- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

NYT Op-Ed: White People Are Violent Racists

Back in 2012, John Derbyshire was fired [1] by National Review for this column in Taki’s Magazine [2] in which he listed the things he told his children so that they could protect themselves from black violence.

Now, in 2017, The New York Times publishes an essay by Ekow N. Yankah [3], a Manhattan-based law professor, saying … well, read these excerpts:

As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.

“Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe… .”

That is the black version of what John Derbyshire said.

Yankah says it’s Trump’s fault:

Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”

It’s true that 58 percent of white voters voted for Donald Trump [4]. I didn’t, but I know plenty of people who did, and the idea that these people are a physical threat to black people is hysterical. There were lots of reasons people voted for Trump. According to this post-election research published in The Atlantic [5], the white working class voters who provided the margin of victory for Trump voted for him not to spite black people, who weren’t even on their radar. They voted Trump out of 1) anxiety about cultural change; 2) opposition to immigration; and 3) what they regard as for them, the end of the American dream (defined as “if you study and get a college education and work hard, you can get ahead”).

According to NBC News’s exit polling, Trump did better among blacks and Hispanics than good old decent Mitt Romney [6]. Of course Romney was running against a black president, but still, Trump drew eight percent of the black vote, and 29 percent of the Hispanic vote. My point is simply this: there was a lot more going on in the Trump election than race. Using Yankow’s logic, conservative Christians who felt directly threatened by Hillary Clinton’s policies should withhold their friendship from people who voted for her, because you can’t trust those people.

That would be crazy. Still, Yankow says to Trump voters: “I assure you we cannot be friends.” And that’s not all he says:

For African-Americans, race has become a proxy not just for politics but also for decency. White faces are swept together, ominous anxiety behind every chance encounter at the airport or smiling white cashier. If they are not clearly allies, they will seem unsafe to me.

Sure they will, Professor Yankow, because you are a racist.

So, let me get this straight: The New York Times published an op-ed by a black man who says that all white people look alike, and seem like they are a threat, even if they treat him kindly. If a white man wrote a column saying that all black people look alike, and seem like a threat to him, even if they treat him kindly, do you think The New York Times would publish it? The question is absurd.

One more bit from the racist pomposity of Prof. Yankow, who earlier in the piece denies that he writes with “liberal condescension”:

We can still all pretend we are friends. If meaningful civic friendship is impossible, we can make do with mere civility — sharing drinks and watching the game. Indeed, even in Donald Trump’s America, I have not given up on being friends with all white people.

What a jerk. Why would any white person want to spend time with a guy who thinks he’s doing them a favor by granting them the absolution of his friendship? “If [particular whites] are not clearly allies, they will seem unsafe to me,” he writes. How does a white person signal clear allyship? Why should any white person take the risk of being friends with this guy, knowing that if she says something that offends him politically, he will immediately consider her a racist threat, and withdraw friendship?

How threatening is this law professor’s living and work environment, really? Ekow N. Yankah, graduate not of Baton Rouge Community College, but of Columbia and Oxford, teaches law at Yeshiva University. He lives in the West Village, one of the most bourgeois liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan.

Here’s how New York City voted in the 2016 presidential election. [7] Eighty-six percent of Manhattan voters went for Clinton over Trump. In New York City overall, the Clinton vote was 79 percent. The only one of the five boroughs in which Clinton didn’t get at least 75 percent of the vote was Staten Island, which gave Trump 57 percent of its votes.

Staten Island is separated from Manhattan by a miles-wide stretch of water. Observe below. Where it says “St. George,” that’s the upper tip of Staten Island. Manhattan is the peninsula in the upper right hand of this map detail. That’s a long way for Tony Manero’s mullet-wearing grandsons [8] to have to swim to threaten Prof. Yankah’s body:

Prof. Yankah’s law school is in the West Village, as is his home. It’s a ten-minute walk from his home to his office. Are we supposed to believe that Prof. Yankah assumes that every white person he meets in his daily life in one of the most famously liberal quarters in the United States is guilty of crypto-Kluckery unless proven otherwise?

That column was a manifestation of hysterical anti-white racism. But because it was written by a black person who is also one of Manhattan’s elites, it found its way into the pages of The New York Times, a publication that can be profitably read as a field guide to the social psychoses of America’s liberal elites. Maybe some crotchety old white lady will push Yankah in line at the Angelika, [9], which will put him one Times op-ed away from a MacArthur Genius Grant.

You know what? Many white people who might have been Prof. Yankah’s friend will now choose to keep away from him, because they feel judged by him, or they will be afraid to speak around him. He will take that as a further sign of racism. And if white children shun the Yankah children because their father has taught them that whites are not to be trusted or befriended, the Yankah kids will understandably take that as a sign that their father was right. Well done, Dad, well done.

