US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
Commentary :: Media
Randi Rhodes Smears White Men
17 Apr 2007
Randi Rhodes has a strange way of educating Americans against racism. This second week of April of 2007 she has had a non-stop campaign pointing a finger at “white men” (by her talking points and deductive insinuations) as the most pervasive racists of human planet—employing opportunist diatribe that was really instigated by a singular white man—namely Don Imus.
Randi Rhodes has a strange way of educating Americans against racism. This second week of April of 2007 she has had a non-stop campaign pointing a finger at “white men” (by her talking points and deductive insinuations) as the most pervasive racists of human planet—employing opportunist diatribe that was really instigated by a singular white man—namely Don Imus.
Randi Rhodes Smears White Men in her Crusade Against Racism.

Randi Rhodes has a strange way of educating Americans against racism. This second week of April of 2007 she has had a non-stop campaign pointing a finger at “white men” (by her talking points and deductive insinuations) as the most pervasive racists of human planet—employing opportunist diatribe that was really instigated by a singular white man—namely Don Imus.

Yes Don Imus said a racist and sexist statement about Rutger’s female basketball team. He called them “nappy headed hos”. Supposedly his executive producer referred to their championship game as “Jigaboos vs. Wannabes”. There is no debate about whether Imus acted in a manner racist, sexist, deliberate, and with an intent to degrade—it is pretty much fair judgement.

But what Randi Rhodes does is take this particular incident of racist and sexist remark, coupled with other examples of “some” other individual white men that said similar sorts of things (or implying related kinds of things) and generalizing such instances to white men in general—implying rather redundantly (in case anyone didn’t get it) “whitey” is the most racist of people the world over.

Over-extended logic and hysteria apparently went on for several days and yet it was in effect a form of reverse sexism and racism (although her radio station’s demogoguery was subtle as a montage of gestaltic affect—sort of implying it all made perfect inductive sense).

But if we all allowed to form judgements and voice opinions, in a democratic fashion, then I say that her own “agenda” (whether conscious to her or not) was to paint the white male as the eternal bad guy, meanwhile suggesting other races, ethnicities, and gender as eternal victims (or pretty close thereof).

Nevertheless, I listen to Randi Rhodes off and on somewhat routinely (20 to 25%). I know she has a habit of carrying on until she has killed an idea. I know she goes to a pitch of hysteria—and some topics she discusses deserve such emphasis. I listen to her because I generally agree with much of what she says. And I admire her courage to say things most in the media never dare say (or even bother to learn). Further I admire her overall intelligence. I have recommended her to more than few people. Therefore I am not out to get her. I generally consider myself a fan.

But I call her on her reverse racism, because as a white male, I am sick of being the butt every race’s angst—and equally the target of so many white women’s presumptive moral superiority. It has been my experience that there is more reverse racism and sexism in the minds of too many (including some white men that think any resentment maintained against white men is either minor, or deserved, and therefore never deserves an examination—which is precisely the point—wanting to ridicule the idea as trivial).

Or immediately there are recriminations that flare back like: “Since when have white men been hung on a rope’s end, or clubbed to near death?” (implying that before racism or sexism against white men can be taken seriously it has to be so blatant, so obvious and so institutionalized that it can be dismissed outright from eternal consideration). The point capitulates that white neb psychologically serve as the all-time perpetrators—and others need hardly ever examine their own attitudes and behavior.

Nevertheless if Randi wants to go on a week long tangent to jump on a whole history of racism in America as campaign bandwagon then let her also talk about minority hate and female hatred of white men (including white female hatred of white men). Let her open some discussion about forms of black hatred, and Latino hatred, etc. Or do you think minority people and women never look for scapegoats or objects to attach their pent up frustration?

Let’s her open discussion about forms of misandry that equally are seldom discussed. Or do you think that given the last decades, with hundreds of college courses and published books on feminism—that there was “little” that promoted at least an implicitly hatred of men?

