Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Today's dumbass quote of the day comes from Pat, in response to my pointing out that he's a racist asshole:
Look like some idiotic liberal fascist Blog and my gay stalker are not happy with this post. I find it so amazing that liberal fascists only believe in freedom of speech.....when it suits their political ideology. Truth must hurt, aye? Deal with it.
It's always amusing when someone is dumb enough to think that criticism violates their freedom of speech. It's even funnier when it's aimed at someone like me, who would defend Pat's right to be a racist asshole. I am a staunch opponent of hate speech codes and want them entirely eliminated, as I've written about a thousand times over the years.
You are absolutely free to spew your idiotic views, including your racism, Pat. If the government ever tried to prevent you from doing so, I'd be the first one there to defend even you on them (so would that nasty, evil ACLU). But freedom of speech also means I get to criticize what you say. If I was as stupid as you are, I would be wailing about how you're trying to violate my freedom of speech. But I'm not, so I won't.
Further more, how is it, that a Black Man can say that he is black and proud; but yet, if a White Man like me says that I am white and proud, I am automatically penned as a racist? Double standards are such a tragic thing. But then again, that is the sick and demented world of Liberalism. White men must be ashamed of themselves for things they had nothing to do with. It is a truly sad state of affairs.
Oh, Pat. I don't think you should be ashamed of yourself as a white man. I certainly don't feel ashamed of myself for being a white man. I also don't take any pride in it, since I had nothing to do with it. Pride should be reserved for accomplishments; perhaps someday if you actually have one of those, you can justifiably feel pride over it. Neither pride nor shame are reasonable things to feel about an entirely arbitrary membership in a category when you had nothing whatsoever to do with choosing to belong to it.
Politics
Comments
Ed:
Pat's done about enough of these to publish a Stuart Smalley style calendar. I see him standing there in front of his bathroom mirror, saying "I'm pissed off enough, I'm racist, homophobic and sexist enough, and GOD know's I'm dumb enough!".
Posted by: democommie | December 6, 2009 9:38 AM
Well.. you are right.. he did not choose to be a white man.. but I am pretty sure he chose to be a stupid .. fear ridden white man.
Posted by: lise | December 6, 2009 9:43 AM
Pat The Clueless One speaks:
---It is a truly sad state of affairs.--
For you; yes. For us; this is the funniest state of affairs we have ever had.
---Double standards are such a tragic thing.---
It's like projection: It's funny until it happens to you right Pat? There is no sense of irony and then there is utter contempt for it. I think Pat is now on the later side of things. Which just makes him look even worse if that is humanly possible. Oh wait.....
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 6, 2009 10:19 AM
Occassionally I get the feeling that Ed is paying Pat to act as a comedic foil. But then I think Ed would never have Pat make such idiotic statements, the suspension of belief would be far too great. Here's an example from this Pat gem Ed feeds us today:
Please consider this observation I made in the previous Pat car crash in Ed's 12/4 blog post titled, "Pat Displays His Racism Again", comment 206:
And what is it with conservatives falsely conflating others exposing their idiocy and critiquing such with 'censorship' while projecting their fierce desire to censor others? It's a common pattern and while I'm aware it's fueled by the modern day Christian persecution myth, it still takes a particular form of delusional idiocy for Pat to write in a link Wes posts above from Pat:
contrasted with the email/blog post James Philips links to where Pat responds to Operation Yellow Dog's blog post:
Pat - I got news for you: The people criticizing you aren't just liberals and your slur-filled impotent attempts to disparage them. It'd be pretty much everyone except deluded racists, including many conservatives. I also can't see Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas finding any meaningful insight in your rants. Given your career status I think they'd instead find you to be a conservative poser of the worst rank.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 10:47 AM
re: the 'gay stalker' comment - Pat really can't quit you, can he?
I have to say, though, I have a bit of compassion for people like Pat. Not blessed with much in the way with brains, motivation, privilege, or luck, they see brown people succeed where they don't. Blind to their own lack of brains and motivation, they'll grasp at anything that justifies why that brown guy, immigrant - whoever - is undeserving of success, be it Affirmative Action, quotas, EEOC, &c. With that, it's easy to blame those white guys who created this system: liberal politicians, progressives, the ACLU, &c. And when they explain their worldview, people rightfully call them out as a racist, they find new enemies in the pro-diversity, anti-hate-speech, 'politically correct' crowd.
Let this go on for a while, add some social isolation (I can't imagine my strawman is much fun to hang out with, probably bitching all the time...), and you get someone ripe for the modern GOP or even a low-grade white supremecist movement. But I repeat myself.
I don't believe the Pats of this country were raised as racists. Rather, I see wage stagnation, widening income disparity, personal incompetence, and blindness to one's own condition as the main drivers of this problem.
I'm not willing to give Pat a pass; he's still responsible for his hateful bile. However, I can see one path by which his stupid racist views have come about, one where he did not start out as a reprehensible villian, just as a confused clod. The question I'm concerned with is how to identify and fix that problem of incompetence before it creates another Pat. One is enough, probably too many.
Posted by: Bob | December 6, 2009 10:47 AM
Does he really live with his mother?
Posted by: Skip | December 6, 2009 10:49 AM
Ed: While I agree with you about 90% (and certainly not to defend Pat), but what about things like family heritage? For example, what about feeling pride that my father served well in WWII? What about nostalgic pride in my Scottish heritage? On the flip side, I don't feel any shame about being "white", but I do feel some shame as an American that we as a nation condoned slavery, or that there was still such appalling civil rights and hatred in the South even in my life time, even though I had nothing to do with either of them.
It seems that a certain level of pride or shame could lead to better actions, if it motivates us to get off our butt and do something. Kind of goes along with empathy, doesn't it?
Posted by: Scott | December 6, 2009 10:54 AM
Ed, you're actually trying to have a reasonable discussion with him. Good luck with that, man.
Pat strikes me as a classic schizoid personality. These people tend to not trust anyone, they have very low levels of empathy, and their social graces are basically nonexistant. The fact that Pat previously worked as a truck driver adds more fuel to my theory, as trucking is one of the most isolated occupations there is. Add intense anger and paranoia into the mix, and someone like Pat would fit in very well with the right-wing fringe.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 11:17 AM
What you are feeling is proud of your father, for this specific action. Which is different than feeling you're proud of being white for no other reason than being white.
Posted by: Owen | December 6, 2009 11:28 AM
What Owen said. Also, I think it makes perfect sense to be interested in and fond of your heritage, but not to take pride in it. Saying "I'm Scottish and proud of it" implies that there's something special about being Scottish, over and above other ancestries. But everybody's from somewhere.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 11:37 AM
Scott-
I would still say no. Perhaps we need another word for the kind of thing you refer to, but I don't think pride is appropriate. Pride and shame should be reserved for things we actually had a personal role in bringing about. For a parent to take some measure of pride in their child makes sense in that regard; they helped form the child's personality and traits that helped them achieve whatever they are taking pride in. I simply don't believe in taking pride in the accomplishment of people with whom we just happen to share a category when we had nothing to do with it. It makes no sense to me.
It may just be a limitation of our language, however. It seems to me to be analogous to people saying they "love" their country, which also makes no sense to me. But it's likely because we just don't have an appropriate word and we use the word "love" to cover a variety of disparate ideas, as opposed to the Greeks who had at least three words for what we call love today.
But in terms of what motivates us to to claim pride in the accomplishments of others in the same arbitrary categories is a desire to bathe in their reflected glory. Which strikes me rather like taking pride in your favorite team winning a championship when you had nothing to do with it other than watching and cheering.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 6, 2009 11:37 AM
I'm still stuck back at the top of Pat's comment, trying to make sense of the phrase "liberal fascists"... No matter what Jonah Goldberg says, fascism conservative, Pat. Very conservative, and literally by definition: Mussolini himself said that it was supposed to be the opposite of all liberal ideas.
