Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Bill Bennett is Stupid, But Not Racist

By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor, Berkeley Daily Planet. Posted October 10, 2005.


Both 'racist' and 'racism' are terribly flawed terms; we ought to simply throw them out and start all over again with new ones.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by J. Douglas Allen-Taylor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

One of the problems about having an adult discussion about Bill Bennett's recent race remarks is that we simply don't have the words with which to conduct it.

And so, when former Reagan administration secretary of education and current self-appointed morals master of America Bill Bennett said on his recent radio broadcast that "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," many critics threw the terms "racist" and "racism" at him, having no better ammunition in their arsenal.

Bruce S. Gordon, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, issued a statement saying that "Bennett should apologize for racist comments made yesterday on his call-in radio show." And in a letter to the president of the Salem Radio Network of Irving, Texas which carries the Bennett radio program, Michigan Congressmember John Conyers wrote that "we simply cannot countenance statements and shows that are replete with racism, stereotyping, and profiling."

Mr. Gordon and Mr. Conyers made some of the more polite entries in the dialogue that followed Mr. Bennett's remarks. Underneath that, in blog exchanges and newspaper columns and radio commentaries, the two sides of the country's major right-left political split went at it, each side accusing the other of being the most "racist." Some conservatives, for example, accused the white liberal-left of "racism" for supporting abortion of African-American babies, a practice these critics suggested amounted to black genocide.

The confusion comes in part from the fact that both "racist" and "racism" are terribly flawed terms, so flawed, in fact, that we ought to simply throw them out and start all over again with new ones.

A first major problem is that for many people, the meaning of "racist" and "racism" were forever frozen on that summer Sunday morning at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in September of 1963 when members of a Ku Klux Klan splinter group placed a box of dynamite underneath the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, causing the horrific explosion that killed four black girls--Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, and Addie Mae Collins--and wounded 23 other African-American worshippers.

And so, in the mid-'60s, the term "racists" largely became used to describe white people who so hated black people that they would do murder even to innocent young children, just to get rid of us. This set the bar for who was a white "racist" so high that it now becomes almost impossible to fit anyone into it, including, for example, the president, who engineered the suppression of the African-American vote in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, but who clearly does not "hate" African-Americans, since he keeps so many around him.

By the time "racist" and "racism" began breaking out of that exclusive "hate black people" box, we discovered that it had been so broadened that it had now come to be applied by many people to anyone who sought to advocate for their own race to the exclusion of advocating for any other races. That led to the curious phenomenon--unintentionally? intentionally?--that under this new, expanded definition, many more African-Americans are now publicly called "racist" these days than are white people.

I do not know what is in Mr. Bennett's heart, but there does not appear to be evidence either through word or deed that he hates black people and wishes us dead. In addition, there does not appear to be anything in his record as either a public servant or a private morals advocate suggesting that he seeks to uplift the white race while seeking to hold down all the other races.

In addition, it is clear from even the most critical reading of his entire remarks that he never advocated that black children should be aborted (Mr. Bennett, as everyone knows, is adamantly against abortion in all forms, and among any people). He was actually having a conversation with an anti-abortion caller about the various social effects of abortion, and used the "black abortions would lower the crime rate" example to counter the caller's assertion that abortions over the past several years have removed many potential able-bodied persons from America's workforce, thus lowering the country's wealth. To show that he did not advocate the "abort every black person" position, Mr. Bennett went on to say that such mass black abortions "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do."


Digg!

J. Douglas Allen-Taylor writes for the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
prejudice vs. racism
Posted by: philame on Oct 10, 2005 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is useful to distinguish prejudice from racism. Prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion usually based on limited information or misinformation (Tatum). Bennet's comments fall into this category because they are obviously based on misinformation.

Racism is "prejudice plus power" or a system of advantage based on race. Many groups and individuals of all colors hold prejudiced beliefs about each other, but racist institutions require power to have any impact on lives (literally). Racism is not only a personal ideology based on prejudice, but a system supported by institutional practices (including teaching and media hype) and cultural messages (that whites are superior and non-whites are inferior). The American system of White supremacy is what supplied Bennet with the misinformation to make such a prejudiced statement.