John Derbyshire lost his job at a leading conservative magazine because he wrote a column on another website detailing his strategy for helping his children protect their Sino-Anglo bodies (Derb is a British-born man married to a Chinese-born woman) from violent black people. I didn’t see that Derb left NR editor Rich Lowry much choice but to fire him. Some things you simply cannot publish without serious consequence, even if they express honestly your fears, well-grounded or not. If you’re white, that is. But if you’re black, you can submit a column to The New York Times saying that all white people are violent racists unless proven otherwise, and that blacks should not be friends with whites, and it will be published, because that is what it means to be a right proper American liberal in 2017.

Imagine what it will now feel like to be a white student in Prof. Yankah’s law class. Do you feel compelled to declare yourself an “ally” of your professor the next time class convenes, out of fear that if you don’t, he will see you as a potentially violent threat, by virtue of your skin color? How can a white student not fear that Yankah will punish him on his grades because of his (Yankah’s) anti-white prejudice — which the law professor stated in the pages of The New York Times? In liberal colleges and universities across this country, conservative professors are being harassed and even driven out by left-wing militants who see racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigoted aggression in the mildest expressions of dissent from the Social Justice Warrior line. But law professor Ekow N. Yankah, graduate of the Ivy League and Oxbridge, resident of one of the most privileged neighborhoods in America, gets to shout his actual racism from the rooftops, so to speak, and you watch: if anything, he’ll be lionized for his “bravery.”

I keep saying that the Left’s obsession with identity politics is legitimizing white nationalists and other unsavories of the alt-right. This is a perfect example of it. Donald Trump really is driving Americans apart on the basis of race and other forms of identity politics — and so is The New York Times. But not all its readers. I offer you the common sense of David H. Eisenberg of Smithtown, NY, who left this comment under the Yankah column:

The article illustrates two sad things. One is the shift in what once was a civil rights movement from the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. that people be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin to one that seeks to solely judge others by skin color and a sense of victimization second to none. There is more than one of these articles in today’s NY Times.

The second is the hysteria over Trump that seeks to bring him into every subject and blame him for everything. Whatever delusions Democrats had about Bush (2.0) and Republicans about Obama, the delusions about Trump in articles and comments is, if not unprecedented, were never so extreme in a long, long time (I say this, despite the fact that I also find Trump completely unsuitable to be president). I’ve read articles or claims where people believe that they can’t have a relationship because of Trump or that they have to medicate themselves b/c of him. I can feel sorry for these people and their kids who will learn hatred from them, except when they become part of the “resistance” and take part, support or even ignore the prejudicial, police-hating, window breaking, car burning, political rally interrupting, first amendment destroying “protesters” on their side, as if it is somehow justifiable if the president is bigoted. They are 10 times more frightening than Trump whatever their skin color.

Yes, and their race and class hatred is calling up more of the same from the fever swamps of the Right. They will never, ever see it.

196 Comments (Open | Close)

196 Comments To "NYT Op-Ed: White People Are Violent Racists"

#1 Comment By BadReligion On November 13, 2017 @ 11:15 pm

“I’ve read articles or claims where people believe that they can’t have a relationship because of Trump or that they have to medicate themselves b/c of him.”

There’s no such thing as a good Trump supporter. One has to decide that his mockery of the disabled, his racism (Judge Curiel! Ties to White Nationalists!), his misogyny, and so much else were not deal-breakers. As for the medication, yes, a President who embodies all of that, plus, much worse, denies climate change and is on a quest to dismantle environmental protection is rather damaging to the psyche of decent people. By the way, I can say exactly the same about HRC’s bellicosity overseas.

“I can feel sorry for these people and their kids who will learn hatred from them, except when they become part of the “resistance” and take part, support or even ignore the prejudicial, police-hating, window breaking, car burning, political rally interrupting, first amendment destroying “protesters” on their side, as if it is somehow justifiable if the president is bigoted. They are 10 times more frightening than Trump whatever their skin color.”

Prejudicial? No, that means pre-judging, i.e. without evidence. Judging, with evidence, is different. If you’re referring to this strange op-ed article, that might be different.

Police-hating? Police enforce capitalism and white supremacy. That includes police of color. That’s what they do, by definition. They defend the ruling class, always have, and always will.

Window-breaking? Oh, those poor windows. I think Wells Fargo can afford to replace them. The people Wells Fargo harms might not be able to afford to repair their own damage.

Car burning? That really depends on which car we’re talking about.

Interrupting political rallies? Is that a bad thing? When the German-American Bund held one of their big rallies in Madison Square Garden, were Jews and/or Leftists wrong to try to disrupt it? What about their counterparts across the Atlantic?

First Amendment destroying? No, that would occur if the government gains the power to restrict speech or punish it after it occurs.

It’s not only justified by the bigot in the Oval Office, but that’s certainly a big part of it. I really don’t think any of the people described in that quote are more dangerous than *any* President of the US!

I’m not agreeing with this op-ed, by the way.

#2 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 13, 2017 @ 11:39 pm

Bill really needs to study more than one or two snapshots before he pontificates about the history of the last 50 years.

The transition of the Bilbo-Thurmond-Lott wing of southern politics from Democratic to Republican was a long story, and did not begin or end with Nixon. There is plenty of overlap between, e.g., Strom Thurmond serving in the senate as a Republican, and black leaders considering a marked shift to Republicans while most southern Dixiecrats were still Democrats. Nixon was one turning point. He did have a pronounced and announced “southern strategy,” and I mostly heard the term when he was, you know, running for president, when I had no idea if I would even live into the 21st century.

Nixon was an opportunist more than a racist, and so, for that matter, was George Corley Wallace. Nixon did court black voters in 1960, and didn’t mind trying to win some in 1968 or 1972. But the overall transition over time was quite clear.

Is it or is not true that, in the U.S., White People are generally more genuinely friendly to fellow White People and generally less genuinely friendly to non-White People?

Which black people, and which white people? The generalization itself borders on racism, although properly framed, it touches on some important realities. After 20 generations of significant separation and isolation, there are substantial cultural differences between many “black” subcultures and many “white” subcultures. It does have the same impact as an Italian and an English person trying to have a face to face conversation. It causes some friction, and make one long for people whose tastes are more closely attuned. Although, I’ve also heard northerners tell white southerner “Southerners and foreigners I never could understand.” And every “difference” isn’t equally “good.”

My point about the Panthers was just that they represented (at times) a hostility to whiteness, or to white people qua whites, that isn’t that different from what we hear today from some on the radical left.

You’re dead wrong about that. The Black Panther Party was the only substantial black power organization that actively sought alliances with people considered “white,” helped organize parallel organizations of Appalachians in midwestern industrial centers, and, while Huey P. Newton had disorders that remind one a bit of Roy Moore, he did promulgate a fairly coherent theory of “intercommunalism” that was decidedly open to “white” participation.

Mind you, a majority of white voters voted into office a president who made his political name by attacking the cultural/political legitimacy of the country’s first black president.

That’s about as relevant as some other people harping on how Mitt Romney got a majority of the “white vote,” as if any candidate who doesn’t get a majority of “white voters” has not legitimately been elected president.

and America responded to this rhetoric by appointing the man who argued he has proof Obama falsified his birth certificate as president.

That is a childish formulation, even if ensconced in a larger point that Hector finds worthy. “America” did not “appoint” anyone to anything. An election means that millions of us cast ballots for a variety of reasons and the one a few more people like than the next candidate gets to actually hold office. It is a problem that people claim a “mandate” because they got slightly more votes. Close to half the population didn’t want the winner — almost every election. And fifty-three percent of votes cast in 2016 were not for Trump.

#3 Comment By J. Toepper On November 14, 2017 @ 12:03 am

Give this clown a box of tissues.

#4 Comment By John Blade Wiederspan On November 14, 2017 @ 1:06 am

Institutional White Supremacy. If it does exist and I don’t believe it does, how are black citizens suppose to react to its existence? Why should they bend to white prejudice? Why define yourself by what a bunch of white racists think? Why are the overwhelming number of black births out of wedlock? Why is the black dropout rate as high as it is? Why do black individuals do drugs? Why is the violence in the black community as high as it is? None of this is forced on them by the white culture. In fact, a fair amount of the white culture would say, “Of course, that’s the way they are”. Why live down to a negative racial stereotype? Defy white society, prove it wrong. That would be the best revenge.

#5 Comment By BSR On November 14, 2017 @ 1:40 am

I worked in a leadership capacity with low-income, hard-working black folks for 30+ years. During that time I had to console mothers and sisters that were informed, while at work, that their sons or brothers had been shot or killed. I consoled a father whose son was killed by his grandson. I talked with mothers who had to visit their sons in Angola prison and told me they tried to warn their sons to change their ways or they would end up shot or worse. I had numerous staff who were informed, while at work, that their homes or apartments had been broken into and robbed. In these 30+ years I never had someone tell me the cause of all the sadness and destruction in their lives was due to police brutality, white supremacy or sentencing laws.

The professor, similar to the NFL players, fails to acknowledge the real problems in poor communities. He, as many lazy people do, tries to frame all problems as being a result of racism. I’m sure he feels that anyone that doesn’t agree with his self-absorbed, misguided notions is a racist.

I would love nothing more than to see poor neighborhoods be transformed into world-class communities with everyone being able to succeed according to their abilities and ambitions. I’m afraid that, “fixing police”, relaxing sentencing laws, telling everyone institutional racism and white privilege exist, screaming there’s racism out there and similar dead-end issues, talking points and causes will never lead to the kind of change that’s needed nor have prevented the pain I saw my co-workers and friends experience.

Like the euphoria many felt when OJ Simpson was acquitted, it felt (racially) good at the time but didn’t improve anyone’s life one iota. The professor is similarly tapping into this same emotion. Some will feel warm and fuzzy when they wrap themselves in the professor’s cocoon and chalk everything up to racism. However, his views are not a recipe for a happy, fulfilled life for anyone. The professor is living proof that common sense cannot be learned in the halls of academia.