Posted by: Paul from NH | December 6, 2009 11:38 AM
I agree with Bob. I view white supremacy (and the slightly more innocuous-sounding "white pride") as a last refuge, a final straw for those who feel they have nothing left to grasp.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 11:40 AM
True, Paul from NH, but I'm guessing that Pat doesn't really know the first thing about fascism. It's just another mean word, like "pedophile," that he derives fleeting satisfaction in hurling at Ed.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 11:46 AM
I have pride in my arms! They keep my hands from being attached directly to my shoulders! This arrangement would make it hard to play video games, so clearly I can take great pride in having arms.
My arms are white! White! This lets them... uh... produce Vitamin D slightly faster... or would if I ever exposed them to sunlight, which I don't do as I have too many videogames to play.
I take pride in all of this.
Tomorrow, I shall take pride in being able to roll my tongue.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 6, 2009 11:50 AM
Why the fuck did I go this whole time thinking your feud was with Pat Buchanan? I thought you were really getting famous. No idea how I pulled that off...
Posted by: Brandon | December 6, 2009 11:58 AM
Folks, let's not forget that Tues. Dec. 8 is the 29th anniv. of losing John Lennon. We need to remember him and celebrate his legacy. Do something for your fellow man. It doesn't have to be big and flashy, just something to promote peace and justice. Hold the door for a stranger, give a smile, tell a joke and make someone else smile, just something to help your brothers or sisters. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 6, 2009 12:04 PM
While I look forward to the "post-racial" society I naively imagined would happen (as a young'n), I think that the different between white pride and black pride seems to be that blacks, having been kept down and still being kept down sometimes, need something to rally around perhaps. White pride would probably be better off expressed as "dominant culture and position of power" pride.
Posted by: Matt S | December 6, 2009 12:05 PM
P.S. Even people like Pat. Because after all, whether they realize it or not, we are all part of the family of man. Even when they don't act like it. Again thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 6, 2009 12:07 PM
Thanks for the reminder, James.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 12:17 PM
Possible, but unlikely that Pat was referring to Balloon-juice. I mentioned him in a thread in reference to your earlier post, and lo and behold, he shows up and starts spamming the place, accusing us of suppressing his freedom to speak.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=30728#comment-1467786
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Pat needs a shot of Thorazine.
Posted by: freelancer | December 6, 2009 12:17 PM
@ 18 - I would be inclined to agree if it were not for the fact that racial pride so often leads to thinking racial superiority no matter what the color of your skin is.
We'd all be better off if we could get it through our thick skulls that there is no basis in fact for the idea of race in human beings. (At least that I what I have been led to beleive is the facts.)
Posted by: Owen | December 6, 2009 12:22 PM
Ed: I agree with you completely about pride in heritage -- I've been making the same point since high school.
But you didn't take on his implied criticism of the person who claims "black pride". I'd do it myself but I seem to be fumbling for words this morning -- someone else want to give it a try?
Posted by: xebecs | December 6, 2009 12:24 PM
Why wait until tomorrow to do what you can do today?
Today I shall take pride in my nice ankles. We don't have cankles in my family and this makes us special.
Posted by: Leni | December 6, 2009 12:27 PM
xebecs said:
What, that it's okay to be black and proud of it but not to be white and proud of it, and that's a double standard?
Technically it is a double standard, but it's an entirely understandable one to anyone who thinks about it for two seconds. Blacks are members of a group who have for centuries been sent the message that they should be ashamed of who they are, who have been 2nd classes citizens who had to struggle to attain the same rights as whites. Taking "pride" in that thing which you have been told to be ashamed of is an assertion of overcoming adversity, of resisting oppression. There is no such connotation to white pride. Rather, white pride has historically stood for pride in being the oppressor. There's nothing to reclaim when you're a member of the dominant group, which makes you sound like a hateful bastard when you take pride in it.
