Erin Aubry Kaplan: In the Black Lives Matter era, we need justice well beyond the legal sense

Erin Aubry Kaplan could pass for white:

erin-bio-foto-165x200

Married to a Jew, she might feel a need to increase her black cred, so she writes articles like this:

In the era of Black Lives Matter, the stakes are high. Not to sound apocalyptic, but the time for debate and dialogue is surely over. In 2016, the problem is clear. The question is whether America will finally undo what divides black reality from everyone else’s. This time, what’s necessary is not only a change in law or language or police chiefs. We need life change, to undo a truth that’s been commonplace for so long we barely notice it, to dislodge what has been ingrained in us all — that black lives don’t matter.

The urgency for black people comes, in part, from increased expectations. We’ve had a black president, after all. That hardly means black people believe in post-racialism, or in President Obama’s own initial lofty expectations of change. Rather, Obama’s limitations over the last eight years have reawakened us to the fact that securing racial justice can never be left to black elected officials alone, even a president. Especially a president. So black folks’ expectations are probably right where they ought to be, and we’re not backing down from them. We shouldn’t. It’s time.

Black Lives Matter fundamentally seeks equity in the criminal justice system, an end to police brutality. And then the hashtag goes deeper. A manifesto released last week by a BLM coalition spells it out: inclusion and equal regard for black people in every aspect of life, at school, at work, in politics. In a word, reparations. It’s a big ask — to bring about justice well beyond the legal sense — but one commensurate with the times: Undoing racism is on a par with solving climate change.

Perhaps blacks should start thinking that black lives matter and stop killing each other.

It’s a great gig using your white brain to make a living as a professional black. Most of America’s most successful blacks, including all the heads of the NAACP I can remember, are light-skinned, including Barack Obama.

Generally speaking, the darker the black skin, the lower the IQ. Sub-Saharan blacks in Africa, for instance, have an average IQ around 70. Aborigines in Australia have an average IQ of 55.

A Harvard professor writes in 2007:

Dark-skinned Blacks in the United States have lower socioeconomic status, more punitive relationships with the criminal justice system, diminished prestige, and less likelihood of holding elective office compared with their lighter counterparts. This phenomenon of “colorism” both occurs within the African American community and is expressed by outsiders, and most Blacks are aware of it. Nevertheless, Blacks’ perceptions of discrimination, belief that their fates are linked, or attachment to their race almost never vary by skin color. We identify this disparity between treatment and political attitudes as “the skin color paradox,” and use it as a window into the politics of race in the United States over the past half-century.

Using national surveys, we explain the skin color paradox as follows: Blacks’ commitment to racial identity overrides the potential for skin color discrimination to have political significance. That is, because most Blacks see the fight against racial hierarchy as requiring their primary allegiance, they do not see or do not choose to express concern about the internal hierarchy of skin tone. Thus dark-skinned Blacks’ widespread experience of harm has no political outlet— which generates the skin color paradox.

A dark-skinned black woman, Jasmyne Cannick, writes for NPR:

DSC01539

The “Light Skin Libra Birthday Bash,” which was to take place at Detroit’s Club APT, was the brainchild of a self described “dark-skinned” African-American Detroit DJ and party promoter. The party was intended to let “light-skinned” black women into a downtown club for free. In his defense, Ulysses “DJ Lish” Barnes, said that he had plans for “Sexy Chocolate” and “Sexy Caramel” parties too. The good news is that the parties have been canceled after much criticism and calls for boycotts and lawsuits.

lightskinbash

There are no words for some of the ignorant (insert four letter word that starts with an s, rhymes with hit), that we do to ourselves. But let me give it a try.
The short version.
History has shown that black people with lighter skin were treated better. In the days of slavery, the dark-skinned blacks worked in the fields while light-skinned blacks worked in the house, hence the terms “field Negroes” and “house Negroes.” It got so bad, that not only did the slave owners, who were often responsible for the lighter shade of brown his slaves had, give lighter-skinned blacks more respect, but so did the dark-skinned blacks.
This evolved into generations of blacks both consciously and subconsciously teaching themselves that one is better than the other which eventually led to a billion dollar fake hair industry.
This was best illustrated in Spike Lee’s 1988 film “School Daze” in the scene played out in a beauty parlor between the “jiggaboos,” otherwise known as the darker-skinned blacks with nappy hair, and the “wannabe’s,” the lighter-skinned blacks with straight often times weaved hair.
But who could forget the film version of Alice Walker’s novel “The Color Purple,” in which Mister asked for Nettie who was “chocolate” colored with long hair but was given Celie, who was dark-skinned with nappy and short coarse hair instead. This was followed by a grown up Celie dealing with the harsh realities of beauty and Mista’s in-house mistress, Shug Avery.
Then you had black sororities and fraternities who used the “brown paper bag test” to deny entrance to anyone darker than the bag.
There continues to be black children who prefer to play with dolls that are white with blond hair and blue eyes. Some black children actually identify with these dolls over dolls of their own race, which could explain the 2003 case between two Georgia Applebee’s restaurant employees.
At the time, Dwight Burch, a dark-skinned waiter, was an Applebee’s restaurant employee. He filed a lawsuit against Applebee’s and his light-skinned African-American manager alleging that during his employment, the manager repeatedly referred to him as a “black monkey” and a “tar baby” and told Burch to bleach his skin. Burch claimed he was fired after he refused to do so. His case settled for $40,000.
But what about decades of rap music videos where the preferred “ho” is a lighter shade of brown? And the fact that only recently we’re seeing advertisements that highlight black women who chose to wear their hair in its natural state and are dark-skinned, even in our own magazines.
Remember actress Jennifer Beals’ famous, “I thought I would never get in. I thought they only took geniuses. But I was lucky, because I’m a minority. I’m not Black, and I’m not White, so I could mark ‘other’ on my application, and I guess it’s hard for them to fill that quota,” quote on how she got into Yale University.
Beals, whose father was black, seldom identifies with the black community despite being nominated for an NAACP Image Award. And then there was singer Prince, who despite having black parents, listed in his press bio at one time that he was Italian, among other things, when he made it in the business.
More recently there was the University of Georgia’s 2006 controversial study on skin tone which confirmed that light-skinned blacks are often more likely to be considered for jobs over dark-skinned blacks.

Posted in Blacks, BLM | Comments Off on Erin Aubry Kaplan: In the Black Lives Matter era, we need justice well beyond the legal sense

The Paul O’Neal Shooting In Chicago

Comments: The Paul O’Neal shooting will be getting a lot of press. Here is the raw footage without any narrative.

They let the family trial lawyer get first crack at the story, who called it a police murder.

My guess is that the public will find the victim not particular sympathetic and see the chaos of a crime in progress.

The cops, obviously, didn’t think about their body cams and were not censoring any thoughts. It’s pretty clear they thought they were shot at and assumed the victim was armed.

It’s a bad outcome — but anyone stealing a car and initiating a car chase with police which included hitting two cop cars — is engaged in some high risk behavior.

* High risk indeed. He nearly ran over one cop and then smashed head on into a cruiser. I don’t think there are enough police shootings.

Compare with this video of a South African motorcycle policeman going full RoboCop on some thugs.

* It is good to see these things without the narrative overlay telling you what to think about what you are seeing. When one sees raw video like this, it is surprising how anodyne these events are.

In this case, the sports car almost crushes an officer. He and his partner fire at it, ineffectively and perhaps recklessly. The sports car hits a police SUV and stops. The driver flees. There is a desultory chase. Off camera gunfire. Suspect apprehended. A lot of talking.

Maybe the police shouldn’t have shot at the car, but no one appears to have been hit, so whatever. Maybe something untoward happened off camera with the gunfire and apprehension, but it was off camera, so it’s unknown for now.

But then you look at the Narrative Imposers, who saw the exact same video:

Head of Chicago police oversight agency Sharon Fairley: “shocking and disturbing”

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson: “violated procedure”

Former prosecutor Michael Oppenheimer: “beyond horrific” “There is no question in my mind that criminal acts were committed” (Oppenheimer may be a former prosecutor, but he is also representing the O’Neal family in a civil suit. Some media are coy about that but not his being a former prosecutor.)

Oppenheimer benefits from an anti-police narrative, but Fairley and Johnson are supposed to be neutral.

And this leaves aside all the “activists” (typically unemployed ex-cons with a microphone) to whom the media give ample airplay who are uniformly anti-police.

Even in the highly inflammatory Philando Castile video from Minnesota, if you knew nothing about it and saw it without his girlfriend’s narrative overlay (and possible retconning), all you see is a shot man with a gun in his lap. The obvious conclusion would be that he had just lost a gunfight, which may be exactly what happened. His girlfriend’s narrative, which was enthusiastically amplified and elaborated by the media, makes the scene sound like the aftermath of cold blooded murder (in spite of the lap gun) to the point that many public speakers talked as if they had actually seen the shooting happen in the video, which of course no one did because the video starts afterwards.

A level-headed assessment of the videos released so far in the Paul O’Neal shooting.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Paul O’Neal Shooting In Chicago

Can Trump Win?

Comments:

* The two “black swan” events that can still sink Hillary are:

– Wikileaks release of her “deleted” private server emails.

– Major health problem revelation.

Otherwise, Trump has a long, uphill slog even if there are multiple terrorist attacks (Moslem and/or Negro.)

