Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Patrick Frey Attempts Walk-Back of Racist Insinuations Against Robert Stacy McCain

Well, as more and more bloggers make a stand against the smears, it's no surprise that Patrick Frey's trying to weasel out of his insinuations of racism against Robert Stacy McCain.

You can see the screencap from Patrick's entry tonight, "
Please Do Not Put Words in My Mouth." And he writes:
I think if people are going to address what I said then they should address what I said. Not some fictional account that somebody made up and tried to put in my mouth.

Funny thing is, no one's putting words in Patrick's mouth.

Note this passage, from Patrick's post on Sunday, "
That Quote Most of You Called “Racist” Was Written by Robert Stacy McCain":

I am placing the full quote in the extended entry below. The reader can judge for himself or herself whether the context renders non-racist McCain’s observations about the “natural revulsion” that many people feel upon seeing images of interracial marriage.

By the way, I found the Founding Bloggers post linked at this
very lengthy and thorough post that is very harsh to McCain. But the author also has plenty of evidence to back up much of what he has to say. It’s worth a click and a read.

I have much more discussion of the evidence at
this page, but I think it’s too lengthy to include here. I think the evidence set forth there is quite compelling and interesting — and shows how McCain has made sort of half-assed attempts to deny, or implicitly deny, the quote. But when he was finally asked the question quite directly by the sympathetic site Founding Bloggers in the link above, he admitted it. And claimed he was taken out of context.
So let’s turn to the full context of the quote.

To be sure, McCain says some other stuff here that is not racist, and some stuff that is less racist than the part quoted above. But I keep coming back to his claim that “the media now force interracial images into the public mind” that that “a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion.”

And that “[t]he white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM.”

You can put as much context around that as you like. It still sounds like racism to me.

We don't need to parse word meanings to see that Patrick's calling out Robert for racism and bigotry. It's a stupid yet sleazy semantic dodge for Patrick to highlight one quote away from the rest of what's he's written. It's especially dishonest, since Patrick -- who's all about "context" -- is the one trolling around the web searching for evidence of -- wait for it! -- Robert's racism. Oh, but of course, he's only scouring the web looking for evidence of WHAT ROBERT SAID, so he'll have evidence to support HIS INSINUATIONS IF NOT OUTRIGHT ALLEGATIONS of Robert's racism. I mean, the post cited by Patrick's not a giveway, eh?, "Meet Robert Stacy McCain, a neo-Confederate wacko extraordinaire." And note that's a leftist blog, so no one would find anything favorable to conservatives there. Clearly, Patrick is comfortable searching for smear sources in the radical left's hate dumps.

But wait! It turns out that
Little Miss Attila's written a post, and Patrick's responded there in the comments with the same kind of stupid semantic legerdemain. Referring to Robert's "altogether natural revulsion" quote, Patrick writes at Attila's:
Calling a statement racist and calling the speaker racist are not the same thing.

I am comfortable that the statement is racist.
Well, nope, Patrick. That's not working out too well for you. And you can't accuse me of not reading your posts -- which is your play here, to plead you're a just soul who's intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood! Sorry, but that's not going to fly.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's like I said
a couple of nights ago:
I'm reminded of Mean Girls, how Rachel McAdams had so much power over others, but then became a victim of her own Machiavellian charms when the gunsights were reversed. Regina George deserved it, because, well, she's mean. But the example is the campaign itself, how Lindsay Lohan besmirched herself just as much by sinking to the pits of scurrility and evil. And so it is with racism. No one wants to be called out as racist, but since so few of Americans are genuinely racist today, if it appears the left really has a genuine one, then, BAM, they pounce like a big game cat. But ultimately it's the accuser who's damaged, most recently Charles Johnson, now having to announce his own exile into puritanical ideological purgatory.
Yep, the heat's warming up under Patterico's feet, and he can feel that isolation building. Kinda like C.J., in fact, when the blog becomes a battle station for the blogger, who's surrounding by braindead sycophants just as intent to spew slanders as the proprietor.

Anyway, check Jeff Goldstein's piece, "
Language Lessons, Revisited [Updated x2]":
I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If you believe the statement is racist, you believe that it was uttered with racist intent. If you don’t believe it was uttered with racist intent, the statement is not racist, unless the intent to see racism comes from another source, in this case, from some agency who imbues the statement with a meaning that he doesn’t attribute to the original utterer.

That’d be Patterico.
See also, Robert Stacy McCain and Saber Point.

14 comments:

  1. "And you can't accuse me of not reading your posts . . ."

    I can and I do.

    That lengthy passage you cite from my post "That Quote Most of You Called 'Racist' Was Written by Robert Stacy McCain" . . . I notice you declined to quote the very first two sentences. I'll save you the trouble:

    "Whom I always liked, to be honest with you, as a funny and seemingly sensible guy. And I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time."

    So I'm not walking anything back. I'm just reminding people what I said to begin with, because some are choosing to distort it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ““I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time.””

    Out of curiosity, how long does it brand you as a racist for, Patterico?