Dan Savage did a wonderful take-down of the notion of gay pride in his book Skipping Towards Gomorrah. He mocked the idea of expressing "pride" by buying rainbow-colored dog leashes and dildos and going to parades. But of course he did that as a gay man himself, in the context of basically saying "Yes, we have overcome adversity and continue to do so, and eventually we should stop using that kind of language and just consider ourselves people, the free people we are." Great book, by the way. Definitely recommended.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 12:41 PM
There was actually one grain of sensible insight in Pat's statements - there is a double standard with regard to saying you're black and proud versus saying you're white and proud. But in historical perspective, it makes sense that people do respond differently to each of these claims. For one, it often is white supremacists who talk about being proud of one's being white. Second, celebrating, identifying with and demonstrating pride in one's group membership (or lifestyle or whatever) is a frequent and understandable behaviour of members of minority groups that assert themselves against oppression. It makes sense that they do this as it builds group cohesion, opposes broader cultural narratives suggesting that there is something wrong/bad/inferior/etc about being black/gay/hispanic/muslim/atheist/etc. But to what end does expressing White pride serve? Is there a broad cultural narrative suggesting that there is something wrong with being white? No. Well, right-wingers will often claim that there is every time another race group tries to bring its status closer to being on par with whites, claiming they're being punished for being white, but obviously the real purpose behind the initiatives they disagree with have nothing to do with that. What, aside from being in a state of relative privilege, unites all whites, such that they can all celebrate? Aside from the aforementioned rightwing hostility to efforts such as affirmative action, I don't know. And for the record, I can understand having a problem with affirmative action in that it is forcing current whites to sort of take one of the team on behalf of the preceding centuries of racism that justified AA. But the fact of the matter is that even if some whites may be passed up here and there based on race to a comparably qualified non-white person (or a gay, muslim, other minority person), the fact is that these same whites will still be in positions of general advantage over the person that was chosen over them in this one job application process.
Things like race and sexuality are arbitrary and there is no reason to be proud of them. However, when the powers that be are telling you that there is something wrong with your lifestyle/race/etc. and discriminating against you for it, it creates the grounds for people of that group to bind together in solidarity. From this comes pride in one's group membership, as this is a unified supportive group, which is an unbelievably relieving thing to be a part of when you receive hostility or second-class treatment everywhere else. Secondly, celebrating the group membership is a great publicity tool to say to the masses "THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH US!"
To what end does claiming White Pride serve? Who is the opposition you're defending yourselves again, and why are you doing it? A person who is black and claims black pride is considered to be not racist on the grounds that he/she is simply advocating for equality and a stopping of hostility and discrimination toward their group. Do people who claim white pride have an analogous basis for claiming white pride?
Posted by: Ron Brown | December 6, 2009 1:04 PM
Actually I really have to argue that this is a false claim of victimhood. I grew up in Milwaukee. I don't know about other cities, but Milwaukee was often referred to as the "city of festivals." Every weekend from spring through fall we had festivals celebrating the various heritages that made up the city. The vast majority of those heritages were "white" in origin. Italian, Greek, Irish, German, Polish, French, the list goes on and on with every weekend dedicated to celebrating the cultures. Quite frankly, there is no "white" culture, but there is a lot of celebrating of the cultural diversity that makes up a major portion of "American" culture.
African Americans, on the other hand, lost a lot of their culture through the process of forced relocation and slavery. They were bravely able to save some aspects of it, but in the process the diverse cultures that made up African and then African American peoples became merged into a new hybrid culture. Were their immigrant experience more similar to European Americans we would likely see a vast variety of celebrations of different cultures.
You see this to a lesser degree in Hispanic/Latino culture where many of the groups were able to maintain a semblance of their new world culture (which was in fact a hybrid culture to begin with), and to a greater degree in Native American cultures where, to be honest, you see some weird shit. I remember a friend of mine whose family still lived on the res. selling Kachina dolls at "Indian Summer." An Oneida selling Kachina dolls is like an Englishman selling gyros, just freakin' weird.
I would suggest that Pat and those who think like him should be forcibly relocated somewhere. There they can work for the next few hundred years as property and then as second class citizens. Finally, after let's say three hundred years, they can celebrate their "white culture," no harm, no foul.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 6, 2009 1:19 PM
So wait. By pat's "logic", he's actually suppressing your freedom of speech by criticizing your criticism of him! Oh, the irony. I guess Pat doesn't want you to have freedom of speech.
Posted by: catgirl | December 6, 2009 1:23 PM
Thank you, Gretchen and Ron Brown. Those were the sort of comments that my own brain kept snatching at and missing.