My question is: how can one talk about prejudiced remarks without talking about racism? How does one seperate the remark from the system that produced it?

As an aside, when will Alternet start publishing more articles about ordinary (particularly non-white) people instead of all these sexy articles on prejudiced whites, athletic/hiphop/saintly blacks, illegal immigrant latinos and so forth? What about more articles about women that aren't only about sex and reproduction? They only result in mind-numbing, unproductive debates about race and gender that further entrench people into their positions instead helping people learn something or see something from a different perspective.

Where are the stories about ordinary women and non-white people and their struggles for something so unsexy as equality? What about stories about white men who challenge the gender & race boxes they are forced into? What about white men who give a damn about social justice? They do exist.

Don't get me wrong, Alternet has moments when it does break from the clichéd debate about race and gender, but I want more than just moments. Readers deserve more. I support Alternet and that's the only reason I am bothering to write this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: prejudice vs. racism Posted by: Gatsby
Maybe what we need is real discussion between groups of people
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Oct 10, 2005 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people work so hard at being politically correct, yet not understanding why something is correct and why something is not. We do not understand other cultures and for the most part, we do not go out of our way to learn. I know in my life I have said things that have offend people, yet have not understood why they were offend. There are lot of divisions within the so called white race and many people from these differing groups get really upset, if you make some remark unknowingly. For example about number of teens having sex. Kids know who is having sex these days and they normally do not tell their parents. The "do not tell us" and "head buried in the sand" school of parenting.

We do not understand other people unless we talk to them openly, instead of judging them. We have very few avenues that offer honest dialogs between groups. Everyone is unique as an individual and perhaps that is where our discussions should start. I know I would really support creating more discussion groups of a kind that were so prominent in the 60's and 70's. Learning does not take place in a vacuum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

degrees of separation
Posted by: SBK on Oct 10, 2005 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What WOULD you call "soft" racism? So race based hatred and violence can span the spectrum from vote blockages, profiling, and bombing, but why would the lower end be something else BUT racism? Whether it is institutional or perpetrated by a "redneck" isn't it all exclusion and prejudice? It's creepy to say we can index an "ism" from hardcore to only kinda rude, but does that change its impact or its name? Bombing kills people, but so do insufficient education policies or predatory drug policies. Wouldn't calling it something else let the core of the issue off the hook? Bennett ignores the fact that black crime isn't higher, it's just prosecuted harder. Maybe we should just abort racist judges and cops and black crime would go down? I think bigotry by any other name would stink just as bad, why confuse a society that is just starting to get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: degrees of separation Posted by: philame
Bennett's comment and racism
Posted by: mim on Oct 10, 2005 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the context of race relations in the USA and the world, it does level the playing field somewhat if only people of color can use the heavy artillery of "racist" (what Russell Baker called the accusation from which there is no appeal), while whites are left with only the popgun of "prejudiced." But what about "bigot"? That's a nice all-purpose word that non-racial advocacy groups have used to good advantage.

But getting back to Bennett's comment, what is at least as bad as the original comment was his explanation of why such a "solution" would be wrong. Only because it's abortion. Not because it's genocide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: one more thing Posted by: philame
» RE: one more thing Posted by: mim
Semantics
Posted by: AlexandraDS on Oct 10, 2005 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Racism is the belief that significant differences are inherent to various genetic groups which make one or some of these groups superior or inferior to one or some other group(s). Discrimination based on such beliefs is also commonly called racism, but is more correctly termed "racial discrimination".

The belief that "black" people are inherently more likely to become criminals by sole virtue of their race is racism. (No less so because it's specious nonsense.) You may feel that such racism is somehow benign if the person who holds these beliefs does not act upon them, but I would argue that broadcasting them via radio [b]is[/b] acting upon them. (Then again, I don't think there is any such thing as benign racism.)

