Tags
BSM Logo
I went to a Black Student Movement meeting last week. I was, to put it simply, amused.
The first thing we (or should I say they?) did was to sing the Negro National Anthem. My notes on the subject read as follows: “oh my gracious — my jaw dropped.”
My favorite line: “True to our God, true to our native land.” You can hear this antiquated anthem by visiting the BSM’s website where you will enjoy totally unnecessary pictures of, among other, more worthwhile pictures, Malcolm X and black panthers.
The second thing on the agenda was to say the Black Student Movement preamble. In the midst of this strange chant I heard unnerving phrases. In it they reaffirm their commitment to “black ideals and culture” because they “embrace a culture distinct from the dominant culture found at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.”
Next, there was the News of the Week presented by some sort of political action committee. During this time, news was relayed in a race-centric manner. In other words, the news was only worthy if it involved black people in some direct or indirect way. Most noticeably, the news item was somehow more reliable if somehow their obnoxious delusion of oppression was reinforced.
After that we heard the “Black fact” of the week. I have forgotten now what it regarded.
The main attraction of this specific meeting was a presentation from the Celebration of Black Womanhood committee. They offered an informative and (I thought) well done presentation regarding domestic abuse in light of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
But, the highlight of the meeting was yet to come: a heated debate regarding the future of Chris Brown and Rihanna. If you don’t know the intricacies of their domestic dispute, I will not endeavor to relay them to you, as they are too frivolous to mention.
In conclusion, I am sorry if this post offends some, but I have no tolerance for racism. The members of BSM that I have met were kind, but misdirected. I am sick of the hypocrisy of the university in allowing such an obviously racist organization to exist. The leadership was entirely mistaken when they said that their meetings were welcoming of all races.
Now, an announcement: I am going to visit a YWC meeting. We shall see which of these organizations more worships at the debilitating shrine of inherent identities. I will hopefully have a like report for you next week.
UPDATE: I have been made to understand that the YWC does not have weekly meetings. Well, whatever, you get my point. . .
Note: My Review Crew isn’t up yet. Sorr-eeeyyyyyyyyy.
Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Tell me how BSM is a "racist" organization? You're misguided in your understanding of what racism is.
Number one will do, Johnny
No, it doesn't. Explain. If you're going to call an organization racist, you'd better be able to clearly substantiate your claim.
The Black Power fist definitely supports #1, Johnny. And the Negro National Anthem, really?
How does the black power fist or the Black National Anthem for that matter connote superiority. Again, you have yet to substantiate your claim
Johnny, where did you get those definitions? Did you just make them up? That’s what I thought.
If, however, we use your definitions, it seems clear to me that the BSM believes “that inherent differences…determine…cultural achievement.” Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to rule others, but let’s think about the shoe being on the other foot.
Let’s suppose that a white student started a group called the White Student Movement (not minding the fact that no faculty member would ever sponsor such a group, thereby preventing its materialization), and that this group sung a White National Anthem. Then, let’s say that this racially exclusive club preached of its truth to Europe. Next, let’s say the group reaffirmed its commitment to white ideals and culture. Then, let’s say the group embraced a culture distinct from the dominant leftist multicultural culture of UNC-CH. Are you seriously saying that you wouldn’t consider this hypothetical WSM “racist?” If you and other leftists say that you would defend this supposed organization, then I will conclude that you are liars. Sorry, but my own experience at UNC has alerted me to the nature of political correctness at UNC–as long as you’re white, you can’t do anything that remotely resembles a distant cousin of “racism.”
Riley, they're from dictionary.com. Congrats on appearing foolish in your first few sentences.
You speak without understanding a thing about minorities in this country — and you always have. The reason your analogy is silly is because whites have never had to deal with racism. Whites were never enslaved, discriminated against, etc. Yes, some instances of reverse discrimination occur, but they can never be equated with the injustices perpetrated against African-Americans. I don't think anyone would be upset over a group that embraced its European roots as long as it didn't appear extremely xenophobic (ala YWC).