Posted by: xebecs | December 6, 2009 1:25 PM
@25
Gretchen, I haven't read Dan Savage's book so you'll have to take this for what it is worth given I haven't heard the entire argument.
In the past and it continues even today gays and lesbians have been told in no uncertain terms that we are morally bankrupt and our behavior is the moral equivalent of the worst sexual perversions and crimes. Those who are foes of the ‘mos* or ‘mo foes, can easily express these views in public very often without fear of consequence and at times they are held up as examples of moral bravery in the face of the corruption that is the gay agenda.
Gay pride is an expression of the idea that gay men and women are not any more immoral than anyone else and many of us are fine, honest and contributing citizens.
As long as it is acceptable to express whatever nonsense about gay men and women the ‘mo foes having running around in their feeble minds, I’ll continue to have my rainbow and equality stickers on my car. And I really don’t care what color of dildo’s Dan Savage owns.
*One of my favorite terms from the Good As You dot com site.
Posted by: Owen | December 6, 2009 1:51 PM
Owen: dot org, actually -- I just looked it up. Nice site.
Posted by: xebecs | December 6, 2009 2:18 PM
Yes, thank you xebecs.
Posted by: Owen | December 6, 2009 2:26 PM
Owen,
Savage's problem with the notion of gay pride being used today is that it seems to be used as a kind of panacea--
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 2:35 PM
"Yes, Michelangelo was gay"
Posted by: dean | December 6, 2009 3:45 PM
Rats - today the "post" button is too close to the "preview" button. At the end of 34 I intended to add "Apparently the debate isn't as closed as it would seem."
Posted by: dean | December 6, 2009 3:55 PM
A-fucking-men, Gretchen and Ron Brown. You have both nailed the critical distinction between black pride (and various other forms of pride, such as GLBT pride and Latino pride) and "white pride." People like Pat will never understand this distinction, of course, both because they lack the empathy required to consider the plight of those who don't belong to the whte, heteronormative hegemonic structure, and because on some level they enjoy being the oppressors.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 4:03 PM
A few days ago, I posted a comment at Pat's blog, pointing out that there's a distinction between being proud of what skin colour you have and denigrating and insulting others because they have a different skin colour than you. Unfortunately, I cannot check whether he was honest enough to publish my comment as he has now pulled the entire blog post. He explains this is because he's 'dialing back the tone' of his blog here:
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2009/12/05/the-seattle-police-shootings-the-blog-and-me/
That post, though, merely underlines his rather bizarre idea that criticism equals censorship (but only if he's the one being criticised), with such things as:
So, if this is an example of Pat 'dialing back' his blog, I guess you've still got a good source of material for your 'Dumbass Quote of the Day' posts, Ed.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 6, 2009 4:08 PM
Gretchen,
I can see his point but I think he’s got it wrong.
First the message is not for the vast majority of American gay men and lesbians who accept who they are without shame. The message is for the minority of gay men and lesbians who are struggling with their sexual identity and need to hear that gay is good. It is also for the, still majority I think, of straight Americans who see something wrong with being gay.
I don’t know about gay men with high self esteem being more likely to contract AIDS, I guess I’ve never suffered from to much self esteem. But I do know that when I was going through my struggles with sexual identity the idea that it is ok to be gay might have saved me a couple trips to the psych ward.
Can we assume that Dan Savage disagrees with hate crimes legislation and employment protections? If so, I would like to tell him that as someone who was discharged from the military for being gay and has hidden my sexual orientation from other employers for fear of being fired from my point of view employment protection is needed. Also, as one who has had to put up with anonymous threats from those who suspect I am gay and worries about being caught alone outside the gay bar hate crimes is not such a bad idea.
Gay pride has gotten stuck with the image of the outrageousness of some of the gay pride parades and behaviors of what I would consider a minority of gay men and lesbians. But really the vast majority of us have never owned a pair of chaps and have never had their bare ass hanging out. I know I wouldn’t hang my fifty year old bare ass out in public and I would not have done it when I was twenty either.
There are also some who would appear to pressure gay men and lesbians to accept all things gay, without question and with pride but in my circle of friends I haven’t seen it. But then I live in a Midwest City where we tend to be less prone to flaunting our sexuality and everyone understands the need to remain low key. I imagine elsewhere it is different.