Not saying he can’t win, but right now he’s a 5-1 long shot. At best. What he needs is a very, very motivated following versus a very, very unmotivated bunch of Hillary supporters. Think Brexit. Young, pro-stay voters turned out 30%. Older, pro-leave voters turned out 80%.

In a way, the popular wisdom that Trump can’t win might be his best asset.

* There’s no real evidence that these things have helped Trump. If none of them had happened, do you suppose he’d be down 20 points or something in the polls right now?

* Trump is probably underpolling by 3-5% which seems to be the current range that right of center candidates or issues underpoll. This seems to be the current range. For example, Brexit. The last polls showed a close Remain win, only for reality to reflect a clear Leave mandate. In the UK they refer to it as the “Shy Tory” syndrome. Right of center, conservative voters/thinkers tend not to shout out their views to the world. The Left devotes considerable effort to making non-liberal views socially unacceptable. That’s Sarah Silverman’s entire department in the Democratic Party.

Trump is an extreme case. We are told daily from literally every media source that Trump is unacceptable. Few people who intend to vote for Trump are going to advertise this fact. So the polls probably understate his true position. But if he trails Hilary by more than 3 percentage points in November, he’s probably toast. Plus Obama’s get-out-the-vote machine destroyed Romney’s and Hilary will inherit that, so Trump has issues beyond bad poll numbers.

* Good thing no one watches The Simpsons anymore, eh? My family watched The Simpsons religiously for its first 12 years. In the last two or three of those years, we noticed that maybe one out of four programs was actually funny, and the proportion kept declining. Hearing occasionally that The Simpsons is still on TV gives me a mild surprise, like noticing that MAD magazine or Playboy are still being published.

* Obama’s get-out-the-vote machine destroyed Romney’s

Maybe so, but the main problem with getting out the vote for Romney was that by the time Election Day had arrived he had long since destroyed any energy around his campaign, first by dropping the immigration issue and then by his wimpy performance in the second and third debates.

* It’s different this time. Trump has smoked out the globalists and Lefties like crazy and shown the MSM to be totally corrupt and dishonest. Not to mention censoring issues on the economy, employment, trade and immigration.

Also the pain threshold among the blue collars and middle-class is pretty much off the charts now because of globalization and immigration.

It can’t be whitewashed by a bunch of Ivy Leaguers anymore. The shitstorm we’re facing is right out in front of us.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Can Trump Win?

Will Trump Go Nuclear?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It’s like a replay of the LBJ attack ad on Goldwater in which a little girl was picking the pedals off a daisy while a voice was counting down from 10 in a nuclear launch. The implication was that LBJ was the one to trust with the nukes. It does look like the dems are using this against Trump. On a few blogs I read the trolls are bringing this up a lot. They seem oblivious to the retorts that Hillary, not Trump, seems intent on baiting Russia.

* The idea of expanding NATO endlessly — not sure where that came from. It strikes me as a zombie idea … you can’t kill it. No one (other than Russia) wants to say no. And it gets muddled with the expansion of the Eurozone. But the idea of expanding Europe Eastward never goes away.

One requirement for NATO expansion is that the candidate country can’t have current border disputes. Sort of like an insurance company not underwrite a burning building.

So … There are breakaway territories in Georgia and Moldova. Which precludes their admission, which is exactly what Russia wants. And now Ukraine is ineligible. The reason it doesn’t/hasn’t happened more is that the border dispute qualification isn’t carved in stone, and there is always the chance that the ultra hawks will get their way and expand into a dispute. Someone always brings it up, so maybe it is considered best to not overuse the tactic.

Moldova is the poorest country in Europe and it is hard to imagine anyone really wanting it. Furthermore, the breakaway area, Transdniester, is one of the least desirable parts of Moldova.

When you look at these places, it is obvious that they aren’t worth any serious investment of anything. Why bother? It is also possible that people might look at a map and see that they are in the middle of nowhere.

I also have a hunch that even the US is ok with it. At worst, it creates a minor problem that can then be put in the pile of stuff that will never get done. And at least some people in the US are smart enough to see it as a solution to the never ending expansion.

* It was the Bush Regime that first pushed NATO to the borders of Russia in 2004 with the addition of:
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

* Speaking of the Olympics, apparently they have a “Refugee Team” now. Is this supposed to guilt westerners into taking in more refugees? Can people get any crazier? WTF.

* This reminds me of the Chicoms who love to talk about the Opium Wars and the Rape of Nanking but not so much about the much more recent Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which killed more Chinese than the foreign invaders ever did. Historical memory tends to be very selective – in the US it’s always 1954 and Rosa Parks is always being asked to move to the back of the bus.