To this day, racism against African-Americans is prevalent in our society. Therefore, BSM, the NAACP, and similar organizations continue to fight for equality. It is equality — not superiority of race or hatred of other races — that fuels BSM and other like-minded groups. Please explain to me (because you're indirectly making the argument as well) how BSM is a racist organization?
Johnny,
Racism does not have two definitions. It doesn't say "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others….UNLESS you were treated unfairly."
Whether blacks were mistreated in the past is a moot point in this discussion. If Riley's hypothetical WSM is rascist, then so is the BSM. While blacks in the past were not treated properly, the blacks that are a part of BSM have not been mistreated at all. So, please tell me how they have a "Get out of Jail Free Card", with regards to racism, because their great great grand parents were slaves.
Con't. What's the comment character limit?
Con't:
Here's the thing that you don't understand about minorities, Johnny. They don't have any more rights than the majority. It's really true. They have the same rights as the majority. What you and the BSM are pushing for goes beyond what every man is due, by his nature. BSM pushes for favors, and handouts. Blacks are allowed to go to school, they are allowed to vote, they are allowed to hold public office, and they are allowed to own property. They are allowed EVERYTHING that whites are allowed. Where is the inequality, Johnny?
Don't bother bringing up arguments that blacks WERE mistreated. The key word here is "were". Fine. They were mistreated, but now, they are no longer mistreated. Enough time has passed that blacks are no longer feeling the effects of slavery.
So, what does BSM stand for? Well, it certainly isn't equality. They don't need to fight for something that they already have.
“Riley, they’re from dictionary.com. Congrats on appearing foolish in your
first few sentences.”
Oh, okay. Because that’s not the definition that I get from every leftist.
And, in fact, that definition doesn’t satisfy most leftists. Most people,
probably yourself included given the right circumstances, just make up a
convenient definition for the word “racism” and “racist” to prove that
their opponent is one.
“You speak without understanding a thing about minorities in this country
– and you always have.”
Actually, I know more about minorities in this country than you do. And I
don’t just know about them from conservative perspectives. I made the
effort to take “progressive” classes (such as Women’s Studies) while I was
at UNC and I read material from all sorts of liberal/leftist/communist
perspectives to this very day. I keep myself fresh and ready for battle.
My analogy is not silly. The blacks alive today in America were never
enslaved. Their ancestors 150 years ago were. It’s high time they get over
it and start thinking about the present and the future.
“The reason your analogy is silly is because whites have never had to deal
with racism.”
Speak for yourself. Whites are the only people who are not allowed to be
proud of their past. We have to apologize for every single thing our
ancestors did to people who have long since passed. We can’t even have
popular myths regarding our heroes and ancestors. Even many of the things
we invented and discovered, we are told, would have been invented or
discovered by someone else if it hadn’t been for our wickedness. It’s like
the religion of the state is anti-racism directed against whites.
“To this day, racism against African-Americans is prevalent in our
society.”
Please give me a few examples. And remember, you said “racism…is PREVALENT
in our society”—you didn’t just say that it existed.
“Please explain to me (because you’re indirectly making the argument as
well) how BSM is a racist organization?”
No, genius, I’m not “indirectly making the argument” that BSM is racist,
mainly because I don’t know what racism is, despite my extensive study.
Also, even if I accept an occasional definition for the sake of argument, I
don’t like to use words like “racist” (unless I keep the word in
quotations) because people who use such language almost never make any
substantial arguments—they are name-callers. They might as well be calling
their opponents “fart face.” But, unlike “fart face,” the word “racist” has
been so socially constructed that it is highly detrimental to peoples’
reputations, and, with the internet, you have to watch your reputation like
you never have before. Thus, the conversation about race between a liberal
and a conservative is generally ended with the liberal calling the
conservative a “RACIST!!” after the conservative makes an argument that
runs counter to the politically correct establishment.
Also, don’t forget that whites are not without interests. The overall
average white birthrate is less than 2.1 children per woman (thanks to
leftist social policies), which means that every year, there are
progressively fewer and fewer white people in existence. I’d say that, all
things considered, whites are in worse shape than blacks. You just need to
wake up.
