pjMom
backyardconservative
Carol
fuzislippers
iainswife
Obi's Sister
nicedeb
Pat Austin
Jill
Quite Rightly
retrieverheart
Sherry
just a conservative girl
Zilla of the Resistance
Are we so worried about right vs. left that we have forgotten right and wrong?
I am beginning to think so. Much has been made about National Review’s Rich Lowry firing John Derbyshire. I would think it was a pretty simple clear-cut case. Derbyshire wrote an article about his version of “The Talk” you have with your children. His version was for people of white and Asian backgrounds. It was in a word, disgusting. He flat-out says that black should be judged by a different standard as whites, especially in terms of politicians. I don’t know about you, but I will take Tim Scott over Nancy Pelosi any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
He also went to try to demonstrate that blacks are stupid and violent. He used some “evidence” to back up his claims, but what he didn’t do was talk about how socio-economics factor into those numbers. Take a good hard look at any poor performing school district anywhere in the country and the standardized test results are lower. Not all poor performing schools are in predominately black areas.
He also said to tell your white children to stay out of mostly black neighborhoods. Does he include the neighborhoods of Prince George’s County Maryland as well? That is the most affluent black community in the country, or did he just mean instruct your children to stay out of neighborhoods that have high crime rates? Of course, any parent that isn’t living in one of those areas will tell their children that. But again, not all high crime areas across the country are black communities.
This man is free to think and feel what ever he so chooses to. That isn’t the issue. The issue becomes does National Review have to employ someone who so blatantly demonstrates those views? I don’t think they do.
I have read different things across the conservative blogosphere in regards to his firing. Many are upset about the fact that he was let go and say that Lowry has no right to fire him. Why exactly is that? Stacy McCain has explained it that since Derbyshire has been expressing these types of views for quite sometime the only difference is that the left complained about it. While there is truth to that in part, it isn’t the whole truth. Derbyshire has always been provocative in his writings, but he has never gone this far before. This was an outing of his racist views.
| — n | |
| 1. | the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others |
There can be no doubt that his little rant is racist by the true definition of the word.
Now, the right spends a great deal of time pointing out the racist views of those on the left. Pointing out that the likes of Al Sharpton is considered a hero by many on the left and is allowed to spew his views on television. There is currently an online petition going around asking MSNBC to fire him. There are all sorts of things being said about how Eric Holder is doing nothing about the threats made against George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed a black teenager in what he claims to be self-defense. The truth is that the Eric Holder has no power over what the black panthers are currently doing. That is a state issue. The person that should be answering the question of why nothing is being done is AG Pam Bondi or the local police departments. Not Eric Holder. It is easy to make him a target, but in this case he shouldn’t be one. But AG Bondi is a conservative republican so the questions are not forthcoming.
If you think that it the right thing to do to take Al Sharpton off the air for his views, then how can it be wrong that Lowry fired Derbyshire? What Derbyshire said was equally offensive.
I have heard others say that Lowry should have used this as way to disprove him. Others have said the answer to bad speech is more speech. I don’t disagree with either of those statements. But neither justifies keeping him employed. You can actually do both things; fire him and prove him wrong.
There is right and wrong in the world. Derbyshire can be as racist as he wants to be. That is his business. But Rick Lowry has a responsibility to National Review and to its readers to give fair and accurate accounts of the happenings in the world. Giving a platform to a man who holds the views that blacks are stupid and violent by nature is neither of those things. Good riddens, Mr. Derbyshire.
It is time that we admit that racism is neither right nor left. It is a human condition. Racism knows no boundaries when it comes to politics or to social strata. It will rear its ugly head in just about any place and by people of any color or background.
just a conservative girl, 
fuzislippers 12:36 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
Hmm, I’m not sure I get your point here, JACG. We know that racism is neither left nor right; racism is not a political ideology (though it does make up a substantial portion of the leftist ideology and has for a hundred or more years). And yes, Derbyshire can be as racist as he wants to be. I don’t have to read his horrific and horrifying rants.
What Derbyshire wrote dripped with vileness and racism, no doubt about it. It was horrible and hurt my heart to read it. However, I never would have read it if there wasn’t this atmosphere of condemnation every time someone says something someone doesn’t like, is “offended” by (or offended by, genuinely), or angered by, etc. I’d never even heard of the site where he posted, come to think of it. My point is that shining a spotlight on every racist comment means more people read it, more people are exposed to it, and to what end? National Review can certainly fire anyone they want for any reason they want (as a conservative I support that), but I’m becoming increasingly annoyed by and frustrated with the “thought police” degeneration of America.
We can’t stop racism by firing every racist, we can’t combat it with equal doses of intolerance and hate, and we darned sure can’t save our republic if we actively support silencing someone with whom we disagree.
I don’t want to silence antiSemites or Islamofascists or American or any other racists; in fact, I want them to keep talking. A lot. The more they talk, the more they reveal about themselves and their agenda. If that means that we have to stop reading things that offend us, then so be it. No one is tying anyone to a chair and forcing them to read/hear/see things they don’t like. Change the channel, find something else to read, whatever. But this constant demand for people’s livelihoods simply because they express vile THOUGHTS strikes me as the exact opposite of what we fight for in this country.
just a conservative girl 1:04 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
No one is trying to silence him. He just can’t do it at NR anymore. I am sure there are sites who would love to have him with his new found claim to fame. Or he can set up his own blog like you and I have done. He can say whatever he wants. This is about whether a mainstream conservative magazine/website will tolerate his myopic views.
fuzislippers 1:08 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
But they didn’t. NRO fired him, as is their right to do so even though they didn’t publish the piece.
just a conservative girl 1:15 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
And my point being that they were right to do so. His piece didn’t further the conversation on race we have to have in this country. All it did was feed into stereotypes. His and those of the left that the right is a bunch of racists.
fuzislippers 1:19 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
I guess this is where you lose me. If the measure of “acceptable speech” is whether or not it furthers some warm and fuzzy “conversation on” [insert your favorite leftist categorization], then we are in deep deep trouble.
just a conservative girl 1:45 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
The right does the same thing. He can have his views. But NR decided to have standards. Something that MSNBC and HBO refuses to do. I much prefer having standards on the right.
This is a pattern of behavior with this man. It isn’t a one time thing. He can have his views, but those views are going to limit the platform that you have. He seems to prefer to surround himself with only a certain types of people. Let those people be the racists just like him.
fuzislippers 4:50 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
I have no problem with NRO firing him; that is well within their rights (and Derbyshire’s piece really was beyond the pale).
fuzislippers 4:53 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
I always wonder about this when I hear it. Just what does a conversation among 350 million people sound like? What would be the goal of such a conversation? Who would take part (as obviously everyone in the country cannot)? What would they be empowered to decide? I guess it could take place in Congress or in state legislatures, but it just seems a trite thing to say that is not really helpful at all. (I’m so NOT saying you’re trite; it’s something that we’ve been hearing for decades, this “conversation on [race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.] that we have to have as a country.” I’m not big on collectivism, particularly when it comes to my personal morals.
just a conservative girl 5:20 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
I don’t know if it is about morals. I am a firm believer that you cannot legislate them, but it is about honesty. This whole Zimmerman thing brought a few things to light. To me, in any case. Conservatives had no real dog in this fight, but jumped all over it anyway. It was a knee jerk reaction to the rush to judgement about racism. Zimmerman could be a racist (I don’t happen to think there is proof of that) and shot that kid because of it. I think the more likely scenario is that he stereotyped that kid based on his dress and color and then things snowballed out of control and a teenager ended up dead. Why the rush judgement? Why the rush to defend a man who neither asked nor needed conservatives to defend him? Both sides acted hastily and what is getting lost is justice and the truth. We need to ask ourselves why. If we don’t it will just keep happening over and over again. Sooner or later we will have major riots and many will be killed, injured, and heaven knows what else. It is an emotional topic. One that most would rather avoid. I think it needs to start with people looking within themselves.
fuzislippers 12:26 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
Whether or not one hates someone or a group of people because of their race is a moral issue. We can’t stop it, no matter what we do.
As far as the conservative push-back on the leftist narrative, there’s nothing wrong with that. We (to this day) don’t know what happened, though Zimmerman being arrested would point to the police thinking something is wrong with what happened. And if so, that’s good, the police should decide, not the public.
The push-back, as you must realize, was based in the immediate condemnation of Zimmerman as a white RAAAACIST who targeted Martin simply because he’s black. That’s the left’s pet narrative (never held up by actual facts, of course). But we just don’t know that to be the case; you’ve already tried and convicted Zimmerman, that much is clear. But based on what?