Personally I am much more concerned that execrable comments such as Bennett made were universally decried, rather than argue amongst ourselves as to exactly which label should be properly applied to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT RACIST MY ASS
Posted by: LMNOP on Oct 10, 2005 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bennett's comments were more that just stupid. The conversation he was having was about the evils of abortion, not crime or race. Bennett conflated African-American with crime and then injected the package into his conversation. I demonstrated his assumption that relatively more crime comes from black people, a necessary condition for their selective elimination to lower the crime rate. How is this not racist as the term is commonly used?

What if he had said that you could lower the incest rate by aborting Southerners, or raise the national IQ by aborting all Christian fundamentalists? That's just dumb, nothing more, right?

What's that you say, people will object to my putting those ideas into their collective thinking? You're right! Then let me add that that would be morally reprehensible to purge the world of incest and stupidity that way. That should excuse it. (Note to young people and recent immigrants: SOUTHERNER = INCEST and CHRISTIAN = STUPID are associations frequently made by others, not me).

And remember, kids, it's wrong to slaughter them all just as it was wrong to slaughter the SAVAGE AMERICAN INDIANS and the JESUS-HATING IRAQIS even though they are Muslims and would kill you first if you did (wink, wink). There, now no Southerner or Christian could possibly think that I would LMAO if such a thing happened.

Listen, if you're Southern or evangelical Christian, and you are offended or if you believe that such language might lead others to think less of you or to treat you worse, then you have finally gotten the point and you need to stop saying that Bennett was merely pointing out this or speaking hypothetically about that.

And to anybody who also feels the same as - - I mean, anyone who wants to defend these words and propagate this kind of language, just tell whoever it is that objects that they are taking my words out of context Point out that I never actually said to exterminate Southerners and Christians (see how I got that phrase to go through your mind one more time) but that I was merely speaking in the hypothetical and that they are being oversensitive.

It's a nasty, stealth form of warfare, wouldn't you agree? Notice that nobody but I was talking about Southerners or evangelicals in this discussion until I introduced and trashed both of them. Or maybe you agree with the author and think that I'm not being bigoted, just silly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How About Race-Baiting?
Posted by: Stonecutter on Oct 10, 2005 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember Willie Horton? You can argue whether Bill Bennett is a racist until the cows come home, but his comments betray a cynical use of race-BAITING as a tactic in the never ending battle between truth, justice and the right-wing oligarchy that really runs things around here, for which Bennett is a steadfast propogandist, deflector, distractor and apologist. The Gunga Din of the right-wing establishment.

He knew exactly what he was saying, so "stupid" doesn't cut it, nor "self-righteous" either. Taylor's right on when he points out that this kind of vile-speak should never be brought up in public discourse (not in private either, but inevitably, it will be), and in doing so, Bennett planted a demon seed in the public mind. Are you telling me he didn't anticipate the firestorm his comments would set off? He's a sly fox....a nauseating, hubristic, hypocritical fox, but a fox nonetheless.

It's likely he belongs to the Barbara Bush school of thought when it comes to poor black Americans. Does that make him racist? I don't know....but I do know that his "aborted black babies = lower crime rate" smear is the audible equivalent of pappa Bush's infamous 1988 campaign commercial showing a group of black presumed convicts passing through a revolving gate, back out into society where they could rape, molest and otherwise endanger white, Christian Republicans (and maybe a few others)...

Bennett once again baited the hook to reel in the mindless fear and rampant bigotry that swims out here in the toxic sea of American culture and politics. He knew what he was doing...he may or may not be a racist (you decide), but he's a card-carrying, certified race-baiter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» also a trial balloon. Posted by: shangrilalad
» RE: How About Race-Baiting? Posted by: blueneck
» Anti-regionalism Posted by: blueneck
» RE: Dukakis in Philadelphia Posted by: blueneck
» RE: Dukakis in Philadelphia Posted by: blueneck
» RE: Dukakis in Philadelphia Posted by: peritonlogon
Bennett's comments WERE racist
Posted by: ctguy on Oct 10, 2005 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Bennett may not "hate" African-Americans or wish them all dead. But the equation: [Black people = crime] is a racist construct. Period.
And if it's a question of the power to use views in a way that can have a real impact on society -- this man has a daily sindicated radio program on which he made these comments.
It is probably true that the root cause of this particular comment is blind insensitivity and towering arrogance, rather than a desire to intentionally further harm society with racist verbiage.
But the fact that even now he and his defenders still do not get the essential offensiveness of the above equation -- especially right on the heels of momumental exposure of US racism through Katrina -- shows how virilent and insideous this social illness is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

