedom is the reason we're allowed to worship God without worrying about the state arresting us. And definition 5 is the same thing; allowing people to think or do what they want, even if it's not politically correct. As an example, people are permitted to express dissent against government or society if they choose.

So I'm not too sure what you are so worked up about, if you claim the media is allowing people to dissent and maximize their freedom. Christians should appreciate this, because some of our beliefs are not "politically correct".

The biggest danger in the media is overcommercialization. But frankly, nobody takes the media too seriously in the first place.
 
You keep going on about liberal this and liberal that. According to dictionary.com, liberal is defined as such:


Definition 1 is too vague; it only means something is changing. Definition 2, no such party exists in the USA. Definition 3 is essentially self-defining. Definition 4 seems pretty good, allowing for individual freedom is the reason we're allowed to worship God without worrying about the state arresting us. And definition 5 is the same thing; allowing people to think or do what they want, even if it's not politically correct. As an example, people are permitted to express dissent against government or society if they choose.

So I'm not too sure what you are so worked up about, if you claim the media is allowing people to dissent and maximize their freedom. Christians should appreciate this, because some of our beliefs are not "politically correct".

The biggest danger in the media is overcommercialization. But frankly, nobody takes the media too seriously in the first place.


I'm afraid you're not understanding how the label "liberal" is used in American politics and culture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top