The other problem with your claim is that the BSM is adopting a sort of
“separate but equal” stance, which I’m assuming you would consider
“racist,” at least if it were taken by whites. Somehow, I don’t see how
singing the Black National Anthem or being true to the African continent
really promotes equality. That sounds more nationalistic to me than
egalitarian. It sounds like these black Tarheels are proud to be black, and
aren’t particularly interested in being around a bunch of gringos, which is
why they “embrace a culture distinct from the dominant culture found at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill” (and, of course, by
“dominant,” they mean “white”—and they aren’t entirely incorrect in so
speaking, for the majority of students at UNC are white). Sorry, pal, it
doesn’t look like they want to buddy up with you, despite your heart on
your sleeve.
I know that modern racists would like to pretend that the history of racism is not the history of white supremacy, and that racism is some sort of egalitarian phenomenon that affects everyone equally — but really, do you honestly believe that incidents of (white) racism are so infrequent in 2009? When you say "Actually, I know more about minorities in this country than you do," I am laughing at you.
Would you care to provide the "frequent" incidents of "white racism" that seem to dominate American culture?
Racism is not the suppression of minorities, and whether you are willing to admit it or not, racism goes both ways. If you want to argue the claim that racism cannot exist without one group dominating a minority, then by all means argue. But don't just make the claim with your "extensive" experience as backing.
The confusion surrounding racism is due entirely to modern liberals such as yourself. Liberals group anti-illegal immigration, bigotry, segregation, national (read as white) pride, and the suppression of minorities as "racism". It's a loaded word that you throw around as a scare tactic, because once someone is labeled a racist, then you don't even have to argue your point. That person is racist, and therefore, everything that he says is wrong.
I have never considered myself to be a liberal, and I can't say I have any idea what you're talking about here. I blame this "confusion" on conservatives, who are constantly trying to bring into the mainstream a host of far-right and white supremacist ideas and individuals; or doing things like conflating fascism/nazism with liberalism.
"Speak for yourself. Whites are the only people who are not allowed to be proud of their past. We have to apologize for every single thing our ancestors did to people who have long since passed. We can’t even have popular myths regarding our heroes and ancestors. Even many of the things we invented and discovered, we are told, would have been invented or discovered by someone else if it hadn’t been for our wickedness. It’s like the religion of the state is anti-racism directed against whites."
This is moronic. Do you have thoughts in your head or do you just transcribe your opinion directly from Racial Resentment Weekly? Your white oppression fantasy is interesting but I don't see any evidence that it is accurate.
“This is moronic. Do you have thoughts in your head or do you just transcribe your opinion directly from Racial Resentment Weekly? Your white oppression fantasy is interesting but I don’t see any evidence that it is accurate.”
Let me ask you something. Do you read any conservative journals, books, magazines, or websites that reject the modern notion of white guilt? If you did, you would see that whites are not so much “oppressed” (I don’t recall saying that they are) as they are treated unfairly. If that’s a form of oppression, then so be it.
There are so many double standards that work against whites and in favor of non-whites that I really don’t know where to begin. Let’s see here…oh, yeah! There’s the BSM and all the other racial groups on campus that are not permitted to be had by whites. There’s the fact that affirmative action actively discriminates against whites, especially poor whites. There’s the fact that Obama was elected despite his anti-white past. There’s the fact that Obama is allowed to refer disparagingly to his white grandmother as a “typical white person” and yet be lauded as a guy who will bring the races together. There’s the fact that no one EVER talks about the white birthrate’s being desperately below replacement level, even though we talk incessantly about saving Darfur. We decry the Chinese for trying to destroy the Tibetan culture, yet we decry white Americans as racists for trying to preserve their own culture. We talk about the “racism,” “hate groups,” and “hate crimes” of whites, yet we never talk about the fact that blacks and Hispanics commit many more racially-motivated crimes against whites than vice versa. Just recently in NC, the so-called “Racial Justice Act” was passed that not only discriminates on the basis of race in favor of blacks, but it also ends up giving communities an incentive to execute more whites than they currently do. By the way, if you’re a white guy, you’re already more likely to receive the death penalty than a black guy. Need I go on? This, by the way, is all recited off the top of my head.
