As Rathman points out:
Take, for example, the so-called “Women’s March” that will descend on Washington D.C. to protest the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 21. The masses gathered in opposition to Trump will create the appearance of unity, but a closer examination of the coalition united by their antipathy for the incoming administration paints a portrait of a movement at war with itself.This is what affirmative action has wrought: A selfish generation demanding more than their fair share under the banner of "equal rights". It isn't about being "equal", but rather about reparation for perceived sleights, even though nobody alive today was around for slavery, and the generation which fought for Civil Rights is getting old. Even women, who have endured far more oppression for far longer than people with more melanin, must genuflect at the altar of the dark-skinned.
The Women’s March will be short at least one formerly eager participant who told the New York Times she canceled her trip to Washington D.C. after reading a volunteer organizer’s Facebook post who “advised ‘white allies’ to listen more and talk less.” The Times noted that racial tensions within the organization extend to the organizational level. A Louisiana coordinator resigned her volunteer role due to a lack of diversity in leadership positions. The decision to change the name of a satellite march based in Nashville yielded to a caustic debate over whether the event had become hostile to white participants.
The racial divisions within the liberal movement extend beyond this organizational activity. The Times details how prospective marchers were consumed by a debate over whether white women who are also rape victims are as deserving of sympathy as are victimized women of color due to the perceived “privilege” afforded members of the majority race. March organizer Linda Sarsour described how women could be united in the fight for equal pay, but white women should understand they continue to earn more than their black and Latina counterparts.
Needless to say, people are getting weary of this racism, which is literally no different than racism from the Jim Crow era, merely working in the opposite direction. Calling it "reverse racism" does an injustice to the pernicious nature of this new racism. The modern Uncle Toms are white youth who blindly accept they are somehow deserving of being treated unfairly. NOBODY, regardless of skin color or sexual orientation, deserves to be treated unfairly in their opportunities.
I understand that dark-skinned people are generally on the lower economic rungs. However, when they try to succeed in life, they have shown themselves to be completely capable. From Barack Obama to Clarence Thomas to Cory Booker to Thomas Sowell to Oprah Winfrey to Whoopi Goldberg, blacks have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of leading successful lives. And I should feel sorry for them why? Because many of them refuse to put in the time and effort to get ahead, and yet still expect to be given "stuff" because of their skin color? Because they once had ancestors who were slaves, yet nobody alive today witnessed this? Because of Jim Crow laws, which were not only reversed but turned on their head by affirmative action?
There are plenty of white people with the same issues as poor black people, but we don't call this a "white problem". This is a problem with the poor, and should be addressed as such. But because the Left wants to use skin color to divide us as a people, the poor black community eats it up. It is far easier to blame your circumstance on someone else. That is the heart of both the old and the new racism, which are both just variations on skin color.
So if you wonder how an alleged racist like Donald Trump got elected president, consider this: He isn't the true racist in the room. The true racists are the people trying to paint him as one. And most Americans recognize this truth, even if the Left likes to promote racism for its own pernicious ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment