‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The necessary evil of racial identity politics for whites

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 05:47
 
Abel Dean - 09 January 2019 05:27 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying. 

You add nothing but genteel stupidity to the conversation, sir, but I am glad you are doing it out here in the open, for everyone to see.

Yes, certainly better than systemic censorship, which is the status quo almost everywhere. In the western world since World War 2, groups protecting their own interests has been generally acceptable, with one key exception. It is now popular to believe, with the zealous encouragement of the consensus of academic authorities, that the way to resolve the systemic social injustices everywhere in the world is to stop white people (including you, not just me) from being implicitly or secretly oppressive against non-whites everywhere. It is a complete delusion. It follows from projecting good liberal ideals onto our beliefs about objective reality. If darker races absolutely must NOT be less intelligent, then the only way to explain their systemic disadvantages is either their own laziness/bad choices or they are being systemically oppressed by whites. Both alternatives are delusions, and the conservative world has chosen the former alternative and the liberal world has chosen the latter alternative. The liberal alternative matters more, because disadvantaged non-whites have generally sided with it, and the liberal ideology dominates popular media and academia. Even though races are psychologically different, it would be great if everyone in the world stopped seeing race and stopped worrying about racial inequality. This was tried from the fifties to the eighties. The expectation was that racial inequality would go away. It is the origin of the belief that biological races don’t even exist. Anti-racism then became popular among whites. And yet racial inequality persisted with about the same magnitudes. So, liberals and disadvantaged non-whites everywhere started to blame secret/implicit racism among the white race for all such problems, and whites self-impose a moral stricture to not even try to defend themselves against the conspiracism. This is no solution for anyone. This is the opposite of a solution. One way or the other, we need to lose the moral dogmas governing our beliefs about objective reality.

One can either boldly declare “WHITE POWER!!”, or in your genteel way one can whimper “perhaps we should try white self-empowerment as a necessary evil in a hostile world.”

The only thing separating the two is a ball-sack and manners. 

 

[ Edited: 09 January 2019 06:15 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 06:28
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 05:47 AM
Abel Dean - 09 January 2019 05:27 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying. 

You add nothing but genteel stupidity to the conversation, sir, but I am glad you are doing it out here in the open, for everyone to see.

Yes, certainly better than systemic censorship, which is the status quo almost everywhere. In the western world since World War 2, groups protecting their own interests has been generally acceptable, with one key exception. It is now popular to believe, with the zealous encouragement of the consensus of academic authorities, that the way to resolve the systemic social injustices everywhere in the world is to stop white people (including you, not just me) from being implicitly or secretly oppressive against non-whites everywhere. It is a complete delusion. It follows from projecting good liberal ideals onto our beliefs about objective reality. If darker races absolutely must NOT be less intelligent, then the only way to explain their systemic disadvantages is either their own laziness/bad choices or they are being systemically oppressed by whites. Both alternatives are delusions, and the conservative world has chosen the former alternative and the liberal world has chosen the latter alternative. The liberal alternative matters more, because disadvantaged non-whites have generally sided with it, and the liberal ideology dominates popular media and academia. Even though races are psychologically different, it would be great if everyone in the world stopped seeing race and stopped worrying about racial inequality. This was tried from the fifties to the eighties. The expectation was that racial inequality would go away. It is the origin of the belief that biological races don’t even exist. Anti-racism then became popular among whites. And yet racial inequality persisted with about the same magnitudes. So, liberals and disadvantaged non-whites everywhere started to blame secret/implicit racism among the white race for all such problems, and whites self-impose a moral stricture to not even try to defend themselves against the conspiracism. This is no solution for anyone. This is the opposite of a solution. One way or the other, we need to lose the moral dogmas governing our beliefs about objective reality.

One can either boldly declare “WHITE POWER!!”, or in your genteel way one can whimper “perhaps we should try white self-empowerment as a necessary evil in a hostile world.”

The only thing separating the two is a ball-sack and manners. 

