Well then, using this rather tortured logic, it would be OK for whites to "stem the tide" as it were since that's a rational response to being out bred.

The interesting part of all of this is that we all know who Louis Farrakhan is, and we all know some things he's said - yet very few people know who Louis Beam is, or Tom Metzger. Mostly because people like this are quickly marginalized as kooks. Yet they don't say anything much different from the Louis Farrakhan's of the world. Being in the minority shouldn't absolve you from being called out as a kook.

My tortured logic? Stemming the tide is exactly what Steyn proposes.

Rational, I guess, yet the goal of intergration in the 1960s, as I understood it, was to eliminate racism and create a just, unified--indeed colorblind--American social meritocracy. Indeed, in the early days of integration, both sides tended to agree on this. Now, we see and hear so much about the new "separate but equal", where the black pundits have decided they do not want to integrate so much as take what they want and keep their own, distinct culture.

I want to see one unified US culture to stand strong against the world. And I want that culture to be the mainstream white culture, i.e. I want black culture, at least in great part, to adopt white values. Obviously, in any real integration, this will go both ways, but I am looking to admit blacks to our club, not the other way around. Commitment to this goal on both sides is what I want. I am worried that we are not headed that way.

Blacks on this board will poo-poo this, of course, but I can assure you no one intended integration to result in dismissing English, Beethoven and Shakespeare and adopting Geeche or urban English, N.W.A. and Leon Gontran Damas. I am not interested in a Pan-African agenda, but a US one....

Well quick, I taught for thirty-four years, but I never heard of anyone wanting to do away with Beethoven and Shakespeare.

Since we are talking about music and literature, do we want to ignore Black contributions to jazz, starting with Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington? How about the literary contributions of Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, and others.

Funny, I learned about Beethoven and Shakespeare in school, but I had to dig out the black stuff on my own. You know, I don't think my life would have been as rich without some knowledge of these contributions.

I suppose I am among those who prefer not to integrate by valuing Hispanic culture.


I don't know how to break it to you but black culture is white culture. U.S. blacks have never enjoyed a West African identity. They never had the opportunity to retain a foreign identity to call their own, to build upon. Black Americans are our brothers and sisters. They're not an auxiliary component of American culture.


Black Americans are also part of the club. They don't need your permission.


If this was the case you wouldn't care whether the mainstream culture is "white" or "black" in character. Whether the messenger is Farrakhan or Steyn, they propose a specious, racist "solution" based on the assumption that light-skinned people are the keepers of democracy and decency (Steyn), and it's going to be payback time for whites (Steyn and Farrakhan) when non-whites catch up.

I agree power corrupts across racial lines, but you have to employ pretzel logic to associate pluralism with homogeneity, not to mention be selfish for placing melanin content above democratic principles any way you cut it.

No offense, but I'd venture to state that the fact that black culture wasn't taught in school for you was simply a generational gap. From what I understand you're a little older than some of us.

We had black history month, black cultural assignments, etc.
I don't know that, again in contemporary US, that these are real concerns.

I disagree. I graduated high school in 1999, and there was little taught of anything that wasn't white and mostly Western European. Yes, most students learn about Martin Luther King, Jr. (and Fredrick Douglas! Wow!) and all his greatness, but how many people learn about other participants in the Civil Rights era? How many people have a negative view of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers? How many people can even name some of them? The Chicano movement is largely passed over in teaching history of the 60s. I don't remember having to do any real research on minority movements in school; I did it all on my own.

Even now, people are highly irritated by talk of race. I have plenty of friends that just ignore my comments about race, simply because they don't want to think about it. I don't bring the topic up, simply because most people get irritated and get too defensive. No one wants to be seen as a racist, and if you call someone out on their racist remarks, they get angry. Making racist remarks does not exactly equate racist, which is something I've learned

Same here, though I graduated in 1995. I even attended a predominently non-white high school and we still barely touched on prominent African Americans and other non-white individuals when discussing American History. Luckily, we did learn a little bit about the Harlem Renaissance (one of the most important and fantastic African American contributions to American culture, IMO...I particularly love Alain Locke and Langston Hughes...have even contemplated the middle name Alain for the baby I'm currently carrying), though it was mostly a poem or two and mention of some prominent figures. World history? Forget it...all Western European all the time. Malcolm X is definitely still taught as the antithesis of MLK (completely untrue) as are the Black Panthers taught (if touched on at all) to be an extremely militant, non-peaceful organization (also untrue) . Most of what I learned about non-white, non-European history was learned in college or was taught by my mother. In grade school I think we only learned about George Washington Carver's contributions and a small one-day unit on MLK. Forget about the depiction of Native Americans in elementary school, too.

This thread, once so promising, is now a glaring example of how 'white racism hurts those who perpetuate it.'

Here, we overwhelmingly white AD-ers had an opportunity to investigate what it means to perpetuate racism -- we all do it, merely by turning on our television sets -- and how it injures us in return. A great opportunity for self-analysis, if only we were mature enough not to feel like we're the only race in the world on trial: Black people are literally on trial, everyday, for some of the stupidest (can't use proper explicit) imaginable.

And suddenly, just when the conversation gets good, we're volleying back and forth whether or not Louis Farrakhan is as bad of a racist as we are. Newsflash, Blacks can be prejudiced as well. Super-prejudiced as well. And while I agree that it takes one aback to be singled out as a member of the race responsible for so much trouble in the world, I think we can be mature enough to separate ourselves from our race for a minute, and view our actions (and the subtext of our actions) from another person's eyes.

I am all for holding black ministers to the same standards as white ministers, and the Sistah Souljah comments, the Black anti-Semitism, the racial essentialism one finds in the margins are absolutely disturbing. It worries me that we live in a culture that needs affirmative action. It worries me when I'm the only white person in the entire Superdome during Essence Fest because the New Orleans racial feedback loop is what it is. I don't like having to wonder whether 'Blues People'� is categorized in the Music or the African-American section of Borders. As a white writer, I don't like the fact that my writing is less valuable than more marginalized voices of black writers. (Though, objectively, that could very well be).

But almost always, these discussions on Farrakhan, Sharpton or any other race baiter you want to name -- they used to call Martin that, you know -- are nothing more than a diversion from the real debate which is, what are we white people doing to perpetuate the disgusting underbelly of American culture. I'm not saying that it's just us, but if it wasn't mostly us, white people would be the ones looting Nick's Gun range in the floodwaters of Katrina while Black National Guardsmen guarded the I-10 expressway with guns, willing to shoot. Somehow, I can't see how Louis Farrakhan can hold a candle to the governor of Louisiana.

White people, we are not on trial unless we view it as such. What is on trial are the insidious racist ideas we, like any other nationality on the planet, have inherited. Because we have historically held power, our insidious racist ideas are undeniably more damaging than those of Farrakhan. If we can't question the consequences of our lifestyle without recoiling in victimization we are truly a culture of bullies. Meanwhile take a look around and breathe in the hell black people are born into daily. Check out the questionable role models even well-intentioned white media persons hold up for black people to pursue. This problem is far more than economics.

We will suffer for our incapacity to lead moral self-inquiry. A truly strong race would be able to stomach the criticism and make amends. Discuss Louis in another thread. Segregate him.

I was trying to explain rather than be defensive.

drewyorktimes says white people are not on trial unless they view it as such, but how else can you view the words 'white racism' except as an accusation?

I've grown up my whole life being told white people are racists. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of examples of this message, from the school room black board to prime time television entertainment. In history books, novels and on the internet. In multiple debate fora like this one. Ten thousand times or more I've seen and heard black, brown and white skinned people refering to white people as racists. From soft toned apologies to bare faced accusations to cutting sarcasm. I am no more of a racist than any one else so why am I constantly being asked to explain it?

Eventually, even granite wears through, and I am not made of granite.

Oh, no offense at all. As they say, knowledge and wisdom comes with age. Keep living and you might get there.

Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington had both been around for more than three decades when I graduated from high school in 1961. I never heard a peep about either of them in school.

Strange that so many here talk about being American rather than African-American or whatever. Jazz has been described as Americas only original art form, and while not exclusively Black, it has been and is predominately so. You might go a long way toward educating your self by checking out Ken Burns's 10 CD set - Jazz - published by NPR. I own it and it's a lot more enjoyable without all the fundraising interruptions.

Amen to that.

It is infinitely frustrating to the black community to be asked to self-examine and explain/reform gansta rap (which sells to other races just as widely), teen pregnancy (which has been growing at about the same rate as whites... just from a higher initial base), and Louis Farrakhan (who we mostly think is clown for our amusement) and then watch the stonewalling when whites are asked to confront racism.

Of course this is not true of everyone, but the defense blanket denials are a constant in every debate on race.

I believe BoF started this thread for a reason and rather than answer some pretty softball questions....

...some prefer to sink their heads into the sands of denial one more time.

They are really good questions...

"You people?" Are you having a Ross Perot moment here? Who the hell are YOU PEOPLE? I know you're not the sharpest knife in the racial sensitivity drawer, but if in 2007 you don't know how wrong it is to refer to Blacks as "you people" then YOU are the one in dire need of a calendar.



Why should I? You still haven't learned how to spell "bigot."

However, I do recognize this is your standard cop-out tactic when you want to duck out on a debate. You brand me as a "angry Black man" as if that obscures that you are one "angry White man." But if labeling me spares you the effort of exposing how woefully inadequate you are at debating matters that take you places in yourself you'd rather not go, then I guess it is an effective "cut and run" strategy.

Oh, by the way, if White people can't dance (leaving aside the tango, line-dancing, moshing and the boot scootin' boogie) maybe that impression is fostered because so often your ordinary, typical White guy dances like this and this and especially like THIS.

Like the brother said, "Learn to keep time."

Oh and speaking of finding some contemporary information one of your links was from a right-wing blog and an article dated 2005. Try practicing what you preach. Then again, since the same author of the column you linked to also says the following it speaks volumes about what might be going on in your head as well:

First, white people should reassert their rights as a race -- white consciousness should be as prevalent as black consciousness. Second,the white culture should reassert itself as the dominate force in America -- it is the culture that founded and built this the greatest country in the world. Third, white people should quit apologizing for being white, and re-establish white consciousness as the ruling force in America. Fourth, black organizations should be openly criticized for their racism and their anti-Americanism. And, finally, blacks should be pushed to drop their hyphenated Americanism, and to work to assimilate into the American culture.