Or let me re-phrase the question: “Why is it that every time there is a public discussion about either racism or sexism over the years and decades it has to be the white man that is holding the bag?” That is until recently there has been little in the way of serious discussion or interspection about minority racism or female reverse racism ande sexism against white men?

When the topic of racism is raised—the presumption in the minds of many people is that “white” people are the ones who are obviously the subject. Equally when the topic is sexism—in the minds of many people—it is obviously men who are predominantly sexist. And if you doubt this theory—walk in any college library and check any major newspaper index over the years and decades on such topics and do your own comparative research—you will see complete bias.

Nevertheless, imagine for a minute being born a white male child in the United States. Automatically you are blamed for genocide against Native Americans and stealing their land. Automatically you are blamed for slavery and racism. Automatically you are blamed for taking land from Mexicans. In fact every form or kind of racism, sexism, and exploitation perpetuated throughout the centuries is blamed on you (that is your race, your gender, and your culture). Despite any innocence you might actual have—in the minds of the self-righteous you are a jerk (and somebody that should be begging for forgiveness the rest of his life).

Few white men, who have a clue as to the plethora of diatribe written against white men over the years, and who have perceived both the subtle, and not so subtle hatred and disrepect, can maintain positive self-esteem without asserting some kind of defense or apologia.

Yet that is exactly what we do not get in America. Why? Is it because many manipulators here in the U.S. do not want the white men (or more likely some classes of white men), per se, to have good self-esteem—and therefore an ability to assert independence—not just in action but in thought as well?

So who benefits from so many constantly attacks on the general reputation and esteem of white men as a general class—and in what complex ways?

Yes many of us have heard the coin signified as the “backlash” against women. This is because the word “backlash” connotes a kneejerk reaction with little deliberate thought or justification—or to put it more precisely—the type of reaction expected from someone or group thought inferior and guilty. Or do you not think that some women do have a snob attitudes that they are superior to men (even as the rail about white male superiority as a white male presumption)?

With such continuous and caustic scrutiny on men, and particularly on what white males do wrong, the corresponding implication has been to promote the idea that women, and many minority peoples, are socially and morally superior to white males (and white men are defensive because they really are inferior). This is the reverse racism and sexism that I’m talking about—that constant presumption of a moral high ground—much which amounts too too much self-deception and self-righteousness (and lack of willingness to spiritual adjust your own way of being).

For example, I was born in the 1960s decade. I never stole anyone’s land (in fact I do not own real estate). I never killed a Native American. I never whipped a slave. I never went to a Klu Klux Klan hanging or meeting. I never justified hatred of Jews because they killed Jesus. I never went to a meeting to conspire for discrimination against women. Just what is it then that makes my skin color and sex more guilty than your own white woman or negroid person?

The fact is that I am “only” responsible for what happens on my watch—and more importantly “you” are equally responsible for what happens irrespective of your color, ethinicity or religion. (Did you ever notice how some of the rainbow coalition citizenry think white men are more responsible for evil (economic, military, and political) today? Yeah if you are a minority you get a free pass to whine about victimhood—but hey those white guys are all totally responsible.)

What is it about America’s behavior or reputation today that makes me more guilty than you? Miss White Women—you mean you don’t personally profit from this spoiled American life style we here share in the U.S.? (Is your extravegant use of energy and materialism somehow more santified?) Mr. Black and Mr. Asian—you mean you don’t equally invest in corporate America that makes business decisions to benefit your estate holdings as well (while the Holier-Than-Thou screed about the white male system)? Is it only white men who benefit from the sins of today’s realities?

Or is this not a form of reverse racism and sexism to continuously blame my ethnicity and gender for history’s long episode of cruelty and injustice (even if it is true that white men throughout history have engaged in their share of injustice)? What about other races and cultures—have they not engaged in injustice as well?

Has not slavery, for example, had a long and multicultural history? Did not Jews too have slaves and been slaves? Yet our pseudo-cultural sensitivity training likes to insinuate that only white men enslaved people of color throughout history or only people of color have been slaves.

Or is it not the “purpose” of multicultural awareness to learn to “not” transfer blame on a general class of people for what “some” have done, thought, or believed? You can well imagine that some of us are a bit sick of the hypocrisy.

But call me a sensitive male for broaching the subject (even while there are those who hate even the abstraction “sensitive man” while still ironically hating men they label “insensitive”). You see certain spoiled people who are self-centered enough can be arbitrary on what serves their whims.

All my thinking life, it seems, I have been hounded (as in harassed), both in educational institutions and by corporate media as “the” class of people, to be singled out to wear the scarlet letter—that is to be paraded around the town square so minority people and self-righteous white women could throw apples at me while jeering taunts and epithets of derision—because my class (irrespective of my particular socioeconomic status or personal history) was be to deemed the scapegoat class for most (if not all) injustice. How platidinous and convenient.

I was “never” perceived as your equal. Your continuous scorn made me less (in your mind). Furthermore seldom was I perceived as an individual—rather I too have been stereotyped. I too was “pre-judged” (as in the word prejudice). You think you know me and what I am about? You have to look beyond tan skin and blonde hair lady. You don’t know me. In fact you have taken very little time or used very little energy probing to see whether I had any individuality—rather you kneejerkedly presumed your projected prejudices onto me. Perhaps you were incapable of knowing me? You are probably better off watching the Jerry Springer show.

How many decades now have we men heard about sensitivity training? You know to get people to perceive that “all” people are individuals (more or less) and not just carbon copies of a class? Apparently the benefit of the doubt is only valid if you are of color or tint—not simply, as Randi Rhodes says: “pasty faced white men”.

Over the decades then, in political correct hand wringing fashion many (most) people have become super-sensitive to any potential indication of racism against minorities yet inordinately slow to equally presume pre-judgement against others. How democratic.

And as I listened to Randi Rhode’s radio show this last Friday, she was making a case, particularly against white “Christian” men, as she referred to white genocide against Native Americans (presumably on the Manifest Destiny rationalization); but then turns such presumed logic to white, Christian racism against Iraqis’ today.

She was only partially correct. She conveniently forgot to include, as it seems her radio show’s agenda to do—to “not” discuss Israeli and right-wing Jewish advocation of genocide in Iraq (in effect of their pushing us into this war) as well as genocide of Palestinians in Palestine? Or was it more than coincidence?

Going back a few weeks ago Randi Rhodes “patiently” allowed a caller or two (and you know how patient she is normally “not”) to make bland and general remarks about her radio show’s “Jewish” conspiracy. (Note too that Randi Rhoads does “not” clearly state her call-in telephone number to her listening audience—rather she blurrs it so that you can not intercept it—perhaps because she has ‘preferred’ callers—like from her native Manhattan/ Brooklyn area associates? But anyway this guy is connected to her live, who has a bit of a nasal twang (a voice you almost swear you’ve heard as a different spirit on Air America) and makes some vague statements about how “you” Jews have your hand in the till (generalizations that are easily recognized as stereotypic racist remarks against Jews). Meanwhile she acts like she barely knows the religious background of her staff or station managers (or her own) and acts completely taken aback by such a presumed attitude against her Brooklyn/ New York comaraderie (why when you can’t broach the subject—it ought make anyone suspect?) Also the caller got on her case about her constant reference to her military service and patriotism (which she did take much opportunity to emphsize so as to make one wonder). Then for a similar caller (right after that one reviewed the next day) you overheard her kind of whisper (to one of her team in the station) “watch this” (clearly implying that she knew ahead of time what the caller was going to say and how she was going to react). WHAT I’M SAYING IS THAT THOSE TWO CALLS SEEMED EITHER STAGED OR WERE ALLOWED TO SLIP THE SCREENING PROCESS BECAUSE OF THEIR TAME INCOMPETENCE THAT PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT.

She used the calls to justify her stance that she will “not” discuss Israel’s part in manipulating the U.S. into this Iraq war (or any serious criticism of Israel). Rather as far as she is concerned, the reasons for our attack on Iraq (despites Israel’s own constant demands and histrionics) were strictly for oil, world dominance, and war profiteering (which are all very true and pertinent reasons)).