Maybe gay pride just needs a good makeover? With a little less flashy accessories?
Posted by: Owen | December 6, 2009 4:22 PM
"Neither pride nor shame are reasonable things to feel about an entirely arbitrary membership in a category when you had nothing whatsoever to do with choosing to belong to it. "
that is a very high standard. If I was born with like huge ears and a three inch nose and fanged teeth because that is the
way my parents looked (like a Farangie (?)) I think I would feel ashamed. I don't think I could avoid adopting the majority viewpoint...
I would need to find others that looked like me and validate my self image and then agitate for acceptance and repsect!!
.
Ferenghi Freedom!!
but I think that in say 3rd grade I would be like "I hate myself!! why am I so different!"
so the question is: "Is it unreasonable for me to have felt shame at that time growing up?"
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 6, 2009 4:38 PM
Owen,
I think for a person who has been immersed in an accepting environment for a long time, such as Savage (who lives in Seattle), the concerns you mention have faded and led to a sense of complacency. If you don't live in a place like, say, Dallas (where I do), maybe it's too easy to forget that people are still kicked out of their homes by their parents after coming out of the closet as teenagers and many employers would be only too happy to boot employees for being gay. I like your idea of giving gay pride a good makeover-- maybe to keep the support and the encouragement, but lose the groupthink.
Sadie,
I suppose we so frequently see members of oppressive groups claiming to be oppressed themselves because they have seen how the multicultural modernists and postmodernists have embraced the idea of listening particularly intently to the voices of the previously voiceless, the underclasses. People like Pat want to co-opt that kind of thinking by portraying themselves as the underclass, but apparently without realizing how transparently ridiculous it is.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 4:39 PM
I always thought of the "-pride" tag as a claim on courage, a hopeful intention to stand up for something, usually equality and acceptance. In my bigoted Southern youth, for example, I can clearly recall being offended by the black kids who came into my mostly white suburban high school and rebelled against the casual everyday racism they found. Why would the overclass resent the attempts of a despised minority to gain equality and respect? It's illogical to think of that as resentment--it's just a struggle, like a team's struggle to overcome a deficit and win. Of course, that's a bogus analogy, because the bigots (I'm talking about myself, now) need a complex way to understand their own position in the society. It's nothing so simple as a creation myth or some science that affirms the impulse of superiority; it's a psychological displacement that justifies racism. I think it's part of the definition of racism, frankly. Open competition between two people, admitted opponents or competitors for a single prize, isn't the same. When a black kid ran for class president of my high school class, I remember, we recategorized that as a reasonable and fair competition (and he won and served with distinction.) Yet my friends (less I by then--I'd changed but was still powerfully influenced by friends who were openly racist) discovered the magical Archie Bunker vs. Sammy Davis exception in which an individual can gain acceptance even when a group can't.
So the pride is a group assertion to a normal role, an even competition; and those who combat that assertion by taking the counter-role--a la 'white pride'--are confessing to a brand of racism by creating that false equivalence.
Here's another good example--start at Sadly No! and follow to Legal Insurrection to see it:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/26873.html
Ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 6, 2009 6:45 PM
Dogmeat nailed it with his comment about the various festivals. I would go one step further though:
America does have Italian culture, German culture, Scandinavian culture, French culture, etc. And all of these people are white, and it's not racist at all for them to celebrate their culture (my family happens to be of Scandinavian descent). But none of these cultures were defined in terms of their whiteness.
But there is no overall "white culture", EXCEPT for the cultural and political institution of segregation which declared certain areas to be "whites only."
Blacks, on the other hand, were completely separated from their various original African cultures by slavery, and then all lumped together as "black" and forced by segregation to associate only with each other. Black culture, then, is a real American phenomenon.
Celebrating black culture is not racist. But since the only "white culture" America ever had was slavery and segregation, celebrating "white culture" is in fact racist.
Posted by: Wes | December 6, 2009 9:59 PM
I beg to differ with Wes - there most certainly is a "white culture." Those that don't remember the lessons of Martin Mull are damned to repeat them.
