Rebranded

[paft.livejournal.com]

Four years ago, shortly after the current American president was sworn in for the first time in the face of much screaming, chest-beating, and gnashing of teeth from Republicans, I suggested a brand new word for the "not-that-I'm-racist-but" crowd. I'd noticed that a lot of racists get all hot and bothered about racism being called "racism," so I proposed the word "Igprizianism" to replace that other word, which has so many unpleasant connotations. Thus, I explained, the next time someone defended the premise that, say, African Americans are, as a group, significantly and unchangeably less intelligent, competent, and law-abiding than white Americans and that our policies should reflect that unfortunate gap, they could laughingly correct anyone who called them a racist by citing that new word, which begins with an "I" instead of an "R" and isn't quite so 20th Century.

So here we are, at the beginning of the second term, and it looks like Igpritzianism is now well on its way to retur... -- excuse me, being introduced (for the first time ever, honest!) into the mainstream of American politics. Just a few days ago, the National Review Online weighed in on the Trayvon Martin case with a piece entitled "Facing Facts About Race" in which David Hanson stops only just short of openly citing racial equality as an idealistic experiment that, alas, just hasn't worked out. Better yet, now that the antiquated core of the voting rights act has been gutted by the Supreme Court, forward-looking states like North Carolina have gotten busy implementing Igpritzianism-friendly laws about who gets to vote and who doesn't.

I guess they have to do something, given the shifting demographics in the country. Voting, after all, is just too important to be left to incompetents. (For definition of "incompetents" see The Bell Curve.)

Are you an Igpritzian? Are you part of this exciting new term for an old idea? Ask yourself the following questions:



Do you consider it unfair to call The Bell Curve "racist" because you've read it and agree with it and your diction is perfect and you don't wear a sheet on the weekend and, anyway, it's not "racist" if you claim scientific backing for it and the book explains so much to you about today's society and that black guy who once stole your bike/broke into your house/flipped you the bird after you cut him off in traffic?

Do you consider it unfair to call The Bell Curve "racist" because your diction is perfect and you don't wear a sheet on the weekend and, anyway, it's not "racist" if you claim scientific backing for it, and even though you haven't read The Bell Curve yourself, you were impressed by the charts you saw the time you picked it up and flipped through it and really like the impression you've gotten from it because it would explain so much to you about today's society and that black guy who once stole your bike/broke into your house/flipped you the bird after you cut him off in traffic?

Are you still mad about desegregation and go into long disquisitions about "states rights" when the subject comes up?

Do you feel there are a lot of things you have to "phrase carefully" because otherwise people will get the "wrong idea" and apply that ol' "R" word to you or what you're saying?

Are you fond of citing all the black friends you have?

Are there things you believe but you would never say in front of those black friends?

Did you find out that your family has native American ancestry a few generations back and are you now describing yourself as "non-white" in online discussions about race?

Do you consider it grossly unfair that you, as a "non-white" white person, can't use the word "nigger" without being called a "racist," but black people can?

Do you claim to be "confused" by the fact that the Trayvon Martin case made national news while a particularly egregious case you know about of a white person being shot by a black perp (the latter of whom, if caught, was arrested, put in jail, and convicted) did not?

If you answered "yes" to the first two questions, or more than one of the seven that follow, then you qualify as an Igpritzian. Pick up your nametags at the desk, get out there and start the rebranding!

*

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Question: Is it possible for a statement that is factually true to be racist?

If so how does one reconcile the need for rational discourse with the need to avoid uncomfortable (racist) truths?

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: Question: Is it possible for a statement that is factually true to be racist?

I'm not a racist. I don't believe that, for instance African Americans as a group suffer from a significant and unchangeable gap in intelligence and competence. So, no, I don't believe the statement that "such and such leads to the conclusion that people of African descent are, as a group, significantly less intelligent and law abiding than people of european descent" to such a conclusion to be "factually true."

How do you define "racism?" I use the definition in most dictionaries. You?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

The issue with this question is that many things considered factually true have turned out to be bigoted statements and/or lacking context that explains the situation and is completely disconnected from race.

See the views on how children raised in same sex parent households suffering from increases deficiencies, for example.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Question: Is it possible for a statement that is factually true to be racist?


This greatly depends upon how we define race and racist.

