Great post, MD.

Bell's rules are extremely well articulated. At first glance they're shocking and seemingly outrageous, but then...well, the examples I've personally seen of those rules in action are legion.

They're really not that shocking. And a little awareness of them would go a long way toward easing tension, I think.

Of course, now I would guess the response here will be that because one can find exceptions to the rules, they must not exist at all.

Yeah, yeah, whitey's out to get ya.

What, exactly, would you have to live for if you didn't have this scorching paranoid racial animosity to drive you?

One thing for sure, YOU could never be on a jury dealing with any form of a racial issue. The white man might just as well blow his own brains out, and save the lawyer fees.

Not appreciating being called vicious names by a dark hued person does not, in fact, constitute evidence of hate crimes against dark folk. Therefore, I plead INNOCENT.

On the other hand, you flatter me by suggesting that I have "followers." Thank you.

Your little slap at Eric Olsen at the end was, typically, utterly baseless and gratuitous. Eric didn't agree with a couple of particular comments from Cobb. You jumped ALL the way from that to just saying for NO other reason that Eric objected to being criticized by any black guy. That's just silly. Eric would not have like the same sentiment coming out of a white guy, or a green frickin' Martian.

This Bell's Rules stuff is SO self-supporting. It is OBVIOUSLY true. There is plenty of evidence to support it. Just look around.

Everytime a blogger of caucasian ancestry criticizes a dark hued blogger, then that is evidence of racial suppression.

In fact, there are web authors of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. You can find lots of instances of white authors agreeing with black authors. Those don't count. You can find lots of instances of white authors arguing with other white authors, or men arguing with women, straights arguing with gays, and Freddy arguing with Jason.

All you have to do is pick out the data that will support the lame point you're trying to make, and let it fly.

Any dark hued blogger, by the way, who has anything nice to say about any melanin challenged bloggers is "Uncle Tom."

I would encourage readers to read benighted Barger's comments here and elsewhere and apply Bell's Rules of Racial Standing to them. He is pretty close to 100 percent in being a specimen who supports Bell's rules.

Also of note is how the tobacco spewing goat devotee elevates himself above Bell, a person who has proven both his superior intellect and qualifications to discuss the topic of race relations for more than 40 years. But then, Bell is just 'some black guy who don't know his place' to the Bargers of the world.

It somewhat appalls me how USAians have internalized the artificial social artifact you call "race".

The most horrendous example is in Rwanda and the Congo where a 19th century construct of "race" led to horrific slaughter.

There is no biological determination in "race", it doesn't exist. The only biological determination is can you produce fertile offspring. If you can't, then you are different animals.

You might as well be arguing about whether you are a heathen or heretic.

Buncha silly humans. Give your head a shake and be ashamed of how stupid you are behaving.

Jim, it is not that Bell or I are ignorant of the speciousness of the concept of 'race.' We both agree with what you've said. However, we also live in a society where we are mistreated because of the color of our skins day to day. Bell has been a target of racial discrimination for nearly 80 years -- legally for most of that period. He has endured abuses, including not being able to drink from the closest water fountain or use a bathroom when he needed to, and possibly violence, that no white person ever has because of his 'race.'

Reality is, in philosopher Cornell West's words, "race matters." With elderly people like Bell soon to pass on, it is a good thing that younger scholars of race relations, such as Cobb, are keeping analysis of the topic alive.

Bell has been a target of racial discrimination for nearly 80 years -- legally for most of that period. He has endured abuses, including not being able to drink from the closest water fountain or use a bathroom when he needed to, and possibly violence, that no white person ever has because of his 'race.'

I would guess that anyone who has participated in a multi-racial group has seen some of Bell's Rules in action.

I'm a member of a multi-racial social justice group here in L.A. that is roughly 90% Latino. Still, at meetings where there are five white-skinned persons and 50 brown- and black-skinned persons, the speaking time for the whites can be 50% or more.

They're not bad people. They're clearly not racists--they're donating time to a group that is proudly multi-racial and whose mission statement specifically condemns racism. (I'm saying "they" just to de-personalize this--I'm one of the white-skinned folks.)

Still, that roughly-50% figure is still there, a fact. What does it mean? One could ignore that question, which is to say, ignore that plain fact. The group decided not to ignore it.

However, the group did NOT decide it meant any of the white people had to grovel and apologize. The group did NOT ask any of the white people to be ashamed of their participation in some kind of racist plot.

The group decided it meant the group should BE AWARE of the phenomenon--to see it for what it was, a cultural phenomenon, and try to remedy the gap.

Nobody groveled. Nobody apologized. No discourse was stifled by "PC cops." Every now and then a meeting begins with a reminder that the group has previously noticed the phenomenon, and the white speakers simply remain AWARE that it's possible for a white person in our society to presume the privilege of holding the floor for more than his or her fair share--and that it's possible for minorities (especially, in this case, many recent immigrants, who often maintain an attitude of humility with regard to their "hosts") to let it happen. And that our attempts to communicate with each other could be limited--or even poisoned--if we let such a thing happen as a matter of course.

That's it. Nobody yelled at anybody else. Nobody called anybody else (or, I would guess, even thought anybody else to be) a "racist."

Just awareness.

It is possible to note a cultural phenomenon without condemning any group of people as evil or racist.

And it's possible to be white and acknowledge the phenomenon without groveling or apologizing for it.

So, Brian, if I interpret this properly, what you are trying to say is that the creation and maintainance of a victim hierarchy is more important than trying to solve problems?

I experienced these sorts of bullshit sub-culture power politics at university, and know several people who've made successful careers out of being professional victims. But they've not accomplished much else, and nobdy really wants to be friends with them beause they are just no fun. But within their little circle -- they rule!

Group and identity politics are a bore, grinding and tiresome and prevent real progression and change.

What are you going to do when we become trans-human?

Jim,

In Comment 9 I discuss how we noticed a phenomenon and addressed it.

Please tell me how we should have addressed it differently.

Be specific please.

Again, Diva, you are simply LYING.

But then, Bell is just 'some black guy who don't know his place' to the Bargers of the world.

Again Diva, you're just MAKING QUOTES UP WHOLECLOTH. I never said anything near like what you have attributed to me here, in quote marks no less.

I know you speak from a Higher Truth that doesn't require trivial points like HONESTY. Here in reality, though, such things DO matter.

Nor am I much impressed by you fellow travelers (Flemming and Carruthers, I'm looking your way), as they nod their heads and go quietly right along repeatedly with your direct SLANDEROUS FABRICATION of facts. If someone of a rightward persuasion was speaking anything HALF this maliciously and dishonestly even of YOU, I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.

(Stopping the snickering I can't help when I read someting utterly wack.) Barger's latest sally is even more silly than his usual remarks. As those of us remotely conversant with grammar know, double quotes are used when citing someone's precise words. Single quotes are used when referring to something generally or often thought or said. Suffice it to say that despite his great self-regard, Barger is 'not the sharpest pencil in the box.'

To add to Brian's point, I don't believe being aware of discrimination is something to discourage at all. How are we going to solve a problem that is blighting millions of lives if we ignore it? Will ignoring discrimination reduce the poverty rate for blacks, Hispanics and Indians? Will it reform dismal educational opportunites? Will it end the day to day slights and abuses people of color are regulary demoralized by? Of course not. What ignoring discrimination does is help it continue to be the unofficial law of the land.

I come away from Blogcritics today with two ideas for future entries. I need to write more about the real world effects of Bell's rule, making it clear that racial discrimination against blacks and Hispanics is not comparable to the history of Irish and Italian immigrants to the U.S. in most ways, for one thing. Second, I need to write an entry about grammar and writing skills. I stopped short of commenting on two entries at Blogcritics today because they were so poorly written. Then along comes Barger with his blooper above. Concern about poor writing is usually Eric Olsen's turf, but I shall be poaching on it soon.

Mac Diva, I am extremely disappointed to see the comments on this post, and this post in general. Personally, I see little difference between the combination of this post and your comment #5, above and Al's ridiculous post after you first quit. A "tobacco spewing goat devotee?" Please.

If you're as tired of the personal attacks here at Blogcritics as you've claimed to be, if you truly want to elevate the discourse at Blogcritics, this isn't the way to go about it.

If this was an oligarchy of some kind, rather than a community of equals, I think I'd be inclined to make a no-names rule, so that no fellow Blogcritics could be named within a post. I cannot impose such a rule, but I strongly suggest that everybody, and that means you, Al, as well as you, Mac Diva, consider the effects this kind of calling-out has.

When will the cycle of rudeness end?

I see elements of truth in Bell's theory but I also see that it can be used to shut down any substantive discussion involving race.

I am unclear as to the manifestation of my "disconbobulation" referred to above.

I don't believe we can have much of a conversation if we are not allowed to use names, but it certainly would improve the situation if the names ere used only regarding points of view, not personal attacks.

My ideal rule would state simply that no names of fellow Blogcritics should be used within posts, at least not without their permission. In truth, positive references would undoubtedly be welcome, so perhaps the rules should state that no negative references to fellow Blogcritics should be allowed, even if you're quoting them directly. Save that for comments, not posts.

Then, for comments, it would be really, really nice if people would just show some respect for each other, but I'm not seeing it, even from people who claim to want respect paid to them.

That's how it works in this life, you show respect to earn respect. Respectable people are respected, others are often not. It would be nice if we were all respected, even those of us that don't deserve it, but that just isn't how life works.

And of course there are always people who will disrespect you no matter how respectable of a person you've been. Miss Manners says to ignore such uncouth people and let their disrespect demonstrate their character to the world in silence. To respond simply lowers your estimation to the level of their own.

Same stuff, different site. Here's some history, folks. Go check things out:

http://pla.blogspot.com/#95597062


http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001432.html


http://rittenhouse.blogspot.com/#200419322
http://rittenhouse.blogspot.com/#200419542



Look, when folks like Jesse Taylor and Greg Greene (two people who have agreed with me only in the sense that it's good to breathe oxygen & water is necessary to live) are accused of kow-towing to some mythical "man", I gotta do something other than just guffaw. And yes, I can name that "I'm about to be called a racist" tune in two notes, Alex. Even though I see that personal vendettas are now being carried out in a new venue because the previous one was relegated to oblivion (read the links to find out why), those two personal attacks can't stand unchallenged. I stopped reading Jesse months ago, partly because he kept attacking me personally, so I surely have no reason to give him some backup - except I couldn't consider myself a decent human being when I see someone wrongly attacked and their character demeaned. Trust me, Jesse Taylor rolls over for (any) whitey about as readily as someone would volunteer for a prostate checkup and Greg Greene (whom I have a congenial cyber-relationship with) is far to classy to stoop to your level.

Grow up & write on interesting topic, "Mac/J/JG/JadeGold/whoever" and please stop attacking other bloggers personally. It always comes back to bite you, so one would think that you'd finally learn the lesson (or, is this another case of whitey trying to take down the upstanding minority who is 'daring' to speak out?).

It's not daring to be mean. It's not daring to be hurtful and it's not daring to attack people anonymously....it's cowardly. You're talented - use those skills for something positive & please stop trying to bring people down. It's unbecoming.

And sadly, predictable.

How ya doing, Lil' Dick West? I will continue to write whatever I want despite ignorant, bigoted white folks ordering me not to. And, if I were going to take advice from anyone I would definitely not do so from a rednecked racist like you. Thanks for the links. They further prove Bell's Rules of Racial Standing. In fact, I was preparing a post using some of them anyhow. I also would not be surprised if they crop up in a book to demonstrate racism in the blogosphere. That is the advantage I have as a real writer, not just someone playing around in the blogosphere. Feel free to provide me with more material.

I see the idiot at PLA has moved on. Perhaps you should too.

