At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


Oprah and Five Racial Double Standards

posted by Jack Kerwick

In Florida, a 13 year-old white boy is savagely beaten on a school bus by three black thugs.  Yet it gains not a fraction of the attention paid by the press of the whole Western world to Oprah Winfrey’s claims to have fallen prey to “racism” while perusing a fancy boutique in Switzerland.

The racial double standards accentuated by the juxtaposition of these two events couldn’t be more glaring.

Winfrey is a billionaire, one of the wealthiest, most famous, and, to the extent that she’s done more than rub elbows with the biggest names in Hollywood and American politics, one of the most influential human beings on the planet. If anyone qualifies as “privileged,” to use the left’s lingo, it is Winfrey.

The Florida boy who was beaten senseless, like the shop clerk whom Winfrey accused of “racism,” is an obscure figure of modest means. Again, parroting the left, he is among the “powerless” or “voiceless.”

The racially-oriented cruelty to which Winfrey’s allegedly been subjected consists in her having been denied the opportunity to inspect a nearly $40,000.00 pocketbook.

The cruelty to which the 13 year-old from Florida was subjected is a vicious beating by three black cowards.

Within the last couple of days, Winfrey’s “victimizer” has staunchly rejected her accusation.  Immediately thereafter, Winfrey began backpedaling, going even so far as to apologize for all of the attention that this incident has received.

Winfrey, you see, was less than fully truthful, if she wasn’t outright dishonest, about her treatment at the proverbial hands of the white shop clerk in Switzerland.

The 13 year-old, however, really did suffer at the literal hands of his assailants: he was beaten mercilessly and then robbed. The incident was caught on video and his tormentors have confessed to the charges against them.

Still, Winfrey’s non-incident throws the world off of its axis while the plight of this poor 13 year-old is neglected. The media rushes to elicit sympathy—and guilt—for another alleged black victim, even if she happens to be among the most fortunate human beings to have ever lived, and even if the “indignity” to which she was supposedly subjected is not exactly the stuff of which the annals of human suffering are filled.  At the same time, the media rushes just as quickly to suppress the deeds of black victimizers—even when they engage in acts of sheer barbarity.

Moving beyond these two events, there seems to be no end to the racial double standards.

First, loudly and proudly, we’re all supposed to decry racial discrimination when the discriminators are white and those discriminated against are black. To do otherwise is to betray one’s “racism.” However, unless one loudly and proudly endorses so-called “affirmative action”—racial discrimination in favor of blacks—one is “racist.”

So, the “racist” is he who seeks to place blacks at a disadvantage with respect to whites. No less of a “racist” is the person who refuses to give blacks an advantage over whites.

Second, it is “racist” for a white person to render judgments about “black America” on the bases of the actions of individual blacks.  This explains why, say, “racial profiling” is held by the professional “anti-racists” to be morally obscene.

Yet it is not “racist” for blacks (and whites) to complain endlessly about the transgressions of “white America.”  Very few white Americans—including Southerners—owned slaves or had anything but contempt for those whites, like the men who beat and murdered poor Emmet Till, who aspired to treat blacks cruelly.   Moreover, if not for the gallant efforts of legions of white Americans, the injustices of the past would be the injustices of the present.

And yet whites are judged collectively while blacks are freed of such an oppressive restraint.

Third, when whites flee those areas that lower and underclass blacks begin to inhabit, it is called “white flight” and chalked up to “racism.”  But when blacks do the same, it is called “movin’ on up” and applauded.  Though as John Perazzo noted in The Myths that Divide Us, at least as many blacks fled the chronic dysfunction of the black underclass in the 1980’s and beyond as did whites in preceding decades.

Fourth, for the scandalous rate of criminality and violence among blacks, young black men in particular, an explanation in “root causes” is always sought out. Yet “root causes” are never, ever invoked when it comes to accounting for “white racism.”  It is understandable, even justifiable, that blacks should harbor a violent, even murderous, rage toward whites for centuries of oppression.  But that whites may be wary of blacks is chalked up as the species of some raw, uncaused prejudice.

Finally, blacks commit a vastly larger share of interracial crime than that perpetrated by whites.  Relatively rarely are they charged with “hate” crimes. For example, five black guttersnipes in Knoxville, Tennessee carjack, abduct, rape, torture, and murder a young white couple, but because some of the assailants had white girlfriends and because, as far as could be determined, none of them had used any racial epithets in connection with their victims, race is deemed not to have played any role whatsoever in this outrage.

Every effort is made to discern the intentions of black perpetrators.

Such is not the case when it comes to whites.

According to the doctrine of “institutional racism,” white society is incorrigibly “racist”—even if white individuals have the best of intentions. More exactly, even if whites are consciously well meaning toward blacks, subconsciously they entertain the most degrading of stereotypes concerning them.

There are more racial double standards that could be listed. Space precludes it here.  Still, these five are plenty enough to get going that “honest” discussion of race that Eric Holder says he wants.

 

 



  • Lively LayD

    Mr. Kerwick you seem really angry. To some extent I understand your point of view I disagree, but I understand. With that being said I think you should reread your post and some documented history. Most white southerners had a slave and not slaves, because they could not afford more than one. They also benefited from.a society designed to keep anyone who was not a white male subordinate and at a large disadvantage. People didn’t just make up these incidents, slavery, share cropping, the womens movement or the civil rights movement these are all documented events in history and each has happened within the last 150 years. In regards to affirmative action I understand your point and its purpose. In truth the number one beneficiary is a middle aged white woman and it was designed to level the playing field for groups who were disenfranchised. We live in a country that has been historically controlled by white men, because people typically relate to what is similar to them most white men help other white men. That does not make them hateful, but it certainly is no benefit to non white men.
    In regards to your statements about racism most of it is subconscious. In fact I believe there was some subconscious racism in your post. When discussing the victims and their assailants in your post there were neutral words when describing the white victims and negative words like “thug” when describing the black criminals. I wont defend the actions of criminals, but I think you should be aware that it’s considered a racist writing tactic. When the pilgrims fought the native Americans the news paper would describe the Natives as savages amd beast like people and use either neutral or positive language when describing the white settlers.
    I think you feel very passionate about this topic and I will never tell you your feelings are wrong. They are not they’re your feelings and your entitled to them. My personal feeling is that you are harboring some very strong racial resentment, in the exact same manner of which you are accusing others. Just my honest opinion.

Previous Posts

Neocon Leftists, "American Exceptionalism," and Immigration
Paul Greenberg’s last article proves what many of us have long known: neoconservatives are leftists by another name. Greenberg waxes orgasmic over President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  However, like every other champion of amnesty, he unequivocally denie

posted 9:10:41pm Nov. 25, 2014 | read full post »

Against "Saving People From Themselves": Thomas Szasz vs. the Drug Prohibitionists
Few things are as effective in eliciting the ire of neoconservative Republicans as is talk of decriminalizing recreational drug use. Given that the Republican Party is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility and “limited government,” this is indeed a tragic commentary on the times

posted 9:56:40pm Nov. 23, 2014 | read full post »

Republicans, Democrats, and White Men
Following their party’s crushing defeat at the polls, some Democratic strategists are now claiming that it is Democrats’ “failure to communicate” with white men that accounts for their dramatic reversal of fortunes. In contrast, Republican talking heads insist upon either trivializing or

posted 9:20:56pm Nov. 07, 2014 | read full post »

Why I Did Not Vote this Election Day
As I write this, it’s Election Day. It is the first Election Day in 24 years that I haven’t voted. Every election cycle, Republican operatives in the media—“conservative” talk radio hosts, Fox News pundits, and the like—insist to their audiences that a decision on their part to do

posted 9:47:14pm Nov. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Losing the Language: How the GOP Undermines Itself--and Liberty
As the mid-term elections approach, it’s high time for Republican commentators to walk the walk. Just the other morning, Mark Steyn, busily promoting his new book, made an appearance on Bill Bennett’s radio program. The latter agreed enthusiastically with the former that in order for conserva

posted 10:16:04pm Oct. 23, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.