Raghu writes: >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > The theory presented is that the TP is racist. You appear to be saying >> > that the very >> fact that the TP (or conservatives) go out of their way to favor minorities >> evidence the >> theory. What is the test that would disprove the thesis? >> > >> >> That's easy: you want to see if black people are very highly >> under-represented in the Tea Party or not.
That does not work at all. By that logic, the Democratic Party is anti-Christian; anti-Cuban; etc. I realize such logic is inherent in a certain Left-wing view of affirmative action, Title IX, etc., but I didn't think (and don't think) serious Leftists take that logic seriously. >> > There is clearly a conservative fascination with black intellectual >> > conservatives, >> precisely because they are black and rare. >> >> Exactly! Fascination with the unique is not comparable to racism. If it is, then we need a new word for what racism traditionally meant. >> > I would argue that it is conceptually no different, at worst, than the >> > Leftist fascination >> with a guy like Norman Finklestein when it comes to Israel. >> >> Liberal anti-Zionist views are not all that uncommon among the US >> Jewish community. The point is that no argument citing Finklestein fails to point out he is a child of holocaust survivors, with the implication that because he makes an argument, it is more compelling because of who he is. That is not conceptually different than a conservative pointing to somebody black who attacks the benefits of the welfare state on the grounds that the argument is more compelling because of the person making the argument. Such arguments are logically deficient, but they have rhetorical force, which is why they are used, and their use is not evidence of racism, etc. David Shemano
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