#6 Comment By maroon vee On November 14, 2017 @ 1:56 am

Siarlys Jenkins I take issue with your Southern Strategy conclusions. You have fallen for the Big lie put out by the left leaning media of the time, as the excuse why Dems lost to Nixon. Do you realize there were two Dems running against Nixon? Humphrey, and George Wallace. Wallace ran on segregation, won five states, winning 45 electoral votes. He ran on segregation. What did Nixon run on? Ending the Vietnam War, and the economy. Hardly a play for the racist vote.
The next step to show your assumptions based on a lie… what were Nixon’s policies towards Blacks while he was in office.
In 1956, as vice president, Nixon went to Harlem to declare, “America can’t afford the cost of segregation.” The following year, Nixon got a personal letter from Dr. King thanking him for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Nixon supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968.
In Nixon’s presidency, the civil rights enforcement budget rose 800 percent. Record numbers of blacks were appointed to federal office. An Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created. SBA loans to minorities soared 1,000 percent. Aid to black colleges doubled. Money invested in sickle cell anemia.
Nixon over saw the peaceful desegregation of schools in the South. When Johnson left office, 10 percent of Southern schools were desegregated. When Nixon left, the figure was 70 percent.
In 1969 under the Nixon administration, Head Start was transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Child Development in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
President Richard Nixon extended affirmative action in federal agencies through Executive Order 11478.
Nixon’s Executive Order: Section 1. “It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the Federal Government.”
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, it wouldn’t have passed without Republican support. It was Democrats who voted against it, most famously Al Gore’s father.
When LBJ, passed Medicaid and Welfare, he is known to have said, “We’ll have the (black *sic) vote for 200 years”. That’s when blacks changed their votes from Republican to Democrat. Prove me wrong.
Nixon’s actions are hardly “racist”. But you probably read the NY Times, and comments taken out of context (something the Times is famous for) to reach the conclusion you did.
Time to rethink some of the lies, and misinformation you have learned from sources who wanted to pin the Dem loss , on some mythical Southern Strategy.

#7 Comment By JonF On November 14, 2017 @ 6:05 am

Re: Re “Nixon’s notorious Southern Strategy,” this was invented by left-wing/Democratic bloggers in the early 00s.

Nope, that’s a matter of historical fact. A GOP strategist, one Kevin Phillips, coined the term in Nixon’s first term (but he didn’t called it “notorious” of course) . The GOP noted Goldwater’s numbers in the South in 64 and George Wallace’s numbers in 68 and campaigned very openly for the disaffected Democratic segregationist vote in the South in the midterms of 1970.

#8 Comment By theMann On November 14, 2017 @ 8:39 am

poor Professor Yankah (I am assuming a nom de plume, since Woken Yanker is a bit over the top). A couple of observations:

1. If his really concerned for his children’s safety, he could move to Detroit or Chicago, AND take advantage of some excellent real estate values.

2. If Whites were, even as a significant minority, the violent Racists so many non-Whites slander them as…..

Well, to Paraphrase Stalin (who actually was a violent Racist), there would soon be fewer but better White people in North America. Because there wouldn’t be any non-Whites in North America.

#9 Comment By Craig On November 14, 2017 @ 8:52 am

I wonder how Yankah deals with those who look white, but identify as black? Racial fluidity really throws sand into the gears of a society that is supposed to be divided along black and white lines.

#10 Comment By Jack B. Nimble On November 14, 2017 @ 8:52 am

[NFR: Yankah has declared himself in public, on the pages of the NYT, as assuming that all whites are racists who threaten his physical safety, unless the white demonstrate to him that they are not. What if a white law professor published an essay saying that he assumes all black people are predators who threaten his physical safety, unless they prove otherwise. What do you think it would be like being a black student in that professor’s class? — RD]

My original comment concerned Prof. Yankah’s behavior in the classroom, of which I have no knowledge, nor does Mr. Dreher, I assume. The NYT Op-Ed concerned future friends and social acquaintances of Prof. Yankah; he used the words ‘friend’ or ‘friendship’ 24 times in his piece. He did not mention his teaching or legal work at all in that piece, and to assume without evidence that Prof. Yankah treats students, clients or colleagues differently based on race is a baseless smear.

Most professors, and certainly most law professors, understand that they hold a position of trust vis-a-vis the students they teach. The obligation to treat students fairly is spelled out in the faculty handbooks that most colleges publish. Whether professors should inject their personal views into classroom lectures and discussions is admittedly a gray area; such behavior is discouraged by the AAUP and others, unless the views are relevant to the topic at hand.

I repeat – no one has alleged that Prof. Yankah injects his personal views in the classroom in a way that makes students uncomfortable, much less that he discriminates on the basis of race. In my 40+ years of academic experience, I have learned that a professor’s classroom behavior is largely uncorrelated with their personal lifestyle, political or religious views, etc.

To address Mr. Dreher’s main point, I CAN’T imagine being a student in a law class, regardless of the race of the professor, because the Socratic method used is unfamiliar to me. So that would just be pointless armchair speculation, and that’s why I suggest sticking to the facts.

#11 Comment By Ann On November 14, 2017 @ 9:37 am

[NFR: Oh yeah? What did I get wrong, hon? — RD

‘hon’ …. oh please … did you just double down on the trolling?