What personal attack, Eric? Go back and read your exchange with Cobb. You got pretty testy. All I did was describe your response to his posts.

Considering Barger recently referred to me as watermelon eating, I find Phil's blindness rather appalling. So much for any attempt at evenhandedness. More Bell's Rules, perhaps? As for 'goat devotee,' he is the one who posted saying he liked goats. Are people now forbidden to cite a person's own assertion?

I have stood up to much bigger blowhards than Barger on and off the Web and I am not about to stop doing so well into my 30s . Get used to it.

Racism: When people from other groups analyze my group's biases.

Plain talk: When I analyze other groups' biases.

"Can't we all just get along?": Can't we stop talking about my group and exclusively talk about yours?

"Race doesn't exist": As a member of the dominant racial group, it benefits me to avoid facts about my group's privileged position and the institutions that maintain it.

MD, I wasn't describing your mention of me as a personal attack, just speaking in general in response to Phillip's comment. I am certainly not upset at being described as "disconbobulated" - I have been called far worse.

But if I was testy, it was in response to Cobb's seeming eagerness to absolutely ignore the specifics of the original issue, or dispute, or whatever the hell it was, and cast it as just another stereotypical racial confrontation, which from my personal perspective, it was not.

You and Al can fight on the site if you want, but I see it as diminishing returns. When you focus on the facts and the issues you accomplish much more, as I have previously stated. I believe you came out ahead on the Lincoln wars because you did just that, although tarring Al with the neo-
Confederate label was neither helpful nor based on one piece of evidence I have seen.

I neither want, nor expect you to back down, go away, recant or otherwise compromise your principles, but surely your readers the world over will be more responsive to honey than vinegar.

MacDiva (#19), This post was brought to my attention, the one to which you refer was not, and so I have not seen it. My point remains regardless of Al's offense - you are guilty of exactly that which you accuse Al. I don't care what race anyone here on BC is, but I'm tired of the personal animosity and attacks.

I'll hunt down the Al Barger post, though I've already called him up short on other, less-offensive, things he's written.

Perhaps you ought to ask yourself why it is that you are not responding to any of the points I made, but instead personally attacking me?

Please, treat people the way you want to be treated, and ignore those who don't play well with others. I see plenty of juvenile and offensive behavior on both side of the political aisle, and I note that those who claim to support others along apolitical lines betray themselves by their chosen friends.

MacDiva: Comments apparently don't show up in search results. Do you have a link to Al's racist comment?

Thank you, Eric, you raise an excellent example.

MacDiva, I thought your series on the Civil War was excellent, truly the output of someone who has spent plenty of time on it. I sent you my views on that war in a private email, and I won't rehash them here except to say that though I was born south of the Mason-Dixon line and count among my family those who still refer to that war as the "War of Northern Agression," I believe would-be apologists for the Confederate States are wrong.

However, instead of making that statement clearly, letting opponents' ignorance or bigotry stand on its own, you peppered them with personal references. Now instead of having something to which I can link as a general answer, I have only threads of a personal argument between strong-willed people. I believe that you do disservice to yourself when you lower yourself to the level of your critics.

If nothing else, please keep the personal references out of the posts, saving them for the comments. Please!

Phil, he may have erased it. It was on the thread he set up for the sole purpose of attacking Brian Flemming. You know, the one where he does this routine about Brian being his 'ho.' (Which, interestingly, I don't recall you objecting to, though the entry exists only for the purpose of abusing a member of Blogcritics in the most crude of ways.) I defended Brian and Barger shifted to abusing me.

And, I must disagree with you that there is anything wrong with this entry or my comments on it, excluding the tongue-in-cheek phrase you jumped on while ignoring the rest of a very good post. The entry makes a sociological phenomenon understandable in layman's terms. It only mentions Barger's well-documented neo-Confederate sympathies briefly. The bulk of it applies to society in general. If you really think this is a bad blog entry, it boggles the mind. I expect a bigot like Ricky West to attack any entry that addresses racial discrimination, which he has been doing for the entire time I've been in the blogosphere, getting disinvited from some liberal blogs in the process. According to folks like him, the only race problem is caused by 'the blacks.' However, I am surprised to see you showing just as little judgment.

MD (#24) Comments may not be erased by anyone, even the people who post them. On the post in question, I was the very first commentor, and I asked everybody to stay away from the obvious plea for attention, on the theory that ignoring bad behavior removes the reward that attention-seekers desire. I'm not sure how you missed my comment the first time you posted, or just now how you missed mine or Al's (which is still there, though it does not say exactly what you said it did), but your information isn't correct.

Your comments on that thread were offensive, both personally and stereotypically. Al's responses was equally (perhaps more) offensive, and now that I've seen those comments, I posted my opinion on that as well. Does that equal treatment serve anybody well? Not really. The truth is that each of you is behaving poorly, and both of you will have no end of excuses for your bad behavior, going back in time forever.

If there was no mention of Barger or any other Blogcritics by name, I would like your posts, as I've said. Your first post in the series, however, was specifically titled "Blogosphere hosts new attack on Lincoln" and focused on Al. In and of itself, that was still an improvement on prior behavior, staying on track with factual statements. Further posts, however, more deeply dug into Al, sometimes to the disservice (in my opinion) of the facts at hand.

Much better, in my view, was this post, which avoided personal attacks on BlogCritics, reserving scorn and derision for public officials. That's a post to which I can email the link without having to explain a squabble. That's the kind of post I like to read, and the kind of post I wish you would focus on more than the others. I just don't think that they serve your ability and passion as well.

Please, MD, I don't know why you can't see what I'm saying. I'm asking you to ignore Al. That's all. If you think he's an ignorant racist pig, then pretend his posts and comments don't exist and let the world see him for the ignorant racist pig that he is.

Or not, if he shapes up as well.

Same song, different post. Al and Mac ought to start a group blog where they take after one another on a daily basis.

Point of Personal Privlege: Tobacco Chewing can allievate the dullness of driving really long distances.

"Can't we all just get along?": Can't we stop talking about my group and exclusively talk about yours?

"Race doesn't exist": As a member of the dominant racial group, it benefits me to avoid facts about my group's privileged position and the institutions that maintain it.

I am doing my darnedest to stay out of conflicts, but there are a couple of things that refuse to be left unsaid:

Re: "Race doesn't exist": As a member of the dominant racial group, it benefits me to avoid facts about my group's privileged position and the institutions that maintain it.

Part of me is a member of what some call the "dominant racial group"; most of me is not. Scientifically, race does not exist, save for the human race and speed contests. It is a fiction, a construct created by humans for the purpose of dividing humans. I won't play that sort of game. You are all my people and my family, period.


And Eric writes, "I see elements of truth in Bell's theory..."

Huh? What truth exists in Bell's vile theories? Intelligence has nothing to do with melanin and everything to do with environment.

That's fine and I agree in theory, Natalie, but the "elements of truth" come from the simple fact that these things have happened in the past for the reasons expressed. But it is not a predictive theory, and much more damage is done to truth by pretending that it is predictive than is afforded by its description of past events.

Bottom line: Those "past events" involved individuals under certain environments. They have no bearing on groups of humans and, as you note, should not be used for predicting future events. Of course, I am of the opinion that they should not be used at all, except perhaps to demonstrate the hatred and stupidity of certain "scholars."

N, you are dead right about individuals in specific circumstances - individuals are the indivisible unit of humanity and existence, and I also agree that groupings and stereotyping have led to vast misery for the species. But that doesn't mean you can't ever make any generalizations about any aggregate of humans under any circumstances. Niether extreme reflects reality.

"But that doesn't mean you can't ever make any generalizations about any aggregate of humans under any circumstances."

I don't recall saying that, or anything resembling that, anywhere in my post.

Here's the thing: Mac Diva is wrong here. She's totally and completely wrong, and I am right.

I have only one main objection: absolute LYING. It is UNACCEPTABLE for her to be making up vile remarks, putting quote marks around them, and then attaching my name to them, as per comment #5 here.

This is LIBEL. It is absolute legal libel being commited against me. She needs to stop.

I have not EVER responded to her in the malicious manner she routinely talks about me. I expressed implicit disregard for her feelings in the "Happy Hate Crimes :)" post, perhaps. However, to recap, she was calling me a supporter of slavery and all kinds of other nasty things that simply aren't true. What, I should let such slander go unchallenged?

I did not curse her or use racial invective, however. She listed several specific columns of mine as evidence of my supposed bigotry, and I responded with this post to defend those specific individual writings. This is not at all equivalent to her numerous unprovoked posts directed at me, such as this one.

I have not ever written about her in the purely bilous manner she routinely writes about me, but that's cool. It'd make life more pleasant if she played nice, but I don't object to any of the silly personal vitriol. Hey, if it makes her feel better.

What's basically happening is that she's having an ongoing childish tantrum, and I'm being blamed for it. She's acting out, and unamenable to any reason, or any attempts to talk sensible or make nice. So therefore frustrated observers are turning on me, essentially saying that I should just let her have her way so she'll stop screaming.

NO. I will not indulge her childishness. I will not tiptoe and refrain from talking about certain topics for fear of hurting her itty bitty feelings. I will not be bullied into silence.

I am NOT making gratuitous personal insults. I exhibit NO malice toward her. The worst that I could legitimately be accused of would be the inference from the "Hate Crimes" post that I'm not especially concerned with her feelings. That's a LONG way from the active attempts she's making to smear my name with lies.

Why would I be concerned with her feelings? What kind of self-hatred would I have to have for that? Perhaps a hypocritical display of pretend affection would somehow be politically useful, but I'm not about that.

In fact, I'm treating her with far more respect than she has shown herself to deserve. I'm going to hold her to the same adult standards of argument and discourse as I would anybody else. I will NOT just let her have her way. If she wants to be here, then she needs to expect the same treatment I would give anyone else.

Nor will I let pure legal libel go unanswered. I don't object to general negative things being said about me, but if someone sees "'some black guy who don't know his place' according to Barger," then that's different. What, Barger said THOSE VERY WORDS, the ones in QUOTE MARKS? Oh, hell no. And then she infers [comment #24] that I have gone back and erased offensive remarks after being called out. Such is not the case. SHE has apparently conveniently edited a few of her own remarks in such a manner in other posts, not me.

I strongly object to the people equating us both as guilty. NO. SHE is guilty of LIBEL. I am innocent. No one need expect me to just accept these ongoing attacks without response.

Finally, let's go back to the nominal topic of this post, "racial standing." Consider the possible differences in norms and expectations for different ethnic groups. If the shoe were on the other foot here, if it were a white boy talking ANYTHING NEAR as abusively and dishonestly about a member of a minority group as MD does with me, I suspect the response would be considerably different. Black and brown folk, caucasians, Asians and green Martians would unite. There would be none of this 'you're both guilty' NONSENSE. The guy would be universally and deservedly rebuked. Period.

ROFLMAO! Tell that to someone who isn't a former reporter with a law degree, Toots.

I assure you, Al, nobody expects it of you. We hope, we pray, and we cross our fingers, but you've shown us that we shouldn't expect it from you, that's for sure.

Since you obviously won't be getting your satisfactory pound of flesh from MD, can you drop it now and let the world see both of your statements and make their own judgements?

Nat,

[Race] is a fiction, a construct created by humans for the purpose of dividing humans.

I am not saying that people should not acknowledge that they are being targeted because of their color or class or orientation or anything. I certainly acknowledge the existence of bigotry -- and one of its subsets, pigmentationism -- because it is real. (I call it pigmentationism because the prejudice is doled out on the basis of skin color.) And, yes, I work to end all forms of bigotry, oppression, and injustice. At the same time, I am not going to claim membership in a group in which I don't belong just because my doing so would make things more convenient for society or for that group. My group boasts all of us as its members -- and it is scientifically sound.

A pal of mine remarked recently about "people of colour", and I (because I'm an asshole, and it has a colour) said, "my dick has an alarming shade of burgundy about 10 times a day, does that make me a person of colour?".

In short, if you spend all your time fighting procedural battles you are wasting your time, and They Win.

Myself, I came here to chew bubblegum. Anybody got any gum?

It's bad for your teeth.

Me, I call myself a person of constant sorrow. Sounds great with the accompaniment of a bluegrass band.

It's bad for your teeth.

Me, I call myself a person of constant sorrow. Sounds great with the accompaniment of a bluegrass band.

If 'race' would leave me and other people suffering the consequences of it alone, I would be happy to leave it alone. But, it won't.

An example from the blogosphere. My first week reading blogs, I was among a group of people who complained about the troll above, Ricky West, posting bigoted remarks to DailyKos' comments. West departed after being told to heel by Kos. I, because of 'race,' stood out in the group. West singled me out. He has been following me around the blogosphere urging people to attack me ever since. This began long before I had a blog. For ten months wherever I've gone, he has been sure to follow, sometimes with fellow travelers in tow. The impact of such attacks has not been to kill my blog, as West boasts above. However, Mac-a-ro-nies was among the top 100 blogs just two and a half months after I began it and rightly so. The continuing attacks have led to a decline in links because some people are spineless enough to go along with such abuse, though they really gain nothing from doing so. When I am no longer subjected to such bigoted acts as these, then I will no longer have to consider the effects of 'race.'

I don't want to overstate the problem, however. The 120 or so bloggers I'm blogrolled by have been stubborn despite pressure to help 'fix' the uppity you know what from West and his kind. Also, I haven't really applied myself to locating replacements for the cowardly folks who dropped my blog. The important thing is that I have made it a point to maintain the quality of the weblog. It may be smaller, but it is still damn good. That is what counts.

Precisely the reason why Mac-a-ro-nies is on my blogroll.

What does "Mac-a-ro-nies" mean, anyway?

Well, I had a reputation on the Net as a writer about the Macintosh and other Apple products, i.e., the Mac Diva. I just accidentally used the monicker when I began contributing material, mainly neo-Confederate research and gun law material, to Atrios, Zizka, Calpundit, and other blogs as a newbie. That role expanded until I was a 'name' in the liberal blogosphere. I became known as Atrios' sidekick as Mac Diva. (I now consider myself separated from my blogfather, but we still communicate some.) Being Atrios' gal pal was a big plus when I started a blog (actually two) about six months ago. Many Atrios fans already knew me and blogrolled and linked immediately. So, it was wiset to remain MD. (And some of the same people later stabbed me in the back, but that is a different story.)

When it came time to choose a blog name, I wanted to play to the Mac Diva sobriquet. Mac-a-ro-nies does that and also implies a Mac user, which I am. The word also can mean a dandy or hip person. There are penguins called macaronies. And, of course, the pasta reference. If I get photos, I will play off all three at different times for site decoration. The pasta reference is cool because it implies variety. Different kinds of pasta = differents kinds of entries. I call my blog my pantry. Have I convinced you it is a good name, Brian?

The entire saga is really quite interesting and I am preparing a narrative of it for a book. (Just a chapter in the book. It is not book-length interesting.) I suspect you can guess some of the currents from just what I've said here. The Atrios thing, for example. I had no idea how many folks were jealous about that until I was attacked by them. How dare Atrios choose some too smart for her own good colored girl as his confidante and sidekick instead of one of them? Ready! Aim! Fire! Anyway, if you want to know more, I can send you a short, rough draft. Be forewarned, it does not cast much of the liberal blogosphere in a favorable light.

  Here's the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=747, so you can read for yourself, but the quotes start about halfway down the page.  Kos doesn't tell me squat, and even notes that I've done nothing wrong in
the comments (so much for that assertion) and I posted nothing at all that Mac Diva suggests.  When called on it, Mac Diva (like now) simply attacks and refuses to back up.

Mac Diva then began trolling my site in the comments sections:

http://www.rjwest.com/mtarchives/politics/000843.html

http://www.rjwest.com/mtarchives/personal/000844.html

http://www.rjwest.com/mtarchives/sports/000846.html

You got dropped like a bad habit when folks like Dwight Meredith, Lisa English and Jim Capalooza saw your mean-spiritedness, lies and deceptions - much like you're putting forth here, where you attack Jesse Taylor
and Greg Greene.  Now, you make up a world where I follow you (goodness) after you trolled my site and that your designation as blog-leper is because you're the victim.

Please.

People tired of your usual tactics, self-linking (top 100 my ass, you cross linked and you got caught) and deceptions.  Your "blogfather" deleted your link mucho-pronto after reading what you'd done around the
web.  I don't know Al Barger from a tree, but he seems to follow the usual theme - he wins an argument against you & becomes the latest cyber-target.

P.S., don't forget to tell everyone how you complained elsewhere when I posted pictures of my children, Mac.

My CHILDREN!.

So sweet.

And, the troll trolls on. Ten months of taking breaks from Ku Klux Klan meetings to follow me around. Will he never tire?

Mac Denial-
That's sweet, he followed you to his own site to troll you. Amazing.

And Joe the Troll aids Lil' Dick the Troll. Let's call it troll solidarity.

Smacking Lil' Dick around can be fun, but I have seldom had time to do it. Three links in which he says I hit back in ten months. I wish I had had time to thump him more often.

Mac Deluded-
I'm not sure if you're hinting at your true identity there, but let's try to keep it clean, eh?

Since your IP was banned, your "hitting back" ended rather quickly:here

However, I noticed as I browsed the web that you continued to attack me personally and lie about my positions.  It really caused me pause when you criticized postings of pictures of my kids.  As seen here, you've got quite the nasty temper. 

