Wednesday, July 21, 2010

"A bit insensitive"

Suppose someone refused to serve African-Americans in their restaurant because he had once been beaten up and robbed by a gang of African-American teenagers? After all, it would be " a bit insensitive" to require him to let blacks in his restaurant after that traumatic experience he went through. Furthermore there are lots of areas of town that white people can't go into now for fear of violence. It's hardly fair to expect us to let blacks into "our" parts of town, when we can't go into "their" parts of town. And don't tell me that these teenagers were not typical blacks, that's just liberal propaganda. If you read the paper, you'll see that there are lots of black people who do things like that.

Do I need to spell this out? There is no significant difference between this example and the reaction to the Cordoba center. It's bigotry, pure and simple, to blame and discriminate against individuals because of the behavior of other individuals who happen to share their religion, skin color or ethnicity.


  1. yes, it's bigotry and so is what you are writing about Blacks and the "liberal propoganda". What "paper" are you reading?? Nearly all of the American Muslims prior to WW II were African Americans who were descendants of those brought here as slaves from West Africa and did not convert to Christianity. The majority of American Muslims today are still African Americans. So when you trash Blacks based on a demographic group that will invariable show up in the "paper" or the 10pm news, you lump all African Americans in the same group, including those here before the American Revolution who are Muslim.

  2. Apparently I do need to spell this out. OF COURSE the first paragraph is a description of bigotry and ignorance. That's my point. I'm ridiculing both positions, not defending them. You must have read this when you were half-asleep. I'm on your side with this issue.