Image 01 Image 03

Saturday Night Card Game (I give up: “Colorblind ideology is a form of racism”)

Saturday Night Card Game (I give up: “Colorblind ideology is a form of racism”)

It has been an active year at the Saturday Night Card Game.  Here are some of my favorite games of the past year:

How fitting that we end the year with the theory put forth at Psychology Today that refusing to judge people based on the color of their skin is racist:

Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity.

At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity.

However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism….

Research has shown that hearing colorblind messages predict negative outcomes among Whites, such as greater racial bias and negative affect; likewise colorblind messages cause stress in ethnic minorities, resulting in decreased cognitive performance ….

The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences.

Don’t think the theory is limited to psychologists.  A law professor at U. Cal. Berkeley is pushing a doctring called “reactionary colorblindness,” the argument that attempts to do aways with racial preferences and to treat people without regard to skin color is a form of racism.

These are an offshoot of the self-fulfilling “white privilege” theory, which posits that society is so racist that even non-racist whites benefit and therefore racial preferences must continue ad infinitum.

Up is down; treating people based on skin color is not racist but it is racist.  How did the goal of racial equality go so far off course?

I hope I don’t get in trouble for playing this video:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Treating people as individuals instead of judging them by their ethnic group is racist.


BannedbytheGuardian | December 31, 2011 at 6:05 pm

Race/colour A never ending story.

In ww2 a local ethnic Chinese man was recruited by the Australian command . His mission statement was to learn Japanese in 6 weeks & be smuggled into Japan to find out more about the Japs.

It did not occur to them that the Japanese might recognise a Chinese with a broad Aust accent trying to pass off as Japanese. They all looked the same & Japanesecould not be much different to Chinese!

Before anyone gets hung up on black Americans -Chinese have been copping it for centuries.

Happy New Year..

Here’s to a great one, we sure need it.. Cheers!

So the only way to treat people the same is to treat them all differently.

Think of all the advances in science, medicine, and technology, that would take place if liberals put one-tenth as much effort and creativity into productive pursuits as they do into erecting evermore tenuous, up is down, black is really white, 100 step arguments to support their fantasy ideology.

I mean, it must be utterly exhausting to be a liberal with a brain.

“The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism,…”

Is counting past two an impossibility for these people? Probably. Has anybody noticed how Blacks dominate college basketball and the NBA? Or that when the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts were dominating the NFL in the previous decade they were very White? The only time I hear about “multiculturalism” in those settings is trying to get more Black coaches. Nobody is pushing for more White players in the defensive backfield, or as power forwards.

Is multiculturalism a synonym for “move White guys out of the way for women and people of color”?

While skin color is skin deep, consider beauty and ugly. According to the show Hee-Haw, “Beauty is skin deep but ugly goes all the way to the bone.”

Yep, time has told. It was nothing more than a dream.

The awful scourge that is multiculturalism is not only antithetical to that dream … it is antithetical to the American way.

This blatant political agenda—dressed up as a tolerant, new & improved form of humanities–pretends that Western civilization was never before sufficiently interested in studying the world and its cultures. As Steve Irwin, the crocodile hunter, might’ve said … what a crock!

As we progress in ways technological beyond the wildest dreams of very recent generations of the past … we seem to be going backwards in the humanities in our institutions of higher education.

It’s the maddening feeling that you’re watching a loved one lose their mind … and trying to talk sense into them until you’re blue in the face has no effect at all.

I think we all laughed at political correctness and multiculturalism when they were in their infancy. Nobody could take this nonsense seriously. The mistake we make, however, is that the population is not static. Younger generations who have this nonsense as background noise/muzak or whatever in their lives from birth (if not actively drilled into them) have some of it creep in … at least to the point where they might be tentative in expressing a brutally anti-PC view in public.

It’s a good lesson on why what might seem harmless in the beginning because of its absurdity … might, over time, become a serious or semi-serious strain of thought.