Not that it kept you away from going to my site (I wished that I could say that I read you, but alas, I don't - although a quick google search shows my name is mentioned on your site in several instances.....are we obsessed?) although, your latest pseudonym (JadeGold) fooled absolutely no one.  When you "get time", address this link link where you
attack Sharshanky's wife's race, or this Link where Richard Poe notices that you're quite the troll, or this
Link where John Cole can't believe how you attack peoples' humanity.  Or this link, where your viciousness and trolling are outed.  Or this link, where you're trolling Jesse's site (gee, he was 'okay', then) and smear me by saying that I'd set him up for getting spam-hammered.  Or this link, where Del Harris nails your efforts to cross-link (while you're on that one, Mac Diva/JG/J/JadeGold, I'm still waiting for the name of *one* site that has banned me, much less "from all the major mainstream blogs", as you claimed in the comments section.  Just one will do.  Has anyone noticed a recurring theme of dishonesty from Mac Diva?), after you called him a racist (as most people who disagree with you end up being called).  Then again, that was the link that officially 'outed' your deceptions pertaining to cross-linking, right?

Sorry to take this off in a different direction, folks, I'll retire from here and let things go back to normal (yes, I know I'll be attacked, but I won't read it. It's quite easy to ignore stuff that doesn't deserve recognition and what is amazing is that I've been able to provide all these links w/o trying to find stuff, they're from browsing the blogosphere).  I just wanted the *truth* to be put out there for all to see. 
Make your own determinations, but I strongly suggest that you read the links I've provided --- but especially the comments therein.  They're all quite illuminating (and help show why so many people disassociate themselves from Mac Diva).  Have a nice day, Mac!

"The Atrios thing, for example. I had no idea how many folks were jealous about that until I was attacked by them. How dare Atrios choose some too smart for her own good colored girl as his confidante and sidekick instead of one of them? Ready! Aim! Fire! Anyway, if you want to know more, I can send you a short, rough draft. Be forewarned, it does not cast much of the liberal blogosphere in a favorable light."

Oh please. The reason you were shunned was because of your ad hominem, libelous attacks on your blogging peers, on both the Left and Right, not due to any jealousy on the part of more established, and frankly, more successful, bloggers. Some of those bloggers who dropped you like a hot (or rotten) potato are people of color, so why again are we to believe they were attacking you due to your purported ethnicity?

'Joe' and 'Anon.' The troll is really attracting support.

Bell's Rules have analogs in regards homophobes' comments regarding gay people. I've seen it in action at the NYTimes Gay Pride forum as well as on FreeRepublic.com

Raj,

Can you write more about this? I believe it is worth an entry on your blog. I for one, would link.
Let me know if you do an entry.

Thoughtful post, with a personal attack on Jesse Taylor that has no factual basis whatever offered. I've been reading Jesse for a few months, as I read Oliver Willis, and Jesse spends far more time than Oliver condemning bigotry of every sort. As you note, Oliver (one of my favorite bloggers, as his threads show) says almost nothing about race. Jesse did just call Rod Paige an incompetent liar. Perhaps this is what you object to, or perhaps there is a personal story here I missed.
I spend my time in Olivers's threads attacking the conservatives. Check it out.

When my blog was under attack, Jesse Taylor went from blog to blog assailing me and getting patted on his head for it. And, no, there was no basis for his behavior. I have never been anything but kind to the despicable little Uncle Tom. It was behavior right out of Bell's Rules -- the black person who volunteers to dog another person of color to please white folks, so I used him as an example. BTW, out of at least a dozen African-American bloggers I know, Taylor was the ONLY one I am acquainted with to have behaved that way.

Since the chronically clueless John Isbell was on most of those threads attacking me along with Taylor, I suspect he already know this, though.

Mac Diva:

What is wrong with you???

Advantage: Ricky West.

It seems that Mac Diva's stock in trade is paranoia-fueled personal attacks. A loathesome practice.

gotta say, mac, that for a lawyer you offer prescious little actual evidence for any of your ad hominem attacks or persecution complexes. So Jesse is a "despicable Uncle Tom" because...he said something mean about you? From the evidence, I'm with PLA: it's really just all about you.

Obviously you all are part of The Conspiracy Against Mac Diva. Everyone knows that she is a genius hero of the civil rights movement.

Why don't you quit Uncle Tomming Al Barger, and stop your oligarchical racist neo-confederate slavering against Her overwhelming moral superiority?

See, you HAVE to have a law degree to come up with shit this intimidating, even if it's only off the back of a box of Count Chocula.

Snap! "Build it . . . and they will come." You guys keep posting and I will keep snapping. You are proving something, but not what you are foolish enough to think you are.

As someone blissfully ignorant of interblog sniping in comments sections, I find much of the above posts nearly incoherent.

MDiva's I'd like to hear your opinions on a few things:

Uno: Brian Flemming's post about the difference between pointing out and condemnation, and his account about how pointing out an unfair dynamic helped improve it.

Dos: I know this site is called blogcritics, but the level of intercine bitterness is mystifying. Both you and your critics judge each other based on comments sections and things too obscure for the non-blogger. As someone who usually just reads the front blog, this seems either misplaced, irrelevant or meanspirited.

Tres: In light of dos, the essay about Bell's Rules (which are new to me) was interesting, and your links explained who Al Barger is, but the attacks on the other people you mention are mystifying. You called some Uncle Toms, but didn't cite examples or evidence. It wasn't until halfway through the comments that you explained your hostility towards Mr. Taylor. Don't you think your essay would have stood on its own better with some explanation?

I know I might seem like someone who shows up late for a film and then asks his neighbor to explain the story, but your assertions would be far more persuasive if they were as carefully explained as Bell's are.

Soft, if you understood the overall entry then you get the point: How Bell's Rules are applied in various settings. Jesse Taylor is a wee bit of the essay, just one of several examples used. The trolls who piled on to the thread are incapable of grasping Bell's Rules, so they have simply done what they do best -- scream, shout and try to shut any substantive discussion out. You can understand the entry fine without recourse to the peanut gallery at all.

