You make very compelling points. Clubbeaux, though, simply came off sounding like an apologist for the KKK.

I was impressed by the brutal honesty of American History X--and the explanation of how otherwise good people might fall for the faulty logic that informs their racist opinions. Incredible movie and Ed Norton played the part perfectly.

But understanding the "why" and forgiving the acts are entirely different things.

I've known quite a few white racists (most of my family comes from the hills of West Virginia and farms in Kansas--you do the math) and most of them are seemingly decent people. But their ideas on race are abhorrent. The one thing about them, though, is that they never acted on their racist beliefs outside of their private conversations.

The KKK only exists to further a divisive, racist political agenda. If Clubbeaux had noted that these are otherwise decent people who had taken a horribly wrong turn, I would understand. Instead, his article seems to be trying to convey that the KKK really isn't all that bad.

I don't think Clubbeaux is racist, I think he's merely choosing the wrong organization to defend.

Dean,

Wouldn't "wrong" also be appropriate, since you're not a Christian?

Well, uh, yeah, that's a good point. Although I am "culturally Christian," in the same sense that a lot of people are "culturally Jewish." I grew up within the faith, we celebrated Easter and Christmas, etc.

Dean,

Yes, but supposing the secret cabal that decides who gets what were to consider if you should be promoted/get offered a good job/not have to pay for your newspaper/whatever, would they really care that you happened to celebrate Easter when you were young?

Wouldn't that be a bit like claiming that a man who got a sex change to become a woman can't complain about sexism because she used to be a man? Would those who discriminate against women care?

I have nothing to add, I just wanted to say-- Excellent post.

Thanks for the link, Dean. :)

Very good points, Dean. Your a true dissident. You can piss me off with one of your posts and then turn around and make me respect you with the next. Keep up the good blogging. I need all the slap in the face facts I can get.

I have long thought that the assassination of Malcolm X was as great a disservice to this country as the assasination of John Kennedy.

Hmmmm....I can't say I exactly disagree with what you're saying. But it does seem to me that the "disaffected" around here have another common characteristic: Everything is someone else's fault....which is used as an excuse to not even try to better oneself. Kinduva "the brothas are keeping the man down" thing. But that could very well be peculiar to this area, I don't know. Though I did see similiar attitudes when I lived in Indianapolis in '78-'80.

Just a thought.

I don't disagree with you, Rita. There are disadvantaged white kids growing up on the wrong side of the tracks who blame "the niggers" for everything wrong in their lives. See American History X for a stunningly accurate portrayal of that world. It's not a defensible view of the world. It's just reality as a lot of these kids grow up seeing it.

Ultimately the question is, how much can you blame other people for the state of your own life? The real answer is that if you take responsibility for your own fate, you're a thousand times better off. I don't give anyone a free pass based on his upbringing. I just note that if we're going to talk about "social forces," we should talk about the social forces behind white supremacists. Their view of the world his horribly twisted and distorted. But dealing with it requires a steely-eyed understanding of why they see the world the way they do.

I understand why all too well....I grew up dirt poor in a culture backwater in the middle of nowhere...in a place where there were no blacks at all. And they were still blamed for everything.

But my father raised me to believe that people were just people...there were good and bad no matter where you go. And that you have to work for what you get out of life.

I guess my problem is when others mistake the explanation for a justification...not that you were, of course.

I've been thinking about seeing American History X but wondered how accurate it was. So I should watch it?

I did really like Malcolm X's book, well worth reading.

Oh it's pretty accurate, and it'll probably make you ill in parts, but it's one of those required viewing type movies.

Speaking from experience - American History X was more a documentary than a fiction film. This is exactly what many of these people think.

I more or less agree, and I am neither white nor Christian.

Hi Dean,

Well, once again everybody misses the point I was trying to make. Oh well, at least here I'm not called a KKK-loving racist. Small favors.

By the way, the next time you read Meryl Yourish you should know that in this whole debate she's the only person to deliberately lie about what I said in order to charge me with being pro-KKK. Here’s her comment from the Cut On the Bias article Susanna wrote about my comments:

"...your statement that the Klan is an organization now filled with non-racists"

I've asked her three times to find this "statement" and haven't received an answer from the liar yet. Of course I never said that, my entire point is the curiosity that non-racists would join an organization filled so overwhelmingly with vile racists. But it's more fun for Meryl to lie about what I say because then she can tear into a canned rant.