Some people (in Japan and America alike) sometimes make a comment to the effect that our half-Asian, half-Caucasian children are “special” by virtue of their birth. I understand they mean it as a compliment, but it’s complete rubbish.

Their deeds throughout life will determine whether or not they are “special.”

LukeHandCool (who is not only miffed at the destructive educational fad that is “multiculturalism,” but who feels just as irritated when he’s been to the beach, has had some sun, and, while showing off his tan, hears his naturally caramel-brown skinned, half-Asian daughter laugh, “Daddy … I’m sorry, but … you’re pink!”)

So taking the words of Martin Luther King seriously makes you a racist? What next: War is Peace? Freedom is Slavery? It is safe to say that Ignorance is Strength – at Psychology Today, anyway.

My wife is a gorgeous black African woman (born and raised in Tanzania, eastern Africa), and I am a white male. Our biological son is a beautiful child who must live in the poisonous atmosphere created by the greedy race-baiters at Psychology Today. Thanks for nothing, bozos!

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Just like be called nazis.

There’s a theory that eventually even the most mild and polite will eventually respond to being negatively cast and actually begin to act that role to some degree.

Call someone a curmudgeon often enough and with little positive to offset it and soon you find him out on his porch yelling at the neighbor kids to get off his lawn.

Which came first the racial epithet or the race card?

I lived in Columbia, Maryland, when the parents all received a notice that they were to fill out a form identifying the race of each of their children, or the school would pick a race for them. Columbia, Maryland is a place that was founded only about 40 years ago in the suburbs of DC, and was by intent a place of racial amity.

Most of the parents refused to fill out the form, because we believed that the way to get rid of racial discrimination was to stop making decisions based on a person’s skin color.

    barbara in reply to Valerie. | December 31, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Valerie, all the parents whose children were born in this country should have put down “Native American.” That would have put their racist panties in a wad.

    And no, the people whom we call American Indians are not “native” Americans – anyone born here is a native. They’re aboriginal Americans. (They’re native Americans, too, since they were born here.)

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to barbara. | December 31, 2011 at 9:49 pm

      “Cowboys and Aboriginals ” does not pass muster.

      Btw Aboriginal as against the Colonialists was first used in 1779 s. Therefore the Natives of Nth america got stuck with Indians . Which is probably a good thing because Cowboys & Natives is very flat also.

      The Dutch explorers in 1605 called the locals of NW Australia – the lowest words possible as they fled & headed off to The East Indies (Indonesia ). Being called Aboriginals by the British in 1779 was a distinct improvement over ‘the lowest scum of the earth’.(in dutch).

      There is always ‘Nativist” -sounds good & they looked great in stovepipe hats beating up the Irish. What a fight!.

      janitor in reply to barbara. | December 31, 2011 at 11:10 pm

      I love this idea; however, you might want to be prepared for some government pencil pusher to claim fraud, given the definition in a variety of statutes and regulations of “Indian” and “native American” (generally having membership in a federally-recognized tribe), because of special privileges and dispensations that go with the label. Ditto some other minority labels.

      I usually prefer to state my race as “none”, “human” or — under duress — “mixed” or “other” since there is no such thing as “race”.

    ella8 in reply to Valerie. | January 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    When my husbands ancestors immigrated here, some of them also made their way to Brazil. So if one of the Brazilians later moved here, they would be considered Hispanic while those who never moved to Brazil would be Caucasian. Hispanic is not even a race, which makes the little boxes even more ridiculous. I choose OTHER and fill in the blank NOYFB.

      Milwaukee in reply to ella8. | January 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      The category of “Hispanic” only exists north of the Rio Grande: south of it there are indigenous peoples and those of some European descent. (Wait, numerous Chinese and Japanese migrated to the Pacific Coast of Central and South America. Are they Hispanic?)_

Since I have a MS in Psych I feel qualified to comment on the worthiness of Psychology Today. In short, quoting or citing it in grad school was the 90’s equivalent of citing Wikipedia. One prof referred to it as People Magazine for pop psychologists. That said, I bet most in the field would make an exception for this article since psychologists (specifically the academic variety) are sworn liberals first and professionals second.

    janitor in reply to Mary Sue. | December 31, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Unfortunately, many “peer-reviewed” psych journals are not much better.