If blacks are unwilling to do these things to become full Americans, they should be forcefully encouraged to go back home to the Africa they seem to cherish. But all of the perks afforded to them by white America would be left here.

Mainstream White Thought?

Scratch a White supremacist mindset and the redneck comes out. But wait--do we have someone to second that emotion? Why yes, I believe we do.



Wow, where have I read that before? Oh, that's right. One of Aevans176's favorite websites...

It's a little late "to admit Blacks to our club" quick. Black people are every bit as much an American as any White person. We bled for this country. We worked to build this country for centuries without a penny in reimbursement. We fought and died in every one of the wars this country has ever fought. We gave up blood so other people could enjoy the freedom we were denied in our own country. The first man to fall for American independence was Crispus Attucks at the Boston Massacre in 1770. This land is our land just as much as it could ever be yours.

Don't presume you have anything to give. There is nothing you have that I want or need. Not your money. Not your charity. Not even your respect. The only thing white people have that Black people should want or need is power and no one holds onto power forever. When James Baldwin said that he was right then and he's still right now. You are deluding yourself if you think Black people are clamoring for your acceptance.

I have yet to find a Black person to say out loud, "I just want to be loved by White people."

Black people are not looking to join your club. We helped build the club. We are as much a part of the club as you are and membership is not yours to give out. My father and my grandfather and my great-grandfather were loyal Americans and like them millions of other Black men and women have proven time and time again to be among the greatest contributors to this nation's culture, history and society.

They have nothing to prove to you.

The fact of the matter is that this debate is about "white perpetrated racism", and no one can prove or even give me statistics in this decade that include how this truly exists in any fashion that impacts Black Americans (or Brown Americans... I don't really know anyone that's truly "black"). The truth is that I believe that a vast majority of what people see as "racism" is truly a hyper-sensitivity to anything that "might possibly" refer to black people.

Check this out...



Dude- who the heck said anything about Black People? NT, this thread was started and is vehemently supported by an older white man. Turnea just HAPPENS to be black. That has nothing to do with the absurd nature of posting statistics that are nearly 3 decades old. "YOU PEOPLE" was meant to refer to those who are supporting your side of the argument.

Funny enough... I post something from two years ago, and some how I get the same argument? 2 years versus nearly 30... ok. Whatever.



That's possibly because I don't use the word on a regular basis. How does that have anything to do with white perpetrated racism? Maybe white perpetuated racism causes me to misspell that word. I dunno.



I don't agree with the entire column, but this quote is important. In order to move past the racial divide, we DO have to get past hyphenated-Americanism.

The idea that the white man is holding _____ down is not only absurd but rampant. It has helped to create an entire generation of apathetic and overly-sensitive (SEE QUOTE ABOVE) minorities in America.

White perpetuated racism is relegated to fruit cakes that get chased around by Geraldo and live in trailer parks from Boise to Birmingham. The point I've always tried to make to you is that you have to try to see it objectively.

Post some statistics, not personal anecdotes from 15 or 20 years ago at that. If the problem truly impacts black America, maybe I've been oblivious to it. I have an open mind to the fact that Dallas isn't Detroit and vice versa. I also have a notion that these things are blown completely out of proportion and really don't exist in the fashion that some of YOU (not black people again NT, but rather liberals who believe this idea) believe it does.

Maybe people would drop the hyphenations once white America stops treating them differently and affording them the same opportunities that they give white America.

The idea that minorities aren't assimilating simply because they feel like it ignores the many factors that actually push minorities to try and claim an identity in a new (at the time) culture. I know I bring up this book a lot, but in Immigrant America, a Portrait (2006, I hope that's current enough), the authors explain thoroughly how historically racist policies forced people to band together in an attempt to gain some identity. Groups of people that normally would not have associated together where all of sudden forced to, because it was the only way to fight against the racist policies that were brought against them. From pages 119-120



I disagree with their statement that this is purely American, but whatever. It makes the point.

That is quite possibly the most offensive thing I have ever seen posted on

Why in the world should anyone be forced to “adopt white values”? And what the hell are “white values” anyway? Let me just say that, while I am white, I am most certainly NOT part of your "club".

I agree Daffy.

What *I*, meaning quick, wants is exactly the mentality of the officials in the school district, I got fired from in episode 1, when I flaunted "white rules" and went to a concert in a Black nightclub. Sorry, but I have a long history of ignoring the white power structure's expectations for me. In fact, I was told that if I wanted a beer, there were more discreet places to have one - in a "nice" (white?) establishment hidden discretely on top of a bank or some place like that.

I know, quick, I have a terribly "unchristian" attitude - been told that all my life.

If it offended you, then I apologize, but only for the offense. The substance is easily defended.

The US Const, the Decla, the Supreme Court rules, all State Const, etc. were drafted by whites of European descent; US views on charity, healthful behavior, high culture (classical music, Renaissance art, impressionism, great literature, etc.), came from the same source; the great leaps in science and technnology of the last 300 years, the same; whites of European descent, as recently as 100 years ago, effectively controlled all of the world's continents, and most of its countries, primarily because of technological supremacy. In short, white European/American culture has been the most successful culture on earth over the last 400 or so years. In the last 100, EuroAmerican culture in many respects surpassed its European progenitor. This isn't even debatable.

Therefore, if one assumes it is prudent to keep a successful culture, you would want all others to assimilate to the successful culture, rather than the other way around.

I know this sounds offensive. Any meaningful discussion on race (although I would argue race, at this point, is NOT the relevant point of departure except to the extent it denotes cultural differences) always does, as once you leave the scripted and inoffensive text and get to anything meaningful, dander is raised.

Racists of yore condemned the black man as congenitally inferior to whites; clearly, this is not the case (and I would submit to you, we use the term racist so much and so incorrectly today that it is hardly of any meaning any more). However, culturally, it is undeniable on a purely factual basis, devoid of emotion, which culture has been the most successful. Even if you argue the white man has kept the black man down, how did the black man get into that position in the first place? His culture, at least at the military and transportation technology level, lost. Badly. Go read Guns, Germs and Steel. This is not some wild, KKK missive. Black contributions were there throughout, but no one would argue that blacks lead or dominated American culture, if for no other reason than they were not given the opportunity.

Today, white Americans are being told their culture has all of these problems, blah, blah, blah, when what we are really guilty of is being inordinately successful, but...but at the expense of others (and all successful cultures throughout history have done the same. Rome didn't get to be Rome, etc.) Well, I would ask my fellow Americans (of whatever ethnicity) to join me in that successful culture rather than dismantling it so that the next 100 years will belong to us, as the previous 100 have, and to work on moderating the excesses without killing the core. And, I would further argue that we need to return to white American culture pre-1960, at least in terms of our work ethic, use of stimulants, religious beliefs and maybe most importantly, ambition. The "coffee house, cinema, I'm okay, your okay, let's just blow it off" culture of today is doomed. All you have to do is look at at 1960 Cadillac versus a 2007 one, and you can see which one was produced by a confident, ambitious culture.

Is this nationalistically selfish? Yes. But, you have to ask yourself, as an American--who else would you rather have in charge? If you can realistically look yourselves in the eye and say some other nation or group of nations, or some other culture, then why bother? Just let it ride, just blow it off. If not, then think about it....

While I feel like quick doesn't need defending, I think some posters are misinterpreting his comments due to his use of certain words.

If we look objectively, we can see that there is a mainstream culture in this country (referred to by quick as the "white culture" although I think this is an error) and there are several alternative cultures. When mainstream members of society describe "black" culture, they will use descriptive terms like gang culture, rap music, aversion to education, poor language skills, "bling", etc. Now these terms may not represent the "black culture" of Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby or Barak Obama, but they certainly are accurate of a cultural subset of this country that is not exclusive to blacks but is certainly present in America.

THAT is the culture that quick is rejecting. Instead, he is advocating that those who are in this "black" culture instead adopt the mainstream culture (which he referred to as the "white" culture). This mainstream culture most definitely includes elements of many subcultures, including blacks.

I think that quick is advocating that the more quickly people of any alternative subculture adopt the mainstream culture, the more quickly they will be successful in America.

I think "racism" in America may be confused with disdain for alternative cultures. If I don't hire a white kid who comes into an interview dressed in baggy drooping jeans with his boxers hanging out wearing seven gold chains and a sideways baseball hat, am I being racist? I wonder...

There is no alternative culture, Amlord. I think, frankly, that this constant reference to alternative culture is—dare I say it?—the type of white fear that propels Steyn to write a book about making white babies. The idea that black culture is distinct from white culture is apparent when Aevans writes: "No offense, but I'd venture to state that the fact that black culture wasn't taught in school for you was simply a generational gap." It's as if slavery, the Civil War, Civil Rights Era, etc., aren't part of American history, and we're introducing black and white students to a foreign culture. The amount of black disownment is depressing.

Maybe it takes a first generation immigrant to see that there is no competing white/black/Hispanic/Muslim/Jew culture, just American culture stitching different identities together. Quick makes the mistake of thinking "cultural attitudes" are to blame for declining work ethics and the decline of America in general. He also makes the universal ethnocentric mistake that an American hegemon is the best alternative. It would take the thread way off topic, but not being the hegemon sucks precisely because you can't dictate terms to other states, not because you got to the top of the food chain and retained your position by being such a nice power.

You also make a mistake when you write


White boys may walk around with their pants hanging but this alternative culture is largely attributed to, and recognized as, black in origin and ownership. I can't agree that a majority or even significant number of blacks buy into "alternative culture". Oh the media certainly thinks so and Snoop Dogg makes plenty of money scandalizing impressionable whites, but until blacks get a significant lock on media ownership this alternative culture will remain a conditional qualification for me.

I respond that that disdain has its roots in racism.

On a personal level, not always, though on the part of some it is a big factor.

On a larger historical, philosophical level. About 100%

After the many many discussions we've had on the mythical sub-culture line I think it's time some do a reality check. The time when white Americans can dictate to others what is "American" and what isn't passed long ago. It died before Jim Crow. It was over back when New York was New Amsterdam.

