Bigotry Archives

March 17, 2007

Barack Obama = Charles de Gaulle?

When Charles de Gaulle paid his first visit to embattled French Algeria after taking power in 1958, he stepped up to the microphone in front of a vast throng of Europeans and Arabs torn by murderous hostilities, stared out at them, and simply announced, “I have understood you.” The crowd exulted. Christians and Muslims alike broke into grateful tears. De Gaulle understands us! What more do we need?

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has yet to attain that level of oracular ambiguity, but his bestseller The Audacity of Hope shows this wordsmith’s facility at eloquently restating the views of both his liberal supporters and his conservative opponents, leaving implicit the suggestion that all we require to resolve these wearying Washington disputes is to find a man who understands us--a reasonable man, a man very much like, say, Obama--and turn power over to him. The politician has elicited such fervor among many white voters that Slate.com’s Timothy Noah runs a regular feature entitled “The Obama Messiah Watch” quoting “gratuitously adoring” articles. (Blacks have tended to be relatively more level-headed about him.)
. . .
Beneath this bland Good Obama lies a more interesting character, one that I like far better--the Bad Obama, a close student of other people’s weaknesses, a literary artist of considerable power in plumbing his deep reservoirs of self-pity and resentment, an unfunny Evelyn Waugh consumed by indignation toward his own mother’s people. He has been hiding out on the bestseller lists for the last two years in his enormously revealing, but little understood, 1995 “autobiography”--a more accurate term might be “autobiographical novel”--Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

When Obama briefly surfaced in the media in 1990 as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, Random House handed him a book contract. Originally, he intended to write a disquisition on race relations, but the puerility of his theorizing discouraged him. He turned instead to writing about what he finds truly fascinating: his relatives and himself.

Obama’s gift for restructuring the past into emotionally and aesthetically satisfying patterns made for an uneasy hybrid of fact and fiction, with composite characters, clearly made-up dialogue, and even preposterous dream sequences. Recently, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the tale of his one triumph during his four years as a young ethnic activist in Chicago--getting asbestos removed from a public housing project--excluded all mention of the veteran local agitator, Hazel Johnson, who might deserve more of the credit.
. . .
Obama has led a fairly pleasant existence, with most of its suffering and conflict taking place within his own head as he tries to turn himself into an authentic angry black man.
. . .
In reality, Obama provides a disturbing test of the best-case scenario of whether America can indeed move beyond race. He inherited his father’s penetrating intelligence; was raised mostly by his loving liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where America’s normal race rules never applied; and received a superb private school education. And yet, at least through age 33 when he wrote Dreams from My Father, he found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race.
. . .
Instead, Obama falls under the spell of a leftist black nationalist preacher, Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites. Reverend Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate. (The title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, is borrowed from one of Wright’s sermons.) Ben Wallace-Wells notes in Rolling Stone: “This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.”

"Obama’s Identity Crisis: Although he presents himself as a healer of differences, the presidential candidate’s own racial struggle paints a conflicted portrait," by Steve Sailer, The American Conservative, March 26, 2007

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Techonrati

"Obama Disses His Pastor," Get Rid of the DLC blog, March 7, 2007

The Obama Messiah Watch - Timothy Noah, Slate



. . . . . . . . .



Posted at 09:57 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America , Bigotry , Politics

March 11, 2007

"The mantra of diversity" is "nostalgia for battles already won"

Walter Benn Michaels, an English professor at the University of Illinois, is also angry, but he has a different view of where the problem begins. He directs his anger not so much at the admissions or development office as at the entire culture of academia, which, in his view, has settled somewhere between insouciance and hypocrisy with regard to the widening class divide. "Poor people," he writes in The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality,
are an endangered species in elite universities not because the universities put quotas on them...and not even because they can't afford to go to them (Harvard will lend you or even give you the money you need to go there) but because they can't get into them.
This is basically true, as Bowen and his colleagues demonstrate. What Michaels adds to the discussion is the idea that many academic liberals have been deceiving themselves about this uncomfortable truth while--unwittingly, perhaps--abetting it.

What he means is that the academic left (which he tartly calls the "supposed left") expends its energy rallying against such phantom enemies as racism and sexism--erstwhile evils that he believes barely exist today, at least not in the narrow social stratum from which college students come. As a result, "progressive politics" too often "consists of disapproving of bad things that happened a long time ago." But Michaels does not stop at chiding the "supposed left" for indulging in nostalgia for battles already won. He thinks that by obscuring the real issue--the class divide--that persists behind all the smoke and noise over "diversity," the academic left has become complicit with the broader political right in rewarding the rich and penalizing the poor.