Meryl Yourish is a liar, pure and simple.

Zombyboy, if you had read where I said... oh forget it.

Try something else besides "The Autobiography." It is not an entirely accurate portrayal.

Dean,

"American History X" is indeed an excellent flick; I own it on DVD and just watched it again a couple evenings ago. The interesting thing to me about the movie, in addition to the original plot and great acting, was that it didn't make the figures cartoonish. Norton's character was bright, charismatic, and principled--just wrong until he had his epiphany. And all the black characters weren't portrayed as saints, either. Indeed, Danny's character was acting properly in defending the kid from the black bullies, despite the tragic outcome.

I'll have to read the Malcolm X book. I've seen the Spike Lee movie with Denzel Washington and found Malcolm compelling, but it may just have been Washington's portrayal. I do agree with NWO that reading an autobiography is likely not the best way to get an accurate image of a person.

Dean, excellent post. A few thoughts:

Chris Rock said, in one of his excellent comedy shows (and this is a loose paraphrasal),

"There aren't even that many black people in the country, man. Black people make up like, ten percent of the population, man. You got black people in New York, D.C., L.A., Chicago, Atlanta - blacks are like, ten places, man. The rest of the country is filld up with broke-@ss white people. Living in a trailer home, eatin' mayonnaise sandwiches, f*&$ing their sister, and listening to John Cougar Mellencamp records. And they Need Your Help."

Sadly, Chris is right. The KKK and other militant White-Power groups feed off the bottom; they suck up kids who have had "no raisin'" (as my grandma would have said), whose parents have fallen into and passed on the familial attitude that the world owes them a living. When these kids continue to fail over and over again, it becomes easy to blame their ills on an "Other".

I am a white, Christian, thirtysomething who lives in an upper-middle class to upper-class enclave in the South. My parents, however, were raised in an atmosphere of brutal poverty. They scrapped their way out, because both had the family support during their upbringing to believe that they could rise out of their surroundings. That makes all the difference in the world.

My extended family, however...well, let's just say what another commenter did - "But their ideas on race are abhorrent. The one thing about them, though, is that they never acted on their racist beliefs outside of their private conversations."

Anyway - to make a short story long, I did think Clubbeaux was right in one sense. The poor and disadvantaged come in Vanilla, too. To allow that socioeconomic status to excuse the lack of accomplishment from one race while allowing it in another is WRONG, period. Those that claim to care the most about "the poor" often focus their attentions exclusively on one group while ignoring another. After all, if one is white, it is much easier to write off non-achievers who look like you as "losers" than it is to take action in one's own community.

Sorry for the long comment. :D

Hey Dean:
After being away for a while, it is good to be back.

I must say that I totally agree with what you are stating. I did read The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and it changed my whole perception of him as a person.

I am a black person, who was born and raised in a diverse upper-class community. What I was taught was that people like Malcolm X, the KKK, "Skin-Heads" were evil people, and those who were tearing the nation apart. But as most people discover, what is causing the continuing racism is the ignorance of the racist. I am disturbed by those who are black and feel that they are disadvantaged because so. I am proud of my heritage, and even more proud of my ancestors who broke the glass barrier for me to have the freedom and opportunities that have come my way. I find that Malcolm X was a facinating person, and as he got older, his views changed as with all of us.

I encourage those who feel like they are at a disadvantage socially and economically to start making change within their selves. I can't do it, nor can the "white man" or "black man" do it for you. And, we cannot continue to blame others for our failures or situation, but press forward. Times are about change, and you have to be prepared to change with it.

I don't respect Malcolm X. I have read Autobiography and I would say that previous to reading it, I respected him more. He comes off as just a racist who happened to be in the right place at the right time to be part of a revolution. If he was white, his supremacist rantings would be unacceptable.

I thought American History X was very brave and honest. I guess I could see why you compare these two, they both make racists seem like reasonable people.

"Don't believe me? Well, the fact is that I've never met anyone who's read that book who did not decide that he respected the hell out of Malcolm. Furthermore, people who snort at me for saying that have, without exception so far, never read the book."

Meet your exception. I'm a white christian female with degrees in History, Religion, and Economics from an accreditted public university. And, oh yes indeed, I've definitely studied the book. (Lots of other books too.) I think the KKK is evil, and racism is vile. That said, I have little respect for Malcolm X. (While I'm at it, I have little respect for JFK, or MLK, or Bill Clinton). Sure, they may have been good leaders. But, were they good men? No. No. No. No. Take a closer look at how they treated their families. The information is readily available if you take the time to look for it.

If you're looking for a real hero, try Metger Evers. Now, there's someone you can respect. Its been said that "having character is doing the right thing when no one is looking". I can respect character. I have trouble respecting a good personal marketing campaign.

This is not to say that I hate Malcolm X. I think he was dealt a bad hand and I feel sorry about that. But, he made choices of his own free will that were appalling. If you're thinking about justifying it by saying "but he was in a situation of intense discrimination" or "he did the best he could" be very careful. There were (are) a lot of people in equally bad situations that managed to make good choices to be decent humans. Those are the people that you should respect. But, since they generally aren't self-agrandizing, you won't see their autobiography at the local bookstore.

The statements that "The largest number of"..."are white Christians." and "blacks and hispanics and so on make up a larger percentage of the poor, a larger percentage of those with lousy educations, and so on." are at odds with each other. If one group has a larger number of anything than any other group, they also have a larger percentage of that thing than any other group.
I assume you meant to say that a larger percentage of blacks and hispanics are poor, with lousy educations, etc...
You don't say why you respect Malcolm X, but I assume it's for the things he overcame to achieve his position in life. I hope it's not for the racist views he vigorously espoused.

There are about five times as many white people as black people in the U.S., if I recall correctly.

This means that if 20% of blacks live in poverty, and 15% of whites, then there are more poor whites.

The numbers I'm pulling out of thin air, but I'm illustrating the point. In terms of sheer number of people living below the poverty level, there are more whites than any other group.

I admire Malcolm for where he arrived at the end of his life, and for the struggle that got him there.

Anyone who's actually read The Autobiography of Malcolm X would know that he gave up his racist ways at the end of his life.

It's his lifelong journey and struggle, and his coming to understand the wrongness of racism, that I find so remarkable and inspiring.

Allison,

...he made choices of his own free will that were appalling.

Indeed. He was in prison because he DESERVED to be in prison. But Malcolms story is not the story of a bad man, it is the story of a bad man who became a better man, and eventually, a GOOD man. The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a story of redemption.

Of course, if you don't believe in redemption, then Malcolm was, as you say, appalling.

And, not incidentally, Malcolm was murdered, not because he was a racist, but because he was NO LONGER a racist.

Sadat could be said to have been killed because he was no longer an anti-Semite, and Ghandi because he was no longer a nationalist. L. Ron Hubbard never renounced Scientology because he feared he would not survive long if he did.

Tapping into group drives at those levels is a very dangerous game!

Allison,

You said.."That said, I have little respect for Malcolm X. (While I'm at it, I have little respect for JFK, or MLK, or Bill Clinton). Sure, they may have been good leaders. But, were they good men? No. No. No. No. Take a closer look at how they treated their families. The information is readily available if you take the time to look for it."

Is it YOU that can judge whether these are/were indeed good men? We can't take a closer look because, besides what we THINK we know, we really don't know these people outside of their public service to the world. If we are to judge people by their public actions...these were all great men in our society.

I think your judgement hinges on SEX, SEX, SEX, SEX. Let's see, MLK Jr....probably the most important figure in U.S. history during the last 60 years, OHHHH but he had some sexual indiscretions...must be a very bad man. WRONG!
No person is perfect, we Americans are just hung up on the sex thing. Plus, ain't nobody talkin jack about Goldwater, Orrin Hatch, or even Bush 41...you know why? Cause they haven't done a thing for the country.

Dean, great posts....as usual.

Tim

Tim: I have lost a great deal of respect for JFK for the same reasons I have little respect for Clinton: all glitter, no gold, and they're both lying horndogs. The main difference is that Clinton finished both terms.

There's a big difference between "not perfect" and the kind of slimy dishonesty both men engaged in.

Hell, JFK was eyeing the stenography pool during the Cuban Missle Crisis; this beats the infamous "Clinton cigar" episode all hollow. :)

To all who have read the bio:
I've seen a fair bit of the Spike Lee movie; to what degree is it accurate? I must say my strongest reaction to the movie was that X's rep was way off-base from the reality.

Dean: remind me to scan a couple of cartoons Bill Mauldin drew concerning X in the early '60s.

I remember in High School wondering what I personally ever did as an impoverished white male Christian to deserve the hatred being shoveled my way. Now, as it turns out, as an adult I have also seen real systemic discrimination against "minority" groups in some white male dominated industry. So I have what we call Perspective.

But I can understand, if not condone, the feelings of helpless of some poor white males. They are trapped in their own habits of poverty and need someone to blame. Just like minority groups, they feel excluded and powerless. But unlike minority groups, noone sympathizes with them.

And although I have worked in white male dominated industry, there also exists career tracks that are dominated by other groups, specifically in female dominated elementary and secondary education. In our schools, white males are the minority, and are treated with publicly accepted discrimination. Is it any wonder that some who never escape that poverty and powerlessness are embittered, feel emasculated and turn to violence?

But having climbed out of that pit myself, and seeing some of my own family still entangled in it, I never lend weight to their feelings. Simply put, every American has more than enough opportunity to be successful, if they are willing to pay the price of success.

These means giving up on those oh so tempting habits of povery: blaming others, laziness, lack of self-discipline, recklessness, irresponsibility, etc. These are the traits that rob people of their own success, regardless of race. 90% of people's failures are their own fault, and that other 10% can be overcome with persistence.

Everyone has a right to hate. But no one has a legitimate excuse to hate.

Dean,

An interesting post with lots of points.

Your point about more "white Christians" being poor, uninsured, etc. than other groups is true. Do minorities get more media attention about their percentages being poor or uninsured. Probably.

Both are significant. 1) There's a problem when a significantly large percentage of a group is at a severe disadvantage because, if nothing else, it costs the rest of in so many ways.

Because a higher percentage of minorities are disadvantaged, I do think there is a logic behind some focus on them specifically rather than the poor or uninsured in general. After all, why are more minorities in poverty? Will a global attempt at reducing poverty truly benefit them? I'm not assuming one way or the other. I am saying that the discrepancy in percentages warrants attention. And these groups may need different approaches, different programs to reach them.

2) The sheer number of whites in poverty cannot be ignored. And this is where I find fault with your article because you essentially accuse "liberals" of ignoring this population because they are supposedly white and therefore advantaged. Your analysis of the costs for ignoring these problems are dead on. So, my disagreement is somewhat slight but important.

As similar as they are, 1 and 2 are really different problems. And addressing one without the other makes no sense. However, just because you believe that #1 is a problem doesn't mutually exclude the belief in helping white Christians.

The liberals that I personally know do not think that poor white Christians don't need help or attention. I am tired of hearing that because I'm a liberal, I'm an elitest who dislikes his own race and culture. Granted, I live in an extremely conservative part of Texas, so I hear this opinion frequently, even from people who know me personally but still insist on perpetuating the stereotype strawman.

When I donate time or money to help the poor, abused, uninsured or illiterate, it's not to a group targeting blacks or hispanics or any other minority. Does the North Texas Food Bank target one group over another? Does Habitat for Humanity? Not that I know of. Do I contribute to programs that are race-specific? Sometimes.

The fact is that most liberals I know believe that poverty is a problem and, like sexual abuse, can lead to other problems. I have been critical of fellow liberals for many things, but this is one that just rings hollow.