So after a few centuries I think its time we stopped pulling the intellectual punches and shut this nonsense down.

I mean as when BoF started this thread he noticed something.


...and yet warning after warning after admonition after mod notice...

Here we go again.

Oh, rly? I find your Euro-centric version of history offensive, too. Sure, white Englishmen started the colonies, but so what? They were a few dozen of the hundreds of citizens, freemen and slaves who made up the colonies. In 1790, there were ¾ of a million black people in this country. Do you discount the many contributions these African-Americans made (and continue to make) throughout this country’s history? Every time you need a blood transfusion, thank Dr. Charles Drew, who discovered how to preserve blood and started the first blood bank. If you have a wonky heart, thank Otis Boykin for inventing the pacemaker. If you have the misfortune of needing to breathe in a toxic environment, thank Garrett Morgan for inventing the gas mask.

How about Benjamin Banneker, a self-taught scientist, inventor, and publisher of the Farmer’s Almanac? How about Willard H. Bennett, inventor of the radio frequency mass spectrometer? This barely scratches the surface of the many African-American scientists and inventors.

As early as 1800, artists like Joshua Johnson, Henry O. Tanner, Aaron Douglas have enriched our country as well through their artwork. Scott Joplin, Robert Johnson, Charlie “Bird” Parker, Duke Ellington were indescribably important to our music.

People like Frederick Douglass, Dred Scott, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver made huge contributions to this country. Tens of thousands of African-Americans have fought and sometimes died in our wars - all the way back to the war of independence.

The African-American culture is so deeply woven into American culture that it is silly and ignorant to claim otherwise.

Its hardly the point either. What you are essentially describing here is 'supremacy'. It doesn't matter what colour you put on it, whether you call it cultural supremacy or racial, the bottom line is these things may be different in their criteria, but not in their attitude.

Making the claim of supramcy ignores reality. 'White' European culture died at Auschwitz. Black people didn't kill it, nor Jews, nor any one else. Prior to the 1930's European culture had evolved independent of the will of 'coloured people'. Since the enlightenment had freed Europe of its religious bonds, the human intellect had been given free reign to explore the extent to which it might form a new society. Look back at the invention and creativity of that period and what you'll see more than anything else in European and 'EuroAmerican' culture is akin to a rapture of self congratulation. An orgy of delight in invention and a belief in science that remained stubbornly ignorant as to where it was going.

Since the logical conclusion of Europe's insular attitude became all to obvious to ignore or deny (though to this day we still have people who refuse to believe the dream is dead) Europeans have turned away from what you are describing because they no longer believe it can sustain itself. What you are describing, what the Europeans were building, is supremacy. A form of self appointed nobility that says, we are the best. Our way is SUPERIOR. Conform to our way of thinking.

There is no invitation extended, merely a demand. There is no humilty, only arrogance. Most people in the western world understood this, at one level or another. Those who saw Auschwitz, who were born into its legacy, they came to understand that colonial empires sustained by technology and not morality, could not go anywhere but to the logical conclusion of annhiliating those who did not conform.

Now, you can pretend that the USA was free of the prejudisms that fuelled the Europeans in 1936, but the internment of Japanese American's and the treatment of 'racially inferior people' indicates otherwise. As does the support the Nazi party received from many prominent Americans, and going further back there are numerous half forgotten wars which hint at a colonialist attitude in the USA prior to the wake up call of the Second World War.

There can never be a 'superior culture'. Such a thing does not exist.

The perhaps people should stop calling themselves African-American, celebrating holidays like Kwanzaa and referring to Black Culture at all as if it is different from American Culture.

I'd disagree.

If this is so, then why do Baptists so loathe Catholics in the South? (anyone from somewhere with a high population of both understands)

What about Jews and Gentiles? In out Manhattan office, there is always a tension between our TWO Christian sales reps and the plethora of Jews.

In both cases, the skin color is the same.

I think we could go on and on about that. I don't think that disdain for urban Black American culture has anything to do with skin color. Many Southern White people get aggravated at the "trailer park" culture, but we're the same color. Why would that happen? I believe it has to do with a lack of understanding and a different set of values. Hence, disdain. Skin tone in my opinion means little.



Not at all... I'm just saying that children of the 80's grew up listening to Stevie Wonder, knowing who Duke Ellington and Washington Carver were, etc. MY generations history books were written post-civil rights era. That's all.

I was specific to this debate in that remark. I could easily amend it and say it has its roots in "bigotry". Racism is just the type in play here.


I am now in full agreement with moif on a matter of culture.

My certitude level has just increased 500%...

If there is a good time to be "patriotic" in acknowledging that American culture comprises many cultures and not just a Caucasian, (usually) Protestant one is one of those opportunities.

I loved my Dad. But he was a racist. He used to refer to Detroit as "N----r Town." He constantly derided African Americans when they were on television if they dared to act in any way approaching assertiveness; they were supposed to be humble, only speaking when spoken to, sort of like children, "being seen and not heard."

Dad called the Presbyterian minister who accepted blacks into the local church a "n----r lover."

