While scanning though the posts over at WizBang this morning I came a cross this post about the beheading of Nick Berg: Nick Berg: Who’s to blame? What caught my attention was the disclaimer the author, Jay Tea, attached to the beginning of the post (emphasis is mine):
(Author’s note: the following piece is being written while extremely angry, and I am already planning on using some rather strong language, both profane and racially insensitive. I’m not apologizing for it now, will not later, but if Kevin chooses to delete it, that’s his call and I won’t protest.)
So of course I had to read his ‘racially insensitive’ language. He began by giving a little bit of his political background, highlighted by his ridiculous position on apartheid back in the day:
One of the bigger issues of that time was South Africa. The apartheid government was universally despised, of course. The main difference between the liberals and the conservatives was that the liberals were pushing for a complete boycott on the nation and an immediate change of government, while conservatives were calling for “constructive engagement” and a gradual transition to a more democratic government.
I was on the conservative side on that issue. I was concerned that after years of oppression the black majority, if suddenly given power, would rise up and retaliate against the white minority. I had visions of brutal oppression and slaughter. I also didn’t want to see an embargo against South Africa. I figured that if we completely cut off the South African government, we’d be throwing away any influence we might have with them.
I was wrong. As painful as it was to admit, the liberals were right on South Africa. The apartheid government was wrong, and needed to change. It needed to change completely, and it did – eventually, and after the US divested.
To his credit, he admits that he was wrong and that his position was racist (ya think???):
Once I got home from work, I started surfing around to see the reactions around the ‘net. On the liberal side, I saw a lot of blame being put on the Bush administration for Berg’s death. They said that Berg’s killing was a predictable reaction to the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, as the killers proclaimed in the video. It was Bush’s fault for the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, and Berg’s death is entirely on his hands.
BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT.
The attitude behind this belief isn’t liberalism, it isn’t partisanship, it isn’t even knee-jerk Bush-hating. To blame anyone besides the people who kidnapped Berg and killed him is racism. Racism, plain and simple – just like my attitudes towards South Africa was.
Then he gets to the issue at hand, the Nick Berg situation (and the ‘racially insensitive’ language) [emphasis is mine]:
George Bush didn’t kidnap Nick Berg. The morons from Abu Ghraib didn’t kill him. Al Qaeda did that, and bragged of it. They chose to do that, and therefore the responsibility for his death rests surely on their shoulders. To try to excuse them, to pass on the burden for their actions is racist. It’s saying the poor little darkies can’t be expected to do any better.
It’s the same thing in Israel. Palestinian terrorists are excused as “doing the only thing they can to resist the brutal occupation, and it’s Israel’s fault for causing the climate of oppression.” That’s racist bullshit, too. Why is it OK to blame the Israelis for both their misdeeds and those of the Palestinians? It’s because the Jews are better than the Palestinians, and they have the White Man’s Burden to make things right while the dumb sand niggers can’t be expected to know or do any better.
That led me to leave the following comment:
Sand niggers? Why am I not surprised to hear that phrase from somebody who had such a fucked up view of apartheid? Too bad they didn’t cut your head off too.
Then Jay responded with this:
Apparently Michael missed the point of my piece. It’s the attitudes of those who excuse the conduct of the Palestinian terrorists, Al Qaeda, and their ilk that I was paraphrasing in the “sand niggers” remark. I don’t think of them that way — that’s why I refuse to excuse what they do. It’s those who are so eager to blame everyone else BUT the perpetrators of atrocities that have the condescending, racist attitude.
Paraphrasing? Did I miss something? I didn’t see where he said that he was paraphrasing. If that was the case then why was it necessary to give that disclaimer at the beginning of the post? Didn’t Jay just tell us that he was pissed off and about to spew some racist shit?
So seven hours later Jay adds another response to my comment:
Michael, I’ve had the chance to re-read your comments. I even started to construct some rather cogent and pointed responses, becuase (sic) I enjoy a good argument, then I read it one last time.
“Too bad they didn’t cut your head off too.”
Michael, you’re not worth even a casual cussing out. All I can feel is an overwhelming sense of pity. As I posted earlier, I really have no life, but you give me hope. At least I can justify the oxygen I consume and I’m not a pathetic, hateful waste of skin.
Actually what I meant to say ‘cut off your head instead of Nick’s‘.
I find it ironic that Jay calls me hateful when he’s the one that started this with his insensitive, stupid and racist remarks. (As if his little disclaimer makes him immune from criticism.) Hate breeds hate and it was you set it off. In my opinion it’s clear that Jay has serious issues with brown people. Then when somebody calls him on that he tries to hide behind some bullshit excuse that he was paraphrasing some apologist liberals. Please! The craziest part of this is that Jay was trying to make the point that those who blame Nick’s death on Bush are racists. I guess it takes one to know one. Jay should just man-up and stand behind his ignorant words instead of trying to weasel out after the fact.
I honestly think you misread Jay’s post. When he used the terms “darkies” and “sand niggers”, he was playing the role of the people who patronizingly excuse the evil acts of Arabs because these “enlightened” people are racists.
He said he was going to use racially insensitive language because he wanted to prevent reactions like yours. You saw “darkie” and “sand nigger” and instantly thought those were Jay’s opinions, not the opinions of people Jay criticized by his play-acting.
Try it this way, with my revisions in bold:
Hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding.
OK, Michael, obviously you want to continue this discussion. My mother gave me some good advice for times like this (“Never try to teach a pig to sing — it wastes your time and annoys the pig” and “don’t get into arguments with idiots — they drag you down to their level, then beat you with their experience” spring to mind), but I’m not awake enough to listen to her.
First of all, the disclaimer: that was done as a courtesy to Kevin. Those were my words, and I still stand by them, but it’s Kevin’s site, and wanted to make clear my respect for his forum.
Secondly, the point of my thesis was simple: there are certain actions that are, in and of themselves, inexcusable and undeniably evil. To try to look for “root causes” and “motivations” is to diminish the free will we all have, and smacks of excusing the behavior. To say “they made me do that” is the cry of the wife-beater, the bully, the whiner. To say “they had no choice but to act so brutally” is saying that you can’t expect certain people to retain their humanity and be willing to choose to not commit atrocities. I believe people can and do choose whether or not to commit horrible acts, and to deny certain people as a group the ability to make these choices is racism, just as I typified in the kinds of people who regularly use the kind of language that got your knickers in such a twist.
Third, in browsing through your site, I see scant mention of the atrocity that prompted my outrage. I take it my use of certain terms offends you more than people who kidnap an innocent man, then videotape themselves beheading him while shouting “God is great!”?
Finally, you said you wish I had been beheaded instead of Nick Berg. I have three reactions to that. First, part of me agrees with you — Nick Berg was trying to do more for the world than I ever have, and in a lot of ways the world would be a better place if he was still alive. If trading my life for his, I would be tempted.
My second reaction: I’m glad you weren’t beheaded. I saw the video. Nobody deserves that kind of death. I’m glad you weren’t beheaded. I am glad you are still alive, and hope you will continue to live and argue. Even though I disagree most vehemently with you, I defend your right to do so.
My third reaction: if they actually did try to behead you, they better bring a proctologist along to first pry your head out of your butt first. (end obligatory cheap shot)
J.
Oops… thanks, Puddle Pirate! Glad to see SOMEONE got what I was saying…
J.
Puddle Pirate,
I read Jay’s post several times and I didn’t (and still don’t) see the paraphrasing. If that’s what he meant to do he should have made it more clear, like you’ve done. But even then, the choice of language is foul. Show me some direct quotes from the people he’s paraphrasing using that type of language and then maybe I’ll see things your way. Until then, I still call bullshit. I still see the post as a thinly veiled attempt to spout some racist shit.