Dean, I essentially agree with what you've been saying. Tx bubba, I will grant that you and other individual liberals are concerned about the poor and disadvantaged of any race, but I have met many who talked about concern for minority groups (usually at a comfortable distance) and expressed nothing but contempt for rednecks and trailer trash. Certainly that kind of bias is reflected in many institutions that generally tend to be considered as "liberal" -- I have seen public colleges in upstate NY with vast programs for recruiting and supporting minority students from NY City, while not that many miles from their campuses there were hard-working dirt-poor white kids attempting to rise out of extreme rural poverty but who could not seem to even be noticed by the colleges and universities. I suppose they thought that was the purpose of the community colleges -- and thanks be to the taxpayers for supporting the community colleges -- but the upper level institutions were getting even more tax dollars per student, but they weren't going out of their way to serve the upstate poor.

Malcom X is definitely not as simplistic as he has been portrayed in either the post or the comments criticizing him. He was fighting for equality, but he was as much a segregationalist as Wallace. He advocated guerilla warfare and terrorism. He spouted vitriolic hatred of Jews, whites, and women. A comparison might be made with Louis Farrakhan. Is an extremist ever fully admirable? The most ironic part of this whole debate is the fact that a new slant towards reverse racism is now acceptable. It is a prosecutable offense to use an ethnic slur against a black person, yet I don't remember anytime that I ever saw any discipline for the use of ethnic slurs against whites. There is a creation of a free pass system, with affirmative action and the always popular claim of racial profiling. The new feeling amongst whites is not that of superiority or hatred, but fear. There is a double standard, created in an attempt to reduce racism and enable minority involvement, which stifles real colorblind behavior. We have a society where it is acceptable for a white to be a "honky" or a "cracker", yet also to discipline that white for using the n-word while talking about the words in a rap song. It's crap, and we can't continue on this way. We can't force future generations to wet themselves worrying whether something they said might be offensive. However, you do have excellent taste in films, as American History X is in my top 5 of all time. And as a sidenote, you might be familiar with the town I reside in, Mason, it most likely having been mentioned in Malcom X's biography.

If you cheat on your wife repeatedly then you are a bad man. Casey is 100% correct. If your wife can not trust you then who can or should. Its not the sex, sex, sex. Its the lying, lying, lying. Do I care if Clinton F***** everything that moved, no. But the fact that he A., had no respect for his wife, B. Had no respect for his vows, there is no wiggle room in "forsaking all others" and C. les about about it to a grand jury, to Congress and too the American people.

American History X was a very good film.

I do not think that the majority (or even a plurality) of welfare recipients are white anymore (unless Hispanics are included as "whites"). I recall the news reporting when the figures turned around, together with some expected commentary about what this "meant." A little research turned up this: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/characteristics/fy98/sum.htm

I am not sure that the drop or addition of a few percentage points has any significance, other than the "majority" thing has force in an argument among the statistically illiterate.

I can say with some certainty, however, that although I have never seen the figures, the majority of welfare recipients, as well as the majority of doctors, lawyers , and Indian chiefs in this country are Christians.

Excellent post. Thought-provoking, Eye Opening and well articulated.

Racism, nationalism and materialism. Three evil giants eating the human world. All the nations of humankind today exhibit some combination of these three, to some extent, and to the detriment of all.

I'll get back to you in a few days, when my Blog is up and running. You might be interested...

Reading wonderful blogs like yours Dean always seem to make my foray into the realm seem so trite and insignificant. I found the responses 2 this particular rant as fascinating, as they were diverse. It seems everyone has a viewpoint on racism as it appllies 2 lower income white christians. So my point isn't to add fuel 2 an already raging pyre, I just wanted to thank u and all the other posters for the amount of nfo I garnered from this particular post alone. As u already know I'm black (actually I prefer the term "mocha") and grew up in a predominantly upper class white community. I've had many a frank discussion with my caucasian friends and their families who've always chided me as being "one of the ok ones". So I've always been interested in what made them feel as such, and y they'd wanna share it with me. The sentiments and articles refrenced in your post (and that of your readers)are slowly helping me to form an (what I consider) educated opinion on the subject. Thanx again :)

Oh yeah, and about American History X. Though Edward Norton was stellar (as usual) let us not overlook the potrayals of Edward Furlong, Fairuza Balk and Elliot Gould whose roles added more reality and depth 2 the "way too short" redemption tale.

I'll take peace for 200 please