Black People Need to Shut Up
Blacks need to shut up. They complain too much about being “oppressed,” and keep shoving things like “equality” in our faces. This is a WHITE nation, founded by white people, and black people should realize it and deal. If black folk weren’t so uppity, they wouldn’t inspire people to hate them.
Do you find statements like that offensive?
Suppose CNN ran a piece on how a black family was driven out of their home because of their race. Suppose afterward the program had a discussion panel consisting entirely of white people. Suppose one of the panelists made a statement like the one above, and the rest of the panel generally agreed with this view.
Would you be offended? Would you condemn it as racist?
Suppose it was Jews instead of blacks, and Muslims instead of whites. Still offended?
How about Muslims criticized by Christians?
Protestants criticized by Catholics?
What if it was an atheist family instead of a black one, and the panel consisted of Jews and Christians? Would you still be offended? Would you condemn it as bigotry?
The last one actually happened. Here is the piece on an atheist family:
Here is the panel discussion. Listen closely to what they are saying. Try watching it again, and replace “atheist” with “black” or “Christian” or “Muslim”.
In my last post, I urged you to not take it anymore. I urged you to join with me, come together and be heard. Last time I cited the need to move beyond the sound-bite as a reason to join me.
Here is another reason to come together: don’t let the media tell you to shut up.
I’ve just presented one example where those of a differing view are being told to shut up. I’m sure you can name others. Are you tired of creeping secularism? Stand up. Tired of being called a loony liberal? Be heard.
The simple fact is that we have the power to set the tone of discourse in this country. Together we can create a voice which is honest and fair. We can create a forum where we grant each other the respect due all human beings, even while we may adamantly disagree with each other. Where no one is ever told they should simply shut up.
We’ve made a start (cheers to Rick and Scott). You can join us.
Be Brave. Be Human. Never Shut Up.
Brian
Update: Debbie Schlussel has commented about her part in the disscussion, and the response she got, on her weblog.
Update 2: CNN has run a follow-up piece (on Darwin Day no less), featuring Richard Dawkins and a more balanced panel. You can check it out here.
February 7th, 2007 12:27
Brian,
First you shock me with the title, then you surprise me with the context. Your post is a good reminder of the freedom of speech that we enjoy in the U.S.
People have a right to say practically anything they want, no matter how intelligent, bigoted, stupid, crass or irrelevant it might be.
It doesn’t mean anyone has to listen, though. This is where our society falls short; we think that having the “right to speak” is the same as having a “right to be heard”. Not so. If I speak, and everyone ignores me, my right has been proven, even if no one acts upon my comments.
To me, griping without offering or looking for solutions is counterproductive; you’ve not only wasted everybody’s time, but you have stopped those same people from engaging in other activities that could be more productive.
So, to all the Brave Humans out there, say what you need to say, but be prepared to back it up with your own elbow grease.
Thanks,
Rick
p.s. I haven’t seen the vids yet, because I have limited daytime access to thos types of applications.
February 7th, 2007 18:59
Unfortunately, we’re never going to be rid of ignorant busybodies who refuse to live and let live. Sounds as if that small town in Mississippi is raising a fine crop of such people, modeling ignorant busybody behavior for the town’s children and demonstrating that it gets results. In this case, by running people with different beliefs out of town.
Those inclined to bash Christians might say this is another example of why the faith isn’t fit to believe in. Such people, like the ignorant busybodies in that small town, fail utterly to reckon with what I think should be the absolute core Christian belief: Do unto others as you have them do unto you.
Presumably, real Christians wouldn’t want to be shunned and run out of town.
So, IMO, the irate church folk (or some of them at least) in that Mississippi town aren’t practicing Christians at all. They’re just ignorant busybodies.
The Golden Rule, by the way, offers the ultimate antidote to blind, unwarranted discrimination. It’s just a matter of getting everyone on the same page concerning the wisdom of taking it to heart and practicing it.
February 7th, 2007 19:26
After viewing the vids, I had several thoughts.
1. After watching him on ESPN a good number of times, I never, ever thought I’d agree with Steven Smith on anything. But I do here. The other two guests were off base.
2. The unspoken fallacy here is that the opposite situation would be reported. The truth is that it would not, unless it were reported by a Christian media outlet. Report them all, or report none of them.
3. Ryan Anderson’s point about the militant athiests is accurate. The same would be true if he used Pat Robertson as an example of a militant Christian.
Of note:
- A municipality has shut down in-home bible studies because they “break fire code regulations”, yet neigbhors down the street regularly have twice as many people at their house for parties.
- Some organizations want in-home bible studies and in-home worship to be recognized as churches, to force those households to register their activities for political reasons.
If the truth was told, and there weren’t other relevant, unrevealed reasons for the family being evicted, then the athiest family was treated poorly. Shame on those who treated them as such. However, there is not an equality of reporting here.
Calming down….
February 7th, 2007 20:43
Rick,
Part of my point was that the major media control what is disseminated as news. But if we come together we can change that. The internet makes it harder for stories to get buried.
I actually agree with you regarding the militant issue. There are those who go too far on all sides, and they unfortunately tend to capture the spotlight.
However, on your second point, I have to disagree a bit. I was actually aware of the bible study incident, but I wouldn’t call unequal treatment on the part of a local government (which can be resolved through legal proceedings) remotely equivalent to a family being driven out of their home by the general intolerance of their town.
Other similar incidents DO get reported in the major news, such as the Jewish family in Delaware who were driven from their homes when they protested their child being forced to participate in a Christian prayer at her local school. I’m not saying the media is even handed, but I assume news of a Christian family being driven from their home would at least make Fox News.
I have never heard of a Christian family in this country being harassed, sent hate mail, etc., and forced from their home by their community because they stood up for their faith (say, demanding that their child be allowed to pray during lunch at school). If you know of such a case, I would love to see the reference.
Brian
February 7th, 2007 22:19
Brian,
I agree, the intolerance of the town was awful. Heck, even Browns and Steelers fans live peacefully in the same communities now. Just don’t ask me about Michigan and Ohio State fans.
I’m having a hard time stomaching news from any of the major media outlets, Fox included. I’d rather hit the blogs.
Oh, yeah, wasn’t that your point?
(And I don’t have an example of Christians being driven from their home.)
February 8th, 2007 20:50
Hello all,
I was really very disturbed by the video-even more the comments of Karen Hunter than Schlussel herself although both were quite ugly. I just spent some time on the Schlussel bog (thanks Brian). As you would expect the comments go the full range including several that were quite well thought out and useful. I thought of commenting myself and putting a link back to BH, but there were SO many posts already the signal to noise ratio stinks. I’d like to use this event to somehow promote our little project here, but I’m not sure how. It has already produced a huge pile of stuff on her site and many of those posting refer back to their own blogs. Is this event already “over” in the blogoshere or is there something we can still use it for?
If you haven’t checked out Schlussel’s I suggest you do. It is an educational read on any number of levels.
One last point. I am offically done with Paula Zhan. There is no excuse for her allowing that event to take place on her airtime.
-Grant
February 8th, 2007 21:11
As a “practicing” (oh how I despise the distinction) Catholic, I am thoroughly disheartened by the actions of those Mississippi townspeople towards that family. Sadly, I am not surprised. It seems to me that, much like the Hebrews of old, many Christians today are living primarily secular lives. And worse, they think that the label “Christian” is a (or perhaps the) qualifier for moral superiority.
It is the duty of Christians to spread the Word of God, to save the souls of our people (mankind); from a non-Christian perspective, how can this be possible if all one experiences is animosity and condemnation? There will always be beliefs other than Christianity; we can’t just force our religion upon others nor tell them to “shut up.” I believe that opportunities to deal with non-Christians are necessary to keep Christians well-versed and centered on their faith. Unfortunately, instead of changing their own non-Christian ways, the Christians prefer to sweep their flaws under the rug and subdue threats to their comfortable lifestyles.
Based on what I’ve been exposed to, these are the opinions which I have formed. Of course, I’m not saying that all Christians are ignorant bigots, and I fear that part of the problem is the socioeconomic conditions in which we live. Here I am trying to defend Christianity, not necessarily Christians.
I have some close friends who are atheist, and we get along fine, even when religion is a topic of conversation. All I have to do is plant the seed…
February 8th, 2007 23:05
Al,
Welcome to BraveHumans.
You make an excellent point on distinctions within Christianity. These clips have shown up on several weblogs I’ve come across, and almost invariantly they are framed as a battle between Christianity and Atheism. Even CNN has bought into this, as they have invited Richard Dawkins to the show to discuss the incident, and he will invariably frame it as faith vs. reason, as he is wont to do.
I find this unfortunate because the original incident with the family, and the piece on CNN, are not about religion but about tolerance. Framing it as a religious issue simply perpetuates stereotypes against both atheists and people of faith.
February 9th, 2007 05:40
Wow, an interesting piece, to say the least.
Upon reading your post, Brian, I checked out Debbie Schlussel’s blog for what she had to say. I was actually shocked by how brazenly she shows how bigoted she is (her constant assertion that Muslim extremist is a redundant phrase springs to mind).