Posted by: Bob | December 6, 2009 11:47 PM
Here in South Africa, white people (European Africans as you might call us in the US) are 9% of the population and yet it is still perfectly acceptable for blacks (or African Africans) to claim black pride. This is entirely understandable given our history and quite obviously proclaiming white pride is as frowned upon here as it is in most other places. I have noticed that white supremacists, anti-Semites and other would-be oppressors (Christian fundies) always play the victim card too. To me, the notion of black pride is every bit as distasteful as white pride. It casts one group in the politically expedient role of perpetual victims of the other and it fuels racism and predjudice.
Posted by: Joe | December 7, 2009 3:46 AM
Could we perhaps let the troll mold quietly in his cave now? He loves the attention but doesn't deserve it.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 7, 2009 6:26 AM
Joe: Right. So don't claim victimhood when you check out of the emergency room after I beat the shit out of you. After all, the blood has dried, you aren't a victim any more.
The thing that fuels racism and prejudice is not claims of victimhood -- it's the refusal on the part of the transgressors to admit that they did anything wrong.
Posted by: xebecs | December 7, 2009 10:44 AM
Pat's complaint is a display of one of the more mind-blowing characteristics of our friends on the Right: their endless indulgence in self-pity--often as a matter of policy. "White people are under attack!" "Christians are being abused!" "Rich people have to pay all these taaaaaxes!"
Arguably, the way to deal with them to go along with it: "Yes Pat, you've been terribly victimized, your whole life is shite, I don't know how white Christian males like yourself manage to stay above room temperature, your entire freaking existence is somewhere between a country music song and the Book of Job. Poor baby, why don't you lie down with a cold compress and I'll make some chicken soup. Have yourself a nice cry. Yeah, just let it out."
Seriously, in Pat's case--and probably a lot of people on the Right--they're right, they have been screwed. Not for being white or Christian or whatever. They're screwed because if you're not really rich, the sort of conservatism they've signed on for turns them into the fall guys for every bad thing in their lives.
If you're out of work and broke, it's not the way the economy's been handled for most of a decade--you're lazy. If you're losing your house, it's not because you were conned by some fly-by-night bank--you're a screw-up. If you've gone bankrupt because of medical bills, it's because you're unlucky; that among developed countries, this sort of unluckiness only happens to Americans never strikes these people as in any way wrong (largely because rejecting the thought that other countries could be doing something right is part of what passes for patriotism with them). (1)
And if you want to have any sort of sex that can't be justified by the need to keep our species from going extinct--oh, you must be the utter worst, most depraved, rock-bottom scum of the earth; meanwhile, they look over on our side and here we are, doing all this smutty non-reproductive sexual stuff and not only does God not punish us for it as much as He does to conservatives (who make a point of being ignorant about BC and condoms, and who--judging by their public figures--handle their sexual adventures as maladroitly as possible), but our slutty, horn-dog spouses don't even have the decency to divorce us as much as they do in red states. (2)
In his position, I'd feel gypped too.
__________
(1) NB, guys like Pat, and his self-pitying friends, and us, have spent eight years paying for every scumbag who greased the RNC's palm. There wasn't a dime that changed hands in that administration where the main consideration wasn't about enriching their cronies at public expense. So when Republicans and Blue Dogs come around now and claim that, after ponying up all those years, we can't have a real HCR bill because it's too expensive for our taxes to go for something that actually benefits us for a change (including Pat, and his fellow dipshits), I just want to spit nails. If they want to be so goddamn thrifty all of a sudden, let 'em stiff Halliburton and whatever Blackwater's calling itself these days.
(2) And if homosexuals are allowed to get married, most of them probably won't have the decency to be miserable about it either.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 7, 2009 10:57 AM
Bit of a facetious comment there. If you are black and you beat the shit out of me, then I am the victim of you and not your entire race. I'm not going to develop a groundless sense of white pride over the incident. Unlike Pat, I would not cast all blacks as perpetrators and all whites as victims.
Nothing makes one as blind to one's own transgressions as a mindset of perpetual righteous indignation.
Posted by: Joe | December 8, 2009 3:29 AM