I grew up thinking that African Americans were a separate species, and it took several years and countless sermons, television programs and movies, reading or listening to biographies, etc. to come to where I am in my thinking now. Although Dad may be turning somersaults in his grave, I am at the point where I appreciate the beauty of people whose skin is darker than mine, although I still don't like rap. I formed friendships with black co-workers and, Behold! I found out that, aside from some cultural differences (which are just as American as mine), their hopes, fears, dreams, aspirations and lives are like mine.

The years that I was raised by my beloved but bigoted parent held me back on the simple premise that I was not taught to appreciate a big chunk of humanity, just because of skin color. As for my dad, he has gone to the afterlife not knowing what he missed because of his prejudices.

Yes, any time a mind is closed simply because we have formed an opinion about "the other" in our society, whoever that might be, we lose out. It is unfair to single out for ridicule or shun those who are like us but choose not to close their minds to those who are different. I think we still have the right to be open minded in this country.

The problem is that the more we try to narrowly describe cause and effect, we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture and become less accurate. You're right, turnea, racism is just one form of bigotry. There certainly are many other forms.

And I think you have a bright future in spin control, Amlord.

quick was very clear and direct in his words. "...I want that culture to be the mainstream white culture, i.e. I want black culture, at least in great part, to adopt white values."

I don't see any great ambiguity in that statement. White culture is the mainstream culture and the one that should remain the dominant one. Black culture is out of the mainstream and should be rejected in deference to the dominant White culture. If a person is blessed with even the slightest aptitude of reading comprehension how does that statement require any clarification? I submit that it speaks quite loudly and quite clearly.

Back in my father's day this was broken down even more plainly: "If you're White, you're all right. If you're Brown, stick around. If you're Yellow, you're mellow. If you're Black, get back."

Thanks for the attempt to interpret his words "objectively," Amlord. You fell short of the mark, but it was a nice try all the same.

Ah, but it all depends on what the definition of "white" culture is, doesn't it? If the white culture is the dominant culture of middle class America (white and black alike) and the "black" culture is gangsta thug-ville (please don't join those above who deny that such a culture exists in America) then I will agree with his assessment: the "white" culture is superior.

Of course, by my definition, this "white" culture includes elements from the black culture, from Latino and Hispanic culture, and from the traditional white culture that quick describes above.



Nonsense. Inferior cultures are abandoned or are engulfed by superior cultures. Their positive elements remain and the rest is discarded. The Puritan culture is no more, yet their work ethic lingers in this thing we call the American culture. The emphasis on hard work that the Puritans left us is not valued in the same way by European culture. They prefer to take August off.

American culture is different from European culture, different from Japanese culture (which in turn is different from Chinese culture), or Middle Eastern culture.

We can look at American culture as a disparate amalgom of all of these cultures or we can recognize that there is a mainstream culture and several subcultures and countercultures. Countercultures and subcultures are defined in sociology.

The funny thing about cultures (and why we can decide that there are superior and inferior cultures, according to whatever definitions we set up) is that they are voluntary (at least in an open society). I choose the culture I want to belong to, because culture defines values. Yes parents shape the culture that their children are exposed to, but as adults they are free to make their own choices. I can say for a fact that I do not belong to the same culture that some of my brothers do. I have made different choices.

Sort of like Clinton equivocating on the meaning of “is”, don’t you think? The spin is making me dizzy.

I don’t think anyone denies that “thug” culture exists, but to infer that that is all “black culture” is, is disingenuous at best and a racist generalization at worst. I'd even go so far as to say that thugness (is that a word?!) is a very small portion of so-called "black culture", and it is also a small portion of so-called "white culture". So, doesn't that cancel out your cultural superiority statement?

If you don't believe that your culture is superior to the Aztec culture, then you are a fool of the highest order. Once you stop believing in cultural relativism, you and the rest of your European brethren will have a very good chance of surviving the Islamic wave. As long as you believe it, you and yours are doomed. We will miss you.

I think you helped make Amlord's point Daffy.

I believe he's saying that reasonably there isn't any specifically "black culture". American culture is basically a hodge-podge of whatever. People choose where they eat, what they drive, what music they listen to, their values, etc. Often times they're driven by socio economics, but frankly it's rarely specific to a certain skin tone these days.



We all understand this. I agree that those times in US history were deplorable. However, many of us on AD weren't raised in these eras, and generally spent much of our formative years in a contemporary and less racially charged America.

There ARE groups of people in the US that catch some serious prejudice. Maybe fat people, poor people, short people, the handicapped, etc. I'm not so sure that in my experience that I've ever seen real racism that's had any impact on the lives of others.

Sure- we've all known racist people. I've known them of all walks of life. The real question remains... how much of it is a crazy notion that stews at the lowest common demoniator of society and how much of it makes a difference? (i.e. government policy, business practice, etc)

This is ridiculous. Is culture a static entity that never changes or adapts? Or is it constantly shifting and being influenced? This is something that I have hard time understanding when people say things like this. Our culture is not the same one it was 100 years ago, and it won't be the same one we have 15 years from now. Culture is always changing, and you can bemoan it all you want, but you can't stop it.

...because then the discussion might stray into the land of sanity.

I could ask just how familiar anyone towing this line is with "gangsta thug-ville" but I hardly think it's necessary. Still the invitation is open.

In any case what you call gangsta thug-ville (I'm going to laugh about this for a while) is not a culture anymore than "flower power" was a culture. Hip-Hop is as mainstream as Rock and Roll ever was or will be now.

We call this life, in it things change, fashions come, then they go...

In the midst of all of this crime occurs, in all communities. We don't claim white tattooed thugs driving around on Harleys with a Confederate flag waving in the wind are a "subculture". At least I hope not.

The word culture is fast becoming the most abused in the English language. Not everything has to do with culture.

Funny that you choose to participate in an insane conversation. By disregarding those that think differently than you do, you do yourself a great discredit.


Ask away. I, but for a marvelous stroke of fortune, would have graduated from Cleveland, Ohio's laudable public school system. If you haven't seen an inner big city culture, it might open YOUR eyes.

Now, I am not saying that this thug culture is endemic to blacks. If anything, it is an urban and/or poverty culture. Perhaps there has always been such a culture. I can't say I've studied the historical trends.

Some cultures are superior. I will quote from William A. Henry III's book "In Defense of Elitism" From the chapter entitled The Vital Lie


later in the chapter, Henry describes superior cultures...



If we compare mainstream culture to thug culture by the above critria, which comes out superior?

....Eh? Assuming that was a joke, I'll pass it by in ignorant bliss

I can't see culture as 'inferior' or 'superior', and your example kind of hints at why. Look at the Nazi's. They had a great many superior aspects to their culture, not least in fields which we today look at as positive; industrial, technological, educational, social. They had certainly that work ethic you talk of too. Whats more, they even believed they were superior, yet their superior culture led to the Holocaust. How can that make sense? They had all the ingedients of cultural superiority Quick mentions and yet they ended up as mass murdering losers.

I'm sorry but I simply can't see culture in such a stark way (and people call me xenophobic!). It just doesn't work like that. Culture (metaphorically speaking) is like a palette. Lots of colours, a million tones. Which is superior? ultramarine or cobalt blue?

Asking me whether Danish culture is superior to Aztec culture doesn't compute. What is Danish culture, or American culture for that matter? How do you define it? From when? If you put aside metaphor and call culture after a tone, like white (which isn't a colour by the way) then what you are doing is trying to place something intangible into a box labelled culture.

I can assure you that you cannot do this. The moment you try to nail it down, like Peter Pan's shadow it will dance away from you. People will not be put into a box labelled 'culture'.

Yes, I believe Danish culture is superior to Aztec culture, just don't ask me what Danish culture is...


Go on then. Define American culture for me...


So, culture is unique to the individual? How does that bear on the notion of a national culture? or even the notion of a white Vs Black culture (and yes I've understood that the tones are only being used symbolically and thug culture does not include all black people)....

But if culture is dependent on the perception of the individual (a notion I do not dispute as I find it interesting), then there is no such thing as American culture at all! (Do all Americans share or agree on anything at all?) Then there is only a big fat jumble of transnational memes and some flags.




I have to accept that the possibility of being a fool is always present, no matter what I believe!

Takes me back to my first blog post. My Motto: "Embrace the Madness"

It's better to talk it out because things that are truly ridiculous tend to wither under scrutiny, see quick's post that started this silly tit-for-tat or stay tuned for further details.


Birmingham, Alabama is not New York City but for its size it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. It's not exactly something we're proud of, but it's true. If you're familiar with the Morgan Quitno ratings we were the sixth most dangerous city in 2006. Cleveland was seventh. Though that falls once you widen the scope to the whole metro area, then we're not quite in the top 25.

I've got a big family. Chicago's Southside, Washington D.C., a good contingent from Brooklyn whose accents we make fun of whenever we get a chance.

I've seen the big city, it's not a separate culture.

There is no "thug culture" there are just thugs, of all races and persuasions.

There are thugs and they have a culture. It is anti-intellectual, anti-authority, misogynist, selfish drug-riddled, gun-toting and greedy. It can be summarized as "I got minez". Listen to a rap song to get a taste of it. This culture is not a figment of the media.

To deny that this is a segment of our society boggles my mind. To deny that this is a significant influence on America's youth (black and white alike) is problematic. Because when you cannot acknowledge that a problem exists, no solutoin is possible.

Of course, this conversation has floating far afield from the original questions for debate, so I will not expoound further.

I would argue that "thug" culture is merely a shoot off of American culture. There's a term for it: subculture. It would be hard to extricate thug culture from American culture, because wouldn't it be American culture that created the factors that lead to the creation of thug culture? Or are you just going to blame black people? Could it be American culture as a whole that is to blame for undesirable subcultures? America's capitalistic, selfish, anti-authority [hello, what is the war in Iraq if not a subversion of authority?] just as undesirable? Not to mention that in comparison with some of our first-world neighbors, we are also considered anti-intellectual and misogynistic.

How can you blame thug culture on anything but American culture at its worst?

I don't remember hearing a peep about Hank Williams or Johnny Cash, or any other musical figure for that matter.

I would go a step further and say the word for it is criminality. It's not a culture it's an acultural lifestyle.


Disregarding the fact that music labels are the media, I'll assure you I'm plenty familiar with rap. I keep a few tracks around that I enjoy though I'm more in the rock vein.