      Mary Sue in reply to janitor. | January 1, 2012 at 1:12 am

      Fair point but Psychology Today is the lowest of the low. Still the purpose is probably better served using Psychology Today than a peer-reviewed journal no one is likely to read. The media quotes garbage polling all the time to make sure the average reader gets the message “Obama is getting more popular,” or “everyone really really likes Obama.” Putting a message like this in Psychology Today means it is more likely to filter into the media and subsequently into the minds of Mr & Mrs. Middle America.

I have a dream…

As of January 1, 2012 the entire slate of history is wiped clean.

As of January 2, 2012 all elections are by party rather than individuals candidates.

As of January 3, 2012 the IRS observes three different tax rates… 1% for those making up to 15K, 10% for those making 15-50K and 20% for everyone else. NO Deductions of any sort.

As of January 4, 2012….. I’m off to Hawaii for a round of golf or two. After all that work of the previous three days I’m exhausted..

Maybe Vonnegut was on to something when he wrote Harrison Bergeron. Perhaps Dr Monica can rework some of Vonneguts thoughts so were more in touch with the life experience of minorities.
Its a wonder that generations of Italian and other (at the time) minorities survived without damaged minds. I guess they chose to get over it and perhaps spent more time adjusting rather than perpetuating a “Im different/make allowances” mindset.

Here is the short Bergeron story for those unfamiliar.

At this time, YouTube has a snowflake ‘button’ one can activate so that virtual ‘Snow Flakes’ fall as the YouTube Vid is viewed.   I look forward to a Psychology Today article coming our way soon which instructs us on how that too (YouTube’s snowflake function), is racist[!].

1. Affirmative action and multiculturalism may not or may have been formulated with good intentions, but those who push for and subscribe to them today, they are respectively scam artists and useful idiots.

2. Americans of East Asian ethnicity are probably being impaired more than whites are by today’s opaque politicized quotas. This should be acknowledged if opposition to the new racism is a principled stance rather than pro-Caucasian rationalization.

I’ve had just about enough of this. Either the very concept of “racism” has jumped the shark or else it’s just a conspiracy to drive the rest of us crazy. I have no patience left with talk of racism.

How fitting that we end the year with the theory put forth at Psychology Today that refusing to judge people based on the color of their skin is racist:

You didn’t run into that, yet? John Wright’s wife got totally hammered with that a couple of years back…. She’s practically a saint, so she opened with apologizing, and that wasn’t enough…..

Isn’t there an old axiom that you can prove anything is the opposite of what it truly is (i.e. reality) if you are a liberal? If not, then there should be…….certainly seems to fit!

There are Biblical verses about this. Right is wrong, wrong is right; good is evil, evil is good. But, to quote a cheesy movie, “They have doctors for this!!”……and these people sound like the patients are running the asylum, or the research and editing departments, anyway.

Happy New Year, Professor, and all your faithful readers!! May 2012 bring a November election where America turns back toward individual liberty, prosperity and fiscal responsibility, adherence to the US Constitution, and makes Obama a 1 term president! Oh, how I pray.

Sadly, the words of Martin Luther King were not his own – and he did not acknowledge that he was using the intellectual property of others. MLK was all about himself, not his followers – as anyone can discover by googling “I have a dream” plagiarism.”

But you can start here.

Well I have some encouraging news for you, professor. There’s not that much to worry about, really. You see, Psychology Today is now to psychology what Christianity Today has become to Christianity. No longer relevant.

Not saying that “multiculturalism” isn’t the most socially divisive concept to spring from the depraved minds of Marxists, because it is. It’s that if it becomes totally successful the inevitable result leads to civil war. There can be no other outcome. So the worst that can happen is that society self-destructs and kills each other off.

A year or so goes by and then the survivalists in our midst begin trickling down from the woods and hills and slowly restart civilization, only better this time.

