Climate Change Is Racist?
ACCORDING TO S.C. CONGRESSMAN JIM CLYBURN, YES
FITSNews – July 30, 2008 – As if South Carolina’s reputation for unbearable stupidity wasn’t already sufficiently embedded into the national consciousness (here, here and here, for example), we now have the state’s most powerful Washington politician saying that global warming is … wait for it … racist.
Yeah … we’re actually not kidding. In fact, here’s exactly what S.C. Rep. Jim Clyburn had to say on the issue yesterday at the National Press Club in Washington, DC:
“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being.â€
And here’s a quote from the controversial report Clyburn was pimping:
Though far less responsible for climate change, African-Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites. Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.
African-Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S.
Inspired by Congressman Clyburn’s groundbreaking revelation, we did a quick bit of research and were able to quickly confirm that oceans, trees, rocks, rills, birds, clouds, toaster ovens, highway guardrails, potted plants, refrigerators, flowers, microwave ovens, most household pets, insects, picture frames, velcro, staplers, paper, cell phones, statues, buildings, carbonated beverages, automobiles, currency, leather, seafood, computers, wind chimes, concrete, ink and the Internet were all horribly, horribly racist, as well. Oh … and white people.
Let’s not forget those damn white people.
Comments
By you make me sleep on July 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Yawn.. like alot of stuff on fits news i read this on the scoop yesterday.
By reggie on July 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH i laugh/laud his efforts at the same time.
Mr.Clyburn is like 1/4th right because i THINK he was trying to say that blacks have homes that are in worse condition than other races, but he made a fool of himself by saying it that way.
(damn you mother nature, you racist duche)
By Earl Capps on July 30th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Every time us white people burn a cross, it releases greenhouse gases, helping accelerate global warming. I’m surprised Comrade Clyburn didn’t mention that.
From now on, us racists white folks will stop burning crosses on weekends and only wear rainbow-colored bedsheets made from either hemp or all-recycled content to our Klan rallies.
If we’re going to be racists, then by God, we’re at least going to start showing more respect for Mother Earth.
By Phillip Branton on July 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
SIC,
I must be on MARS..??
What is going on in OUR state??
If this doesn’t beat all? If this is a PLOY …its a stupid one! In all honesty he probably believes this crap?!? Does he think this makes him look SMART? I think he needs to talk to ANDRE’ !!
This makes US ALL look like……………..WHAT?
By Toyota Kawesaki on July 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
#4 you are on mars and asia minor
By Silence Dogood on July 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Fits, I completely missed the news story again. Where does Clyburn say global warming is racist? He just pointed out, that in his opinion, effects of global warming would disproportionately effect blacks…I didn’t exactly see where that was a claim of racism.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \?r?-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
For instance – The disease sicle cell anemia disproportionately affects blacks as well (that on is actually a fact and not an opinion), but I don’t think anyone – with a brain – takes that to be a charge of racism to that particular medical condition…well, excpet perhaps FITS news?
Whether or not global warming effect would effect blacks disproportionately is up for debate, but the sheer stupidity in trying to say this is tantamount to a charge of “racism” against global warming…oi vei. Quit letting Mande write articles on the FITS title so readers can discern more quickly which ones to read for laughs and which ones to take with a grain of seriousness to them.
By baker on July 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I think Silence Dogood is basically on the spot with this….except that I don’t know that Mande wrote this piece — did she?
Anyway, Rep. Clyburn seems to be saying that poor people — disproportiately blacks — will be more affected by harm to the environment than wealthier people. Seems quite logical. Whether it’s being able to quickly move to higher ground, being able to afford organic food, being able to afford a long drive to work, and so on. Where are landfills built? On the edge of the fancy neighborhoods? Of course not. The deal is that poor people are generally hit harder by problems related to the environment.
As S.D. says, the longterm effects of global warming may be debatable, but the logic doesn’t seem far off-base, in my opinion.
By CL on July 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
SD,
Clyburn obviously wasn’t suggesting that the earth is racist (despite FITS’ nonsensical interpretation), but that does not let him off the hook. Under the law, there are more than 1 kind of racial discrimination. There is the obvious, direct kind (e.g. telling an employee you would not promote him because he is black).
However, most people have enough sense to not broadcast that they are racists. So courts have developed the concept of disparate impact discrimination, which means that even race neutral policies can be illegal if they have a disparite impact on a protected class.