White Crime versus Black crime
Posted by: shangrilalad on Oct 10, 2005 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
White Crime versus Black crime

Crime, like everything else in America is class related; those at the bottom of the economic ladder have slight opportunity to do much swindling on the stock market. White collar crimes (if detected or prosecuted) are treated as little more than misdemeanors (even though the victims’ losses may involve billions of dollars) while blue collar criminals go to prison for growing a pot plant in their back yard.

Comparing “white” crimes to “black” crimes fails to take into account the incidence of crime; it’s like comparing grains of sand to diamonds. White crime is like white noise, it’s so ubiquitous it goes unnoticed. While blacks may commit more violent crimes, the point is moot when you consider that white crime affects a lot more people. Which has the greater impact on society, ten thousand retires being cheated of their pensions or one liquor store owner being robbed at gunpoint?

The disparity in the treatment of white crime and black crime didn’t happen by chance, the laws were intentionally designed this way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» White Crime versus Black crime? Posted by: peritonlogon
To eliminate, stupidity.........
Posted by: cyclone on Oct 10, 2005 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would suggest that to eliminate all that is wrong with America one should abort every "right wing pseudo intellectual, self righteous, holier than thou, self anointed morality police, racist, selfish, soulless pig" like Bill Bennett, and anyone that chooses to believe the bullshit hatred that he spews. He should be the Poster child of Planned Parenthood, if the photo shoot can be manged between gambling junkets.

Is this wrong? Are you pissed that one would write something like this? Good, now maybe you'll get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Common Sense.
Posted by: Colin on Oct 10, 2005 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before you can decide if the comment was racist or not, you have to define racism. Personally, I define racism as thus:

Any proposition in which a negative sentiment is communicated, typically (though not exclusively) by means of a derogatory comment, in regards to another person, solely based that person (or their ancestors) point of origin.

This is specific enough to include everything you need and also general enough to exclude anything you don't. So, for example, that would mean that when a black lad calls his skinny white friend, 'fat' and the skinny friend white retorts, 'ni**er', this may be dismissed as non-racist. His language may suggest he's being racist but the all important sentiment isn't there.

However, when the influential pillar of society links black people and crime, especially when talking about another subject, we should wonder as to his intentions - the 'sentiment' behind his comments. Ultimately, all answers are irrelevant on the grounds it is improvable but, for the record, I think it was a derogatory comment coupled with the necessary negative sentiment and therefore thoroughly racist.

In the words of a cleverer man than myself: 'What a tosser.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What should we call it?
Posted by: cstriker on Oct 10, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know, we will call it ignorance.

I went to a play the other night. The usher there was a large guy. I'm 5'6" , 155lbs and I'd place him around 6'2", 230lbs. So to me he was a very large guy. We happened to approach a pair of water fountains simultaneously. Of the two fountains one was a little shorter. I deferred to him (out of politeness) and he pointed our there were two fountains and went to the smaller one. I made a comment (referring to size) and said I could have gone to the smaller one and we laughed about it. A few minutes later I was telling someone because I saw the humor in the big guy taking the small fountain so we could both drink at the same time. At that point someone said, "Do you mean the black usher?" and it dawned on me, I hadn't even considered his race.

People are people regardless of color and as long as we continue to discuss differences (color or otherwise) then we will never see the similarities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the author (and the rest of you) are missing the point.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 10, 2005 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is correct in that Bennetts assertion was not blatantly racist. He, and it appears most of you, also, have missed the ugly subtelty of Bennets remarks.

It IS an assumption--but not the one that suggests disproportionate criminality. That's simply a statistical observation.

The hateful part of what Bennett said is the assumption--which carried the force of prediction--that this situation can't change. This was the quietly horrific sentiment that he expressed: that every one of those unborn babies was "locked" into a disproportionate criminal destiny because of the color of their skin.