#12 Comment By Rosita On November 14, 2017 @ 9:56 am

Jane I so appreciate your refreshing honesty:

“In my own experience, I voted for Obama in 2012, but didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 because of the anti-nonwhite racism surrounding his campaign, and didn’t vote for Clinton because of the anti-white racism that was swirling around the left at that time. Yet, I found that opposing the left’s racism somehow made me regarded as the racist among liberals.”

Both sides; including Rod Dreher have blinders on. Are Prof. Ekow Yankah’s arguments, overwrought-yes. But let’s not pretend that majority of people of color in this country do not agree with his basic premise-the election of Donald Trump in this country proved to people of color that their political; economic and social ascendance is seen as a threat and a zero sum contest for supremacy by majority of whites. Making America Great is built on both a false and amoral premise that at some point in America’s past; including coincidentally a past when very few if any non whites remember with great nostalgia, things were great and awesome.

#13 Comment By Franklin Evans On November 14, 2017 @ 10:27 am

Vivir con miedo, es como vivir a medias!

A life lived in fear is a life half lived. — “Strictly Ballroom”, Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce (screenplay)

#14 Comment By KD On November 14, 2017 @ 10:39 am

Why don’t you think they see it?

First you polarize people, then you demonize your enemies, then you declare a state of emergency and crush your enemies. You now have even more power and your enemies are on the run.

Perfectly rational political strategy, if you think you can win the political conflict.

#15 Comment By M_Young On November 14, 2017 @ 10:53 am

“The very fact that an extremely well educated black person who is by all accounts quite successful in his field feels this way is a horrifying accusation against the culture as it stands today.”

And yet blacks continue to migrate to white majority (for the time being) countries. It’s almost like ‘white supremacy’ makes better places to live, even for Negroes.

#16 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 14, 2017 @ 11:04 am

No that’s simply not true. Black Americans have an estimated murder rate about 8 or 9 times white Americans.

When it comes to numbers, empirics, the latest scientific research, Hector generally knows what he’s talking about. So I have accepted figures like this for some time. But I would like to see some more detail.

I infer very roughly that, e.g., if two percent of “white” humans commit murders, then that would mean about sixteen percent of “black” humans commit murders. That’s a very significant difference, but, it would also mean that 84 percent of “black” humans do not commit murders, which is much more significant if we’re going to talk about “they’re like that.”

Also, I suspect the percentages are smaller in both categories. I have a hard time believing that two out of every one hundred “white” Americans has committed a murder. And therefore we’d be talking about eight times an even smaller number.

It might mean in some jurisdictions that an officer pulling over a black motorist is eight times more likely to be shot at than when pulling over a white motorist. But, it also means that 85 out of 100 black motorists pulled over are NOT going to be armed or dangerous. Or maybe 97 out of 100.

There are other ways to read “murder rate about 8 or 9 times” greater, which might mean taking an entirely different approach. It could also be true that “whites commit more violent crimes” considering “whites” remain a majority of the population, but the RATE relative to population of each demographic is higher for “blacks.”

#17 Comment By jz On November 14, 2017 @ 11:11 am

Comparing this racist to Trump in terms of racial divisiveness is kind of silly. Nothing Trump has ever said comes close to this guy’s pure full blown genuine racism.

#18 Comment By ScotF On November 14, 2017 @ 12:27 pm

@JonF

This guy gets it. Notice how the voices of Keith Oberman and more recently Joe Biden have been conflating “values” with free trade? Heck in Biden’s recent speech to doners he deliberately conflated the two things in his speech. I saw the Secular Talk bit about it.

The Neo-Liberals have a huge problem. They have promised the doner class TPP. After the Clinton debacle the doner class has told the Democrats that either they give them TPP or lose their corporate funding. The 2020 election will see Joe Biden shoehorned in over Warren and an even more divisive campaign than 2018. The Neo-Liberals have nothing to loose. They know that unless they pass TPP their gravy train will stop flowing.

#19 Comment By Dale McNamee On November 14, 2017 @ 3:06 pm

To Allen : Great post and a great laugh ! Excellent !

To Rod : You said it best in your article : “What a jerk”… Nobody wants to be around, let alone be friends with a jerk…

The dear professor should get schooled in the difference between racism and jerkism…

If he doesn’t “get it” or ignores the difference, he’s both stupid and ignorant and he should get the money he spent on his education refunded…

#20 Comment By Sands On November 14, 2017 @ 7:44 pm

No one really believes that this guy is scared of white people, do They?

#21 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On November 14, 2017 @ 7:52 pm

I infer very roughly that, e.g., if two percent of “white” humans commit murders, then that would mean about sixteen percent of “black” humans commit murders.

Oh, not even that. The proportion of Black and White murderers might be very similar, but Black ones might be more likely part of organized crime and have a higher number of murders to their credit apiece. (No idea if that’s generally true, but it might be: I’ve been told that gang activity is generally the biggest source of murders in America).

I don’t even care to really bring this stuff- it’s not really relevant and it’s not the fault of the African American community in general, by any means. But when I see a flatly false number trotted out my instinct is to respond.