The logical implication of Clyburn’s claim of victimhood is that we are all (except for minorities of course, because we all know they cannot be racists) guilty of racial discrimination by driving SUV’s and using regular light bulbs because these seemingly race neutral choices have a disparate impact on minorities.
By Silence Dogood on July 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
CL, thanks for the insightful response to my comment. While aware of the principal of disproportiante (despite a race nuetral intent) some times being actionalble. That is, my understanding, only with the case of government action – not private, or as here, natural action. An interesting reverse argument, which I think would be pretty novel, would be when ‘lack’ of government action, or failure to act, despite race nuetral intent on the failure to act, has a disporportionate impact and is therefore actionable. I am not aware of any cases like that, but that certainly doesn’t mean none exists.
By yankeedoright on July 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
What a spin you made of this. Persons in lower socio-economic areas are often more at risk to environmental hazards than people in the suburbs. With few resources to fight the establishment it becomes unduly burdensome and a disproportionate number of people of low income are affected. People who work in traffic tunnels have higher rates of liver and lung cancers as do individuals who work at the dry cleaners. Inner city children have higher rates of asthma and reactive airway disease. Poverty prevails over race in cases of disease clusters. Sadly, it just happens that in SC the majority of individuals in poverty are black. I am interested to see how progressive the South might become if Obama is President.
By Jesse Jackson on July 30th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Clyburn has proven time and time again that he’s not worthy of his position, but honestly which SC politician is? I wonder how many of his family members he’s got federal money for lately? I mean honestly is the welfare, food stamps, social security, rent control, medicaid not enough?
He’s a typical pandering black (or white Democrat desperately trying to be black a.k.a. Brad Hutto). His basic idea about America, just like Obama’s is that blacks have ruined their neighborhoods by dropping out of school, having having too many babies with no baby daddies around and letting gangs and drugs take over, so all the rich white folks need to have their taxes raised to pay for it because after all its really all our faults because of slavery. I agree, we should have left y’all in Africa.
By Phillip Branton on July 31st, 2008 at 2:24 am
#5
Aahh… SO !!
Dr. SULU… LOL
By CL on July 31st, 2008 at 7:20 am
“That is, my understanding, only with the case of government action – not private, or as here, natural action.”
All racial discrimination is governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and it covers private action as well as public action. In fact, the primary thrust of the CRA was private action (namely private employers in the South). The SCOTUS first sanctioned the theory in a case where the employer was Duke Power.
By Silence Dogood on July 31st, 2008 at 8:28 am
CL – my joke was more toward the fact that “nature’s” discrimination can’t be legislated against. My actual question regarding the disproportionate impact via failure to take action was a legitimate one. Title VII does not cover all racial discrimination (you are still allowed to discriminate in the country for any number of reasons), and I thought Title VII was primarily in regards to employment? Also, the reason I mentioned private vs. public action is because we were talking about when the impact affected a certain group disproportionately, not Title VII. That disproportionate impact theory – despite not having racial animus – was I thought, related to legislation and executive government actions and not private actions. And I readily admit I could be wrong about that.
I still stand by my first assertion thoug that I don’t think it was Clyburn’s intent to call global warming racist, via the usual understanding of the term or the more legally ensconced disproportionate impact theory – despite mother earth’s lack of intent.
By League of the South on July 31st, 2008 at 9:20 am
I’m with Earl Capps, #3.
By Tac on July 31st, 2008 at 9:28 am
SD is on the mark. Nothing Clyburn said or suggested can be read as an attempt to make global warming racist. There are enough examples of real attempts to unjustifiably use to race card out there. Let’s not make one where there isn’t one.
Phillip….like FITS said… take your medicine.
By CL on July 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I agree FITS’ post is ridiculous. And if you do not buy the theory that man is causing global warming, then the disparate impact issue is irrelevant due to the intent problem you mention. But if you buy MMGW, which I assume Clyburn does, then it is only a small logical step from what he said to calling us all racists. I am not trying to predict a lawsuit or argue for a new legal theory, I am just noting an analogy that the environmentalists might make.
Title VII is not limited to employment situations, although that constitutes the bulk of the claims for obvious reasons. But there also a host of accomodation cases (refusing to serve a customer based upon race). Disparate impact is not really about legislation. It developed from employment cases (because that is the source of most Title VII claims).