Is race a valid or useful classification? Is it sociological? Is it hard/good science?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Are you saying it is factually true that intelligence and morality come in greater and lesser degrees based on degrees of melanin in the skin? No moral obfuscations and digs at academics here, yes or no will do.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Good thing white guilt doesn't apply to me. Seems suffocating.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You mean suff0c8ing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Hey, you know something people?
I'm not black
But there's a whole lots a times
I wish I could say I'm not white

[paft.livejournal.com]

How do you imagine white awareness of racial inequity to be "suffocating?"

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I think there must be a medal of white honor available somewhere.

SCORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Do you consider it unfair to call The Bell Curve "racist" because you've read it and agree with it and your diction is perfect and you don't wear a sheet on the weekend and, anyway, it's not "racist" if you claim scientific backing for it and the book explains so much to you about today's society and that black guy who once stole your bike/broke into your house/flipped you the bird after you cut him off in traffic?

no. no. no. yes. no.

Do you consider it unfair to call The Bell Curve "racist" because your diction is perfect and you don't wear a sheet on the weekend and, anyway, it's not "racist" if you claim scientific backing for it, and even though you haven't read The Bell Curve yourself, you were impressed by the charts you saw the time you picked it up and flipped through it and really like the impression you've gotten from it because it would explain so much to you about today's society and that black guy who once stole your bike/broke into your house/flipped you the bird after you cut him off in traffic?

deja vu!


Are you still mad about desegregation and go into long disquisitions about "states rights" when the subject comes up? nope and nope.

Do you feel there are a lot of things you have to "phrase carefully" because otherwise people will get the "wrong idea" and apply that ol' "R" word to you or what you're saying? Yes. It is called Common Courtesy. People who are 'retarded' can not help that fact. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think

Are you fond of citing all the black friends you have? Does not apply. I don't have many friends of any color, just close acquaintances, relatives, staffers, managers and patrons. I'm too busy and tired to be a quality friend to anyone at this time.

Are there things you believe but you would never say in front of those black friends? You mean we believe about Mexicans? Ugh no! Black dudes HATE Mexicans!

Did you find out that your family has native American ancestry a few generations back and are you now describing yourself as "non-white" in online discussions about race?
Mother of God! Do I look or type like I'm not of English descent? sheesh...

Do you consider it grossly unfair that you, as a "non-white" white person, can't use the word "nigger" without being called a "racist," but black people can? grossly? No. Somewhat annoyed that anyone uses that word in any context no matter the hue of the lips uttering it? Who isn't? When is a bad word not a bad word?

Do you claim to be "confused" by the fact that the Trayvon Martin case made national news while a particularly egregious case you know about of a white person being shot by a black perp (the latter of whom, if caught, was arrested, put in jail, and convicted) did not? NO. No confusion whatsoever. I CLEARLY understand why this case made national news. Do you?

So based on my score, am I now cleansed by your trials?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Was someone forcing you to take the test?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think




Black dudes HATE Mexicans!

So close and yet....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Better yet, now that the antiquated core of the voting rights act has been gutted by the Supreme Court, forward-looking states like North Carolina have gotten busy implementing Igpritzianism-friendly laws about who gets to vote and who doesn't.

Texas and North Carolina will have their minority voter suppression laws put back on hold, thanks to the DoJ using another section of the VRA that wasn't overturned; and it won't be hard to find Federal Judges to agree, given the outrageous aspects of these new laws. Making lemonade out of lemons ;) DoJ can now do the same thing in states that were included originally for pre-clearance, so states like Wisconsin and Kansas can have their laws challenged too.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Good to know, thanks.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

So proud of my home states right now...

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

what is that called on Reddit...karma?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I'm going to admit that sometimes I wonder if people on the internet not only claim trace Native American ancestry to declare themselves non-white, but make up disabilities and pretend to be transsexual just to wash away any actual privilege they might have in the real world. All of which is insulting to all three of course.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's not just people on the internet. (http://www.warren.senate.gov/)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

These days the racists just complain that the inability to say the N-Word by virtue of 'PC' psychic powers or some stupid BS like that is the real oppression and consider the impugning by means of the word to be worse than the reality behind the word itself. Which of course doesn't exist. Even when it's on National TV hawking its books about how the West is dying from too many non-whites and pursuing the quixotic quest to redeem the bum from the Waldviertel because people somehow 50 years later still give a damn about ol' Bug-Eyes. Also, anyone who dares object to rehabilitating the KKK, slavery, an the right to say that word is a self-hating white who doesn't understand that the white people of the world have a culture reliant on one word and a crapload of bigotry.

They also love using phrases like 'Southern heritage' and clinging to the Zombie of a pseudo-state that just won't die and needs an Imperial Commissar to go burn its ass out with some heavy-duty flamethrowers.