 

That obviously is not the way reality works. An astronomer is not an astrologer who lacks a scrotum (albeit mainly because they are mostly male). The objective universe is one thing only, but it seemingly does not line up so well with any of the thousands of ideologies. And I certainly advise against using Neo-Nazis as your compass so you can run in the opposite direction. You already agree with Neo-Nazis that 2+2=4, so why don’t you just go all they way and carve 1488 on your chest? Or maybe it is best to conclude 2 + 2 is something else?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2019 08:13
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 January 2019 08:34
 

Abel Dean:
Yes, certainly better than systemic censorship, which is the status quo almost everywhere. In the western world since World War 2, groups protecting their own interests has been generally acceptable, with one key exception. It is now popular to believe, with the zealous encouragement of the consensus of academic authorities, that the way to resolve the systemic social injustices everywhere in the world is to stop white people (including you, not just me) from being implicitly or secretly oppressive against non-whites everywhere. It is a complete delusion. It follows from projecting good liberal ideals onto our beliefs about objective reality. If darker races absolutely must NOT be less intelligent, then the only way to explain their systemic disadvantages is either their own laziness/bad choices or they are being systemically oppressed by whites. Both alternatives are delusions, and the conservative world has chosen the former alternative and the liberal world has chosen the latter alternative. The liberal alternative matters more, because disadvantaged non-whites have generally sided with it, and the liberal ideology dominates popular media and academia. Even though races are psychologically different, it would be great if everyone in the world stopped seeing race and stopped worrying about racial inequality. This was tried from the fifties to the eighties. The expectation was that racial inequality would go away. It is the origin of the belief that biological races don’t even exist. Anti-racism then became popular among whites. And yet racial inequality persisted with about the same magnitudes. So, liberals and disadvantaged non-whites everywhere started to blame secret/implicit racism among the white race for all such problems, and whites self-impose a moral stricture to not even try to defend themselves against the conspiracism. This is no solution for anyone. This is the opposite of a solution. One way or the other, we need to lose the moral dogmas governing our beliefs about objective reality.

The ability for just about everyone to share info and to film just about everything these days has been eye-opening.  Negative views of dark-skinned people have led to unnecessary harrassments and even deaths (ie Trayvon Martin).  My favorite example for outrageousness is the woman in Brooklyn who called 911 accusing a black child of assaulting her, when in fact his backpack brushed up against her in a crowded shop.  This is what stereotyping can come to.

On the other hand, “whites” should not be lumped together as a stereotyped group either.  People of all stripes should assess themselves for prejudices.

The crux of your argument appears to be this: If darker races absolutely must NOT be less intelligent, then the only way to explain their systemic disadvantages is either their own laziness/bad choices or they are being systemically oppressed by whites. Both alternatives are delusions, and the conservative world has chosen the former alternative and the liberal world has chosen the latter alternative.  You seem to have chosen low intelligence as the reason.  And the obverse, that lighter-skinned people are more intelligent, would then account for their relative dominance in wealth and power. 

Besides the reasons argued previously, this sort of thinking makes me shudder because my background is Jewish.  And I am well aware of how the Germans strove to justify their antipathy toward Jews through “scientific” measurements of their inherent inferiority. 

In any case, using a bell-curve of IQ tests is not a valid way to assess problems.  For example, whites account for a greater share of opioid deaths than their percentage in the US population.  Why is that?  Think of all the reasons.  Are whites more genetically prone to addiction to that particular category of chemicals, or is it a white cultural issue?  Or stress from other cultures?  Or a person’s specific life story?  Or maybe a combination of many factors?  In any case, should an employer be leery of hiring a white, middle-aged, suburban man because this is this is the demographic most at risk for opioid abuse?  Is this group less intelligent?  Should the rest of society simply shun abusers, or try to tackle the problem?  Is it a problem of one group, or a human problem?

 

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3292
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
09 January 2019 09:37
 

Those fearing the prospect of white nationalism closely resemble those in fear of being subsumed by darker races.  They simply cancel each other out as far as I’m concerned.  And I think it sometimes has less to do with moral outrage and more to do with the fear of exposing their own subtle versions of racism and misogyny.  In any case, it’s just the sort of fear that’ll get Lumpy re-elected.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 12:38
 
GAD - 09 January 2019 08:13 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

I don’t quite follow what you are asking.  Could you clarify?

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 January 2019 15:38
 
LadyJane - 09 January 2019 09:37 AM

Those fearing the prospect of white nationalism closely resemble those in fear of being subsumed by darker races.  They simply cancel each other out as far as I’m concerned.  And I think it sometimes has less to do with moral outrage and more to do with the fear of exposing their own subtle versions of racism and misogyny.  In any case, it’s just the sort of fear that’ll get Lumpy re-elected.

Because, don’t you know, “once you go black, you’ll never go back.”

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 January 2019 15:45
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 12:38 PM
GAD - 09 January 2019 08:13 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

I don’t quite follow what you are asking.  Could you clarify?

He’s asking if you think Black Lives Matter is just as “idiotic” as White Power. Doesn’t see the power polarity: one group fighting for their lives, the other fighting to retain control and privilege. And Dean’s fears are that if blacks actually gain full equality then they will out breed whites and soon it will be whites who are fighting for their lives; or at least that his kids won’t be able to rely on white privilege when applying for a job.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3292
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
09 January 2019 16:45
 
burt - 09 January 2019 03:38 PM

Because, don’t you know, “once you go black, you’ll never go back.”

There’s something to be said fer off colour jokes.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 17:14
 
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 08:34 AM

Abel Dean:
Yes, certainly better than systemic censorship, which is the status quo almost everywhere. In the western world since World War 2, groups protecting their own interests has been generally acceptable, with one key exception. It is now popular to believe, with the zealous encouragement of the consensus of academic authorities, that the way to resolve the systemic social injustices everywhere in the world is to stop white people (including you, not just me) from being implicitly or secretly oppressive against non-whites everywhere. It is a complete delusion. It follows from projecting good liberal ideals onto our beliefs about objective reality. If darker races absolutely must NOT be less intelligent, then the only way to explain their systemic disadvantages is either their own laziness/bad choices or they are being systemically oppressed by whites. Both alternatives are delusions, and the conservative world has chosen the former alternative and the liberal world has chosen the latter alternative. The liberal alternative matters more, because disadvantaged non-whites have generally sided with it, and the liberal ideology dominates popular media and academia. Even though races are psychologically different, it would be great if everyone in the world stopped seeing race and stopped worrying about racial inequality. This was tried from the fifties to the eighties. The expectation was that racial inequality would go away. It is the origin of the belief that biological races don’t even exist. Anti-racism then became popular among whites. And yet racial inequality persisted with about the same magnitudes. So, liberals and disadvantaged non-whites everywhere started to blame secret/implicit racism among the white race for all such problems, and whites self-impose a moral stricture to not even try to defend themselves against the conspiracism. This is no solution for anyone. This is the opposite of a solution. One way or the other, we need to lose the moral dogmas governing our beliefs about objective reality.

The ability for just about everyone to share info and to film just about everything these days has been eye-opening.  Negative views of dark-skinned people have led to unnecessary harrassments and even deaths (ie Trayvon Martin).  My favorite example for outrageousness is the woman in Brooklyn who called 911 accusing a black child of assaulting her, when in fact his backpack brushed up against her in a crowded shop.  This is what stereotyping can come to.

On the other hand, “whites” should not be lumped together as a stereotyped group either.  People of all stripes should assess themselves for prejudices.

The crux of your argument appears to be this: If darker races absolutely must NOT be less intelligent, then the only way to explain their systemic disadvantages is either their own laziness/bad choices or they are being systemically oppressed by whites. Both alternatives are delusions, and the conservative world has chosen the former alternative and the liberal world has chosen the latter alternative.  You seem to have chosen low intelligence as the reason.  And the obverse, that lighter-skinned people are more intelligent, would then account for their relative dominance in wealth and power. 

Besides the reasons argued previously, this sort of thinking makes me shudder because my background is Jewish.  And I am well aware of how the Germans strove to justify their antipathy toward Jews through “scientific” measurements of their inherent inferiority. 

In any case, using a bell-curve of IQ tests is not a valid way to assess problems.  For example, whites account for a greater share of opioid deaths than their percentage in the US population.  Why is that?  Think of all the reasons.  Are whites more genetically prone to addiction to that particular category of chemicals, or is it a white cultural issue?  Or stress from other cultures?  Or a person’s specific life story?  Or maybe a combination of many factors?  In any case, should an employer be leery of hiring a white, middle-aged, suburban man because this is this is the demographic most at risk for opioid abuse?  Is this group less intelligent?  Should the rest of society simply shun abusers, or try to tackle the problem?  Is it a problem of one group, or a human problem?

I have a lot to say about social justice activism applied to their self-defeating anecdotes, but I think it is too much of a distraction. I also have a lot to say about the far right’s anti-Jewish conspiracism in spite of the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence advantage, and I may make a thread about that later, because it is important. Your last point is interesting. In the past I have claimed that we need to take seriously the strong possibility that whites have a genetic vulnerability to opioids and opiates. Recently I have focused on the intelligence differences, but races plainly have many more genotypic differences beyond intelligence and outer appearance. The mainstream hypothesis concerning racial differences in opioids and opiates right now is that doctors prescribe painkillers to whites much more than to blacks either because doctors believe blacks are more likely to become addicted or because doctors believe blacks are more pain tolerant than whites. The belief that blacks are more likely to be addicted may be true about drugs as a whole given the statistics but it may not be true for opioids and opiates specifically. We can not ethically test this belief. The other belief among doctors is most plainly wrong and a problem. Blacks are on average LESS pain tolerant, not more pain tolerant, than whites; this is tested by asking test subjects to keep their hand in a bowl of ice water for as long as they can. Blacks tend to take out their hand sooner. Whites recently exceeded blacks in the rate of drug overdose deaths. It is another reason we need to take the dogmas off the table. Races are likely to be different concerning genetic vulnerability to addictions, varying with many different drugs. We need to put that likely possibility on the table and take the absurd dogmas off the table. We can rightly deal with the questions of what this means for job discrimination and so on only after we let go of the absurdities. Before we let go of such absurdities, it is like trying to find a way through a booby-trapped maze while wearing upside-down glasses.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 17:35
 