It is obviously correct that the large majority of Black men and White men both, don’t commit violent acts against anyone.

#22 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On November 14, 2017 @ 7:57 pm

But the real culprit here is the NYT. How can a “paper of record” publish such a hateful and divisive article. Are they trying to drive wedges between the races. There is absolutely no justification. The whole op-ed page is inhabited by victims and haters.

I have much less respect for the NYT in general than I do for Professor Yankah, but the NYT publishing an op-ed doesn’t mean they agree with the content of the op-ed. They’ve published op-eds by the late and unlamented Muammar Qaddafi calling for the end of the State of Israel. As just one example.

#23 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On November 14, 2017 @ 7:59 pm

The relevant question isn’t really whether Professor Yankah is ‘racist’, whatever that means. It’s whether or not his piece is actually going to harm white Americans. I don’t think so, because I have a hard time picturing anyone taking it seriously. Even the New York Times readership seems to have roundly mocked it. This is a tempest in a teapot and not worth any of our time.

#24 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 14, 2017 @ 10:28 pm

By the way, I can say exactly the same about HRC’s bellicosity overseas.

Bad Religion neatly contradicts his position that “there is no such thing as a good Trump supporter.” One way to respond to the conclusion there there is NEITHER such a thing as a good Trump supporter OR a good Clinton supporter is to sit out the election and not vote. Another is to find a candidate to vote for who is neither Trump nor Clinton. I spent a good 25 years declining to vote because it was a charade of bourgeois alternatives that were merely bad in different ways. But eventually, I realized that the revolution hadn’t happened and people who got elected were in a position to take real actions that impacted real lives.

So, I can sympathize with anyone who had to hold their nose to vote, whether they were voting the way I did when I held my nose, or the other way. Unless you are the chair of a powerful central committee that can tell people to eat peaches and cream and like it, politics has to start with a good hard look at what motivates the electorate. All 150 million of them, who each have their own ways of looking at things. At minimum, the fact that people who voted twice for Obama and once for Sanders considered Trump a better bet than Clinton is worth close examination.

maroon vee, it is awfully tedious when a half-informed person such as yourself tells me all kinds of things I already know, and then tosses in an occasional epithet as the grounds for why I’m all mixed up. I lived through the entire era you’re talking about. And I outlined at some length that there was a rather extended transition from circa 1948 to circa 1990, not a one-time gimmick for Nixon’s 1968 election campaign.

Nixon was fundamentally an opportunist. Yes, I know he condemned racial segregation in the 1950s. That was when a lot of black leaders were getting fed up with Dixiecrat obstruction of civil rights legislation. I’ve read coverage at some length in the black press of the time. (There wasn’t much of a left wing press — although the Daily Worker had a good sports editor).

Eisenhower and Nixon got 39 percent of the black vote in 1956. I’ve tried to get a periodical publication to accept an article on that, but the GOP doesn’t want to look at the implications of how they lost that potential, and the Dems don’t want to be reminded that Adlai Stevenson campaigned in Louisiana recounting how his grandfather supported the South against scalawags and carpetbaggers.

But, in 1964, as well as 1968, there certainly WAS a southern strategy in the GOP. Hoover pioneered one in 1928… talking about a “lily white” Republican Party that could compete in the south. Its history, no matter how many times you blame it all on “the lies of the left wing press.”

That’s when blacks changed their votes from Republican to Democrat. Prove me wrong.

Gee, have you ever read anything about the elections of 1932 and 1936? Look it up! Yes, Roosevelt had lots of white racists in his coalition… but he also drew more black votes than the GOP did! A lot of black papers endorsed Thomas Dewey in 1948, and Dewey was a very firm supporter of civil rights… but a majority of black votes went to Truman.

It IS true that the tilt was more pronounced starting in 1964… and it is also true that the GOP, seeing that tilt, decided, without saying it in so many words, oh, to heck with the black vote, let’s go get some white southern votes while the getting is good.

#25 Comment By VikingLS On November 14, 2017 @ 11:00 pm

@Bad Religion

Do you believe the police should just let you smash windows and burn cars?

#26 Comment By Jefferson Smith On November 15, 2017 @ 12:30 am

@Siarlys Jenkins:

Re. the Panthers, I said “at times.” The author of Soul on Ice was a Panther, for instance, wasn’t he? Their Minister of Information, or some such. The point is that anti-white rhetoric is not some new development of the Ta-Nehisi Coates era.

@Hector_St_Clare:

I think the phrase “more violent crimes” you’ve been reacting to was not intended to mean numerically more, but “crimes that are more violent.” The commenter gave the example of mass shootings.

#27 Comment By BadReligion On November 15, 2017 @ 2:04 am

“Do you believe that the police should just let you smash windows and burn cars?”

No, because the police shouldn’t exist. In the kind of society we work for, political vandalism wouldn’t be such a salient tactic; in the present day, the perceived need for police can and has been addressed by creating alternatives. Leaving the army of the state and ruling class without legitimacy is quite a coup, and my choice of word is deliberate.