Jay,
I don’t have a problem with the point of your thesis. My problem is with your methods. As for what’s on my blog — I never intended this site to be my political sandbox. There are plenty of things in the world that offend me just as much, if not more, than your words. If I tried to blog about even a fraction of them I’d never get away from my computer. Note that I didn’t even blog about your post here until you begged for the discussion to be continued.
As to you being beheaded, I was just paraphrasing what a sand nigger would have said to you had he read your post.
OK, Michael, strike “paraphrasing” if you like. Call it “projecting” or “role-playing.” I’ve known a lot of pretty racist people in my life, and it’s pretty easy for me to get inside that attitude. It’s a pretty despicable place, but seeing it up close, even from the inside, gives you pretty good insights into how to fight it.
I loathe the kinds of people who use such terms as “darkies” and “sand-niggers” casually — I knew too many of them too well growing up. My point in using those terms was to encapsulate the attitudes I was railing against.
I’m off to work now, Michael. I think I’ll let this one drop. I see the majority of people who responded to my piece got the point I was trying to make. Ya can’t please everybody, and ya can go nuts trying.
J.
I don’t give a damn what the majority of respondents at WizBang said. So I guess the majority in South Africa was right about apartheid too, right?
You claim to have been role-playing/projecting/paraphrasing or whatever, but you did a terrible job of it. How was the reader to know that you intended to say what Puddle Pirate wrote above? If you’re gonna write some inflammatory shit like that you’d better make it very clear which words are yours and which are just ‘role-playing’.
So what about the people who use those terms on a less than casual basis? You know, the ones that only use such epithets on special occasions. Do you loathe them too?
i see jay tea’s projecting ie how he is using that language to make a point. fine. but his whole argument is so ridiculous. that’s what i cant get over. nevermind the language stuff. you cant look beyond the 5 people who beheaded berg to find motivation or at least see the event in its context? wow, is THAT shortsighted narrowminded illadvised uninformed. the free will argument is so patently without merit here that it’s not even worth it to discuss. if you’re not adult enough to see how free will and other dynamics interplay to influence people’s actions, then i don’t know what to say. michael i think you’re wasting your time trying to reason with this dude.
Okay, why don’t you guys stop fucking arguing and realize that everyone has their own opinion?
I think we can all place blame somewhere and getting into a rascist agrument is just wasting time.
I think anyone who would not agree with me in saying that The Nick Berg beheading was simply a vile, and evil thing to do. Common sense dictates that cutting an innocent mans head off in the name of God is not a logical or sane thing to do. This is EVil. Evil, Evil, Evil, fucking Evil. No matter what the justification this is wrong. I don’t care what color your skin or what your religion dictates, the action of brutal murder is fucked. These men who did this are to be pitied, these men are to be looked down on. These men need help.
What ever their justification, whatever their mindset is, does not excuse what they have done. Placing blame on Bush is an easy thing to do, But I believe it is the wrong thing to do. Placing blame on race is also wrong. There’s simply no time to place blame, we need to fix this we need to find out why this is accepted by so many eastern extremeists. We need to stop the spread of this evil.
Now I’m no Bush loyalist: every time I look into his dimwitted eyes I wonder how we could of been so foolish to elect him and thank god that I wasn’t old enough to vote in that election. But we can’t blame one man or one aspect of a world full of rasism. We need to place the blame squarly on the shoulders of who it belongs to. And it belongs to everyone… Everyone who has hate in their hearts. We are all to blame because we did nothing to stop this way of thinking. This evil, vile way of thinking
We need to reach out to these people and tell thim this is not right. But why would they listen when we treat them as fucking children?
We as Americans are not the parents of less developed countries we need to be their friends.
Okay now I’m going all philisophical, but whatever. Hate is hate no matter the skin, no matter the banner of religion it hides under. Hate is hate. You cannot stop hate with blame and more hate. You must stop it with an attitude of friendship.