Apparently the Chinese have been taking their loss to the Philippines in the international tribunal on the South China Sea issue out on the Americans (the Philippines is seen as an American proxy) and specifically they have been demonstrating against that bastion of American imperialism, KFC. The Chicoms normally suppress any whiff of dissent but hating on the Americans is seen as a safe outlet for popular discontent, just as Hillary would rather that you demonstrate against racist white cops than against Goldman Sachs.

* Stalin was a shrewd operator who knew his homeland well. The minority nations had little interest in a Russian empire, whether run by the tsar or the Bolsheviks. They had to be put down by force in the Civil War era, and again during WWII.

If you look at the boundaries of the old Soviet Republics you can see they were often designed to include a “poison pill”, another minority that would resist being placed under the governance of a larger neighbor. In turn that would give the Soviet authorities a basis to intervene and and an ally. S. Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabach, Transdnistra, etc are features not bugs.

Not that I think any of ‘em are worth a Texas National Guardsman’s bones.

* The US was not happy with the Russian territorial advances at the end of WWII but it was not willing to start another war over them. Then nuclear weapons made starting another war unthinkable. Then at the end of the Cold War , Russians finally retreated, much to the relief of all the occupied countries. Now Putin would like to come back. Should the people of the territories involved have any say in this this time? Is it wrong for them to turn to the US to prevent the Russian from giving them another “bear hug”?

Honestly, the US would have no interest in places like Lithuania except for the fact that the Russians keep trying to reestablish their “sphere of influence” in places where they are not welcome and will never be welcome.

* At heart, the elites are globalists rather than Europeans or Atlanticists. They could have proposed a free trade, passport-free travel zone comprised of, say, the eight European countries with the highest GDP per capita, and there would never have been a Brexit.

But they are compelled to bundle the good with the sh*t, because they want the proles to eat sh*t. It’s the same here. They could have had an immigration comprise years ago, with more tech visas in return for ending immigration of 4th grade dropouts from Chiapas and Jihadists from Somalia and Pakistan. But they want to rub your nose in the sh*t too.

* Trump should subtly remind everyone that the only world leader ever to resort to nuclear weapons was not in his party.

Posted in America, NATO | Comments Off on Will Trump Go Nuclear?

Was Trump Wrong To Reply To Khan?

Comments:

* One of the things that disturbs me most about the US is the cult of military worship that pervades the country. Trump didn’t pick some family out at random and attack them, he rightfully (but crudely) responded to a man who exploited his son’s death in order to shame him on behalf of the warmonger who helped kill him – and will help kill many more in her future wars. Apparently, if you have any connection to the military, you are above criticism, even if you invite it by unfairly attacking someone else first.

* Is Khan somehow immune from criticism when he makes himself a political actor? He appeared at a political convention to attack Trump from behind the body of his dead son. I found it to be insulting and offensive – for this little pakistani poppinjay to wag the Constitution at us – the fundamental law of my country, authored by my people. My people created this country. Not his. His people created Pakistan. He has no business lecturing me about my nation. Then there is this about Khan:

1.) He works, or has worked, as an agent of a foreign government (Saudi Arabia).

2.) He worked for a firm that represented Hillary Clinton.

3.) He is a proponent of Sharia Law – for him to lecture us on the US Constitution is an act of insolence and effrontery.

4.) His son is one of only 14 muslims killed in our recent wars (the first fifteen years of John McCain’s Hundred Years War). Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 13 American soldiers in one day at Fort Hood.

Hillary Clinton’s Bapu Bhat stand-in (“Donald Trump is a very bad man…..a very, very bad man!”) shouldn’t get a pass from anyone.

And where did this “Gold Star Family” stuff come from anyway? I never heard that term until last week. Like “The Homeland”, it seems to be one of these new security-state, permanent-war terms that arose in the wake of 9/11. Last time I checked, we don’t live in the “Starship Troopers” universe, where only military service guarantees citizenship. Having a relative who was killed in war doesn’t mean you get the privilege of never ever having any of your opinions questioned. This sure as Hell isn’t the country I was born in.

* Sharing your concern for Mr.Khan’s commitment to Sharia while lecturing about Constitutional guarantees of equal rights, I would add that the silence of Mrs. Khan is indeed significant.

Recognizing that the Gold Star memorial Service Flag was originally, and almost continuously thereafter, associated with and dedicated to “Gold Star Mothers,” what is sadly revealing about the whole incident is the failure of Mrs. Khan, the actual Gold Star Mother, to be the speaker. Perhaps Gold Star Family is the new multi-cultural diversity friendly identity for those whose religion does not allow an actual Gold Star Mother to speak or otherwise be recognized as an individual equal to a man.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Was Trump Wrong To Reply To Khan?