« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Too Simple Side of Race

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 14th, 2010 at 05:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I long ago accepted that whenever a conservative talks about race in a way the left does not like the conservative is immediately branded a racist. Look, for example, at Rush Limbaugh who does not have a racist bone in his body and is vilified as a racist. When he attempted to purchase the St. Louis Rams, the left spent days attacking him as a racist. But after 20 years on the air, the left had to use fabricated quotes.

Doesn’t matter.

Take my post on Willie Horton and King Samir Shabazz, the left is up in arms because I stated two indisputable facts: (1) the Willie Horton ad was not racist and (2) Republicans are not going to significantly increase their share of the black vote regardless of what they do so they might as well make an issue of King Samir Shabazz.

I bring all of this up in relation to this: on the same day the NAACP declared the tea party movement racist, President Obama is declaring Al Qaeda racist. We can hope the timing is a coincidence. But I presume the left will yet again declare me a racist for saying what follows, but what must still be said.

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.”

“In short,” [an administration] official said, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.”

Yes, Al Qaeda is racist. It is also anti-Jew (I’d say anti-Semitic, but technically arabs are also Semites). It is also anti-Christian. Simply declaring Al Qaeda racist because of its treatment of “black Africans” is, frankly too simple a shortcut, particularly given the academic pedigree of this President.

Al Qaeda is an organization built on hate. But that hate stems not from its disdain of race or skin color. Its disdain stems from its interpretation of its religion. It manifests itself outside of Al Qaeda, but within Islam, in places like Darfur and Nigeria. It manifests itself in Israel where Hezbollah and Hamas use the poor as suicide bombers. It manifests itself in places like Bosnia and Kosovo.

This administration has been playing a dangerous game. It has refused to confront radical Islam because it does not want to insult Muslims. Now, by declaring Al Qaeda racist because of its treatment of “black Africans,” never mind its slaughter of Jews, white Europeans, Southeast Asians, and others, this White House will potentially, yet again, have another avenue down which it can proceed without confronting the actual problem we are dealing with — radical Islam.

That is, if we are willing to be serious and not blanketly call people racist, very dangerous.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • BigGator5

    “anti-Jew (I?d say anti-Semitic, but technically arabs are also Semites)”

    Not to be rude or anything, but when did you become politically correct? Dictionaries and even the left leaning Wikipedia, recognizes Antisemitism as a word to describe bigotry toward Jews.

    I think you’ve spend too much time on CNN.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    The timing of this announcement from the NAACP and WH leads me to suspect this was coordinated.

    Just more baseless accusations from Democrats as in Hurricane Katrina and Bush’s alleged hatred of African Americans, Obama blind backing of Professor Gates, Congressman Lewis’ fabrication of events prior to the HCR vote, and Jesse Jackson’s otherwise hilarious comments about the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    From Tapper’s blog:

    “al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and RECRUITS BLACK AFRICANS to become suicide bombers …Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is RACIST AGAINST BLACK MEMBERS from West Africa BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY USED IN LOWER LEVEL OPERATIONS . .. In short, al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder…”

    (apologies .. CAPS my emphasis; haven’t figured out bold yet)

    What does Obama et al want? Black members to be eligible for senior al Qaeda leadership? Should suicide bombers start unionizing now?

    These guys have crisis/racism/unions on the brain. They can’t move past that MO.

    President Obama, the Jesse Jackson rouse doesn’t work in South Africa.

    Thanks for speaking out on radical Islam again.

    Speaking of which, has anyone seen the new al-Qaeda English mag they’ve put out? I don’t want to taint RS by linking that trash here, but it’s RIFE with “jihad, jihad, JIHAD!”

    Yes, THE legitimate tenet, sanctioned by Our Administration.

    While Obama picks and chooses verbiage, Al Qaeda’s playing their own word game — they talk about global warming, wealth redistribution and Bush’s crimes against humanity straight out of the transnational progressive playbook and mix it in with “how to bomb” and “evil infidel” pieces.

    Dangerous game, Mr. Obama. Don’t you know about Molly Norris? Are you waiting for us to end up like her?
    .
    Let me know you understand about death and threats and terrorism, not racism!

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    .. where’s my coffee..

  • edintexas

    I think you just failed the “gorilla test”. You missed “interpretation of it’s religion” and “radical Islam”. Al Queda is radical, but their understanding of their religion/political system (in particular the Wahabi/Salafist versions) isn’t radical – only their methods are radical.

  • renny

    other tea parties should consider the same slur.

    Racism is the first and last card of the prog/lib/Dem. coalition’s deck, because their ideas and causes are proven historical failures.