You simply cannot forecast that a group of babies MUST grow up to commit crimes--to deny them a better future--based on the color of his/her skin without venturing into the realm of racism, "stupidity" aside.

But, on the topic of "stupid", why does every article have to feature a sing-along? Are the contributors and editors so afraid that if the chorus doesn't come around often enough, then it might not become true? Of course, I mean the author's left-hook at the reader's intelligence:

"...including, for example, the president, who engineered the suppression of the African-American vote in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004..."

Voter fraud and vote tampering is a serious federal offense. If the author has any evidence or credible information regarding these crimes, the author is encouraged to contact the Federal Elections Commission at: (Toll-free) 800-424-9530. While the author may certainly make his report (in a convenient sing-along format) to Alternet.org, Alternet.org lacks the authority to prosecute felony crimes in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FEC is part of the problem Posted by: ABetterFuture
Scallion22
Posted by: Scallion22 on Oct 10, 2005 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aborting all whites would lower the crime rate much more than aborting all blacks. But to make a real dent in crime, we should target the group responsible for most of the crime committed in this country by aborting all male fetuses except Asians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking of Criminals
Posted by: rkewen on Oct 10, 2005 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget the biggest criminals, guilty of crimes against humanity that inhabit the White House - mostly old white guys in suits with a bit of color added by the Secretary of State and Attorney General to name a couple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Point Overall, But...
Posted by: JessicaJean on Oct 10, 2005 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must precede my comment by saying that I found the rest of this article to be exceedingly observant and correct in my opinion. However I cannot agree with any statement which attempts to limit the extent of free speech.

"But Mr. Bennett's statement was wrong in another sense; wrong in the sense that it should not have been said, because it allows the subject of black genocide as a way to solve America's problems to be raised as a topic of discussion."

It's reprehensible to say that because one finds an idea disgusting (and this idea is truly disgusting) that anyone does not have the right to say it. Regardless of how "dangerous" an idea can be, if one wants to discuss it, that is their right. Free speech doesn't exist if it's definition is that people can say what they please as long as a lot of people agree with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Point Overall, But... Posted by: liberalibrarian
Stooge
Posted by: ScottP on Oct 10, 2005 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or the longer version, "robber baron's stooge" would be another name that could describe Bennett. Racism is one angle to this, for certainly the robber barons who are overwhelmingly white will use racism as one part of their offense to claim ever more money and power. So Bennett slyly used the race genocide card to slip in the claim that white collar crime is not a concern. How many common criminals would it take to cause the multi-billion dollar damages that Ken Lay and his tribe caused? Or to cause damage comparable to Exxon? I label Bennett as a stooge rather than a baron because he hasn't rolled in quite that much money yet (as far as I know). Which makes him a particularly pathetic character, aspiring to be worse than worthless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for the discussion
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 10, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman in an interracial marriage with an interracial daughter I have been very careful to minimize my use of the word 'racism'. I take the cues from my ex.

I think it would be more appropriate to talk about things in terms of economics, class, work, education. These are the factors which oppress people in America. Poverty, menial labor, lack of higher education. These scourges can affect any body of any race.

I know a writer in LA named The Conscious Rasta who thinks that the whole notion of race is a fallacy. I agree with him, and have thought this way for quite some time.

Now I will agree that a minority will be sensitive whether they are a minority due to race, sexual orientation, class. So when a person is isolated in a community, this can cause pain, and cause this person to feel discriminated against and the victim of prejudice. I think it would be better to talk about things in terms of minority and majority my self.

I hope my thoughts are clear this morning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

divide and conquer
Posted by: karyse on Oct 10, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until everyone recognizes that race is a ficticious social construction of reality that keeps the "have nots" from unifying and bringing down the system that exploits them, nothing will change.

Capitalism is not racist, it is classist. In order to maintain itself it must have groups of "have nots" who despise each other enough to keep from working together against the "bosses." And more than that, groups must perceive that the other group is preventing "our" group from being able to get power within the system.

