Posted by
FeargalX on Friday, July 24, 2009 7:24:42 PM
Not too long ago, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates helped advance (in my belief) the issue of blacks in America in a PBS program. He showed via DNA (as well as hisorical backup) that virtually all black Americans have European heritage -- and that heritage was often the result of consentual relationships that delveloped over the past several hundred years. This program (I thought) helped to show that black Americans really are not "African Americans" -- they may have some African Heritage -- but often the European heritage can rival the African percentage. Anyway, it also showed how silly if was to "blame whites" for the "sufferings" of black Americans. Many "white" ethnicities had no significant presence in the U.S. until the 20th Century -- and when they first came here (Russians, Polish, Italians, Estonians, Sorbs, etc.) they largely came to Northern Cities. From a purely "racial blame" outlook, those who are "black Americans" are, on average, more connected to Jim Crow and slavery than the average "white American."
Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is a paramount example of racist attitude. Wright's skin-tone is lighter than many Southern Europeans -- his skin-tone is, in part, from his European ancestors. Yet, Wright, during his sermons, found it appropriate to refer to Italians as "garlic nosed Italians." While it would have been inappropriate for Wright to attack all English, Spanish, Portugese or Dutch -- at least there would have been some "basis" for such a general statement. Still, it is always a bad idea to make general statements about racial or ethnic groups. Likewise, it would be ignorance to blame Nazi crimes on the Irish or Armenians. It is factually inaccurate.
Obama never ever took responsibility for his 20 years at Wright's church. Gates was useful in illustrating the sheer folly of Obama's contentions. After all, Obama's ancestors held black slaves -- and he had no black ancestors who were subject to Jim Crow yet alone slavery. So, what exactly is the basis for his "oppressed" heritage? It is pure fiction -- it is really the reverse of oppression (preferential treatment).
Gates found himself in an obvious problematic situation. It does not matter what you look like -- if you try to break into a house (even if it is your house) you are likely to attract attention. My last interaction with the police (which happened earlier this year) was when I was going to a storage building at night to return holiday items. It was very dark -- and I could hardly see the combination lock. The police officer asked me what I was doing -- I told him -- and he shined his spotlight on the lock so I could see it.
I certainly have had experiences that I did not "like" with the police -- I believe that police power ought to be very selectively used -- and one of the tragic parts of America is our high incarcertion rate (with higher than normal crime rate). The police are charged with enforcing laws that our legislatures pass -- and they are forced to make life and death decisions in short order (like firefighters whom Justice Gisburg holds in very low esteem). I have known many police and worked with them for a period of years -- I remember one police officer telling a story about a drug bust he made because he "noticed" a white person in a "black" area -- figured out he probably bought drugs and opened the guy's mouth with pliers. Yeah, the police sometimes do things that are not great.
Personally, since no crime ever committed against me has ever been solved -- I would prefer the police to focus on crimes like burglary. So, the police sergeant was doing a good job here. It is a sad and embarrassing commentary that Harvard man Gates cannot figure out that someone might be suspicious if you break into your own house (or your own car). Did Gates not even have a friend who had a key?
Obama's gut reaction -- like his selection of Sotomayor (who thinks that being an Hispanic in NYC in the 1960s and 1970s was a severe hardship [what about Desi Arnaz -- he was on the most popular show in the 1950s]. Those words are a combination of ignorance and bigotry -- given Obama's own connection to slavery and Sotomayor being of at least partial Iberian descent (Iberia killed more American Indians and enslaved more Africans than Britian and France combined) it is also ironic.
Speaking of Ginsburg -- during her 15 years as a federal judge prior to being on the Supreme Court she employed no black law clerk. Given that a federal judge in that period could employ (at least in a partial capacity) perhaps 50 clerks what does that say? I guess she thinks being a law clerk (a job which a very good judge really does not need as an assistant) is "more important" than a supervisor on a firefighting team (who actually needs to make quick life/death decisions). That says a lot.