Examples can be found in this zine:
[10]

#28 Comment By Robbi Gomes On November 15, 2017 @ 3:42 am

Black, White, Latino, North, South, Liberal, Conservative, etc.
The ruling class––not the 1% but the top 20% –– has got us kicking and fighting each other for identities, scholarships, jobs, respect, health care, decent housing, good schools, you name it. Their servants, the main stream media, serve up the propaganda that divides us. By “us” I mean the rest of us, regardless of color, religion, or any other “divider ” they can exploit. We are one of the richest countries in the world, but the pie is divided 80%for the 20% and 20% of the pie for the rest of us. As long as we do not unite it will remain that way! Your Black and Latino kids will meet my poor white kids in boot camp where they will be trained to kill other poor or lower class soldiers from other countries.

#29 Comment By bob On November 15, 2017 @ 2:01 pm

Recently I’ve found (it’s just rediscovering the wheel for myself) that the best way to handle a discussion with an idiot is to ignore him. Don’t have the discussion. Don’t indulge a racist of any flavor at all, they are not worthy of your time. It may not always be possible but in the case of such a prof as this one anyone who isn’t required to take his class and does anyway is a fool. Let the moron have the last word. That’s what he *thinks* (sort of) he wants but what he really craves above all is attention. Ignoring him destroys him. Costs nothing, too.

#30 Comment By MM On November 15, 2017 @ 4:27 pm

“The police shouldn’t exist.”

I can think of no more compelling a thought experiment supporting the notion that legal gun ownership deters criminals than this.

Blue cities and states, SOL in that world…

#31 Comment By JonF On November 15, 2017 @ 8:58 pm

Re: No, because the police shouldn’t exist.

Tantamount to saying the State should not exist since how can a State exist if it has no means to enforce its laws or protect its citizens?
If you’re going to argue for anarchy go ahead and do so.

#32 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 15, 2017 @ 9:27 pm

The author of Soul on Ice was a Panther, for instance, wasn’t he?

Briefly. Soul On Ice was far more popular with masochistic “white” liberals than it was in “black” communities. And Eldridge Cleaver didn’t last long… he was too anxious for pointless and suicidal armed confrontations, not to mention waxing eloquent on rape as a revolutionary tactic. He fled to Algeria, denounced the entire Panther leadership, and came back years later as a Republican. (Literally).

No, because the police shouldn’t exist. In the kind of society we work for, political vandalism wouldn’t be such a salient tactic

Infantile disorder at its finest. It is true that police often act as the enforcement arm of the upper levels of power, particularly when there is an insurgent labor movement. It is true that southern police forces were riddled with KKK chapters and brutally suppressed legal protests. And I find written accounts credible, although I wasn’t there, that during the San Francisco General Strike, the crime rate actually went down, because the voluntary patrols organized by various unions were more respected, and more effective, than the regular police force.

But, I also know, because I live on the north side of Milwaukee, not in an academic ghetto or a suburb, that there are jerks who kill little girls by (a) shooting up the wrong house trying to get the guy just acquitted by a jury of killing the shooter’s homey, or (b) getting into a fight over who stole whose baby mama’s clothes, and working class black communities are very glad to have police get those jerks off the street. If there were no police, gangs would BE the police. Because they are armed, and have time on their hands to run around doing enforcement.

There was a time when black crime victims didn’t bother calling police, because police wouldn’t respond unless the victim was white. That is not generally the case. In real life, people are whipsawed between protesting genuine abuse by police and eagerly seeking police action against other forms of very hazardous or even lethal abuse. Antifa is no more capable of replacing necessary police functions that the Guardian Angels were.

So its not as simple as it sounds reading the Anarchist Cookbook.

#33 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On November 15, 2017 @ 11:12 pm

I’ve heard some hilariously dumb things on the comment boards of The American Conservative (William Dalton’s “you can’t rape your wife” thing, which he’s repeated a few times, was among the low points), but I think “the police shouldn’t exist” takes the cake.

There’s a great Arab proverb which I think is entirely true: a thousand years of tyranny is better than one day of anarchy. Some smart writer (I forget whom) was once looking back retrospectively on the events of the late 1960s, and pointed out out the differences between anarchism and communism. Anarchists like the slogan “it is forbidden to forbid”, communists however much you might despise them at least have the wisdom to know that any healthy society worth the name is going to have to forbid a great deal.

This is probably also why revolutions and dictatorships usually are worst at the start and get better over time (both right-wing dictatorships like Franco’s and left wing dictatorships like the Warsaw Pact ones were much milder by the end then they had been at the beginning). It’s precisely when a new regime is trying to establish itself amidst anarchy that it’s the most violent: once it becomes the establishment, and people obey it simply because it’s there and it’s what they’re used to, it no longer has to resort to as much repression.

#34 Comment By VikingLS On November 15, 2017 @ 11:21 pm

@Bad Religion

Okay,

Now back in the real world where we have police, do you think you should be subject to the same laws if you burn a car or destroy a bank as political action that a racist neighbor would be if he trashed a black owned business or burn a black neighbors car to express his dislike of blacks?

“I can think of no more compelling a thought experiment supporting the notion that legal gun ownership deters criminals than this.

