I have a “perspective” for Mr. Kane

February 8th, 2007

Miwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane had an interesting comment in his column about the unprovoked attack on a white rider by black teens on a Milwaukee County bus:

The head of the NAACP weighed in on the Great Bus Hate Crime after being asked for comment. Funny, viagra buy seek but I don’t remember which white organization was asked to comment about the Jude beating or when the black guy from Milwaukee was threatened while fishing.

I just thought I’d point out that no one asked the National Association for the Advancement of White People their opinion on the Frank Jude beating, discount because any organization with such a name would properly be considered racist.

Which begs the question: why isn’t the same true for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

Entry Filed under: Media,Milwaukee

4 Comments Add your own

  • 1. The World According to Ni&hellip  |  February 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    […]  |  2 Comments  |  No Trackbacks  Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Current Events Thursday, 08 February 2007 18:02:02 (Central Standard Time,UTC-06:00)OMG. The thought of a White Organization is just laughable. Who put something in his froot loops?phelThursday, 08 February 2007 18:19:59 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)Great minds (or maybe no-so-great minds) think alike: http://www.fromwhereisit.org/?p=1259elliot Name […]

  • 2. Badger Blogger&hellip  |  February 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    it’s not so bad, we just lack perspective…

    I’m sorry you had to be distracted from your column about the cold Mr. Kane, but thanks for pointing out that we just lack perspective, if we had perspective, a man getting the snot beat out of him by a pack of thugs wouldn’t be such a bad …

  • 3. Alex O'Berra  |  June 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am

    “…because any organization with such a name would properly be considered racist.”

    Why do you treat such a prospect as axiomatically “racist”?
    All around us, there are groups representing and advancing the “best interests” of certain groups of people, most often racial in name but sometimes cultural.

    Whites are expected to allow these groups to organize and forget the idea of having one for their own kind; the rationale usually goes like this: “Given the state of privilege that have been accorded to White people in this country, it isn’t necessary for them to have groups similar to one’s that represent disadvantaged minorities.”

    “It isn’t necessary”.
    Forming a group for whatever reason needs to pass a litmus test of necessity? Who are the “authorities” that give the thumbs-up or thumbs-down? Is the freedom of association reserved only for the people NOT descended from the Founders of this country?

    I would suggest that the notion that an overtly White group being “racist” while an overtly Black/Asian etc group would not, is the result of social engineering.

    It certainly isn’t based on fairness.

  • 4. elliot  |  June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    I’m surprised you found such an old post, Alex, but that was a great comment.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta