23 2 mins 13 yrs

The other day top cop in America, Attorney General Eric Holder, an Obama appointee, spoke to America: “in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”  

This, despite the fact that Holder is black and Attorney General, and the fact that President Obama is black, etc. etc??  Americans are racist cowards? This is identity politics at its worst, and in my opinion, an attempt to use the victim card to promote special treatment for the black community.

 Bill Siegel addresses the issue:

“stop using race to camouflage other agendas. President Obama’s guru, community organizer creator Saul Alinsky, framed the critical issue for his fellow radicals as organizing the Have-Nots to take power form the Haves. That is also clearly the president’s agenda and, presumably, yours as a public servant of his. It is high time this agenda is not hidden within a racial disguise. Let’s drop the cloak and call a spade a spade; and do not read that as racist either! Let issues of wealth distribution and re-distribution (the foundation of President Obama’s agenda) be of just that, not of race. Otherwise, it is you who are guilty of the ultimate racism — the attempt to transfer wealth and power from one race to another.”

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

23 thoughts on “President Obama, Are We Racist Cowards?

  1. Does anyone know exactly what Holder meant?

    I agree that there is a certain cowardice in discussing race, for example in the latest edition of Nature there is a debate over whether it is okay to study race and IQ. That’s right the world’s leading science journal (arguably) thinks that it is an open question whether scientific research into taboo subjects should be off limits, which is the sort of thinking that should have died out during the Enlightenment.

    I doubt that is the sort of cowardice that Holder meant though but I’m not sure what he did mean.

  2. Well Patty, if you bother to read what he actually said, you might have a better sense of what he meant. Here is a transcript. It seems pretty clear from reading Holder’s actual words (hint, hint) that his point was that he believes we don’t talk enough about race. In fact, he said:

    "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility."

    Which seems a long way from your claim that he was calling Americans racist cowards.

  3. The use of the word " coward " was stupid and clumsy.

    And, as was said by someone else, Holder didn’t exactly display moral courage himself when he unquestioningly pushed through the pardon of the criminal Marc Rich,etc.

  4. >>there is a debate over whether it is okay to study race and IQ. That’s right the world’s leading science journal (arguably) thinks that it is an open question whether scientific research into taboo subjects should be off limits,<<

    Did they let on to us what "race" means?

    There is after all no scientifically or philosophically rigorous way of dividing humanity into a handful of subsets according to physical attributes based on geographic origin. To speak of ‘Caucasians’, and ‘Blacks’ etc. is scientific nonsense and is failing, as those Enlightenment thinkers would have said, to "carve nature at its joints".

  5. "And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

    The problem is that this is not really calling for a debate about racial matters, it is calling for a debate on how to enforce one view on everyone.

    Like it or not, approve of it or not, some people are not comfortable with other races and do not wish to live in "multicultural" societies.

    This is the real reason for cowardice, society does not want to acknowledge that people have a right to free association, because in most instances be it Britain, France, Holland, Germany, Spain, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Rusia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, America, etc etc when people are allowed to choose whether to live in a mixed race community or one that they are the majority in, they choose the latter.

    A real debate would be open about the situation where some of the most vocal proponents of multi-racial societies live in areas that are the exact opposite.

    Real debate would talk about block voting on racial grounds, about positive discrimination, quotas and so on.

    Real debate would start by addressing the statement:

    "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot ….." and ask if that is really true, and who is "this nation"?

  6. The conversation that Holder would like people to have would be one in which blacks vent their grievances and whites admit that they are always wrong.

    That would be his idea of a free exchange of ideas.

  7. ‘Americans are racist cowards’

    hah, what a laugh. Basic comprehension seems to be one of them liberal elitist tools, is it?

  8. "Did they let on to us what "race" means? "

    No but how is that different from studying correlations between race and heart disease or race and diabetes using the test subjects self definition. Anyway difficulties in how the subject can be studied are seperate from arguing whether it is right to st study it or not.