But the fact remains that Jewish neocons active in Washington D.C establishment, the news media, and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, served as thee catalyst to make this war in Iraq happen, and they conjured up the phony intelligence (as they are more than any other cabal equally working to keep us there).

Meanwhile she claims not to play lackey for anybody? But she closes any serious scrutiny regarding Israel other than to ameliorate their influence of intentions. Other lighting rods who project an image of total truth in investigative journalism or talk radio—also will “not” give fair criticism to anything Jewish or Zionist. Greg Palast and I believe Amy Goodman are similar in this respect.

But then Randi goes a step further—she routinely campaigns her constant finger pointing at the “goyim” of the Bush Administration—especially her leveling at President Bush has really been acting as a puppet. All her criticism is leveled at the top tier of political puppets—not at the levels below that really turn the wheels in Washington D.C. (where for example the AIPAC pulls strings). This is dishonest analysis and hypocrisy.

The facts very much conclude that this war in Iraq was not simply a white, Christian, male kneejerk reaction. Israel, and at least a dozen Jewish neocons were very actively involved in getting the United States to attack Iraq—despite any resistence to be honest about pronounced Jewish involvement in manipulating the United States into this foreign policy disaster—at our nation’s national and economic security loss (and for Israel’s benefit and yes for the benefit of oil companies and war profiteers). It is not like Israel could not use a little oil?

Rather her radio show’ focus is to blame white men (meaning WASP white men) and other goyim leaders of the current administration (Rove, Bush, Chenney, Rice and Rumsfeld). Is this just coincidental?

Clearly she stated this last week while making the case that we have once again a white, male, “Christian” war against Islamism (not too different from the Crusades of the 11th to the 13th century). In another words it is again “singularly” white Christian men who are racistly crusading out wars on terrorists. (One thing she could point out that the war on terrorists is very correlated to a war on Third World countries that have oil and are not friendly to Western oil companies.)

But how is it that she forget to inform her listening audience that right-wing American Jews have been equally working the media (particularly editorial pages), as well as TV programming, and Hollywood movie bias (over the years) that also helped “create” racism against Muslims and Arabs (and often deliberately so). America’s Middle East adventures are not just a white, Christian, male thing.

Yes there are brainwashed fundamentalists that are thinking that the second coming is soon at heart. There naivete is being manipulated into this maelstrom.

In fact some Rabbis from Israel, and here in America, have been especially keen to “recruit” Christian support for Israel’s policies which are also racist against Muslims and Arabs. (But we must note as well that other Rabbis and Jews have been very critical of Israeli and Zionist politics.)

Also in fairness we need recognize that it is true that Christianity has been used to justify evil against other cultures, and people of other religions, throughout history. Audiences should be made aware—especially now with the rise of religious zealotry and fundamentalism. In fact it would be a good time to review England’s history of the 16th and 17th century when King James and his predecessors were around and when Hobbes was writing the Leviathan).

People who happen to live in, and broadcast out of, Manhattan and Brooklyn, ought to know as well as any. Afterall the Crusaders killed both Jews and Muslims in those earlier Crusades—did they not? Did not various Christians persecute Jews throughout European history?

But this is what makes for subtle demogoguery—insinuating the same causality while not mentioning Zionist politics as significant factor. Rather we are now suppose to pretend that world Jewry, as well as American Jewry, trust and appreciate Christianity and Christians, and these two religions are working well together in one big beautiful marriage against a common religious enemy (that is as long as it is about what Israel wants—or thinks it wants)).

But truth is more hostile. Plenty of Jews (both secular and doctrinal) both fear and detest Christianity because of historical precedent. Nevertheless there exists this phony political pretense that Christians in America are meant to “save” the Middle East from itself (that is to serve a presumption of Abrahamic God-like cause). And that all us naive, country bumpkin, rednecks are lockstep ready.