Michaels is fed up with the mantra of diversity, and it is hard to blame him. In the past, one obstacle that kept minority students out of college was patent racism--the asserted association between external physical characteristics (skin color, facial features, body type) and inherent mental capacities or tendencies.[12] Today, however, this kind of pseudoscience has been discredited, and the word "race" tends to be employed as a synonym for culture--an equivalence based on the dubious, or at least imperfect, premise that a person's ancestry tells us something important about how that person experiences the world. The problem with "this way of thinking about culture instead of race," Michaels says, "is that it just takes the old practice of racial stereotyping and renovates it in the form of cultural stereotyping."[13] People of African ancestry are expected to prefer blues to Brahms. People of Asian ancestry are lumped together in the category "Asian-American" even though they might identify themselves primarily as Laotians or Christians. In any event, they are supposed to prefer engineering to poetry.

Michaels argues that nothing much has changed by substituting the idea of particular cultures for the discredited idea of race. For pragmatic as well as analytical reasons, he wants the left to forget about this kind of diversity, whether we call it racial or cultural ("diversity, like gout, is a rich people's problem"), and focus instead on poverty. A satirical verse (quoted in another recent book by another English professor, Michael Berubé of Pennsylvania State University) nicely captures Michaels's point. It might be called the Song of the Abject Affluent, and a lot of people at elite colleges are singing it:
I'm sorry for what my people did to your people
It was a nasty job
Please note the change of attitude
On the bumper of my Saab.[14]
Quite apart from the question of who "my people" and "your people" are at a time when more and more Americans claim multiple racial descent, this mixture of guilt and pride is mostly for show, just like the car.

"Scandals of Higher Education," by Andrew Delbanco, The New York Review of Books, March 29, 2007





. . . . . . . . .



Posted at 11:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry

August 17, 2006

"Bleeding-heart ignoramuses"

All across the board, Lebanese civilians are referred to as "civilians" where Israeli civilians are referred to as "Israelis" - an eerie and sinister difference pointed out by the non-Jewish stand-up comic genius Natalie Haynes, and one which very few people appear to have noticed - even me, until then.
. . .
Personally, I'd far prefer the Jews to be angry, aggressive and alive than meek, mild and dead - and that's what makes me and a minority like me feel so much like strangers in our own country, now more than ever. I've always loved being a hack, but now even that feels weird, as though I'm living among a bunch of snatched-body zombies who look like journalists but believe and say the most inhuman, evil things.

"Bleeding-heart ignoramuses," by Julie Burchill, HAARETZ, August 2006

Posted at 06:57 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Ignorance , Nihilism , Stupidity , Terrorism

August 07, 2006

Anti-religious hysteria

The artistic representation of religious conviction is frequently stigmatised with terms such as 'fundamentalist', 'intolerant', 'dogmatic', 'exclusive', 'irrational' or 'right-wing'. As a secular humanist who is instinctively uncomfortable with zealot-like moralism, I am suspicious of the motives behind these doctrinaire denunciations of films with a religious message. Such fervour reminds me of the way that reactionaries in the past policed Hollywood for hints of blasphemy or expressions of 'Un-American values'. Replacing the zealotry of religious intolerance with a secular version is hardly an enlightened alternative.

"The curious rise of anti-religious hysteria," by Frank Furedi, January 23, 2006

Posted at 10:17 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry

August 02, 2006

Jew hatred

Jew hatred is an ancient practice and has so many different rationales it is hard to pin it down. In the end it is mostly about the search for scapegoats to explain away failures and difficulties encountered in life. Enough Jews have been successful enough to cause weak-minded types to determine that this had to be due to some evil rather than hard work and diligence. It must be terribly galling to be any of Israel's neighbor states and see those horrible Jews prospering their asses off. And then when you fire up all the martial power of Allah to push them into the sea and liberate Palestine you get your asses handed to you.....regularly. I could see how this could chafe your cones after a while.

So it is the Jews fault that we are in Afghanistan, and Iraq and that Southern Lebanon is about to get a close up look at IDF ground troops. Their stubborn insistence on survival continues to be a thorn in the side of otherwise peaceful Islamists worldwide. The simple solution is for us to throw Israel under the bus and then enjoy the peace that would spontaneously erupt.

"Mel Gibson is right," by Uncle Jimbo, Blackfive, August 1, 2006

Posted at 06:58 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry

May 02, 2006

"European jihad"

I have remarked before that hatred against Jews now appears to become socially acceptable whenever Israel enters the picture. This has produced yet another Catch-22 for Jews, in that the issue of Israel has provoked a firestorm of anti-Jewish hatred, but if one draws attention to this anti-Jewish hatred in the context of Israel one is told such views are in fact perfectly acceptable. Thus the ‘world Jewish conspiracy’ is a lunatic pathological prejudice when used by neo-Nazis claiming that the Jews dangerously subvert the world, but entirely fair comment when university professors claim that Jews dangerously subvert American foreign policy.

"European jihad (2)," Melanie Phillips, May 2, 2006

Posted at 06:39 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Gynephobes

March 28, 2006

Cynthia Carr's "heroic achievement "

In certain precincts occupied by certain members of the American intelligentsia, it has for some time been quite the fashion to ferret out racists in one's familial woodpile and then to write books about them. The ostensible purpose of these books is to provide intimate, confessional evidence of the degree to which racial prejudice has infiltrated every conceivable corner of American life. Their obvious if unstated purpose is to show how the (white) author has triumphed over his or her sordid ancestral inheritance to become a person of impeccable credentials on matters racial. Though all due modesty and claims of imperfection are expressed, the reader is expected to stand and cheer as, at book's end, the author's heroic achievement is revealed in full.
. . .
Like too many other journalists writing books these days, Carr is under the impression that how she got her story and how she feels about it are more interesting (and, implicitly, more important) than the story itself. She could not be more wrong.

"A journalist returns to her hometown to uncover the meaning of a horrific lynching," a review by Jonathan Yardley of "Our Town" by Cynthia Carr, The Washington Post, March 26, 2006

Posted at 06:27 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry

March 14, 2006

Equality of outcomes ... watch your thoughts

These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic.

I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.

In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...).

"Leaving the left - I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity," by Keith Thompson, San Francisco Chronicle, May 22, 2005

Posted at 04:37 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Ignorance , Nihilism , Politics , Stupidity

February 03, 2006

"Offensive" cartoons

"Militants Surround EU Offices in Gaza Over 'Offensive' Cartoons," AP, February 2, 2006

During the Cold War, it was suggested that to defeat Russia all the US had to do was drop JC Penney and Sears catalogs all over the country ... maybe to defeat Islamic fascism, we just need to drop "offensive" cartoons all over the Middle East ... in Chinese ... or maybe French and German ... or send over some of Robert Mapplethorpe's acolytes ...

Posted at 12:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Gynephobes , Nihilism , Terrorism

January 18, 2006

"A Credit to Their Racism"

Martin Luther King's birthday is a time to celebrate the civil rights hero's commitment to non-violent social change. That's why this week it was such a shame to see liberal speakers do violence to the English language and the King legacy by engaging in inflammatory rhetoric.

Senator Hillary Clinton offended even many blacks by using Al Sharpton's MLK Day celebration to say the Republican House of Representatives has been run "like a plantation -- and you know what I'm talking about." Apparently, she meant that GOP House leaders were the modern-day equivalent of slavemasters, but she declined to elaborate to reporters afterward.

Then there was New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a once promising reformer who has now descended into racial demagoguery to disguise his failure to properly evacuate his city as Hurricane Katrina approached. He used his MLK Day speech to say: "I don't care what people are saying Uptown. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day." He added that "God is mad at America" and said it was the Lord's will that the city retain a black-majority in its population.

When Martin Luther King was alive, the elite media were perfectly aware of which reactionary forces were blocking racial progress in this country. Today, charlatans like Al Sharpton, demagogues like Mayor Nagin and manipulative politicians like Senator Clinton are the major obstacles to letting the country get beyond race. If GOP Senator Trent Lott was forced to step down from his post as Majority Leader in 2002 for insensitive and thoughtless praise of the late Strom Thurmond, those on the left who deliberately exploit race for political gain deserve at least similar scrutiny and condemnation.

"A Credit to Their Racism," by John Fund, OpinionJournal's Political Diary, January 18, 2006

Posted at 09:17 PM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Ignorance

November 07, 2005

"Any Color As Long As It's Black: August Wilson, 1945-2005"

In the more exposed medium of film, for example, Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet clearly felt obliged to pay lip service to the theory, but in the end, rather than risking an African-American Polonius or Horatio or even Rosencrantz, confined the black actors to the extras, dotting them among the Norwegian soldiers and Danish servants. However, Wilson’s rejection of color-blindness is even dottier; in insisting that black actors can only play black roles, he’s mounting an assault on the very foundations of the profession. Acting is what it says: an act. It’s not about being what you are, but about being what you’re not. To that end, you wear costumes, you slap on greasepaint. For Wilson to exalt one criterion above all others is to mock the very notion of acting. If black actors cannot do Chekhov, who can? Russians? Is the defining qualification for Macbeth that you be Scottish? Or a regicidal maniac? The more one considers Wilson’s assertions, the more it sounds as if he should be working in some other profession altogether. The salient fact about James Earl Jones is not that he’s black, but that he’s James Earl Jones. As such, he’s more persuasive as Timon of Athens than as, say, a gangsta rapper: his limitations are not imposed by his color.

"Any Color As Long As It's Black: August Wilson, 1945-2005," Mark Steyn, The New Criterion, March 1997

Posted at 06:22 AM   ·  Categories: Bigotry

October 01, 2005

there you have it ... racist imagery as a disciplinary bullwhip

"racist imagery as a disciplinary bullwhip" ...

... it is because it has been made only too clear what Democrats have to offer me -- or anyone who might share some of my rather idiosyncratic views. After listing the comments of Dennis Hastert, Barbara Bush and Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) in the earlier entry and the obstacles that they presented to those interested in trying to reach out to just about any non-traditional Republican audience, I thought it appropriate to now turn the tables and see how the rank-and-file black Democrat feels about their GOP counterparts. . . . Consider then the testimony of Mr. Steve Gilliard in his response, "Why Are You A Republican, Bob?" . . . That said, here is Steve's almost exhaustive descriptive catalogue for those black folks that dare line up under the Republican banner: "s-l-a-v-e", "slave", "pathetic clowns," "token...negro," "house negro." How many real, live, actual white racists feel so comfortable in their racism to use these words in public? Steve is obviously not so shy.

Note, too, the use of the diminutive familiar of my name, "Bob." That, too, has a history in the American drama of race. In Jim Crow, the white man didn't show any respect to the "negro," so he never had to call him by any name that would connote any equality.

And, forget, of course, the need to actually know anything about one's supposed inferior.
. . .
Those words, though, were not explicitly racial. At worst, they betrayed a class blindness that has no place in politics. Does their class-ism betray an inner racism? I don't know. They certainly don't go so far as "nigger," which Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) used in a televised interview not too long ago. The one-time Klansman says that his use of the word doesn't mean that he still harbors racist thoughts. If we take him at his word, perhaps the same should be done with the GOP trio. Perhaps they should be given a pass.
. . .
However, none of the words uttered by these GOpers are laced with the overt historically demeaning and racist venom that seeps throughout Steve Gilliard's post. One response is that, "Black people can use these words; we can take them back, just like rappers have taken the N-to-the-I-to-the-Double-G-A slur." Well, on the latter one, there is much debate: Hip-hop has managed re-introduce into everyday language a hateful word that all but the most blatant racist refrained from everr using in public.

Too early to say whether Steve will be successful in sparking some revival in massa-slave linguistics. Perhaps they will only be used in this most narrow of circumstances -- as rhetorical bullwhips to be used on the treacherous black conservatives who need to be made into examples. Responding to a commenter, Steve adds, "[Ohio Secretary of State] Ken Blackwell, [Maryland Lt. Gov.] Michael Steele and the rest of the Uncle Toms will wind up like Alan Keyes, despised by blacks and unelected by whites."

Wow. It takes a pretty drastic "they-all-look-alike" sensibility to lump Blackwell and Steele into the same basket as Alan Keyes. But there you have it.
. . .
And so, the answer on why I'm still a Republican lingers, but Steve Gilliard and his friend help clarify why I'm not a Democrat: A party with members that seem to feel the need to brandish racist imagery as a disciplinary bullwhip, without even attempting to engage an opponent intellectually, has a great deal of problems. Indeed, Gilliard and Company are good representatives of a party that appears to do little to woo supporters beyond "Republicans are Evil/Racist" platitudes.