If you want to know more about the Critical Legal Studies Movement, which developed Bell's Rules and other contemporary analyses of group interactions, I've posted references to several books and a follow-up entry on Bell's Rules.

I am not saying the trolls' comments aren't useful. I will use some of them as examples of Bell's Rules in action in the narrative I am writing about an experience I had (and, as yo can see, am still having) with racially based harassment in the blogosphere. However, as is usually the case with obscure people resentful of those brighter and more talented they are, they have nothing substantive to say.

Great post--learned some new ways to look at race issues. Several things, first I want to list out the subtle racial prejudices (racial standings) I have witnessed.

1. My wife and I were driving from Ohio back to Minnesota and decided to stop for the night in Madison, Wisconsin. I waited behind a young black man who was registering for a room. He handed the clerk cash for the room--she then asked him for his driver's license and then proceeded to make a photocopy of it!! The young black man (probably due to wariness and racial standing) did not complain. When it was my turn to register for a room for the night, I used my credit card. I had pulled out my driver's license with the expectation that the clerk would want to look at it and make a photocopy. She did neither and did not even check to see if my signature on the registration matched that on my credit card! My standing, a middle aged white man.

2. One night my wife and I were downtown Minneapolis and had just finished a movie. It was a Friday night about 9 PM. We decided to walk up to a cafe for some dinner. At a stop light there were several black youth. As there were no cars coming in either direction, the youth and me and my wife crossed the street against the red light. When we reached the other side of the street, two young and white police officers (and what I observe as hostile), approach the young men and gave them warnings and told them that they were breaking the law. My wife and I were not stopped, approached, or in any manner told that we had broken the law by jay-walking.

3. We have a young friend who is a single parent with two young boys. She had worked hard to get through training to become a licensed Nursing Assistant with the hopes of becoming a Nurse in the future. She started a Nursing Assistant job with a local and large hospital, working nights, while taking care of her young boys and attending her last year of high school. Within two weeks of staring this job she was fired. The hospital claimed that she was not suited for the work. Our friend asked me if I thought that her firing was racially motivated. It was my belief (and this is what I told her) that yes it was likely. That because she was black, young, and a single parent, instead of working with her to bring her skills up to par they decided to fire her. That is if her racial standing was different, the hospital would have taken the extra step and time to improve her skills and keep her hired.

I have given race (not in the genetic/biological sense, but in the bizzare sense used in America)a lot of thought. I have come to some conclusions: that if you are born white and live in America you will grow up to be whitey.

You see the concept of whitey is a psychological one, a personality trait that can be a disorder that is prevelant in America and might be prevelant throughout Western society. Let me explain:

Freud had conceptualized the personality in three parts: the ego, super-ego, and the id. The super-ego was the morale aspect of ones personality; the id, the wickedness, the evil; and the ego the mediator between the two. Hence the ego was the presentation of self and tried to balance between the conflicting and ongoing battle between the super-ego (goodness)and the id (wickedness).

But Freud had it wrong. The Western personality is made up of whitey, MLK, and liberalism. Whitey is entitlement and a denial of human rights, MLK is inclusive and human rights, and liberalism the mediator between the two.

Hence, white people grow up in America being taught racism that creates the whitey aspect of the personality. In some cases whitey is small, almost non-existent, but after years of indoctrination, it still is there and, like the well known Freudian slip, even the most tiniest of whitey seeps out. In other case whitey is very large to the point of being dangerous.

But ironically, the MLK part of the personality is created by actual concepts and ideas of human rights and being human. Granted most of the Western thought is only viable in the abstract (like freedom and liberty for all). However, individuals who are not white have taken these profound concepts and have turned them into meaningful and purposeful realities. If it wasn't for the MLK part of whitey's personality, we would be marching to Hitler's drum beat.

Now the liberal part of whitey's personality is fairly self evident. That is why some liberal politician can be as racist as conservatives (and some conservatives appear to be liberal). The problem with the liberal part of the personality is that it is only a presentation of self to others. Underneath it the true personality, whether more whitey or more MLK lies.

An excellent anaylysis, J.B. So perceptive that I am going to be reprinting it so more people can read it.

Good friends, my ex-husband and longterm fiance among them, have made observations like yours. In fact, white people who have nonwhites in the family or as close friends often learn their own ways of grasping and getting around Bell's Rules. For example, my ex quickly discovered he, the handsome, charming white med student, should look for apartments and later a house -- not me. Even in a city as racially mixed as Philadelphia, steering of people of color away from 'white' areas occurred. I believe a lot more white people than will admit it know analyses such as Bell's Rules are true. They, including many who deem themselves liberals, are just too mired in their own bigotry to support real change in race relations. It is easier to lie, conspire and trot out nonwhite useful idiots than to change themselves.

Okay, I'm ready for real change in race relations: what's next?

jbwally (#65) - On your first point, I would not be surprised to learn of a Wisconsin law requiring photocopies of ID in cases of cash payment for a hotel room, though I couldn't find any with a cursory Google search. Honestly, I'm more surprised that they didn't copy your ID as well, as I've had that happen here in Texas even with a credit card.

Your second example reminds me of an incident I witnessed one evening at a Wal-Mart. I was standing and waiting for my wife, so I watched the "greeter" at the door as she hassled nearly every person with skin darker than mine on the way out the door. I had previously noticed isolated incidents and thought that maybe there might be criteria I was missing, like items not in bags, or large items, or something like that that wasthe trigger for a cart search. But no, I stood there for a while this time and the pattern was quite clear. I ran down the list of every single idea I could think of and ran out as they were dismissed one by one. White-skinned people with items not in bags were fine, white-skinned people with large items were fine, and so on. How well-dressed or poorly-groomed the people were made no difference at all. The shaggy unkempt light-skinned teens drift out unmolested, while the darker-skinned guy obviously stopping off from his shirt-and-tie job to pick up diapers (diapers!) was stopped and checked. I got good and annoyed about it, actually, and when I finally did leave, I stopped and handed her my receipt without being asked. She barely even glanced at my cart before handing back the receipt and waving me on. I'm not sure if I was more bugged by the fact that the Wal-mart "greeter" was actually a brown-skinned woman herself, or just the policy in general. Was it that woman's policy? A store policy? Chain-wide? I'm not sure. I think I can dismiss the last one because I've watched at other Wal-Marts and not seen anything like the same behavior, but I don't know if it was that store's manager or just that particular woman doing the racial profiling.