Blue cities and states, SOL in that world…”

Or under the rule of Bad Religion and his comrades. Liberals may not like guns, but anarchists do.

#35 Comment By VikingLS On November 15, 2017 @ 11:31 pm

“If there were no police, gangs would BE the police. Because they are armed, and have time on their hands to run around doing enforcement.”

@Siarlys

Interesting point, should Antifa get their revolution they would likely be battling the gangs for supremacy. I suspect all that concern for people of color will evaporate really quickly when they’re competing for power.

#36 Comment By Alex Brown On November 16, 2017 @ 1:43 am

This is not the first fascist column in NYT and is no longer shocks me. Just a few months back another fake professor described there that sex was better under socialism. People like me who wasted sometimes best years of their lives and careers trying to break out of socialist prison can only laugh histerically reading this delirium. And this is a pattern of disinformation. This Pravda played major role in creating fake news series about police violence against blacks. Turns out, police kills twice as many whites. This year, 6 unarmed blacks were killed by police. Just last month Andrew Sullivan had a piece on this. Or Heather Mac Donald. But who cares if NYT speaks truth to power? Whole ‘peaceful’ anti-police movement was built on a lie propagated by the likes of this paper.
Prior to coming to the States, I almost religiously believed this paper. Now I despise it just as much.

#37 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 16, 2017 @ 9:54 am

Liberals may not like guns, but anarchists do.

I’ve often wondered at people who want to let conservative Republicans have all the guns. Stupid.

#38 Comment By JonF On November 16, 2017 @ 1:04 pm

Re: Turns out, police kills twice as many whites.

Well, there are far more white peopel in the US than black people, so the above does not mea nwhat the poster thinks. Also, killings are just the tip of the iceberg, albeit the tip that makes for headlines. Below it lies various other forms of harassment from petty traffic stops over nothing to beatings and unwarranted arrests.
Also, “fake news” means news that is literally not true. I am not aware that there have been any news stories of persons killed by police who were not in fact killed by them.

#39 Comment By Josep On November 16, 2017 @ 1:52 pm

@ Alex Brown
It’s worse than that; there have even been allegations that the NYT is anti-Semitic. Since the editors make their lack of decency well-known by allowing junk articles like Yankah’s racist screed to appear on the paper, I believe it’s time for the guys at TAC to boycott that leftist rag. Makes good toilet paper, though.

#40 Comment By MM On November 16, 2017 @ 3:11 pm

“I’ve often wondered at people who want to let conservative Republicans have all the guns.”

And yet, assuming they do have most of them, I have a hard time finding any notorious mass shootings to blame on a conservative Republican or NRA member…

#41 Comment By MM On November 17, 2017 @ 12:45 pm

“Also, killings are just the tip of the iceberg, albeit the tip that makes for headlines.”

And the impetus for movements like BLM, where the facts of certain cases really don’t matter.

I’ll stipulate that there’s a bias in police use of force WRT black vs. white Americans. But there is no corresponding movement for white victims of police shootings, innocent or guilty. And it’s not simply that more white men in America = more white men shot by police.

Ronald Fryer at Harvard has done some good research on this:

[11]

He collected records on police shootings in 10 major police departments between 2000 and 2015. The data showed that officers reported shooting before being attacked more frequently in encounters with white suspects.

It’s not just the number, it’s also the rate that matters. Or maybe it really doesn’t for those who’ve already made up their minds?

#42 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 17, 2017 @ 2:40 pm

How do you think the Las Vegas shooter voted?

#43 Comment By MM On November 17, 2017 @ 7:01 pm

“How do you think the Las Vegas shooter voted?”

Perhaps you can enlighten everyone and disclose how he was registered, and if he did actually vote at all?

You know, instead of casting aspersions without factual basis…

#44 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 19, 2017 @ 2:25 pm

I’m not suggesting an answer, I’m responding to a broad generalization asserted by you yourself. If you are going to make a broad generalization, perhaps you could provide some data to back it up, at least when someone asks a question.

Who is “aspersed” if the Las Vegas shooter DID vote Republican? Or Democrat?

#45 Comment By Thrice A Viking On November 20, 2017 @ 2:03 pm

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I recently read Bad Religion’s link to alternatives to the police. Most of them seem to be rather supplements to the present system than true alternatives. But that isn’t really a fatal flaw IMO. The fatal flaws that I see include a lack of any way to: apprehend criminals; try them; or give them an appropriate punishment. But since the writers of the piece don’t think that the police do anything to limit crime, that’s to be expected, I suppose. No bourgeois arguments (or proletarian or agrarian ones, for that matter) about the value of deterrence of would-be criminals, or of removing known felons from civil society for them, thank you very much. I find it utterly unrealistic.

#46 Comment By MM On November 20, 2017 @ 6:58 pm

“If you are going to make a broad generalization.”

I merely noted that I could not find any notable mass shooting committed by a registered Republican or an NRA member.

So, could you please provide such an example and qualify your assertion? I’d like to know how YOU know how the Las Vegas shooter voted.

I’m all ears…