  • themersh01

    A point has been missed about the “coincidental” release of the NAACP and the White House. That point being that anyone disagreeing with Obama policy, e.g. Tea Party Patriots, will be placed in the same bin as al Qaeda…and if that’s true, imagine possibilities.

    BTW: BigGator5 – While you are technically correct, in the construct of the current public discourse, being anti-Semitic, is being anti-Jew. And yes, in that construct, most Arabs are anti-Semitic.

  • jiminga

    not a day goes by that I don’t see the “racist” label applied more than once. Now that we are all racists we truly do live in a post racial America. If all are racists then then racism doesn’t exist because it no lnger distinguishes anyone.

    So the real racists (liberals) have made racism irrelevant.

  • jiminga

    not a day goes by that I don’t see the “racist” label applied more than once. Now that we are all racists we truly do live in a post racial America. If all are racists then then racism doesn’t exist because it no lnger distinguishes anyone.

    So the real racists (liberals) have made racism irrelevant.

  • johna650

    We allow the Liberal-Bolsheviks to define ?Racism? as any effort or opposition to their goals of leveling America into a nation of sheep governed by a Power Elite. The Tea Party is racist because it opposes big government, patriots are racist because they honor the founding fathers of the USA, some of which owned slaves, and the list is endless. Is someone a racist because they think Western Civilization is superior to African Civilization? Is that same person ?racist? because they can point out that Africans is less intelligent than whites or Asians? Is one racist because they point out that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime? Is a white woman ?racist? when she is afraid to walk her dog in a black neighborhood? I, and the vast majority of white Americans agree with me, do not consider myself ?racist? because I have such opinions. Perhaps then the label of ?racist? is a good attribute and not a bad in the minds of the vast majority of the public subjected to these daily calumnies. We have to stop running from the accusation of ?racism? and start confronting it. I am sure most Americans, including many blacks, will agree that racism is simply the denial of person?s rights before the law based on their skin color. That is how it should be understood by all involved in pubic discussion. We have to define the discussion instead of running from it.

  • Next93

    A few years back, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by a retired intelligence expert. I asked him why it is, in my experience with Muslims in this country (which is a bit broader than most Americans experience in this area), that the Muslim culture, regardless of nationality, seems to have such a big problem accepting the possibility that they can be wrong.

    What he told me is thatIslam teaches that they have the perfect religion, wich contains the perfect legal system, and defines the shape of the perfect government. If the infidels would only listen (or die), says the narrative, we would have the perfect world. Therefore it’s not culturally possible that the Muslim can be wrong in dealing with non-Muslims.

    It’s also important to note that Islam, unlike other major religions, doesn’t stop at the relationship of the individual to God; it defines the law, the legal system, and the system of government. In the Judeao-Christian tradition, virtue is the responsibility of the individual, but in Islam it’s the responsibility of the state/church. This is a culture that places a much higher value on order and virtue than it does on freedom, and any government that doesn’t actively enforce order and virtue, by every means possible, is, by definition, evil.

    He also mentioned a theory that what we’re seeing right now is the Islamic equivalent of the Protestant Reformation, where the literalist faction (what we call “fundamentalists”) are fighting against the forces of reform for the future of the religion. We in the west are important targets because we symbolize those forces. The goal isn’t necessarily to wipe us out as to make us appear weak, decadent, and foolish in the eyes of the muslim world.

    What it all boiled down to for me was that the American ideals of tolerance and freedom are basically at odds with the cultural battles of the people we’re fighting. It’s not that they hate us for our freedom, they hate the freedoms themselves.

    As Americans, we find the idea of a war against a religion distasteful; it feels too much like relgious persecution, and it rubs up against our almost instictive respect for freedom of religion. This is probably the greatest weapons the Islamists have. What we have to understand is that Islam isn’t simply a religion, it’s complete cultural and governmental system. We’re not talking about the Catholics versus the Episcopalians here, we’re talking about theocracy versus liberty. This isn’t a religious war, it’s a war of ideologies. It’s the difference between freedom and authoritarianism, between tolerance and intolerance.

    The important thing is, if we don’t win this war, we’ll loose it. There’s no “live and let live”, no “peaceful coexistance”. We need to prove to the Muslim world that the literalists are wrong, that they can’t bring about a Golden Age of Islam by clinging to 7th century notions and sending kids into pizzarias wearing bomb vests.

  • indyjohn

    racism can only be perpetrated against people of African descent. The people of Africa have always been victims of European and Arab exploitation. And if those of African descent display racial animus of any kind, such behavior must be excused, because it represents the the righteous retribution of the opressed.
    I wonder what AG Holder thinks of this new definition of Al Qaeda? It seems to me that this case would be the perfect starting poiint for a discussion on the meaning of racism. Didn’t Mr. Holder say that Americans are too cowardly to have a frank discussion of matters racial? Come on, Eric. Step up to the plate. Let’s talk about the public pronouncements of the New Black Panther Party and their similarity to those of Al Qaeda.
    Oops. I forgot. Pointing out black racism is, in itself, evidence of the evil white European desire to suppress legitimate outrage.
    So, in other words, we must have a straightforward discussion of race in America, only we can’t have it because only people of color have a right to express their opinions on the subject. I understand now.