Therefore this has been a chess game of exploitation—especially of the American peoples’ naive and good will. Any American Jew and Christian that does not recognize this double standard is acting in bad faith—irrespective of how many years one has served in the military or how patriotic one claims to be. OUR MISSION IS NOT TO SERVE EITHER CHRISTIAN OR JUDAIC DELUSION.

Yet wee continue to have a U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that are afraid to confront the blackmail of Israel’s fifth column lobbies regarding our supposed foreign policy and national security. For example there has been no discussion on how many American tax dollars and military hardwares goes to Israel’s cause—irrespective how Israelis either act or think in attitude (in fact the more brazen their self-centered nationalism the more both the Congress and White House personnel grovel and whimper).

Meanwhile Israel brazenly infiltrates our secure areas and agencies—why—some say they have sold our military secrets? They obviously like the idea that Al Qaeda had enough penetration of our security systems as to violate our airspace. They stack their own loyalists in our governmental agencies (yet how many non-Jews could become part of their insider government?). They blackmail our politicians by influencing local elections. They lie to our Presidents about their intentions.

They continuously treat Palestinians worst than dirt while engaging in jack boot operations against them (apparently they have adapted Hitler’s faith in violence and militarism). Theys steal more and more Palestian land. They destroy Palestinian homes and bull doze their agricultural groves—even while they demand endless money and protection from us—while we compromised our sinking goodwill toward all other peoples and nations. Therefore they have exposed us as being a complete fraud and hypocrit in any kind of honest brokerage.

Zionism continues to be a form of racist nationalism that goes against our values of democracy. But Ed Shultz says, when push comes to shove regarding our frustration of being in Iraq, “We have to protect Israel!”.

And now “they” want the United States to start a war with Iran so that our economy is further weakened while our soldiers (many who are white, male and Christian) can die. Yeah we get fed more lies and more phony intelligence—the exact same game. Nothing has changed and the Neocons are still turning their traitor-like screws. (Where did all that tax money disappear to?)

But most brazen is how right-wing Israel and right-wing Jews distort the immediacy of Iran’s threat—while they and our own media engage in deliberate distortions of what Iran’s president said and meant via the corporate news media’s spin. In another words they don’t give one sliver of shlit about the average American.

For some intellectual highbrows, white, Christian male is a code name for non-Eastern establishment red necks (apparently all is redneck country that is not between Boston and New York).

The rest of us may be stupid but let us focus on own of Zionist’s delusions—that is that there is some conceit of a pure Jewish race. That is the lie. Even Judaism itself is not pure—it is a compilation of taking ideas (some in whole chunks) of other religions of the Middle East. Your people are just as compromised by foreign ideas and influences as any other culture—so when are you all going to get off your high horses and take a human and humble rest?

But getting back to Randi Rhodes Don Imus springboard, she was particularly determioned to also make the point this last Friday that Don Imus’ response: “What about rappers racist and sexist rap music?” was jsut another white male dominated TV industry’s way of blaming blacks for racism against blacks.

But this Don Imus question is a legitimate question so let us not be so quick to dismiss it. Because there is in fact a double standard in this country between what is considered acceptable behavior between blacks and whites unless whites act black (that can not be explained away by multicultural differences—no culture in Africa for example initiated these attitudes).

Yes Imus’ question may have been an attempt to deflect blame (and it may be true that white males in the broadcast industry are in cahoots—which we are incidentally supposed to interpret as white WASP males—since she made no declaration of any Jewish white males in the broadcast business as having any clout. (Kind of presupposes a certain naivete?)

Still even if it was an attempt to deflect personal responsibility and blame—it still is a legitimate question—because such a question does not disolve responsibility of those adults of broadcast networks. It just broadens to related questions.

Yet Ed Shultz is right—in the sense that live radio is very hard to edit—because so much of it is spontaneous. Whereas written stuff can be written and edited. Live radio is not always completely thought out to protect for all forms of diplomacy. It is too spontaneous. But when certain patterns of thought proceed again and again one can say—hey this is your manifestation—it is not just a mistake.