So cheer up. Think of the future! Happy New Year.

“Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”

    For it is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.

    I don’t know about that, should be pretty easy– the guy who entered 300 years earlier is dead.

    The same is true for Caucasians. Fortunately, my ancestors, eventually, were successful in removing the Islamic, Chinese, et al threat to our lives and dignity.

    Do you believe in multilateral retributive change? Or do you defend a singular perspective of reality defended through a selective history? Clearly you reject the principal principle of individual dignity.

    Either way, submission is not a virtue, and your kind will continue to be marginalized or removed by people who envision positive progress.

    As for compensation, it was not just black Africans who were held as slaves. Also, as Foxfier and JohnJ have noted, with each generation history is renewed. Do you support the Tutsi slaughter Hutu slaughter Tutsi cycle?

      Zachriel in reply to n.n. | January 2, 2012 at 10:24 am

      n.n.: Either way, submission is not a virtue, and your kind will continue to be marginalized or removed by people who envision positive progress.

      King’s influence has hardly been marginalized.

    Milwaukee in reply to Zachriel. | January 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    Our current arrangement of Affirmative Action means that Vietnamese refugees receive preferential treatment, as do children of illegal immigrants born in this country. Not only did my ancestors not own any slaves of African origin, to the best of my knowledge, but they arrived after the end of the American Civil War, and the Emancipation Declaration. So why am I paying reparations, in the way of Affirmative Action benefits to any of the above, or those of African descent? Further, some Blacks in this country came here by way of the Caribbean (such as Eric Holder and Kareem Abdul-Jabar). They too came here after the end of the American Civil War. Why are they getting the benefits of Affirmative Action? (All four of Holder’s grandparents are of Caribbean descent.)

Discrimination against the ugly is far more common than racism in America. When do we get our legal protections?

[…] that his election would bring race transcendence.  Is this what that looks like?H/T to William Jacobson who adds:I hope I don’t get in trouble for playing this video:Share […]

Sure, multiculturalism is about celebrating ethnoracial differences, that is unless you are caucasian. The only politically correct choice is to put our heads down and be ashamed of who we are. If you are not an oikophobe, then you are an ethnocentric racist in the world of the politically correct. I give up. I don’t care what I am percieved as being anymore. They can define whatever they want, but they can’t make me care.

    n.n in reply to ella8. | January 1, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    While there is room to integrate exotic cultural elements, it would be the definition of insanity (or masochism) to permit the superposition of inferior or failed cultures.

What are they going to say next, that blacks and whites can’t marry? How do you keep all of the groups special and keep track of who is who if they are mixing it up?

    n.n in reply to ella8. | January 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    It’s most telling to observe who opposes true integration.

    That said, the supremacists of every color and creed have the right to choose their private associations. It is entirely their right to preserve the purity of their heritage. They should, however, recognize that there are characteristics other than their incidental features which most distinguish them from others. While our physical characteristics reflect our genetic heritage, they are not exclusively defined by it.

    If in fact our physical features are influenced by our environment, then the future for black Americans looks a shade of white. Furthermore, as the global population mobilizes, there will inevitably occur a degree of homogenization. I would guess that those who exploit our differences for profit understand this outcome and are eager to build their wealth before that future is realized.

      ella8 in reply to n.n. | January 1, 2012 at 5:58 pm

      We are already there. The younger generations are colorblind when it comes to choosing mates. I don’t think twice if one of my friends dates or marries a person of another race or religion. Based on this study, am I racist for being color blind and accepting of my friend’s choices? Bullshit I say!

When you look at “race” from a genetic perspective, it gets a bit more complicated than putting people into categories based on the color of their skin or some kind of cultural heritage. It just doesn’t fit in the neat little government concieved boxes anymore. Am I a racist for thinking outside the box. Life is not just black or white, there’s a fu@$ing rainbow in between. Notice how the colors gradually fade into eachother. Anyone who thinks you can pigeonhole everyone into a neat little category is the one who is mistaken.