  • Tbone

    After, all his middle name is Hussein.

  • dontremaine

    Just because the word antisemitism is most commonly referred to as anti-Jew doesn’t mean that it does not have a broader meaning read the definition of Semite.

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Semite

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    “Anti-Semitism” was actually an old fashioned code word for hating Jews that was used specifically because the term technically covered more than just Jews.

    It was the fashionable way to hate Jews without having the courage to admit it.

    I wish we’d drop that use now and call hatred of Jews what it is, without using the euphenism.

  • BigGator5

    Did I enter the wrong URL today and ended up on the Daily Kos? I expected to hear such an argument from someone from the fashionable left, in which they don’t have anything personal against the Jews but hate the state of Israel.

    While the term’s etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (“Jew-hatred”).

    I know my history Neil Stevens, do you? Trying to redefined the term, now, is a political correct effort by the liberal left to make them feel better in their own antisemitism.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    What you quoted is exactly what I said, and also what Erick said.

    Take a deep breath and move on, seriously.

  • voxoreason

    There being no Arabs around, this became semantic wordplay aimed at Jews. (Judenrein = Clean of Jews) This is kind’a like racism with a mask on.

    Adolf Hitler won an Iron Cross in WW I. A Jewish officer pinned it on him.

    Wikipedia has an interesting account of Jews in Europe.

    I’m a Christian, but that simply makes me more likely to support Israel than American Jews and Obama.

  • tngal

    Wasn’t it one of those terms we can’t say? Like radical islamist and jihadist, islamic terrorist and Voldemort?

  • tngal

    Wasn’t it one of those terms we can’t say? Like radical islamist and jihadist, islamic terrorist and Voldemort?

  • storminwgfp

    I’ve long thought that before you get into a discussion about racism with a liberal you need to agree to a common definition of the word. Which I’ve never gotten past. Seems to me we’re always talking about two different interpretations of the word which usually results in stalemate. One young black man I talked to long ago told me that it wasn’t possible for a black man to be a racist, but all white men are racists by definition.

  • greatbasinconservative

    definition?

    [quote]One young black man I talked to long ago told me that it wasn?t possible for a black man to be a racist, but all white men are racists by definition.[/quote]

    You haven’t been watching TV or movies for the last 20 years or so, have you?

  • From ME to You

    If there is one, what’s the title…I want to buy a copy. That person definitely has the facts on hand!!!

  • lunaticrex

    Islam, be it any radical ‘faction’ or ‘moderate’ group, cannot possibly co-exist in a society such as ours. Unless, of course, Muslims were to cast off the teachings of the Prophet, including the Qur’an in its entirety, and most of the Hadith as well. But this would not be Islam as it is now, so that point is moot. Every time I see where someone suggests we should embrace the Religion of Peace (TM) and its followers and assimilate them into our way of life, I scream (usually using my ‘inside’ voice). This is because I too understand that according to its very tenets, Islam cannot peacefully co-exist in any other society in perpetuity. If they are not in the majority, Muslims are to “go along to get along.” Over time, they will become the majority through immigration and through procreation. You could look it up.*

    Another thing about al-Qaida as relates to al-Shabab (The Youth) in Somalia: They are a nationalist Somali group whose ties to the larger organization seem quite loose. I think it is beneficial to both groups to be associated (al-Qaida can say they have a powerful group in the Horn, and al-Shabab can claim direct association with the more well-known group). I say all that to say this: The attacks on Sunday were almost certainly planned and carried out by people directed exclusively by al-Shabab, with no direct input or assistance from corporate HQ. In case anyone hasn’t googled it, Somalis are typically quite dark-skinned black Africans. The people who ran this op would definitely be included in this description. To describe them as racist is to ignore the reality that it has nothing at all to do with race, and everything to do with further solidifying their hold on this strategically important failed state.

    Grasping at straw(men) again, Mr. President.

    Great article Erick. Keep ‘em coming.

    * H/T to Yogi Berra

  • Flagstaff

    on the air three hours a day. Heh.

    But after 20 years on the air, the left had to use fabricated quotes.

    The Left: Dontcha know that just proves he’s racist? If he weren’t, he wouldn’t have worked so hard to hide it from us. Our quotes are just quotes of what he is thinking.

  • oxowhitney

    I think you have an excellent grasp of the facts. I agree wholeheartedly with your summation!