There were those quick to claim “white” teenagers buy this rap music, and “white” people profit from the music industry implying black musicians as artists are just pawns in such a game. Here again we have reverse racism. Yeah they are just victims?

For example, nobody (hardly) dictates to rap artists what attitudes and wording they should exemplify in their musical styles. And whether one financially profits on another does not take away responsibility for one’s attitude or choice of words as an artist or individual. The insinuation that white men are the ones profiteering from “gangsta” rap and therefore should be the ones blamed is equally reverse racism.

In fact the real form of racism regarding the prevalence of black rap music in this culture as being so prevalent here is that many music companies have actively discriminated against white musicians—as well as many artists of other ethnic groups who play other styles of music. Some artists have had to change their style to sound like black wannabes just to get attention.

There are dozens of genres and styles of music—but what has the music industry promoted against all others—the attitudes and styles of gangs, macho authoritarianism, violence, hatred, self-hatred, sexism, egotisticality, pimp egotism, ignorance, etc. These are the styles of worship have been pushed on main stream culture to emulate (via the whole culture of media form).

Putting this in context—in this politically correct society whitey was supposed to “like” a black person even if a particular black person’s attitude and behavior was less than likable. There was a constant pressure on integrated kids to “accept” diversity—even if such attitude was rude and crude. You were considered a racist if you held out some phony warmth. Yes whitey was supposed to be so “tolerant” in his support of black expression that the content and the manner did not matter. (No double standard here mind you.)

But because there has been such a one-sided explosion of rap music for so long—enough artists eventually got involved to produce variations of rap that brought out more sophistication and complexity, so that rap could no longer be viewed as a single brand of attitude. (But us white honkies, that is us who not part of the eastern establishment are too obtuse to not recognize such a reality. Or did you ever get the impression that some New York snobs think the end of civilization ends at the New York City city line (as far as the U.S. is concerned)? Or is it true that much of the NYC brain drain came from other parts of the country?).

Meanwhile most radio stations attempting to attract a relatively young audience played black rap day in and day out like almost nonthing else existed (as some seemingly hip radio stations, just to make it sound like they were “multicultural” would play at least as many white female artists (notice how white women are a favored minority?) as black female artists (if not more) and a few white male band styles (but not too exceptional—just a bit on the bland side) but with a definite black male rap predominance (and this was suppose to pass as racial equality—and apparently it did for white men afraid to speak out about any perceived forms of reverse racism or sexism).

You remember how it was when white women were so “for” equality—it was because black women did not come to predominate the cheerleader jobs for professional sports—nor did they come to predominate cocktail waitress jobs, or actress jobs, etc. (And they certainly did not go out of their way to ask you for a date or pay your ticket). Yeh it was all good. Yeh it was all fair. It was just that white “boys” had to learn to hold their racist tongues.

The United States culture (with the help of the broadcast industry) has allowed the educational system to remain mediocre; has continued to devalue the intellect (except as economic value); and has allowed the “gansta” valuation of authoritarian mentality be honored—the big bully rules by force (because that is how the corrupt do it in the corporate world—dominate by coercion). The fact is that the ruling economic class does not care about the middle class—or such sensibilities—or such “Christian” presumptions. And by the way Randi and company the truth is that a noticeable percentage of America’s richest billionaires and millionairs are Jewish—so when you rail agains the white male supremacy—don’t forget to register that includes more than WASPS.

Reverse racism regarding music goes back for a long time ago—it was the fear many to challenge the “attitude” of that black youth and his ghetto blaster walking around and forcing other people to be dominated by his music. Do you remember how black youth use to walk in the middle of the road in front of your car and then deliberate walk slower as form of confrontation or humiliation? (But that was not racism—no—not at all that was just a black thing).

Still when people force other people to listen to their choice of music or noise they engage in a form of aggression. They “transgress” on the consciousness of other people.