You know how you libs think I am ignorant of minorities in this country? Well, I think that you are equally ignorant of whites.
The fantasy that "whites are … treated unfairly" in American society is a common one among white supremacists. If you were to say that lower-class whites are often treated unfairly, I think you might be on the right track — but that wouldn't align with your racial ideology, would it?
I am white myself, by the way, and not a "lib."
Dear Carolina Review,
I have no problems with the words that you write, as we have a doctrine of free speech in this country that I respect. You have the right to say whatever it is that you have to say and believe whatever it is that you would like to believe.
I am curious, however, as to why you continuously publish articles about the BSM which come to the same conclusion: you don't like the organization. This was POSSIBLY newsworthy the first time you published this type of article a few semesters ago. Now it is not; so, please move on. Furthermore, if the purpose of these articles really is to "expose" the "hidden racism" of ethnic/cultural groups on campus, why don't you apply these arguments to other, to use your terms, "race-centric" organizations on campus? Why do you continuously single out the Black Student Movement and the African American Studies Department? I'm not encouraging you to write articles in the same vain about other ethnic and cultural groups on campus; I'm just questioning the journalistic efficacy of continuously discrediting one campus organization and one group of people as "racist" when other organizations like it also exist on this campus. Singling out one organization over others implies that these other organizations are not "racist." If this is the point, then one must then ask, what makes the Black Student Movement "racist" but allows organizations such as CHispA, ASA, and MSA to not also be considered "racist" or "ethnocentric" when their organizations promote similar goals.
By continuously publishing articles which offer the authors' criticisms to the happenings of Black Student Movement events but providing absolutely no insight into the logic or traditions behind the events which occur in these meetings, the only news that you are publishing is the fact that ya'll are horrendous journalists. One major principle that is taught across all educational disciplines is the importance of citing credible sources. The only source that I have ever seen ya'll cite in an article such as this, is yourselves. This is extremely problematic.
I would, thus, appreciate it if you refrained from calling yourselves "journalists." I think that we should call a spade a spade, and acknowledge your publication for what it really is: a series of editorials made by individuals who have no desire to truly understand the subjects which they are covering…or right-wing propaganda…or complete shit. Either definition will do.
To the author of this article and others such as this: Hopefully you don't see this criticism as too harsh. I am just trying to express the conclusions that I've drawn about this publication based on the many issues that I have read. I would love to sit down with you sometime over lunch or coffee and talk with you (in a non-hostile environment) about your perspective of race-ethnic relations and culture on campus. What exactly is driving this animosity (or what I perceive to be as animosity) towards the Black Student Movement? If you would like, I would also be willing to explain to you why this organization and organization such as these are important to minority groups on campus and in America. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and going to assume that your overarching goal of publishing articles such as this is to spark a conversation in order to improve awareness. Consider this my acceptance of your invitation.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of the author. The author is not hostile to BSM or its participants, which is why he attended an event. The hostility is more towards the exclusionist ideology of BSM.=
I think you are misunderstanding the point of the author. The author is not hostile to BSM or its participants, which is why he attended an event. The hostility is more towards the exclusionist ideology of BSM.
"I would, thus, appreciate it if you refrained from calling yourselves "journalists." I think that we should call a spade a spade, and acknowledge your publication for what it really is: a series of editorials made by individuals"
Yeah, it's a series of editorials made by individuals. That's the point of opinion journalism…
"If this is the point, then one must then ask, what makes the Black Student Movement "racist" but allows organizations such as CHispA, ASA, and MSA to not also be considered "racist" or "ethnocentric" when their organizations promote similar goals."
In addition to BSM, we've gone after CHispA, YWC and the lot for their "ethnic conservatism," if you will, and their exclusionist ideologies… if you read this blog last semester, you would have known that. Based on information obtained directly from participants in ASA, ASA seems to be much less of a radical or separationist organization and much more of a welcoming place that promotes acceptance of Asian culture.
"The only source that I have ever seen ya'll cite in an article such as this, is yourselves. This is extremely problematic."