Your third example is a harder one for me to have any comment. At my office, we currently employ no people with skin darker than my own. It's a small office, less than a dozen people. We've employed dark-skinned people before, so there is no skin-color bar to employment, but unfortunately, circumstances have conspired so that the three most recent darker-skinned employees we've had have turned out to be incompetent, lazy or dishonest people, usually some combination of all three. I've repeatedly stated that this has more to do with the pay scale here than anything skin-color-related, but I have the minority view, since of the last three similar hires that had lighter skin, only one of the three shared the imcompetent/lazy/dishonest characteristics. As one of the people in the office has pointed out more than once, a 66% chance is better than a 0% chance. I've pointed out that we also have a light-skinned alcoholic who is still employed, a light-skinned coke head who quit, and a light-skinned high-level technical person who "works from home," which is a euphemism for the fact that he puts in something like 10 hours a week and collects a hefty paycheck, and they aren't figured into the equation. I've pointed out a lot of things, but some impressions are hard to shake, and the facts haven't done a good job of dispelling myth in this particular case. Would a dark-skinned person get the same treatment as a light-skinned person here, given circumstances like the ones you lay out? Maybe, but only because the light-skinned person would be summarily dumped on his or her butt just as quickly.

Venturing off, I note that I attend a church that is quite possibly the most racially diverse church in North America. Various national news organizations have come to Carrollton, TX, to try to figure out how it is that the church is the way it is. And yet. And yet I note that despite the fact that we've sought out a racially-mixed church in which to raise our kids, and a racially-mixed small home group, and we live in a racially-mixed neighborhood replete with people who are "black" and "white" and "Indian" and "South American" and so on, when we throw parties and invite all of our friends, mostly the people whose skin color matches our own show up and stick around, while many others either don't show, or show up and leave quickly.

There are exceptions, of course. There always are. One of my best friends and I go out and shoot pool regularly, and he and his family are always at our parties. A woman whose heritage is Japanese always comes with her husband. A close friend of my wife's whose kids are multi-racial is always here (her husband is deceased). But when I consider the spectrum of people I consider friends, I think darker skin colors are under-represented in certain social situations.

I wonder why that is. Is it something I'm doing, or a cultural thing? If people had come and left quickly and not returned, I'd blame myself, but many of these people have never given my parties a chance, so I wonder what I could do to change things.

I've actually got some serious problems with "Bell's Rules," but there is no legitimacy in my mind in denying that there is plenty of work to be done by everyone to truly eliminate skin color as a factor when dealing with people. While it certainly doesn't affect every interaction between people, I think it affects more than many people acknowledge, and that works in both directions. My church worked hard to be multi-racial, and continues to do so. I've worked hard to ensure my family understands and respects other cultures, just as my parents worked hard to overcome their own prejudical upbringing.

To deny skin-color bias still exists is incredibly naive. To see skin-color bias in every single human interaction, especially online interaction in which skin color is never seen, strikes me as very strange and probably counter-productive.

People's attitudes toward "race" are very complex, regardless of the color of their own skin. Frequent attempts to tie those attitudes to political bias strike me as ridiculous as well, since I've seen widespread example of skin-color bigotry scattered around the political spectrum.

People who hate people because of the color of their skin are easy to spot and worthless to engage. The various "white power" groups are a lunatic fringe. Most people, however, don't hate people who don't look like themselves, but they do think about them differently, often without even realizing it. I've known people of various skin colors who deny having a racist bone in their body, and yet I can see from how they treat different people or talk about different people that their attitudes are subtly shaped by skin-color stereotypes. Are they lying bigots? Or self-deceived? Usually the latter, and accusing them of being lying racists tends to be counter-productive. Engaging them in a discussion about why they chose to say or do X in this situation tends to be very education for both parties. I've learned a lot from both darker-skinned and lighter-skinned people about what has shaped their biases, and some of them have recognized those biases for maybe the first time as we spoke.

I guess I'm trying to say that as long as this discussion is "Us vs Them," the problem will never be solved. If people can put away the anger and try to examine the reasons for attitudes, one might actually make a difference.

Of course, to do that, you'll have to hear some pretty offensive things without responding harshly, and that doesn't seem to be an easy thing online, where offense is just begging to be taken. I've heard some pretty outrageous statements that I'd be inclined to label "malicious lies" from dark-skinned people, and I'll be the first to admit that I've heard statements that undoubtedly outraged many dark-skinned people just as much from light-skinned people. Getting upset and labeling the speakers doesn't solve anything. Putting the speakers into a box out of which they can find no reasonable escape (as Bell's Rules seem to do from my perspective) doesn't solve anything either.

Only calm and reasoned conversation can do that, and the more people are willing to learn, the better the results.

Thanks for reading. :-)

I can't figure out why you keep calling Lisa English a white liberal. She's not even white.

Phillip, I've noticed the same thing at our Walmart. The one near the city doesn't do it as much, as the staff is multi-racial, but the one out in farm country certainly does.

Wow, codified victimization--let me find a pencil . . .

Individuals with RACE ISSUES are twofold. Inside [self-esteem] outside [leader or follower]. How is it possible to "be yourself" and "be credible"?

Action speaks louder than words. What defiles an individual is what is said and done.

Ones word is ones BOND!

Anyone can perform "word pollution"

How many really appreciate the ONE who encourages to live and let live?

How do you TREAT that FAVORITE PERSON in YOUR LIFE?

Self-examination and correction beats "finger pointing".

My action --> Visit Jaz Live Cash Culture
My WORD: Gettin' Better by the Tic' Toc'