This is why a lot of people “hate” rap music and are prejudiced against it—and the people that play it—especially loudly. It is because the people who listen to it turn the music up very loud (even if they themselves eventually become hearing disabled). Or they make a public spectacle with their car windows rolled down and force it on other people when parked in various neighborhoods, etc.

It was not just about style and content—it was also about manners and attitude. The attitude of the ghetto blaster was one of “F*** You if you don’t like it—I have no reason to consider your needs—what are you going to do about it?” (No hostility there mind you—no attitude or behavior problem—no you are angry because your are prejudiced against the man’s color! You bad white man.)

But it has been a form of disrespect. Still whitey could not quite come to articulate it. Further there was no support that any white males notice such double standards. Besides, there was always some self-righteous liberal ready to point the finger at your face and say—YOU are the one who is out of line—how dare you complain about minority people—you redneck racist creep. Don’t you know you are suppose to be tolerant of people of color—you bland anemic soul!

But the truth remains that loud noise dominates a person nervous system. You can not block out loud noise. It is like being psychologically arrested—it is forced on you—as you can not be in the state of privacy you were. You can no longer think your own thoughts. You can no longer day dream your own day dreams. Loud noise wipes out whatever is spiriting your psychological space—it is a form of aggression—when it is unwanted.

And it is not just the music—it was the attitude—it was the anti-social kid referring to “Homey” devulging a slew of expletives that were not very delicate—and that were beyond being hackneyed.

It is a lie to say that rap music is not a reflection of black culture—it is very much a reflection of many within their culture. It is not a complete picture—as their are many individuals, etc. But who else spends more time and energy trying to memorize rap songs as a source of identity and supposed pride?

And there is a personality type that is attracted to such style that we can recognize as well—irrespective of color. You will notice a certain hate, aggressiveness or bullyness, a certain anti-social personality that likes the loud and offensive noise.

Yes there had been this deliberate in-your-face, f*** you if-you-don’t-like-it mentality. And in longer episodes of forcing noise on others it becomes a form of humiliation. That is if you can not negotiate respect (and how many minority ganstas or wannabes want to negotiate respect with middle class honky—unless you happen to be female?). This is prison and gang mentality. Do you remember the neighborhood where you could not get any sleep because some negro family (yes they just happened to be black) across the street made it a sadistic ritual to deliberately make a lot of noise that went on and on (after you had already complained) to really rub it in your face? Well then you don’t really know the neighborhood.

Still for years there was nary a peep out of the white community about black attitude and behavior. Rather it was this constant fear that if you criticized black people about anything they would call you racist (and more importantly others would concur with their counter accusation—included those college educated crusaders who went out of there way to castrate the last living white male. (Notice how many vote democratic—why is that?)

The color card prevented “equal” criticism. Your motives—if others did not like what you thought—was racist. The concluded you were judging them by their “color”. It was never their attitude or their behavior. It was alway because you did not like their color. Furthermore, at least in their mind, since you were a white WASP you were incapable of any kind of objectivity. (Yet did you ever notice how some other groups habitually think themselves thee experts on injustice and social equality? Did you ever notice how some people from big cities think they are more savvy about race relations than are you?)

Real equality allows you to challenge people on attitude and behavior (irrespective of color (and might I add gender)).

Guilt tripping affects self-esteem. And this theme of self-esteem ties this essay altogether. Because since white men are canon fodder to be the bad guys (irrespective that most are not way up the corporate totem pole) but nevertheless “wrong” from the minute of birth, they inherit a defensive situation (or end up copping some attitude of nonchalance, self-flagellation, “wannabe-ism” or other form of excuse making, etc.).

I mean why is it that America’s white youth have so readily taken to worship rap music, and gansta mentality, and monkey see monkey do-ism (besides the fact that corporate America has made it “hip” to act ghetto)? Why do they have to pretend to be other then themselves? Why are white kids in a white suburb or community acting like they are ghetto bad? Why can they not content being themselves—white?

And why is it that some liberals have gone out of their way to strictly point out the quality aesthetics regarding rap—but have not been balanced in their recognition of its lewdness and antisocial postures? Yeah eventually rap was attacked in a big way—but it took a long time for anyone in the media to write about it.