  9. I have no interest in entering a prolonged discussion on this third rail inside a minefield of an issue, but it is noted that there are well known differences in intelligence and behavior among breeds of dogs and other animals- " races " of dogs so to speak.

    But no one is supposed to think that there is even the slightest possibility of such differences in humans.

  10. "But no one is supposed to think that there is even the slightest possibility of such differences in humans."

    It isn’t so much that they don’t think the differences exist, various honest scholars like James Flynn or Thomas Sowell who hold that view support investigating the matter firther to discover the truth (and i’m inclined to agree with their view on the subject). They actually think that it’s immoral to investigate the matter regardless of what the rality is.

  11. Yes they do.

    And perhaps it even is immoral – but this shows the similar politicization of science that some believe has ruined the Global Warming analyses and discussions.

  12. Phantom has it right – "The conversation that Holder would like people to have would be one in which blacks vent their grievances and whites admit that they are always wrong."

    How’s about, Americans are free to live where they like, associate with who they like and everyone just minds their own business.

    Holder ought to be given his wish – he should be told that he can mark black history month as long as it doesn’t exist by even one taxpayer Dollar. And since those who mark black history month are clearly racialists he has no business as Attorney General.

    Time these goons were invited to sod off.

  13. There is cowardice in the matter of race and the consequences and outcomes of the existence of races. Why is the shocking criminality of black men in the US (and wherever they are found) not discussed? Is the failure of blacks to produce academic and economic outcomes similar to that of whites and asians (orientals) related to differences in IQ as a general population?

  14. Allan

    Those differences in levels of criminality and academic achievement would be a result of cultural influences and choices not inherent in racial make up. Peer pressure is the greatest influence on a person’s life outcome, not their physical ethnic origin.

  15. –Peer pressure is the greatest influence on a person’s life outcome–

    A fair degree of truth to that.

    And an overrated fact is poverty, lack of money.

    There is a very low crime rate in Vietnam and places like that, despite the fact that the average income is among the lowest in the world. And it’s not just due to a big police presence. They have a strong culture, as do many other Asian countries, and it shows.

    Hunger can make anyone steal, but poverty other than that doesn’t necessarily do so.

  16. Colm:

    Yes, destroy a man’s most cherished beliefs why don’t you. Not nice to poor Allan.

  17. Phantom,

    Low – frequently subterranean – average income isn’t the issue. It’s the massive disparity between the poorest and the richest in any given society that matters…

    Someone here will, no doubt, correct me but as far as I’m aware G.B. and U.S.A. lead the world in exacerbating this massive disproportionality…

    So, Vietnam has low levels of crime…so did G.B. during WWII when – without wishing to introduce the dread term ‘collectivism’ – everyone or, excluding certain aristocratic ancestors of the B.N.P., most humans were pulling together to defeat a common enemy…

    Actually, more than one…

  18. I dunno

    I think that places like Vietnam have if anything far worse, and more visible disparities.

    There, the mobile phone yuppies in Saigon and Hanoi are right next to the guy making $200 a year.

  19. Alexander: "as I’m aware G.B. and U.S.A. lead the world in exacerbating this massive disproportionality…"

    you think GB and USA have the world’s greatest disparity between the very rich and the very poor??

    Surely you jest.

  20. Patty:

    Alexander is of course wrong there. Yet he makes a good point when he opines that it’s "the massive disparity between the poorest and the richest in any given society that matters."

    I’m thinking now of Carlos Slim Helu of Mexico (a.k.a. The Fat Fuck) who has at the last count something in the region of $80 billion. Yes, US dollars.

    "Slim, 67, amassed his pile in a nation where per capita income is less than $6,800 a year and half the population lives in poverty. His wealth comes to 6.3% of Mexico’s annual economic output; if Gates had a similar chunk in the U.S., he’d be worth $784 billion. It’s enough to give any populist heartburn."

Comments are closed.