And you are absolutely right. The issue at hand is tolerance.
I have never fealt offended about someone’s comments on my beliefs (I am waffling between agnostic and atheist) until now. To say that someone who has chosen not to believe in a higher power is one step away from blowing up a school with a C4 strapped to his or her chest does make the blood boil.
Then again, it occurs to me that this is a good experience. Yes, I’m an optimist who can’t but help to find the good in (most) situations, but this is actually something that just occured to me. I’m from an area where people seem to be more open minded about religious beliefs, sexual preference, race, or whatever. Thus, I thought of myself as not part of some minority, but simply as a human.
It is quite the eye opener to realize that because of what I choose to believe or not believe, I would be shunned or scorned by some.
It was an interesting realization to come to, and one that a good number of people could afford to experience. That knee-jerk reaction of feelings of persecution really gave me a new perspective.
February 9th, 2007 10:51
Patrick G,
Welcome to the site! I hope you enjoy it.
You are right, once you experience the feelings of persecution you never look at the world quite the same way again.
Brian
February 10th, 2007 16:26
I was as surprised as Patrick after reading Debbie Schlussel’s blog…apparently atheism is a gateway drug to radical, violent Islam…who knew?
February 10th, 2007 18:17
First I will say…..Excellent article, however, I do believe that if the atheist couple did not complain about the school having a prayer time, this would not have happened to them. Yes freedom of speech cuts both ways.
While were at it, regarding replacing the word “atheist” with “black” or “Christian” or “Muslim”, let’s not stop there….how would people feel if we added the titles of “Pedophile, Satanist, Homosexual” and other deviates to this list, after all, do these people not have the right to display their beliefs and be protected as well? Apparently some do, but not others.
Where do we stop with this P.C. “Victim” attitude?
When you open yourself up to the public with your beliefs, you should expect those that disagree with you to have as much right to the freedom of speech as you do. In this case there were more people who disagreed with the atheists.
February 11th, 2007 00:09
Welcome, Feral Pundit!
You are right, we certainly could add many more groups to the list. There are no groups which are excluded from freedom of speech. We can go much more extreme than the examples you named:
The Ku Klux Klan has the right to argue for white supremacy.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association has the right to advocate for legalized sex with children.
Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say that God hates Fags, and that Ronald Reagan, every American soldier killed in Iraq, and the Amish children murdered in Pennsylvania are all currently rotting in hell.
Personally I find all of these views highly offensive. But they all have the right to speak their views. The United States actually has one of the most tolerant views on free speech in the world. For example, Holocaust denial is banned throughout Europe, but is fully protected under free speech in America.
However, the law is very clear that free speech does not apply to threats, intimidation and the inciting of violence. So while the Klan has the right to argue for White power, they do not have the right to send death threats to civil rights activists or burn crosses on people’s lawns.
In the same way, freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass a family because they don’t hold the most popular view on God. Freedom of speech doesn’t cut both ways. Anyone who engages in intimidation or threats toward those with dissenting views takes the position that freedom of speech should not be protected. Rather than advocating a different view, they see fit to attempt to silence those with views they don’t like. That is about as un-American as you can get.
February 13th, 2007 22:31
That is a frightening panel.
February 14th, 2007 09:00
I loved the way you titled and started this article. Of course, you realize that according to Debra Dickerson, many people in this country that we consider black, like Barak Obama, are not actually black because they aren’t descended from West African slaves. I hope you don’t mind me posting a link to my own blog, but here’s my story about that topic. http://www.hammeruncut.com/barack-obama-not-black/
February 14th, 2007 13:45
Welcome, Hammer!
Yes, I’ve read about the “not really black” debate, and I must admit I’m perplexed as to why it matters. Whatever happened to being judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Yes, race is still an issue in this country, but trying to delineate those of mixed heritage into one group or the other seems to play into the hands of those who would divide us rather than unite us.
February 14th, 2007 16:47
I agree completely, but I’ve always assumed that delineations like black, white, asian, and hispanic were used to designate a group of people. It’s not a perfect system because in some cases we refer to a group by their ethnicity and in others we use color, but if a man holds up a liquor store and the cops as you to describe the man, most of us would say he was white, tall, thin and had tattoos or was black, had a shaved head, about six feet, 200 pounds.
According to Ms. Dickerson, we would have to would have to know his heritage before using the word ‘black’ to describe him. But then what are you left with? You can’t say African American because he might be from Africa or Canada.
I’m sticking with black.
February 14th, 2007 23:31
To be honest, I haven’t read any of Dickerson’s writings enough to really know what she means by her assertion.
I agree, I think most people look at Obama and see a black man.