And why was it, might I ask for example, that Ms. Feminst and Ms. Liberal were so ready to see the beauty in a minority man’s soul but could not equally see some individualism and beauty in the WASP white man? Was WASPY paste face so carbon copy and tinny that he was thought to model some plastic manikin in the homogenous mall that Ms. Liberal shopped for homogenous cosmetics and wears? Or has never the white women carried resentment or a need for sadistic pleasure to engage in degrading insinuation?

Or why was there such pressure to adapt some cliche style of dress—be it punk or dredlocks or tattoos—just so one didn’t look too plain or simple or surburbian white?

When has it been acceptable for a white man to say: Hey white women—why is it that you seem to be so willing to “not” be racist or rejectionist toward minority men (with sympathy, empathy, or conviviality that you openly share in public) but you are racist and rejectionist toward me a white male? Since when was WASP ready to launch that question?

Once upon a time college campuses use to be a place where men were welcome. But feminism changed much of that. There was the constant guilt trip about sexual harassment, and white male supremacy, while women were being indoctrinated to have the cold shoulder (unless you were so understanding or their prejudices). Now many men do not want to be anywhere close to a college campus.

Newspapers too continue to reinforce the idea that men are creeps, weirdos, rapists, child molesters, corporate exploiters, negligent fathers, criminals, and generally untrustworthy. Also they promote ideas like woman should have a potential boyfriend professionally investigated by an ever increasing security industrial complex before things get too far. (But no prejudice here in America—mind you—buy your Internet profiles here folks—find out what other women have said about that man today—only $29.95 while the file is less voluminous. (And by the way socioeconomic failures that dress dull or look like street bums need not apply—we want success objects).

Yeah it was the white “boy” made to feel guilty that wanted some self-esteem too. The system certainly wasn’t going to teach him to read worth a damn. He wasn’t going to learn how to think for himself—not in this clone TV mentality society. Guilt trips made him pliable to manipulation.

Pressure constantly builds for him to be politically correct (that is if he wants to be accepted by his peers and “the” coalition). Besides there was no father around now in the white world either to keep an eye on him. And if he lived in the lands of the low heel he learned a code of bully violence. That is the people who end up in jail and prison either are either victims, raped or learn how to fight (meanwhile women hardly provide resistence against the idea of more men in prison—after all it helps for women to enter in the job market).

Therefore there is not necessarily some delicate diplomacy with the Latino man that is blasting his wannabe rap music through your slum lord’s apartment wall when you wanted to sleep or read. (Could this be one reason why minorities go to jail and prison more than do whites—because they immediately what to go to threat of violence when they get mad or feel challenged? But hey we are not suppose to talk about statisitical difference in respect to races or differences in attitude and behavior—remember it is always about color—and it is always the white man who is racist. Remember—no minorities nor women carry resentments. Nor do they carry a need for scapegoats—only white men. Don’t forget.)

Very few were willing to talk about how some blacks, for example, were down and out jerks with a short fuse, and have no toleration for what frustrated them (and that it was a statistically significant reality) but it is all right to make generalization about white men? If black men engage in intimidation or aggression—well it is because white men made them that way. And if egotism makes its way in a musician’s soul—well suck it up.

Because it would be the opposite of racism to “presume” the minority people can learn to treat people with respect—so don’t set your standards too high—rather find whatever scapegoat allows rappers to remain the puerile punks that they act.

By the way the word ‘ho’ as in “nappy headed hos” is black idiom to the T. While Ms. Rhodes sooo rightfully educated us American that the “whore” word is ultimately derived from Anglo-Saxon etymology (good research team Randi!!) she changed the reality that we, as a culture, accept a great deal of abusive language and emotion from black people (but I guess it is a black thing and we would not understand).

In conclusion whoever said: “Music is a reflection of the soul” was right on. And no wonder some black men I know want to hear more jazz, blues, and gospel music—I guess it is not as obnoxious when turned up.

This work is in the public domain