Civil? Rights?

I find it interesting that so much (too much) of what passes for the “civil rights movement” these days is not civil and doesn’t really believe in rights.

For uncivil, one need look no farther than By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), the “activist” group on the front lines (with the encouragement and tacit support of Democratic strategists back at headquarters) of opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Some of the “means” that have been found “necessary” have been disrupting meetings of state agencies and busing in high school students to stage riots. The chairman of the NAACP calling the Republicans “terrorists” has also not contributed to the civility of the debate over civil rights.

Perhaps more striking, however, is the the fact that most of the most ardent advocates for “civil rights” don’t really believe in rights. Many, following the philosophical nihilism of Stanley Fish, reject not only civil rights but all rights, indeed the very possibility of principle itself. (See my comments here, citing several earlier discussions.)

Until recently “civil rights” referred to an individual’s right to be treated without regard to race, religion, or ethnicity. The “civil rights movement” has abandoned that view of civil rights, but what have they put in its place? The only thing I can think of is the antithesis of that discarded notion — that some individuals, on the basis of their membership in certain races or ethnicities, are entitled to be treated on more favorable terms than others.

How odd.

Say What? (7)

  1. Anita May 8, 2006 at 9:28 am | | Reply

    you’ve pinpointed the problem of much leftwing thinking (if you can call it that), which is also the thinking of many black people unfortunately. I say many from what I read and what I hear people saying. I have no figures.

    It comes down to this: anything that impacts a black person in a negative way that is done by a white person is racism. That’s the definition of racism. There is no adherence to the notion that racism is wrong in principle. Indeed there is no notion that any cruelty or violation of what we call human rights is wrong, as long as white people are not perpetrating it. The skin color of the perpretators is the only deciding factor. The whole idea of civil rights and human rights has taken a bizarre turn.

  2. Cobra May 9, 2006 at 6:08 pm | | Reply

    Anita writes:

    >>>”Indeed there is no notion that any cruelty or violation of what we call human rights is wrong, as long as white people are not perpetrating it. The skin color of the perpretators is the only deciding factor. The whole idea of civil rights and human rights has taken a bizarre turn.”

    Anita, when was the last time you had an actual discussion with another African-American? How many of them have expressed some sort of “preference” for non-white cruelty or human rights violations?

    How many African-Americans have you spoken to that would WELCOME being robbed, assaulted, raped or killed by somebody because the perpetrator had brown skin?

    Please–I know you say you have “no figures” on this, but come on…what is your evidence of this?

    –Cobra

  3. Anita May 10, 2006 at 9:57 am | | Reply

    Cobra, of course, no one welcomes cruelty or rape. But people simply don’t condemn the cruelty of people who are not white as much as they do the other kind. I went to a talk by the black sudanese who wrote a book about being kidnapped by arabs and enslaved. I forgot his name. The host, his first name was Tommy, is a principal at an anti slavery organization. He got up and said that we have to talk about why we, meaning blacks, are not excited about what goes on in the Sudan and other parts of Africa. Why we don’t pay attention to it and don’t get angry about it. Finally someone got up and asked about how muslims reacted to the book and the group’s work. The host said they routinely get threats and that their web site has been attacked many times. He said that muslims regard any talk of what muslims are doing wrong as an attack on their religion and don’t want to hear about it. Then someone else got up and said something to the effect that it was the weapon manufacturer’s fault. No one said a word to express sympathy for the black sudanese or anything against the perpetrators of the cruelty. this is par for the course for black people, as you must know Cobra. This does not mean that people want to be enslaved themselves. It does mean they don’t condemn human rights violations unless the perpetrators are white. Surely you must hear on a routine basis, people talking as if the US was the same as nazi germany. Next time in conversation bring up the Sudan and see the reaction. There will barely be the slightest disapproval. It’s like the attitude towards crime. No one wants to be a victim of crime, but that does not stop people from being sympathetic to the criminal, especially if he or she is a certain race or was poor. People make excuses. Or they turn a blind eye.

    The more it becomes apparent that the world is a miserable place and that most cultures have no notion of human rights at all (that is they use it as a weapon against the west, but have no notion of extending the same in their own countries) the more a dilemma blacks are in. We are used to talking as if the west and the US are the most awful places on earth. The sad truth is they are the best. Most cultures are not liberal. This is a hard pill to swallow. But if the aim is to extend human rights, to decrease racism, this pretence does not help.

  4. Chetly Zarko May 10, 2006 at 3:17 pm | | Reply

    John,

    You write:

    Until recently “civil rights” referred to an individual’s right to be treated without regard to race, religion, or ethnicity.

    I know what you’re intending, but I’m going to argue that civil rights are more expansive than mere equality. You’re 100% on though in saying that they belong to the individual. But I believe “civil rights” are the entire panapoly of rights that individual possesses **inherently**, from a moral perspective, whether they are “creator” bestowed or exist within a secular moral grounding. The point is they exist whether a government recognizes them or not, and all people have a moral duty to recognize or fight for them. “Civil” rights are those rights necessary for a “decent” (or “civil”) society to function properly, as Carl Cohen would say. There are additional legal rights that a government may choose to grant people beyond civil rights, but they are not necessary to decency or moral authority of the society.

  5. Cobra May 10, 2006 at 10:01 pm | | Reply

    Anita writes:

    >>>”But people simply don’t condemn the cruelty of people who are not white as much as they do the other kind.”

    Again, I don’t understand where you’re getting this from. I can understand that you may have come across some INDIVIDUALS who show “selective outrage”. Heck, that’s Cobra Principle #2 here at “Discriminations.” But I can’t agree with you that this is an exclusively black phenomenum.

    If anything, the “suffering” meter, IMHO tilts to those who control information gateways are the ones who ultimately control public attitudes. In the American Media Structure, the suffering of one missing blonde co-ed in Aruba garners VASTLY more coverage than the Sudanese genocide. I don’t have to remind you that African-Americans are NOT a large controlling factor in the editorial decisions of the American Media Structure.

    Anita writes:

    >>>”No one said a word to express sympathy for the black sudanese or anything against the perpetrators of the cruelty. this is par for the course for black people, as you must know Cobra. This does not mean that people want to be enslaved themselves. It does mean they don’t condemn human rights violations unless the perpetrators are white.”

    I simply don’t take your annecdotal example as proof of African-Americans “handing out hallway passes” for black on black perpetrators.

    For example, black on black crime, as some of my favorite conservative posters are quick to point out, is a reality in many of America’s urban cities. However, it is also a reality that predominantly black juries convict black perpetrators every day, as the black prison population would demonstrate.

    Now, is there a DIMENSION of racism that may exacerbate or inflame an interracial incident of crime? Certainly…given the history of racism in Western Society, there should be no surprise that an eye-brow or two may arch at the notion that history may be repeating itself.

    –Cobra

  6. Anita May 11, 2006 at 11:36 am | | Reply

    Cobra, you kind of prove my point. You would never say “given the history of racism” in regard to any non western society.

  7. Cobra May 11, 2006 at 10:49 pm | | Reply

    Don’t be too sure about that, Anita. I blast what I believe to be racist whenever I come across it. Here at “Discriminations” the discussions are more heavily rooted in American Society, keeping my blasting targets squarely here at home.

    –Cobra

Say What?