Groups, think.
Danny Lemieux on Jul 21 2011 at 5:38 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Conservatives think in terms of individuals, liberals think in terms of groups.
That is one of my key takeaways from Kevin Jackson’s autobiographical “The Big Black Lie: How I Learned The Truth About The Democrat Party“. Jackson, black conservative and founder of The Black Sphere blog, grew up in Texas with one foot in the world of poor black poverty and the other in the world of white wealth.
http://www.amazon.com/BIG-Black-Lie-Learned-Democrat/dp/061530222X
I recommend this book: it’s a quick, easy and highly-entertaining read. It also describes a very interesting, self-driven man.
In his book, Jackson attributes much of the dysfunction on one side of his (staunch Democrat) family to the enablement of bad behavior by the Left and a nurtured (by whites) tendency of many black people to think of themselves as “takers” from, rather than “giver to”, society. He blames much of the group think in black society on the long-term self-identification of black people as “blacks first” (the “Black Code”) and the compulsion of the Liberal Left to treat black people as a monolithic identify group. Incidentally, Jackson also believes that much of what black people identify as “racism” is really classicism – behavior dictated not by the color of the skin but by economic position and culture.
I was reminded about this while sitting in the garden with my (very Liberal, very ethnic..i.e., secular Jewish) neighbors over beers. I happened to mention that we had new neighbors moving into an adjoining house and (to goose the goat) mentioned that they were black.
“Oh wonderful,” burbled my neighbor. “It will be so wonderful to get a black family in our neighborhood”.
I didn’t mention that this black family ran a drug enterprise in the Chicago inner city (Just kidding! My wife and I already know them to be stellar individuals with wonderful kids).
What was so funny, though, is that, sigh unseen, our new neighbors had already been pigeon-holed by my neighbor on the basis of their skin color. I suspect that what my neighbor meant is that by having a token black family in our neighborhood, she could then absolve herself of any perceived racism.
I think that a political liability of Republicans and conservatives is our tendency to define people by their individual characteristics rather than by their identity group. A Lefty political candidate has no problem getting on the stump and defining people by their group identity (blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, seniors) when promising largesse. Conservatives recoil at such distinctions. I know that I do.
For example, I oppose affirmative action in university admissions based on skin color, but have no problem with providing support to individuals, no matter what their ethnic or racial identification, based on economic need. If this applies disproportionately to different ethnics groups, so be it.
Politically, though, this leaves Leftwing politicians free to make promises to specific identity groups that conservatives are unable to do. Democrats can promise to direct largesse to specific Hispanic or black voting blocks, whereas conservatives candidates are left to explain what they will do to help the “poor” or ”the disadvantaged among us” in much more general terms. This certainly doesn’t resonate as well, does it? For “black” voters, it can appear as if Republicans are ignoring them.
What say you?
No related posts.
Email This Post To A Friend
27 Responses to “Groups, think.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I say that you just amp up the war propaganda and make the individuals hate and want to fight the Left.
Given the numerous crimes against humanity the Left has done, that shouldn’t be too hard.
Instead of promising equality or some kind of bank roll for special groups, you promise the individual justice. That all the evil people they see in life will get taken out once Republicans get into office.
Of course, Republicans themselves don’t think of the Left like that, which is sorta the reason why this nation is screwed at the moment.
We need superconductors to be able to transfer power via wireless transmission. We need a lie detector before individuals become truly empowered in a society.
Every human has their own lie detector but the problem is that nobody else will believe that detector’s results. They only believe in their own detector’s results, which may or may not be accurate.
The few times I’ve talked to blacks, they generally focus on individual injustices that they see, have heard of, or know themselves. By connecting those injustices to Democrat actions, most of the work is done. Currently those injustices are connected to Republican actions. So when you add that on top of the sugar daddy role the Democrats play for blacks, blacks have every reason to vote Democrat and against Republican.
But if you inverse it, then the trouble can start.
Danny Lemieux: I happened to mention that we had new neighbors moving into an adjoining house and (to goose the goat) mentioned that they were black.
Heh. YOU introduced race into the conversation, say they are pigeon-holing people, all the while you go out of your way to pigeon-hole your friends.
Danny Lemieux: What was so funny, though, is that, sigh unseen, our new neighbors had already been pigeon-holed by my neighbor on the basis of their skin color. I suspect that what my neighbor meant is that by having a token black family in our neighborhood, she could then absolve herself of any perceived racism.
Don’t know your friends, but they could very well just being welcoming of the newcomers. Social and cultural diversity is an opportunity.
The idea of group think from the left is nothing new. I was reading a commencement speech by Neal Boortz last night and saw this very same theme. It’s a really good read and you can find it here. But here’s the part relevant to the topic at hand.
So here are the first assignments for your initial class in post-graduate reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers – as long as we have newspapers — and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups –The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics and the principal of looting. Conservatives and Libertarians think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual – individual worth and achievement.
Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.
In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. This group identity nonsense needs to go away … now. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity should begin immediately.
Randall Woodman: That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics and the principal of looting. Conservatives and Libertarians think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual – individual worth and achievement.
Pigeon-holing case in point. Either this is defining “Liberals” as its most extreme members, or is lumping all sorts of people, many of whom do think and don’t advocate looting, into the category. Then, you purge a large part of the Conservative crowd, the theocracy crowd, in order to force it to fit the dichotomy.
Meanwhile, on another thread, so-called conservatives are considering secession, an extremely unconservative (albeit reactionary) position that would have all sorts of unintended consequences.
Randall Woodman: “They (“Liberals” – ed.) are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics and the principal of looting.”
And that analogy, folks, is definitely a keeper.
Zach: Heh. YOU introduced race into the conversation, say they are pigeon-holing people, all the while you go out of your way to pigeon-hole your friends.
Zach, you may want to contemplate what is meant by the term “goose the goat”. It was a reference to the fact that Liberal-Lefties are soooo predictable that, like pithed frogs, you can make their legs jerk reflexively simply by poking specific nerve endings. Kind of like how many of us here in the Bookworm Room can reliably elicit knee-jerk reflections from certain commentators by writing things like, “In another case of intermingling ideology with faulty science, AGW proponents….”
I almost missed this…
Zach, the ”theocracy crowd”?
Bwahahahaha! You are kidding, right?
Danny Lemieux: you may want to contemplate what is meant by the term “goose the goat”.
Quite aware of the term. You specifically provoked a response. So? They didn’t judge the people. They welcomed them.
Danny Lemieux: the ”theocracy crowd”?
That was Randall Woodman’s construction.
>>They didn’t judge the people. They welcomed them. >>
They welcomed them based solely on their skin color. That’s judging without judgement. Their skin color tells you nothing about their moral character or their culture.
Welcoming them because of their skin color is just as racist as _not_ welcoming them because of their skin color.
“Meanwhile, on another thread, so-called conservatives are considering secession, an extremely unconservative (albeit reactionary) position that would have all sorts of unintended consequences.”
Zach’s notorious disdain for the English lanbguage comes bobbing to the surface again:
—”Considering secession” means, in the real world, not Zach World, talking about what might drive moves to secession. Not plotting it, not advocating it, just discussing it.
—”So-called conservatives” is a Zach straw man designed to set up the following absurdity: “[secession] an extremely unconservative (albeit reactionary) position.” Nice to know that when the Baltic Republics seceded from nthe Soviet Union, they were being reactionary.
—”all sorts of unitended consequences.” No kidding! This is like that spoof we once did of Zach’s tendency to say things like, “The engines of cars that have just finished a long trip are hot to the touch.” Duh, Zach.
Suek — spot on comment. Lovely and exactly correct.
suek: They welcomed them based solely on their skin color. That’s judging without judgement. Their skin color tells you nothing about their moral character or their culture.
Given that they were provoked for a response, saying they welcomed diversity is not a bad thing, especially not in a country with such a long and sorry history of discrimination.
“I don’t see color. People tell me I’m white and I believe them because I get really good service at the Cracker Barrel” — Stephen Colbert.
Danny Lemieux: A Lefty political candidate has no problem getting on the stump and defining people by their group identity (blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, seniors) when promising largesse. Conservatives recoil at such distinctions. I know that I do.
Statements like this? “No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries.” Yes, it does make some people uncomfortable.
Charles Martel: —”Considering secession” means, in the real world, not Zach World, talking about what might drive moves to secession. Not plotting it, not advocating it, just discussing it.
Yes, that’s how we used it, though the range of thought varies.
Charles Martel (just around the bend): I don’t think anybody here is really shocked at the suggestion that the United States is currently heading toward secessionist movements or even outright civil war given the level of corruption in Washington and among America’s elites.
Moose (fait accompli): I think that the new republic formed after sucession will incorporate a consumer based tax structure.
jj (obvious conditional): And I’ll also add, if the whole thing has gotten so complicated it’s somehow beyond the scope or ability of average guys (come on – I have dogs smarter than Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Brney Fwank, or John Conyers), then it’s time to tear it the hell down and start again. If the apparatus has become so Byzantine as to be beyond the scope of. fore example, anyone who comments here, then it’s time to dismantle it right now.
Ymarsakar (voice of moderation): It would have to be a complete system overhaul at this time.
Charles Martel:
We brought up the discussion of secession in this thread only to illustrate the faulty use of the terms liberal and conservative.
suek: They welcomed them based solely on their skin color. That’s judging without judgement. Their skin color tells you nothing about their moral character or their culture.
Given that they were provoked for a response, saying they welcomed diversity is not a bad thing, especially not in a country with such a long and sorry history of discrimination.
