Why Clint Eastwood Can be Trusted with Mandela (and Why Glenn Beck Can't be Trusted with MLK)

Two things.

Mandela won an ESPY award for, specifically, rallying South Africa around the Springbok rugby club, at the time considered a symbol of apartheid, because he saw it as a way of bringing together a country still deeply divided. But beforehand, while in prison he also learned to speak Afrikaans, which was considered the "oppressor's language." The point, of course, was reconciliation.

I personally find it insulting that conservatives often evoke King's "I Have a Dream" speech to ignore the racism that still exists. Let's not forget that he referred in the very same speech to a "promissory note" that "white America" had failed to deliver. And having read King extensively, I know for a fact that more than once he denounced "right-wing Northern whites" for sabotaging progress on racial issues.

Hehe. Did you mean cricket? Polo is played from horseback.

And my teenaged daughter actually considered whether or not they had a rugby team in her college selection process as she is a player. We have never lived anywhere but Oregon.

I think it will do great at the box office.

I'll agree there. My family's neighborhood and social life include people of various skin colors, ages, physical ability and cultural background.
My son, at age 4, has recently started giving voice to distaste for those who are not like his family. While that can be socially awkward (and personally distressing), it also allows me the opportunity to really work with on the issue with him.
I get frustrated when I hear that some of my friends do not feel safe or welcome in my neighborhood and the two who come to mind first are my Dominican and disabled Jewish neighbors. Racism is alive and well if these two men feel the need to be careful to avoid groups of two or more white men on the street. It isn't because they fear a physical confrontation necessarily (though the thought crosses their mind), but that harassment is fairly consistent in the macho posturing of young men who are supposedly urbane and successful.
We are far from race being a non issue.

Sorry, but that wouldn't be the case; keep in mind that King was accused by some of those on the right of being a Communist. And by necessity, most of his allies were on the political left -- e.g. union activists.

As far as his quotes about "right-wing Northern whites," during the 1964 presidential campaign he also denounced Barry Goldwater as "the most dangerous man in the country."

Sorry, but that wouldn't be the case; keep in mind that King was accused by some of those on the right of being a Communist. And by necessity, most of his allies were on the political left -- e.g. union activists.

As far as his quotes about "right-wing Northern whites," during the 1964 presidential campaign he also denounced Barry Goldwater as "the most dangerous man in the country."

Where is the quote about "right-wing Northern whites"? Note that I don't doubt the statement's accuracy, but Annie sort-of asked for context.

Where is the quote about "right-wing Northern whites"? Note that I don't doubt the statement's accuracy, but Annie sort-of asked for context.

I have "A Testament of Hope," a collection of King's writings in which he said it at least twice but which I can't find right now; when I do I'll post it. But I think it was in an interview he did with Playboy magazine.

I actually don't know of anyone who argues it doesn't exist...

In fact, some do. A right-wing columnist for my newspaper has basically said that it's nothing we need to worry about, and when I confronted her about it she dismissed me as an "angry black man," which I'm not.

And some of the activism against it might actually preserve it; for example, affirmative action opens doors for whites to insult the competence of blacks and other minorities.

That's actually been happening since the 1970s. However, affirmative action in fact has actually benefited white women most, because its purpose always was to add people to the "network" -- the "old boys club," if you will -- and they already had many of those connections in the first place.

Invictus seems to be a movie version of Playing the Enemy, a beautiful book about how Mandela realized he could embrace rugby and use it to build a bridge with racist Afrikaners, and also root it out as a haven for racism (rugby stadiums had remained one place where they could, for example, chant racist slogans in peace). He also personally charmed national team members and had them singing the Khosa national anthem along with the 'white' on in front of all their adoring fans. Essentially it's a story about leadership, and overcoming an enemy with love, and also incredible shrewdness and cunning (wise as serpents...). I wonder how it'll work with an American audience that doesn't much care for the sports in question!
Jason Byassee
www.faithandleadership.com/blog

A right-wing columnist for my newspaper has basically said that it's nothing we need to worry about

Depending on how she worded that, I might agree. I expect most racism to die with the baby-boomers, at the latest. And on the way there, we have a strong social stigma to whites voicing racist opinions - much stronger than that directed at other races, as it reaches even to the motives of apparently benign statements.

I don't see how the net population of white racists could possibly increase in this environment, and some might repent. But the more aggressive anti-racism campaigns seem, the more counter-productive they are.

I know I often feel that the means of artificial reconciliation (affirmative action, etc.) pervert our social structures too much and don't necessarily achieve any real reconciliation. I think true reconciliation can only come the old-fashioned way: personally, not by arbitration. Both sides feel wronged, and any decree can only cover the problem up.

