We are delighted that you are visiting us online and hope you spend some time looking around. In honor of the Sabbath our office and store will be closed from sunset on Friday night through Saturday evening (Pacific time).

Hollywood Racists – Whatever That Means

September 10th, 2013 Posted by Susan's Musings 14 comments

Well-known TV actor and former president of the Screen
Actors Guild, Ed Asner, gave us a peek into why the terms racism and racist
should be deleted from our vocabulary. Mr. Asner was honest enough to acknowledge
that Hollywood’s silence regarding the president’s proposed military action
against Syria, raised
questions
.  Where were all the voices
who stridently opposed military action when George Bush was president? While Asner
raised a number of reasons, one in particular revealed the damage being done to
our society by the constant focus on race.

“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being
opposed to Obama,” he said.

What an amazing statement! If, My online dictionary states,
racism is, “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various
human races determine cultural or individual achievement.” By refraining from
speaking out as anti-war activists not because they believe the president’s
recommendation is good, but only because of his race, Hollywood stars are
branding themselves as racist. What a moment of clarity as to the inherent
hypocrisy of liberal convictions!

While the actor probably spoke without spending too much
time deliberately choosing his words, they are revealing. He didn’t say that
his peers were afraid of being branded as racists if they openly opposed
Mr. Obama. He said that they were worried about feeling anti-black. Knowingly
or not, he is acknowledging that the bludgeon of racism has become an attack
weapon, to be wielded only against those the liberal media and Democrat
politicians want to destroy. Hollywood’s liberalism along with its money and
influence shield its members in good standing from that charge.

What he is, probably unintentionally, implying is the
emptiness of understanding that many in Hollywood possess. They actually don’t
know what racism is, to the point of worrying that taking a
principled stand on an issue that has nothing to do with race might change
their very essence. Robotically, they know which way to vote or which
politicians to support, but they don’t actually recognize that it is just as
racist to say that, by definition, everything a black president does is correct
and noble, as it is to say the opposite. They don’t really believe in the words
of Martin Luther King, that people, “not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character.”

Like the little boy who cried wolf, liberals have corrupted
the language of racism through misuse and overuse. Would you support a move to ban
the word until it can be used again with precision and honesty?

 

14 comments

Jana Botkin says:

Interesting thought, Susan. Who will teach these low-information folks what the word truly means?
While we’re banning misused words, let’s dump “reverse discrimination”. Hunh? Isn’t discrimination discrimination? Why is it only discrimination in one direction?

We could probably come up with a long list of words without meaning.

James says:

Yes, Rabbi, I hear you. Where would we be without your explanations of the real meanings behind words and phrases we have long accepted as truth? You give them meanings of power in directions new and unexpected.
Yes, it is indeed ironic, Ms. Susan, that El Presidente finds himself in conundrums much the same as his predecessor did, but the reaction is suddenly entirely different. You are right that the dreaded epithet of racism, once applied, is so withering that a mere accusation is enough to stick without judge or jury.
But why is this so? There is a duplicitous double standard in our nation. It is the liberals who are quick to accuse, to slander and to libel, yet they themselves are made of Teflon: no label sticks to them. To be so labeled depends not on what you do or think, but upon who you are and whether the political views you hold conform to the dogma of their new Religion. In falsely repolarizing our nation according to race, Mr. President has wiped out progress and set our ‘race’ relations back fifty years. And while the liberal machine and its robotic press pump up the balloon of white racism with abundant hot air, the malignant demon of black racism feeds and grows stronger in the shadows.

Lynn Perrizo says:

Well said, James.

Carol B says:

I completely agree with Susan and James. The word racism has completely stilled not only a dialogue on race relations but anything else as well.
Carol

Jim says:

I had to check the date you posted this musing. Yep, 9/10/2013. I’ve been knowing this for years and so have many others. You should get out more.

Jean says:

Interesting – the fact that Asner and company “feel anti-black” by speaking up against a war based on a sketchy premise also assumes that ALL blacks support military action in Syria, which is patently RACIST. No matter how these people try to slice it, they come across exactly as they truly are – patronizing whites who cover up their own racist attitudes with platitudes.

John McLain says:

Wow, Mr. Asner has an opinion and you latch on to it like it is the truth.
Have you all forgotten what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they critized President Bush’s plan to go to war in Iraq?
Remember when criticism of the President was simply unpatriotic?
Geez…

I “latched on to it” because I thought it did reflect the truth. Certainly, you can feel differently. As to thinking that anyone is not speaking up because criticism of any president is unpatriotic when it comes to international affairs, I think the Vietnam War ended that concept. Hollywood stars were front and center in being critical of the Bush administration – and I have no doubt they will be front and center once Pres. Obama is no longer in office.

Tom says:

Is this a serious reply to her post? Are you honestly trying to say that the deafening silence coming from Hollywood re: Obama’s new war is related to the Dixie Chicks? And it only seems to have become ‘unpatriotic’ to criticize the president since 2009.

John McLain says:

Let me apologize for not being clear.
I think the deafening silence coming from Hollywood stems from liberal celebrities not wanting to criticize a Democratic President. It has nothing to do with a fear of being “anti-Black.”
I mention the Dixie Chicks because I remember when the majority of the country was behind President Bush following 9/11 and how it was considered unpatriotic to criticize him for wanting to go to war in Iraq.
As I recall, the celebrities came out in protest AFTER we went to war and no weapons of mass destruction were found.

John McLain says:

As I recall, the majority of the country was behind President Bush following 9/11 and it was considered unpatriotic to criticize his desire to go to war in Iraq. When the Dixie Chicks did so, they suffered the wrath of the American public.
It was AFTER we went to war in Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction were found that celebrities began to protest.
In my opinion, the reason why liberal celebrities are not protesting President Obama is because he is a Democrat, not because they fear being labeled “anti-Black.”
Madonna is against going to war in Syria. Does that make her “pro-Black?”

John McLain says:

Correction: Using Mr. Asner’s statement, the fact that Madonna has spoken out against the United States going to war in Syria means she is a celebrity who does not fear being labeled “anti-Black,” not that she is “pro-Black.” Got it.

John, You are making a valid point that protests from Hollywood against any Democrat president will be more muted than against a Republican one. I do think that there has been an incredibly damaging (to the country) attempt by too many to charge racism against any opposition to Pres. Obama’s policies. I think Pres. Obama, by stepping forward on the Trayvon Martin case and the Prof. Gates’ case (before there was any clarity via the law)encourages this trend. I would argue that he has placed himself emotionally as president for African-American’s first (though not in reality, since his policies aren’t helpful) and president for all Americans only secondly. So, I think reluctance to oppose him is even more than it would be for other Democrat presidents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.This is a required field!

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>