Oh, and they also put a teenager on trial for being so unfortunate as to run into a man with obvious issues and deny blatant travesties of justice when they're dancing in front of them to The Badenweiler March.

Yes, there is a purposeful irony to discussing racism with an icon that's a panel from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which along with Timeline-191 is the crowning proof that modern-day racism of the most blatant sort can slip under the radar all the time.

I forgot one more thing: they also make up statistics out their asses and hedge on questions instead of directly answering them.

Latter-day racism doesn't firebomb the innocents nowadays, no. Latter-day racism indulges in the older past-time of seemingly innocuous ideas and phrases that are never enforced equally. Jim Crow in its original, evil Plessy v. Ferguson sense, not anything more or less. After all, racism doesn't exist. Even when it's implying criminality and intelligence are defined on the grounds of the melanin in one's skin. Racism doesn't exist, even when it resurrects anti-Semitic canards to make a Jesus Torture Porn movie. Racism doesn't exist when it outright labels blacks as poor lazy cheats who exist purely on the government dole and then wonders how anyone might possibly object to that. Racism does not exist when it resurrects Jim Crow-era restaurant managing procedures and gets a pass for it by an effective PR campaign.

If this post sounds angry, it's not. It's simply noting hypocrisy and moral cowardice on the part of latter-day racists who are too much the cowards to do what their ancestors in Confederate Grey and the two KKKs did directly. They stained their hands with blood to show their convictions. Modern-day racists won't because they're cowards even moreso than the older version.

TL;DR: This is a good post, and the comments are kind of validating the argument you made.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Allow me to make a comparison to your generalization of those racially slanted thinkers the white skinned Latter Day Racists and the global cult known collectively as the Church of Latter Day Saints.

1. Globally, both are minorities within their divisions; albeit loud and rich.
2. Both think they have the 'correct' POV; they are used to getting their way.
3. Both are content within their own tribes, humans being tribal and such.
4. Both have done both great good and great harm to those who support or oppose them (in the name of God).
5. What power either of them have over the status quo is historic, and currently is tenuous at best, and is destined to slip into the very minority status.
6. Both of them will be replaced by a new majority, who will not only oppress them both further - the old paying for the sins of the fathers and grandfathers thingie - creating a cycle perpetuated by the irony of the entire situation.

How many generations of these genetics should be 'punished' before their crimes are expunged? At what point is 'revenge' satisfied and all are declared finally 'free of bias'? Because bias is all you are really complaining about. That what you find offensive is 'thought' and not 'action' is a bit disturbing for rational thinkers.

tl;dr your position is confusing and self flagellating (assuming you are not proudly labeled a minority of some type).

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

If I was black I'd be telling a whole lot of people to shut up.

And then getting arrested and banned and shit.

[paft.livejournal.com]

But you see, it's not because they're racists. They're culturalists. THAT'S why they're so pissed about lunch counters being desegregated and a black man being elected president, and why they think black people should be harassed by the cops, etc.

It's completely different!

[paft.livejournal.com]

I need to apologize, guys. I've been misspelling the word "Igpritzian."

Apparently, the proper spelling is C-U-L-T-U-R-A-L-I-S-T.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Black people are just a face for oppressors to put on poor people. It's hard to think of any old white joe as a poor person, but a black, poor person? Easy as pie. Ignorant, violent, broken home? Give 'em a black face. Then it's easy to dismiss the racist claim, because it's a losing proposition for you to prove that they're being racist. Correlation = causation runs rampant, and stats that seem to implicate blacks actually implicate groups with entirely different factors, with all happen to coalesce with statistical frequency with race.

I don't believe the those that cite the 'statistics' or whatever other rationale are racist, but the 'fuck you, got mine'/'bootstraps' anti-poor tendencies? Probably much higher.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Then how do you define racism?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I have racial, ethnic and cultural prejudices. I prefer to own up to this fact, while also acting in the world against injustice. I find this is a more metaphysically tenable position than claiming personal righteousness and/or blaming the Other for the perpetuation of injustice.

The racism exhibited by those who seem rather desperate to avoid being labeled as such and the self-righteousness of SJWs are of a single piece.

[paft.livejournal.com]

SJW?

What does that stand for?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

This is a good post. It's drawing out exactly the response I expected as I read it.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

You mean the wank or the non-wank? lol

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

And just an observation, but you can actually find criminal evidence within any race or indeed any large group of people. It is universal ok, the statistics is a freaking population index.