I do think minority racists are more common, or at least more (explicitly) vocal. It'd be great to have equal stigma on all sides, but suggesting such usually just calls stigma upon one's head.

and when I confronted her about it she dismissed me as an "angry black man," which I'm not.

I wouldn't call you angry, but you do seem rather cynical. Then again, I don't think I can blame you...

affirmative action in fact has actually benefited white women most, because its purpose always was to add people to the "network" -- the "old boys club," if you will -- and they already had many of those connections in the first place.

Not sure how that matters...

I have "A Testament of Hope," a collection of King's writings in which he said it at least twice but which I can't find right now; when I do I'll post it. But I think it was in an interview he did with Playboy magazine.

I actually don't know of anyone who argues it doesn't exist...

In fact, some do. A right-wing columnist for my newspaper has basically said that it's nothing we need to worry about, and when I confronted her about it she dismissed me as an "angry black man," which I'm not.

And some of the activism against it might actually preserve it; for example, affirmative action opens doors for whites to insult the competence of blacks and other minorities.

That's actually been happening since the 1970s. However, affirmative action in fact has actually benefited white women most, because its purpose always was to add people to the "network" -- the "old boys club," if you will -- and they already had many of those connections in the first place.

Invictus seems to be a movie version of Playing the Enemy, a beautiful book about how Mandela realized he could embrace rugby and use it to build a bridge with racist Afrikaners, and also root it out as a haven for racism (rugby stadiums had remained one place where they could, for example, chant racist slogans in peace). He also personally charmed national team members and had them singing the Khosa national anthem along with the 'white' on in front of all their adoring fans. Essentially it's a story about leadership, and overcoming an enemy with love, and also incredible shrewdness and cunning (wise as serpents...). I wonder how it'll work with an American audience that doesn't much care for the sports in question!
Jason Byassee
www.faithandleadership.com/blog

I don't see how the net population of white racists could possibly increase in this environment, and some might repent. But the more aggressive anti-racism campaigns seem, the more counter-productive they are.

It's not so much that it increases but that it becomes more open and obvious; a large number of white folks still have a very hard time with minorities, especially blacks, in positions of authority. One of the reasons I believe God raised up Barack Obama was to bring that to the surface, and civil-rights demonstrations back in the day proved to have the same effect.

I think true reconciliation can only come the old-fashioned way: personally, not by arbitration. Both sides feel wronged, and any decree can only cover the problem up.

That can't really happen until the "minority" race develops a general sense of trust. Besides, most minorities feel that the problems are institutional, not relational; there was plenty of interaction in the pre-civil-rights South but at the end of the day you still had to go back to your side of the fence. This is why, when the movement actually started, many resentful white Southerners said things like, "Our Negroes were happy until those Northern interlopers showed up!" -- they simply were not aware of the depth of the problem.

I do think minority racists are more common, or at least more (explicitly) vocal. It'd be great to have equal stigma on all sides, but suggesting such usually just calls stigma upon one's head.

I'm not sure I agree -- I grew up in a "racist" environment that I had already started to move away from in my teens -- but smack dab into white racism (I won't get into the details here).

I wouldn't call you angry, but you do seem rather cynical. Then again, I don't think I can blame you...

There are reasons why few African-Americans are political/ideological conservatives, and they have nothing to do with affirmative action or welfare.

That does a number of things. First, that it's identified as a phobia. Second, that the irrational attitude and accompanying rhetoric will be accompanied with related actions, often (but not necessarily) violent.

Why are those things desirable?

These are the people who are today often called "socialists."

I think I halfway see your point, but I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together. I think I'm not grasping how having a divided white community builds a lack of trust in the black community.

I do understand that welfare issues and race are perceived as tied together... But that puts true conservatives in a position of having to scale a wall before getting any serious black audience.

Well, when I was growing up there were certain neighborhoods where minorities couldn't buy a house. That should give a hint.

How is that not a relational issue? (BTW, I did notice your other example - I just can't seem to apply that to modern issues.)

Why are those things desirable?

Because, in order for sin to be addressed, it first has to be exposed.

I think I'm not grasping how having a divided white community builds a lack of trust in the black community.

Depends on which side has the louder megaphone.

But that puts true conservatives in a position of having to scale a wall (i.e. discipline the jerks) before getting any serious black audience.

That's sort of what Bill Buckley was trying to do, but if he were here today he would tell you that he pretty much failed. He had actually opposed the civil-rights movement, not because he himself was racist but because he believed that it focused too much on the Federal government's role in striking down discriminatory laws. (He later saw that the feds needed to be involved.)