    (I asked this at Little Miss Attilla's, and although Patterico continued commenting in that thread after I asked, he didn't answer.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, Patterico, how do you reconcile your current claim that you did not accuse McCain of racism with what Mr. Douglas quotes from your post on Sunday:

    "You can put as much context around that as you like. It still sounds like racism to me."

    (If you're having trouble keeping track of what you've said in the past week, you might not be the best person to demand that someone else defend something they said over a decade ago.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Also, Patterico, how do you reconcile your current claim that you did not accuse McCain of racism with what Mr. Douglas quotes from your post on Sunday:

    'You can put as much context around that as you like. It still sounds like racism to me.'"

    I believe someone can say something racist and yet it does not establish that they are a racist. If I see a pattern of racist comments that is different. But everyone falls short now and then in many areas of life, and I did not want to be to quick to brand someone a racist on the basis of one quote.

    You can listen to what I'm saying and try to understand, or just try to win an argument. If you do the former, you'll see there is a distinction there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I believe someone can say something racist and yet it does not establish that they are a racist."

    So, why are you flogging this long dead horse? And who made you the Inquisitor?

    "If I see a pattern of racist comments that is different."

    As long as you're doing the judging, do you see that pattern?

    But everyone falls short now and then in many areas of life, and I did not want to be to quick to brand someone a racist on the basis of one quote.

    Ah, so you'd prefer to do it slowly, over the course of a half dozen or more posts, then?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Leave aside the accusation of racism and reexamine the quote from RSM: "[t]he white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM."

    In this hypothetical, the white person is averse to accepting his sister-in-law solely because she is black. All we know is that she's black and family. There is no other basis for the aversion given. Then the writer screams in all caps THIS IS NOT RACISM.

    Impossible. This is racism in it's purest form. I have no claim on whether RSM is racist or even if this statement is racist. It is however a justification of racism even as it denies that is what it is.

    I'd love to discuss this further if someone want to show me my error.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patterico:

    "Whom I always liked, to be honest with you, as a funny and seemingly sensible guy. And I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time."

    Clearly, a bogus disclaimer. Your claim to liking Robert is dishonest, since your post does its utter best to impugn his reputation. That's not something folks do to those whom they "like."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here another thought: the first part of the quote doesn't match the justification given afterwards.

    Remember it is claimed that "THIS IS NOT RACISM" when feeling aversion to one's black sister-in-law.

    However, the initial complaint was "the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion"

    That has nothing to do with aversion to interracial INLAWS, it is referring to any and all public images of interracial images. A natural revulsion to public interracial images is racist. That is the definition of racism: to feel revulsion of images based on the races portrayed in the image.

    By calling this revulsion "natural" it is thus a justified feeling. This is another justification of racism. It should be condemned by everyone who wished peace and good will among men.

    Assuming RSM wrote these justifications for racism and still stands by them, those who do not agree with said statement ought to repudiate them.

    I say love the sinner, hate the sin. If you close your eyes to this for political expedience, then no longer moral actors, just wannabe politicians.

    Of course if you do believe revulsion based on race is justified, please stand up and say so. I'd like to examine your reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter, you are so off base it's funny. No, the definition of racism is not "feeling revulsion of images based on the races portrayed in the image." Webster's says that racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

    Of course, if you can redefine the word to fit your particular prejudices or politics, then go for it.

    Gallup says that in 1994, more than half of Americans (regardless of race) did not approve of interracial marriage. McCain made his observation in 1996. From the context it is reasonable to conclude that McCain agreed with the majority.

    Now we are in 2009, 75% of all Americans no longer have a problem with interracial marriage. McCain has again agreed with the majority, stating that he doesn't have a problem with it either.

    So to sum up:

    In 1996, McCain agrees with the majority on interracial marriage.

    In 2009, McCain agrees with the majority on interracial marriage.

    So what's the problem? There is no problem, except that certain bloggers and their supporters want to up their hit counters by supporting a false controversy. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's the Rahm Emanuel tactic: "Never let a good crisis [false in this case] go to waste."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well Stogie,

    There are many definitions of racism. You use Websters, here is another from the Anti-Defamation League:

    "Racism has existed throughout human history. It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another -- or the belief that another person is less than human -- because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes."
    http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/racism.asp
    I don't care which race or races or superior, I care about race-based aversion, revulsion and even hatred. That is the racism justified in RSM's writing sample.

    Stogie, your second point seems to be that such words are OK when the majority agrees with it. And my point is such justification of aversion and revulsion is never OK, now matter how popular the idea or the speaker is.

    Finally I am unaware that RSM has changed his views or repudiated his earlier writing on interracial images and family. Can anyone provide this evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Barban:

    Who gives a damn whether someone approves of your totally legal and moral life choices?

    As long a they are not standing in your way, who cares what they think?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey, I'm not asking anyone "to "give(s) a damn whether someone approves of (my) totally legal and moral life choices.

    I'm asking others to give a damn about the justification of racism.

    baldilocks, do you have anything relevant to say about that?

    How about our biracial host of American Power? Do you give a damn if RSM justifies racism?

    ReplyDelete