“I don’t see color. People tell me I’m white and I believe them because I get really good service at the Cracker Barrel” — Stephen Colbert.
Danny Lemieux: A Lefty political candidate has no problem getting on the stump and defining people by their group identity (blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, seniors) when promising largesse. Conservatives recoil at such distinctions. I know that I do.
Statements like this? “No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries.” Yes, it does make some people uncomfortable.
Charles Martel:
We brought up the discussion of secession in this thread only to illustrate the faulty use of the terms liberal and conservative.
Sorry, the editing didn’t work properly. The direct response to Charles Martel’s comments on secession belong on the Revolution? Then What? thread.
Zach quotes Martin Luther King’s call for reparations, as “No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries”.
Zach, of course, thinks it is a peachy idea to force white people (as a group) to pay from their own labor, wages to the sons, grandsons and daughters and granddaughters of people that were alive long ago for sins supposedly committed by the whites’ ancestors against the black peoples’ ancestors. In Zach World, as they make clear, people are defined as groups, so any “black” person is automatically defined as a victim of a “white” person, based on alleged victimization of one group by another group long ago.
Our conservative response, of course, is…get over it! We are all individuals endowed with opportunities and masters of our own destinies. We do not suffer the sins of our fathers and you are not owed the wages of your forefathers. We have an obligation to level the fields of opportunity for people alive today, not to redress past sins, real or perceived.
Zach, meanwhile, continues to pile on the evidence that they are Europeans.
In an earlier thread, we quite explicitly noted that, while Martin Luther King was great American, he was hardly infallible. This is a good case in point.
Even Z’s political definitions fit the European, not American, model. Not even Leftists want to use the European definition of conservatism.
Danny, one of the most poignant scenes in “True Grit” is where Rooster Cogburn rides with the snake-bitten Mattie Ross across the wilderness on her little pony, pushing the horse to its death in the hope that it will carry them close to help for the stricken girl.
I bring up the image because Zach has pretty much worn out poor old Martin Luther King, Jr. Zach notoriously likes to have other thinkers carry his water, so I have to laugh at the implicit racism of Zach’s ceaseless exploitation of King to the point of exhaustion. Just like you’d do to a slave.
Beyond that, I assume that [European] Zach believes that only one black American worth quoting ever existed. He might want to broaden his horizons and cite John McWhorter, Thomas Sowell, Booker Washington, Aveda King—you know, somebody who is more than a convenient cliche.
And here’s yet another black man’s opinion for Zach to consider:
http://theblacksphere.net/does-shared-sacrifice-include-the-poor/
Danny Lemieux: Zach{riel} quotes Martin Luther King’s call for reparations, as “No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries”.
Then wouldn’t your argument be with King? All we did was quote him in the context of defining people by their group identity. Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood King.
Danny Lemieux: Zach{riel}, of course, thinks it is a peachy idea to force white people (as a group) to pay from their own labor, wages to the sons, grandsons and daughters and granddaughters of people that were alive long ago for sins supposedly committed by the whites’ ancestors against the black peoples’ ancestors.
Though nothing that can equalize the suffering the past, King’s statement is in a longer argument about all the downtrodden and racial reconciliation.
Danny Lemieux: Our conservative response, of course, is…get over it!
What you mean, then, is that King’s talk about racial identity was reasonable in his time, but that time is past?
Danny Lemieux: We are all individuals endowed with opportunities and masters of our own destinies.
Yes.
Danny Lemieux: We do not suffer the sins of our fathers and you are not owed the wages of your forefathers.
“No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation.” But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about how you said there’s a black family moving into the neighborhood. You provoked your neighgors to make a point. They did the right thing when confronted with a bore by saying they were glad.
Again, Zach, you really missed the point of it all.
Danny, Z wouldn’t know where the point is if I drew a sharpened katana out of my scabbard.
This reminds me of a joke I got some time ago…..
The Republican Fisherman
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.
She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat
below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help
me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago,
but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied,
“You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet
above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level.
You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes
north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west > longitude.”
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a
Republican.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told
me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to
do with your information, and I’m still lost.
Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a
Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or
where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are,
due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise
that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me
to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same
position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now
it’s my fault.”
Bizcor, great joke! Am stealing and disseminating it fifthwith!
Perfect, Bizcor, perfect!
For Zach’s sake, could you please translate into German?
Der was eine Democrat…
An off topic discussion about martial arts and what is true or not true in it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak5t0Un3Ccwr4kAI9.BaiaLty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110721112542AAZSXJg
My answer was basically something related to Leftist indoctrination or cult membership. You remember how a lot of “religious” people claim they converted to the Left because their old beliefs were false and their new beliefs are true? That one.
Thanks Charles I liked it which is why I saved it. Disseminate away.
Danny I posted this once before
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.