The activism of the 60's was the most dangerous to the power structure since the French Revolution -- and they knew it -- becasue of the blurring of the race lines, the class lines, and the educational level lines.

It has amazed me for years that the have nots, of any stripe, will freak out upon the suggestion that capitalism is not a natural state of affairs; they will freak out if you suggest that there might be a different system. The ideology of capitalism has become so firmly entrenched in our imagination, that we are blinded to it -- like a fish is blind to the water he/she lives in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: divide and conquer:karyse Posted by: Basenjis
Bennett injected this into the debate...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Oct 10, 2005 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unprompted and without a logical connection.

He's too smart to do that in an uncalculated fashion.

And it's disgusting. When someone makes me so mad it brings tears, I fight back with my pen. For you Bill Bennett:

Study: Euthanizing Right-wing Pundits would Solve Global Warming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The meaning of crime
Posted by: loony on Oct 10, 2005 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The word "crime" suggests strongly that the "correction industry" is justified on each and every incarceration performed by the law courts. Another factor is the big bucks flow that keeps this enormous industry up and going. It is clear that eliminating all American citizens of African descent in itself will not have any effect on the crime rate - there are also Latins, Irish and many other minority groups who would fill this role just as well. From this we may see that the really horrifying implicit assumption of the fool on the radio is that the statistcal majority of prison victims he is referring to actually deserve to be where they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Racism is just a word
Posted by: nitrogirl on Oct 10, 2005 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call it racism, call it prejudice, call it whatever you like. As long as it's a word, and it has a limited definition in the dictionary, people will hide behind it. I agree with the author of this story that more generalized, all-encompassing words should be used, like "stupid" "ignorant" "irresponsible." I am white, and I know many white people who are raised on the all-to-familiar phrase "but we aren't racist". At least down south you can tell who is racist, because they claim their "redneck" status with pride. But up north it is a different story. Children are raised by parents who have all sorts of racially twisted beliefs, but claim "racism is wrong" then the children grow up to be racist, and think they are not. What a mixed up world we live in. Then we also have a "stupid" (aka racist & stupid in many other matters) president.
Who by the way is "dissapointed" that blacks didn't vote for him. After all, he was nice enough to appoint Condi & Colin. What else do those people want? President Bush Expresses ‘Disappointment’ in Lack of Black Support

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: acism is just a word Posted by: loony
» RE: Racism is just a word Posted by: Basenjis
J. Douglas Allen-Taylor doesn't get it
Posted by: Jumpcity on Oct 10, 2005 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is way off base. The term "racist" applies exactly to what Bennet said. First of all, it has nothing to do with abortion, even though Bennet used that word in his statement. People, including Allan-Taylor, who raise this false issue, are simply trying to cloud the argument.

Bennet was equating less black people in the world, with less crime in the world. Period. That is a racist point of view.

He said, "...I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." We all know that Bill Bennet wasn't advocating abortion, so the argument that somehow we "misunderstood his point" is ludicrous. He could just as easily have said, "If you kill every black person, the crime rate would go down.", or, "If you jailed every black person, the crime rate would fall." It would be the same argument - and it would be just as racist.

I would call Bennet a "stupid racist".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What kind of problem?
Posted by: mim on Oct 10, 2005 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An article a few years ago in the New York Times suggested that the rate of violent crime in the U.S. is not a black or white thing but a southern thing. The argument went that the whites who settled the southern U.S. came from a western region of England that was regarded as uncivilized by the rest of England, and where insults to honor were avenged by private violence. This ethic created a poisoned moral climate that affected everyone, white and black. I don't know whether to agree with it or not, but I'm throwing it out for your consideration.