How is that not a relational issue?

You can personally like someone but not welcome him/her in your neighborhood because of what everyone else may think. "White flight" happened because many whites feared that their property values would drop if too blacks many moved in to their neighborhood -- and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Because, in order for sin to be addressed, it first has to be exposed.

Alright, so you're smoking the mole out and then shooting it. It strikes me as slightly odd that blacks are so offended that the mole pops up when they smoked it out.

And wouldn't this be cured by just waiting for these people to die?

Depends on which side has the louder megaphone.Blacks hear more from racists than non, then? Do they tune into radio stations or other media that are known to be racist? And would this be cured by not smoking the mole out?

That's sort of what Bill Buckley was trying to do, but if he were here today he would tell you that he pretty much failed.

Alright, thanks for the research lead.

You can personally like someone but not welcome him/her in your neighborhood because of what everyone else may think.

So if racism ceased to be a mainstream topic, would institutional racism do the same? It's a bit absurd to be self-conscious about something no one cares about.

That does a number of things. First, that it's identified as a phobia. Second, that the irrational attitude and accompanying rhetoric will be accompanied with related actions, often (but not necessarily) violent.

Why are those things desirable?

These are the people who are today often called "socialists."

I think I halfway see your point, but I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together. I think I'm not grasping how having a divided white community builds a lack of trust in the black community.

I do understand that welfare issues and race are perceived as tied together... But that puts true conservatives in a position of having to scale a wall before getting any serious black audience.

Well, when I was growing up there were certain neighborhoods where minorities couldn't buy a house. That should give a hint.

How is that not a relational issue? (BTW, I did notice your other example - I just can't seem to apply that to modern issues.)

Because, in order for sin to be addressed, it first has to be exposed.

Alright, so you're smoking the mole out and then shooting it. It strikes me as slightly odd that blacks are so offended that the mole pops up when they smoked it out.

And wouldn't this be cured by just waiting for these people to die?

Depends on which side has the louder megaphone.Blacks hear more from racists than non, then? Do they tune into radio stations or other media that are known to be racist? And would this be cured by not smoking the mole out?

That's sort of what Bill Buckley was trying to do, but if he were here today he would tell you that he pretty much failed.

Alright, thanks for the research lead.

You can personally like someone but not welcome him/her in your neighborhood because of what everyone else may think.

So if racism ceased to be a mainstream topic, would institutional racism do the same? It's a bit absurd to be self-conscious about something no one cares about.

In "NutureShock", a book about what recent studies have uncovered about children and the way they think, there was a very interesting chapter about racism and how many parents of all hues believe that their children, if not raised in a racist home, will automatically not be racists.

Not true, very interestingly, say the authors. Children, particularly of young age, automatically place people into categories and tend to assume, being the narcissists that young children are (my words, not the authors'), that anyone who isn't just like them is "less than". Unless parents talk very expressly about the sin and scourge of racism to their children, they cannot assume that their children will not adopt some attitudes that may horrify their parents.

The point of the chapter in the book is that children do not necessarily have to be "taught" to hate (al la South Pacific), but they must expressly be taught NOT to hate.

It strikes me as slightly odd that blacks are so offended that the mole pops up when they smoked it out.

Back then, however, it was done deliberately.

And wouldn't this be cured by just waiting for these people to die?

Oh, no, because in many cases those attitudes are passed on to children. That's why you see a lot of "diversity training" in public schools.

Do they tune into radio stations or other media that are known to be racist? And would this be cured by not smoking the mole out?

Well, Obama's election has basically done that, and while not all (or probably even most) of his critics are racists certainly many are.

So if racism ceased to be a mainstream topic, would institutional racism do the same? It's a bit absurd to be self-conscious about something no one cares about.

We're not quite there yet.

On the same theme, Masterpiece Contemporary recently started off their season with a movie called Endgame, about the dying days of apartheid in South Africa. As the PBS website describes it:

A nation teeters on the brink of civil war in this real-life political thriller about the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela. Michael Young, a British businessman working in South Africa, has the audacious hope of bringing both sides of the apartheid conflict together - the entrenched government and the rebel African National Congress (ANC). But when his dream of secret talks is realized on an estate in England, it quickly becomes clear that common ground will be elusive as explosive tensions boil just below the surface. Against a backdrop of danger, terrorism and escalating unrest, a high-stakes chess match plays out, ultimately proving that peace is possible.

It's already aired, but Americans can watch it on the PBS website until Nov 8.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/endgame/ind...

I don't know, how many movies do we have about baseball in this country? Now, how many about polo? But isn't the latter just an English version of the former? Yet it clearly doesn't sell on our screens.