Again, hip-hop (of which rap is a part) is not a culture anymore than bell-bottoms, platform shoes, and acid trips were a culture.

Don't confuse style and pop music with culture.


...I really think I'll start a thread so that this discussion can be held because it does no good to identify the wrong problem...

2. Does white racism hurt white non-perpetrators? If so how?

Since I value your participation Amlord, I’ll try to right the ship.

I think quick has inadvertently given me a platform for answering question 2.



It somehow strikes me that a unified culture, like quick advocates, would be rather boring. To use a metaphor, milk may go down better when mixed with a little chocolate. The attitude expressed in the above paragraph, limits my freedom to participate in a part of culture different from the one I grew up in. It is, therefore, hurtful in my opinion. In short, the rather stultifying society quick's model would produce would suck the creative oxygen from this country and restrict human growth.

Edited to add:



My grandmother had a 78 rpm record player. I heard Hank Williams "Cold, Cold Heart" and "Jambalaya" at home. In addition, I remember our elementary music teacher having us sing "Jambalaya." The only "Black" records I remember hearing at home were Count Basie's "Open the Door Richard" and Nat "King" Cole's "Straighten Up and Fly Right." I think my grandmother was trying to send me a message with Nat's record Then again, "Straighten Up and Fly Right" hit numerol uno for six weeks on Billboard's Country Charts in 1944. It was one of only two hits Nat had with country audiences. It was perhaps the biggest anomaly ever to make the country charts. Had it not been a country hit, I doubt my grandmother would have ever heard it. Otherwise, it wasn't part of "our" culture. In fact, I'm not sure I even knew Cole and Basie were Black at such a young age.

Johnny Cash came later. My first memory of him was the "Ballad of a Teenage Queen" from 1957. I took music in what was then jr. high school. In both junior high school and high school, I remember kids quoting current song lyrics as part of poetry memorization requirements. Hank Williams and Chuck Berry were both poets. These guys, as well as Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly and others were pretty well know to kids who attended public school from 1955-1961. We didn't really need to learn about them in school and for the most part we didn't.

I think you just came along at the wrong time, deng. This is a better answer than your irrelevant and impertinent one-liner deserved.

I don't believe you are so unsophisticated to believe the sum total of Black culture is gangsta rap and hip-hop music. That is simply asinine. By that standard Jay-Z, Beyonce and Russell Simmons are more significant than Bill Cosby, Colin Powell or Toni Morrison. Is White culture defined by Justin Timberlake and American Idol?

What are you saying? 50 Cent is more important than Wynton Marsalis, B.B. King and Prince because he's topping the charts and they aren't? Will Smith's movies make more money than Sidney Poitier's ever did, so he has to be a better actor?

Let's not confuse popularity with importance. Instead of looking at the rapper throwing dollers at the strippers, look at the guy who wrote him the check.

Let's remember there are four major conglomerates that control almost 85 percent of the recording, production, and distribution in the music industry--TimeWarner, Vivendi/Universal, BMG/Sony and EMI. Not one is Black-owned. Def Jam's Russell Simmons and Bad Boy Entertainment's Sean "Diddy" Combs are two of the bigshot enterpreneurs in hip-hop, but they are merely subsidiaries of parent companies owned by The Big Four.

It requires almost no effort to pigeonhole Black culture as nothing more than what MTV, VH1 and BET (all subsidaries of Summer Redstone's Viacom empire) says it is. Just because some White boy is rollin' in his 88 playing Trick Daddy doesn't mean he has the slightest clue that Black culture is far more than just today's Black music.

Columnist and critic Stanley Crouch is among the harshest critics of the superficiality and selling-out of most rap acts.

Though the focus was on hip-hop, it was actually about how the intersection of race, sex, violence and adolescent rebellion has produced billions of dollars in profit. Some of that profit goes to the rappers, much more to the corporations, but most of that comes at a great cost to the black community.

In fact, the cost of crime and violence to the black community has become the new, violent minstrel show in which suburban white boys drive the market by purchasing four out of five rap recordings devoted to destruction and self-destruction.

Rap star Nelly complained that his good deeds do not get as much attention as the adult videos featuring his music. Like most millionaires who have philanthropic hobbies, Nelly should hire a publicist to make sure that everyone knows how much he is doing for others.

Master P, from New Orleans, made the most important statement for contemporary rappers. He said that the job facing all of hip-hop is the fate of a post-crack generation, because the crack generation is gone.

Master P pointed out that while he and others had said things that they should not have said and misled people in ways that they had not intended, the days of the wild boy are gone. It is time to lead the younger generation, using all of the knowledge beyond crime and hustling that rappers like himself have gained since their early popularity. He towered over the younger rappers.

Of the women panelists, a former "video vixen" said that young people should not take rappers seriously because too many of them are high on drugs, suffer sexual confusion, do what they are told and are plagued by enormous insecurities. No one challenged her reading.

Something very important is happening in popular culture, and the argument that is gaining more and more ground against hip-hop can no longer be shouted down by those who point out hip-hop's rags-to-riches stories. The ultimate question is how many of those rappers who come from the bottom are covered with even more filth because of what they had to sell to become wealthy. link

By the way, there is no American culture without Black culture.