This author went to more than one BSM event and interviewed the president and the treasurer in order to give the organization a fair shake before evaluating its value to the campus community.
"I have no problems with the words that you write"
Yes you do, and I'm glad you expressed your concerns so that we can reply in kind.
sdf
“I would love to sit down with you sometime over lunch or coffee and talk with you (in a non-hostile environment) about your perspective of race-ethnic relations and culture on campus.”
What an erudite intellectual! He can really show us the way! This line really shows how benevolent he is:
“I think that we should call a spade a spade, and acknowledge your publication for what it really is: a series of editorials made by individuals who have no desire to truly understand the subjects which they are covering…or right-wing propaganda…or complete shit. Either definition will do.”
Wait, the second reading of this comment didn’t come across as well as the first…
Alexis, it’s clear that you’re a bitter snob. Maybe I can get together with you and we can discuss why you have so much hostility to people to people who have reservations about an apparently black separatist organization, even though white separatist organizations are far from acceptable. Only I’d rather have the conversation over beer and tobacco. That’s how right-wingers do it.
" …it's clear that you're a bitter snob."
Waaahhh, Wiley is upset. Po' wittle baby. Waaaaaahhhh. Grow up. No wonder no one ever took you seriously.
Looks like someone has a sensitive nerve, Johnny. Fine, I’ll admit mine: arrogant, condescending liberals who think that they can enlighten the world over a cup of coffee, one person at a time. But that’s not even the worst of it. Alexis refers to a completely legitimate piece of journalism as “complete shit,” and then proceeds to offer his/her oh-so-needed services. Sorry, that’s my sensitive nerve. It gets really old for conservatives–you wouldn’t understand, though, because conservatives don’t treat liberals like that.
I guess you don’t have some smartass response to my what I said earlier? Are you not even going to give an example of the prevalence of “racism” against blacks in America?
You blah blah so much it's hard to keep up. Give me some time to swallow the three thousand words you wrote. You write quite arrogantly, on a side note. That's pretty hypocritical of you.
Just turn up your nose at all us common folk who don't understand everything like you do.
"Conservatives don't treat liberal like that." HAHA, hello King of Sweeping Generalizations.
"prevalence of racism against blacks in America." You're a sillier than I thought if you don't think racism exists today. Examples:
http://gawker.com/5064741/the-racist-anti+obama-g…
http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-h…
http://wonkette.com/406562/406562
This is blatant racism from POLITICAL FIGURES! And that is just one aspect of it. Racism is largely present in many rural communities here in North Carolina. There are many other examples. You should get out and see the world, Riley.
“You blah blah so much it’s hard to keep up. Give me some time to swallow the three thousand words you wrote. You write quite arrogantly, on a side note. That’s pretty hypocritical of you.”
Sorry, I have a lot to say. You don’t have to read it, nor do you have to respond. I just happen to be quick on my feet and a decent rhetorician. I
don’t think that a UNC Chapel Hill student who feels fit to engage in this debate should have much of a problem getting through all that I’ve written
in a reasonably short amount of time. I don’t like to leave loose ends or holes in my arguments.
“You’re a sillier than I thought if you don’t think racism exists today.”
This goes back to my previous point that it’s hard to determine the extent of what you would call “racism” when the definition of the word is
constantly changing (it constantly becomes more sweeping and constantly is
directed at more and more (white) people, despite the relatively high level of tolerance among whites of people of different races), especially at places like UNC Chapel Hill and other elite institutions of the left.
Also, I didn’t say that “racism [doesn’t exist] today.” What YOU said was
that racism is PREVALENT. Now, let’s look at these sources you provided…
The first source you provide is pretty pathetic. A left-wing organization (i.e., a biased organization) documents very isolated incidents among
nobodies in the Republican Party. Many of the incidents documented are not even race-conscious.
The second source is also pathetic. A couple of nobody Republicans sends out an e-mail that, in all likelihood, wasn’t even serious. This doesn’t even mention the fact that the original e-mail that was sent around raises a legitimate point: 97% of blacks did vote for Obama, and the black turnout was especially high. I’m sure Obama’s race had nothing to do with that.