"Why Am I (Still) Not A Democrat?" Ragged Thots, September 28, 2005

via As I Please

Posted at 12:33 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry

August 17, 2005

Multiculturalism - based on a lie

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.

In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swaths of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America though it has existed in many societies, and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.

"Cultures Aren't Equal," by Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report, August 15, 2005

Other Resources

. . . . . . . . .

Posted at 07:39 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Nihilism

August 13, 2005

Headline abusive? NARAL ad: "Roberts 7, Harpies 0"

Michael Barone describes the ad that NARAL pulled, but

wonders whether the NARAL ad would have been shot down so soon without the blogosphere-speed postings of the Committee for Justice and the determination of Senate Republicans to see that Roberts and other Bush nominees are treated civilly.

"Roberts 7, Harpies 0," Barone Blog, August 12, 2005

ScrappleFace also has a report: "NARAL: Roberts' Adoptions Jeopardize Abortion Rights," by Scott Ott, August 11, 2005

Posted at 08:40 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry , Politics

August 11, 2005

Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism, in fact, often seems the rule rather than the exception in international relations. It was only days before the 2001 attacks when the United Nations held a shameful conference in Durban, South Africa.

Ironically named the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, it let anti-Semitism all hang out. The conference itself condemned the Middle East's only democracy, calling Israel a "racist, apartheid state" — not surprising in an atmosphere where Jewish nationalism itself has long been considered a form of racism.

However enlightened we may believe we are, ignorance and hate flourishes in our day. As Phyllis Chesler, author of The New Anti-Semitism, has argued, "Many people still believe that the Jews run the media, control the banks, killed Christ, seek world domination, and have ears everywhere." And today, add to that a global reach — where "Jew hatred is being mass-produced." When that hate finds its way into the mainstream consciousness, it might as well be true.

In 2002, for instance, it was widely reported that Israel had perpetrated a massacre in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin. The British Guardian editorialized that Israel's actions in Jenin were "every bit as repellent" as the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. The Jenin atrocity, however, never happened, even according to a U.N. investigation. But people believe that it did to this day—again, the damage had already been done.

Instead of being unacceptable — as it should be — all too often anti-Semitism is tolerated by civilized people who should be repulsed and outraged by it. That it is a centuries-old bias often makes it somewhat "dog bites man" — which is all the more reason to condemn it clearly and loudly and often. And it doesn't help the cause of good versus evil when the prime minister of Britain speaks on the floor of the House of Commons after the London bombing, and, in listing nations that have also fallen victim to Islamic terrorism, leaves out Israel (where bus bombings have long been a reality, not a fear).

You don't have to be anti-Semitic to be part of the problem. Consciously or not, what is not said by a prime minister and what is erroneously reported by a wire service are all symptoms of a malignant societal tumor.

"Where’s the Outrage? Anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated. But, of course, it is." by Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, July 27, 2005

Posted at 01:30 PM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry

August 06, 2005

Dressing up no longer acceptable ...

If little Jack Roberts Jr. had been bopping around in a Spongebob T-shirt, he would have been the darling of the press. “In a White House Obsessed With Appearances, a Note of Abandon.” And you suspect that Washington commentators would have noted how Spongebob’s sexual ambiguity stands in ironic contrast to the administration’s support of a controversial amendment, and how various state cases on gay marriage may confront the Supreme Court in years to come, etcetera, etcetera.

You can’t blame the Roberts family for wishing to dress up nicely. But the Roberts went too far. Do you understand? They went too far. If that child’s nice old-money anti-hoi-polloi skirt didn’t sound your klaxons, you’re just not paying attention. People who dress like Mormons are creepy. Creepy as real Mormons. Women who do not feel a surge of resentment when they put on hosiery are traitors to the gender; men who carefully knot their ties are repressing something, probably sexual; parents who put their kids in nice dress-up clothes that are 21% more formal than a newspaper reporter would have worn on Friday are rejecting modernity and the lower four quintiles. You. Have. Been. Warned.

Sexual orientation and obsession over other people’s tighter standards of public decorum: file under Obsessions I Do Not Understand, but enjoy watching displayed, for all to see.

Like a bad tattoo you got when you were 22, and knew it all.

"English vogue, american vogue, french vogue, bloody aba-bloody-synnian-bloody vogue, darling," Screedblog, by James Lileks, July 25, 2005

Posted at 01:33 PM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Bigotry