What do you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Violence in the south Posted by: blueneck
» RE: What kind of problem? Posted by: Basenjis
What were they thinking?
Posted by: bookwoman on Oct 10, 2005 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether it is Bill Bennett's recent remark about abortion and its presumed effect on the crime rate or Trent Lott's hoorays for Strom Thurman's segregationist past, these mindless lapses show what is wrong with the mindset of many of our people. They seem to not have the moral brakes to know the attitudes which bring about such remarks are wrong. No alarms go off in their heads that such remarks are wrong. They are not alone in their attitudes about what is right or wrong with these underlying attitudes. I am from Massachusetts, and I have had a lovely elderly white women tell me that she is afraid of "those people". How can you be afraid of a group of individuals who cover all levels of education and economics and call them "those people". The target of Bill Bennett, Trent Lott, Strom Thurman and my elderly friend are people, not entities. I am a history teacher, and the realization, that my African American friends would have been "property" before 1865, takes my breath away. Bill Bennett was wrong; Trent Lott was wrong, Strom Thurman was wrong, as wrong as any of the sheet wearing members of the Klan. Bill Bennett should be out there apologizing for his remark, not making excuses or trying to rationalize his remark. There is no rationalization for saying that black babies should be aborted to prevent the crime rate from going up. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What were they thinking? Posted by: Basenjis
Hate? Who you kiddin'?
Posted by: chasaturn on Oct 10, 2005 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The coment that the president doesn't "hate" African-Americans because he "keeps" so many around him reeks of stupidity. Besides, you never heard the term 'house nigger'? There sure is a lot to be learned, sad to say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you chasaturn! Posted by: eastcoker
» I am gonna use it Posted by: eastcoker
The media promotes the desimination of bigoted ideas!
Posted by: mnascimento on Oct 10, 2005 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting how media, amplifies and broadcasts to millions, every otherwise obscure, racially unambiguous remark.
Sometimes, public figures like Trent Lott, are cynically manuevered out of coveted leadership roles. Other foot in mouthers, such as Jimmy the Greek and Secretary Watt were fired out right. Only to have their income sources become speaking engagements, book rights, and lobbying jobs. The sales of the BELL CURVE, a book that would not concievably, be of interest to any one, became bestseller status. After, being denounced 24/7 in print and broadcast media.
The media is somehow complicit, in propigating stereotyping
by giving laborius analysis and debate to remarks and ideas that would otherwise, die of obscurity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» news people Posted by: kittykat
If Not Racism, What Is It?
Posted by: Basenjis on Oct 10, 2005 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not think Mr. Bennett's foot-in-mouth comment is indicative of a racist attitude. I think it was simply a careless, thoughtless, insensitive comment. He seemed so totally unaware when he said it that he could possibly be misunderstood. The impression I got was that he was simply treating people as statistics and it was just by chance that the comment was about a racial group. If it is true that people not of his class are to him as mere statistics, then his comment is an insult to all of us. I think people have seized on this incident with such glee because this is such a pompous, superior, egotistical, self proclaimed authority on human morals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real Issue
Posted by: thehousedog on Oct 10, 2005 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey y'all - the real issue is not what he said but that he would even think it. Then, extrapolate that to the people he associates with. Would you dare make the assumption that they also think this way? Is it possible that if he thinks this way that perhaps other people in this country do? Then, if so, what would you do about it.

The key is to openly discuss these issues with these so-called masters of morality and publishers of perception. Counter their every statement with truth and ask them where they get their knowledge and facts from.

Those opposed to what is happening in this country must fight back with the truth, hit hard and hit first. Expose the lies that our own government forces each of us to live each day. Good luck!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Bennett is a racist, period.
Posted by: sausage on Oct 10, 2005 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Bennett was alluding to was "Chapter 4:Where Have All The Crinimals Gone?" of the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. The chapter deals with the unexpected fall in the crime rate in the early 1990s.

Levitt and Dubner write:"Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime." They make a simple conclusion:"Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."

There is no mention of race. As we should know by now crime and criminality is a product of proverty and other related social factors, not race.

However, for white American conservatives the face of crime is always black. Bennett was attempting to tar-brush Levitt and Dubner, and by inference all "liberals," as "racists" for equating the fall in the crime rate with Roe v. Wade.

Bennett deliberately misrepresents Levitt and Dubner's findings. The act of distorting the authors' findings that the advent of legalized abortion lead to a fall in the crime rate, merely in the African American community as Bennett alleges, is in itself an act of subtle racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

<