The key words in your third source occur at the very beginning of the article: “The mayor of a TINY Republican hamlet in Southern California’s Orange County…” (emphasis mine) This tolerant leftist closes the article with noble and passive words: “Honestly, these people need to be killed, all of them.”
Are these seriously your best sources? I mean, I’m sure you’ve got more; but you’d think that you’d give your best arguments first.
“Racism is largely present in many rural communities here in North Carolina.”
Okay…if you say so. But “racism” against whites is largely present in virtually all of the elite establishments of the US. Which one is worse, bigotry in tiny rural communities among people without even BAs, or bigotry at the highest echelons of the most powerful country in the world?
Also, I have lived in small communities for my entire life, and “racism” against blacks is not nearly so prevalent as you say. And trust me, I get out.
In fact, although I didn’t particularly like Sarah Palin, I personally saw a ton of anti-white bias against the likes of her in the establishment media. And even if I concede that the criticism of Palin was appropriate, and even if I concede that she was not fit to govern, there’s still the
fact that, ceteris paribus, no black, Hispanic, or Asian candidate would have gone through the same criticism and scrutiny as Palin did.
Moreover, Barack Obama has a history of anti-white behavior. The fact that he was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years says it all. His association with Bill Ayers is also highly alarming. (And yes, there is
evidence that he lied about his relationship with Ayers. I recommend that you read Christopher Andersen’s new book “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage.”)
Dear Mr. Crowder
I am curious as to why your jaw dropped during the singing of the Negro National Anthem? Are you unaware of the lyrics and therefore frightened? If so, I ask that you please visit the website I have provided with this post and educate yourself. Have a great day!
T. Wesley
http://www4.semo.edu/abc/negro_national_anthem.ht…
Would it comfort you if it were referred to as the African-American National Anthem? Either way, the song itself was created in response to a period where racism was prevalent and it symbolizes hope and faith for equal liberties. Organizations, such as BSM, have adopted it as their anthem because of this and the fact that it implicitly recognizes the African-American history and struggle. Just as African Americans are loyal to the American nation and the National Anthem, some are also loyal to their efforts in ensuring equality of all citizens rights and thus the anthem was adopted. I am not saying that there cannot be a "White National Anthem" but what would be it's purpose? Because there is a Negro National Anthem?
My jaw dropped because a group of people were singing an anthem to their race.
It is for culture and purpose, not race. In no way does it denote non-black people has inferior so how is it "to their race?" I truly believe you went to the meeting with an intention of proving your theory instead of taking the time to really understand.
As I am sure you came to CRdaily with an equally open-mind.
As a matter of fact I did. I looked over the comments and did not hastily respond because I felt like people were being racist. I understand that there are actually people out there who do not agree with my views and I take the time to listen to their argument. I do not endure what they have to say for the sole purpose of attacking their beliefs afterward. I disagree with a lot of your points, however, I believe there was a comment by someone about BSM where they said people may feel that it is not inviting or I take it as some people may be intimidated…either way it is very unfortunate and I believe that should give the organization suggestion for action, not necessarily change.
Aight, then I appreciate that. I thought you were just using a one-liner on me. I think you believe what you say and have been thoughtful about it. I assure you my mind is closed to racism, however, so to some extent you are correct when you say that I went in there to attack their beliefs afterward. I went because I promised I would and since I went I obviously had material for a post that has become rather popular which is my "job" in so faar as it comes to this site — to make CRdaily popular. Thanks for reading.
Aight, then I appreciate that. I thought you were just using a one-liner on me. I think you believe what you say and have been thoughtful about it.
My mind is closed to racism. Therefore, to some extent you are correct when you say that I went in there to attack their beliefs afterward. I went because I promised I would and since I went I obviously had material for a post that has become rather popular. It is my job to make CRdaily popular. Thus, I have succeeded.
Thanks for reading.
All along I sit here thinking that the club was simply a celebration of culture.
Why do people have to be so aggressive during arguments. Seething hostility doesn't make your point any more or less valid.