burt - 09 January 2019 03:45 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 12:38 PM
GAD - 09 January 2019 08:13 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

I don’t quite follow what you are asking.  Could you clarify?

He’s asking if you think Black Lives Matter is just as “idiotic” as White Power. Doesn’t see the power polarity: one group fighting for their lives, the other fighting to retain control and privilege. And Dean’s fears are that if blacks actually gain full equality then they will out breed whites and soon it will be whites who are fighting for their lives; or at least that his kids won’t be able to rely on white privilege when applying for a job.

I never said nor implied blacks should not gain full equality. I said exactly the contrary in a way that leaves no ambiguity. I suggested genetic editing for equality. From my perspective, it is the only way full equality (economic, not just legal equality) can happen. I am happy defending what I believe. I am not so happy merely repeating what I plainly don’t believe after you shove me into your mold that represents some kind of white supremacist.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2019 18:21
 
burt - 09 January 2019 03:45 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 12:38 PM
GAD - 09 January 2019 08:13 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

I don’t quite follow what you are asking.  Could you clarify?

He’s asking if you think Black Lives Matter is just as “idiotic” as White Power. Doesn’t see the power polarity: one group fighting for their lives, the other fighting to retain control and privilege. And Dean’s fears are that if blacks actually gain full equality then they will out breed whites and soon it will be whites who are fighting for their lives; or at least that his kids won’t be able to rely on white privilege when applying for a job.

yes the bold is what I was asking. And white privilege is made up bullshit to sell an agenda and blacks actually have full equality under the law.

Don’t fool yourself, you are every bit as biased and agenda driven as you accuse others of.

 

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 January 2019 18:46
 
GAD - 09 January 2019 06:21 PM
burt - 09 January 2019 03:45 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 12:38 PM
GAD - 09 January 2019 08:13 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

I don’t quite follow what you are asking.  Could you clarify?

He’s asking if you think Black Lives Matter is just as “idiotic” as White Power. Doesn’t see the power polarity: one group fighting for their lives, the other fighting to retain control and privilege. And Dean’s fears are that if blacks actually gain full equality then they will out breed whites and soon it will be whites who are fighting for their lives; or at least that his kids won’t be able to rely on white privilege when applying for a job.

yes the bold is what I was asking. And white privilege is made up bullshit to sell an agenda and blacks actually have full equality under the law.

Don’t fool yourself, you are every bit as biased and agenda driven as you accuse others of.

No, you’re just playing your disagree with everything persona. White privilege certainly exists, and recognizing that doesn’t mean that one is a pussy or is singing kumbaya with the kooks. It needs to be recognized as an aspect of society, but there’s no need for me to feel guilty about it. It’s a fact and one accepts facts (although working to change those that need changing). Without it I’d probably be dead or in jail by now. Equality before the law is fine, but when push comes to shove in the hiring office (unless it’s on the football field or a basketball court) it’s usually the black guy or gal that gets pushed out or offered the lower salary (at least in much of the country, looking for local government jobs around San Francisco is a bit different). Things are much better now than they were 50 years ago, but it’s still the free white and 21 fellow who is on top, or fancies himself so, and when that starts looking bad goes and joins a David Duke group.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 January 2019 19:27
 

By coincidence, I just now finished reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck.  The last few chapters describe what he saw in the southern US in 1960.  It put this debate thread in perspective for me.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2019 20:16
 
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:27 PM

By coincidence, I just now finished reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck.  The last few chapters describe what he saw in the southern US in 1960.  It put this debate thread in perspective for me.

The book is probably fiction, not a factual account. John Steinbeck’s own son told the New York Times that, “He just sat in his camper and wrote all that shit,” in reference to the conversations accounted in the book. As a fiction, the book may have important lessons, but it needs to be distinguished from an honest account of people. Too many of us seem to learn about racists from their critics, and so the racists in popular myth take the shape of every villain in every tale of good versus evil. Part of the lives of the excommunicated is that nobody knows much of the truth about them.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›