The fact that leftists saw the name “George Zimmerman” and immediately assumed he was white (and probably Jewish, too, another group they loathe) and a conservative, and then started with the exact same rhetoric that followed the AZ shooting by Loughner (whom they also claimed was a white supremacist conservative, when in fact he was not. And nor is Zimmerman.) is the reason that conservatives pushed back. It was important to disrupt the white males shooting people on a whim narrative. You’d see this in any other situation.
Is it really surprising that conservatives point out the clear lies that leftists were spinning about the Zimmerman case? He was neither white nor a conservative. But the left needed him to be. Surely you see that?
iainswife 1:48 PM on 04/11/2012 Permalink |
I agree with JACG, in fact we had a facebook discussion and I think the result is we are on the same page. Derbyshire is welcome to his views. I do not share them. I suspect he believes he is merely being “honest” but the only thing that seems clear to me is that he is being honestly racist. National Review was right to refuse to associate with him despite a long-time relationship because Derbyshire’s views are not acceptable at NR or anywhere else for that matter. Firing him was the right thing to do. Where I think Rich was wrong was in not fisking Derbyshire’s article. JACG gave specific rebuttals to Derbyshire’s points, Rich really didn’t. By not doing so, Rich has not forwarded the conservative viewpoints in the race discussion. Merely run away from them. Rich Lowry is a good man but the ball was dropped.
fuzislippers 12:35 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
But being “honestly racist” is not a crime. Or it shouldn’t be. People shouldn’t fear for their livelihoods because they don’t think the way “they should.” That’s insane.
I guess this is something that I am invested in because as an educator, I know that I can’t use my own name to blog, I can’t espouse the most rational conservative views because, to the people who decide my career, they are unacceptable. We’ve seen a bunch of conservative bloggers shut down (theBlogProf, for instance) because they don’t think correctly. Yeah, Derbyshire’s article was disgusting, but isn’t this a country of free speech? Should we really be destroying individuals for what they honestly think? Now, if NRO had published that piece, and they didn’t, then I would blame the editor who allowed it, not the writer.
fuzislippers 12:48 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
Oh, and as an extension of this thought and what JACG said about the “conversation about race we need to have as a country,” how on earth are we to have such a “conversation” if we don’t allow people to say what they think if what they think is abhorrent to us? Wouldn’t that be counter-productive?
just a conservative girl 1:06 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
I see that as apples and oranges. Your job as an educator is not the same thing as putting something in writing that reflects on your employer. It isn’t about his thoughts or beliefs. It is about a standard that NR chooses to have. No one is saying he doesn’t have the right to his thoughts. What I and NR are saying is that you can’t have represent NR’s brand. I have seen people fired over the years for things that they have done that have been an embarrassment to my former employers in a very public way. Having your own view points is of course the right of any human being.
As an example, when I first moved here I worked for a non profit. The director of HR got very drunk at a large, well attended conference. He proceeded to mock his wife (who was in attendance) and made passes at attendees. He was fired. He embarrassed the association. To me this is the same type of offense. Derbyshire embarrassed NR to the point that he was putting their brand into jeopardy. He can spew his racists rants as much as he wants. There are plenty of people that will have no issue with what he writes or believes. A mainstream conservative magazine shouldn’t be among them. World Net Daily will have no problem printing his racists views. They do it all the time.
fuzislippers 1:10 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
Wait a minute, he didn’t publish this on NRO. But NRO said it reflected on them (their choice, as I’ve repeatedly said). So anything, ANYTHING, I write reflects on my employer. It’s not apple and oranges at all. Not even close.
just a conservative girl 1:17 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
You are not a professional writer. He is. His entire body of work follows him.
fuzislippers 2:24 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
That’s just absurd.
just a conservative girl 2:45 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
How so? If an educator such as yourself does something in the realm of doing that job, no matter what it may be, that is something that will reflect on your ability to do your job. It will follow you throughout your career. Say you (not you, but you generally) gives a bad grade that isn’t deserved for a personal reason, that is something that another employer has the right to use in keeping you in their employ. It reflects on them as an institution as well.
How would that be different for a writer? Why would a mainstream magazine want a person who loudly proclaims themselves to be a racist, and that is what he did, want them to work for them? He made a choice. Now he has to live with the ramifications of that choice. He cannot be trusted to write on issues fairly because he looks at almost 13% of the population as stupid and violent. They publish his work moving forward it reflects on them.