Politics

Tolerance for Racism Paved the Way for the Moral Bankruptcy of This Moment

Comments (8)
  1. Mike B says:

    Good article but how did you not include Bill Clinton in your list of political figures?

  2. Curt Day says:

    When reading articles on racism, the following quote from Martin Luther King’s speech against eh Vietnam War always comes to mind:

    ‘I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.’

    Those who oppose racism rarely include this quote in their statements. And perhaps that is why we still have so much racism to overcome.

  3. Marculis says:

    Great read!

  4. george canady says:

    Thanks Jemar. Praying for you now.

  5. Toviyah says:

    President Richard M. Nixon started the “War on Drugs”. It was actually an admitted attack on blacks and the anti-war left (e.g. hippies). John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s domestic policy chief, was quoted making the following statement about the war on drugs:
    .
    “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” -John Ehrlichman

    (Journalist Dan Baum wrote in the Harper’s April 2016 issue about how he interviewed Ehrlichman in 1994 while working on a book about drug prohibition.)

    There are other factors cited from the Nixon administration record that might support Ehrlichman’s statement, specifically the President’s racially specific and caustic language on tape — “the ‘little Negro bastards’ on welfare [who] ‘live like a bunch of dogs'” — and the ‘no-knock’ searches initiated under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 which echoed Ehrlichman’s words in Harper’s about raiding the homes of blacks and hippies.)

    Toviyah

  6. Larry says:

    The author does not seem aware of post-modernism.. Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power. Values are only created by people and do not reflect any absolute right-and-wrong.. We no longer teach our kids what is moral but encourage them to develop their own moral system. When we do that, we loose the right to say what they choose is wrong. Racism is wrong because people have an innate value that is not assigned by the State. However, that view is rejected because it places human value as an Absolute outside human study.

    1. David Miller says:

      Hi Larry,

      The author is a scholar with an MDiv, so I’d say it’s a safe bet he’s familiar with postmodernism.

      I’d also say it’s a safe assumption Mr. Tisby would agree with your statement that “Racism is wrong because people have an innate value that is not assigned by the State.” He might not put it exactly like that and I’m not trying to put words in his mouth, but the Bible is quite clear that all people are created in God’s image. This is surely the basis of your statement and surely a doctrine Mr. Tisby would subscribe to.

      You are also correct that a person steeped in postmodern thinking might approach these issues differently because they might well not place “human value as an Absolute outside human study.”

      But I don’t think the author was trying to persuade postmodernists in particular with his clear and forceful argument (one a postmodernist could clearly understand even if they approached the issues using a different intellectual foundation).

      So what exactly are you trying to say? I honestly can’t tell.

      1. David Miller says:

        Correction to my comment. Should have written: “You are also correct that a person steeped in postmodern thinking might argue for placing ‘human value as an Absolute outside human study.'”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *