Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Anyone who utters the mind-numbingly obvious point that A&E's suspension of "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson doesn't involve the First Amendment because a TV network is not the government, should be prohibited from ever talking in public again. You can bore your few remaining friends with laborious statements of the obvious, but stop wasting everyone else's time.
We know A&E is not the government. It may shock your tiny little pea brains, but free speech existed even before we had a Constitution. Free speech is generally considered a desirable goal even apart from its inclusion in the nation's founding document.
Suppose TV networks were capitulating to angry Muslims by suspending people for saying they opposed Sharia law? Would that prompt any of you pusillanimous hacks to finally take a position on the state of free speech in America?
Or would you demand that we stop the presses so you could roll out your little cliché about a television network not being the government? That fact has very little relevance to someone whose life has just been ruined. Hey! Don't worry about it—at least it wasn't the government!
Instead of the government censoring speech, what we have is shock troops of liberal agitators demanding people's heads for the slightest divergence from Officially Approved Liberal Opinion.
Evidently, the word of God is on the banned list. As Robertson himself has said, all he did "was quote from the Scriptures, but they just didn't know it."
His offending remarks delivered to GQ magazine were:
"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong. Sin becomes fine ... Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."[What the Duck, GQ, January 2014]
There's absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately
As 2014 begins, President Barack Obama is on the ropes—and the only thing that can save him is the Republican Party. Luckily for him, Rep. Paul Ryan seems determined to oblige, by handing him an epochal political victory in the shape of some form of the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge (which the Treason Lobby and the Main Stream Media call “Immigration Reform” in a telling tacit admission of its unpopularity).
This is all the more unforgivable because it is unnecessary. Obama has had what Queen Elizabeth II might call an annus horribilis. Though Republican bumbling led to political defeat in Virginia and New Jersey, the larger political momentum has turned decisively against the President. In foreign affairs, he was outmaneuvered by Kremlin chessmaster Vladimir Putin, and America seems increasingly irrelevant even as tensions increase in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Northeast Asia. [Barack Obama – our irrelevant President, by Michael Goodwin, New York Post, August 26, 2013]
In domestic politics, the Sandy Hook shooting in late 2012 was supposed to allow President Obama and the Democrats to pass transformative gun control laws. But after a year of speeches, social media campaigns, and biased hysteria from the Fourth Estate, the result was still crushing defeat. The assault weapons ban and the gun background check both failed in the Senate in April. [Gun background check compromise, assault weapon ban fail in Senate, by Ed O’Keefe, Washington Post, April 17, 2013]
Obama even seemed strangely detached from the year’s fierce budget battles. Instead of negotiating with leading Congressional Republicans, he took every opportunity to make impotent threats from the bully pulpit, to the indifference of the country. This made him look even more unnecessary to the governing process. [Obama the Irrelevant, by Larry Kudlow, Daily Caller, September 20, 2013]
Finally, and most importantly, that apogee of racial socialism known as Obamacare has become a national joke, mocked on everything from Saturday Night Live to the Country Music Awards. The inability of the Minority Occupation Government to build a website is a priceless political gift to the Republican Party.
Only 35 percent of Americans approve of Obamacare and the numbers are still falling. [Obamacare Approval Ratings Hit Record Low, by Charlotte Alter, Time, December 23, 2013] And Barack Obama’s own personal approval ratings have fallen below 40 percent in some polls, a level that marked the beginning of George W. Bush’s second-term death spiral. [Obama’s Approval Rating Dipped Into Dangerously Low Territory Yesterday, by Brett Logiurato, BusinessInsider, December 4, 2013]
So the GOP Establishment may be about to win the only way they know how – by default. Generic Republicans now have an edge going into the midterm elections, part of a 13 point swing away from the Democratic Party. [CNN Poll: GOP has edge in early midterm indicator, by Paul Steinhauser, CNN, December 26, 2013]
Obama needs a massive legislative triumph to reestablish his relevance and to animate his nonwhite base. Thus the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is not just Barack Obama’s top legislative priority – it is his last hope of avoiding lame duck status.
In contrast, all the GOP has to do is nothing. And the strongest force in politics is usually inertia. But with the Beltway Right, inertia is often overwhelmed by stupidity.
Enter Paul Ryan, who with his dogmatic, even religious, rationalizations for cheap labor, his political talent for describing surrender as victory, and his sociopathic contempt for his own constituents is almost a caricature of the soul of the Beltway Right.
Ryan, who shares with National Review Editor Rich Lowry the characteristic of looking like a pubescent boy despite being well over 40, has already been working to save Barack Obama by crafting a “bipartisan” budget plan with Senator Patty Murray (D.-Washington State). Obama, vacationing as
James Fulford writes: This appeared in the London Times in 1993, shortly after Peter Brimelow published Time To Rethink Immigration in NR. Since then, a number of things have happened, starting with the National Review changing sides. In Britain, the truth of Enoch Powell’s arguments are becoming much more obvious—and thus much harder to say, since as Powell also predicted, mass immigration erodes free speech.
Note the reference to “grass-roots insurrection”—the Tea Party is doing that now, and there are signs of the same phenomenon in Great Britain.
New York, April 24, 1993
THE issue of immigration into the United States is in what might be called its pre-Powell stage. The sharp influx is causing increasing discontent, just as there was in Britain before Enoch Powell made his famous speech 25 years ago. The political establishment has been sitting on the problem, but is looking increasingly uncomfortable.
As well it might: American politics lacks the British parliamentary system's institutional barriers against grass-roots insurrection.
The immigration issue has an explosive characteristic: it blasts across all political lines. Last year, for example, my story in the conservative magazine The National Review raised economic and crypto-Powellian questions about the influx. That got me into trouble with luminaries of the conservative movement, such as the editor of The Wall Street Journal, who complained not unreasonably that he had been instrumental in my arrival here.
Jack Miles, an editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, published an Atlantic magazine story questioning immigration from a liberal perspective (new evidence suggests it is worsening the economic plight of poor blacks). His heresy was equally denounced, especially by ethnic factions.
The American immigration situation is unprecedented in world history. The 1965 Immigration Act, which abolished the previous preference for Europeans, triggered an unexpected immigrant influx, predominantly Hispanic and nearly nine-tenths coloured. Simultaneously, illegal immigration has soared. An estimated nine million people arrived in the 1980s, equalling the previous peak decade of the 1900s. About 15 million are expected this decade.
White American birth rates are much lower than at the turn of the century, so the ethnic balance is shifting quickly. Whites have fallen from almost nine-tenths of the population in 1960 to less than three-quarters in 1990. Demographers calculate that America might cease to be majority white by 2050.
So much American political debate trembles with barely contained hysteria about race and ethnicity. To anyone who knows about the history of nation-states in Europe, it is obviously no more possible to change the ethnic content of a polity without fear of consequence than to replace abruptly all the blood in a human body. Yet this is the experiment upon which America has embarked.
To be fair, the rationale for the post-1965 immigration influx is that America is not a nation-state in the European sense. Instead, it is said to be an "idea", a political construct based on adherence to a written constitution, without any specific cultural, ethnic or linguistic content.
That rationale is unhistorical. It would have astonished Theodore Roosevelt, president during the last great immigration influx, whose
President Obama Speaking At Nelson Mandela's Funeral
By their heroes shall you know them.
What did these men have in common? Three were assassinated, and all four are icons of resistance to white rule over peoples of color.
Lincoln waged the bloodiest war in American history that ended slavery. Gandhi advanced the end of British rule in India. King led the civil rights struggle that buried Jim Crow. Mandela was the leader of the revolution that overthrew apartheid.
Obama's heroes testify to his belief that the great moral struggle of the age is the struggle for racial equality.
For the neocons, the greatest man was Winston Churchill, because he stood up, almost alone, to the great evil of the age—Nazism.
Thus, to neocons, Munich was the great betrayal because it was there that Neville Chamberlain, rather than defy Hitler, agreed to the return of the Sudeten Germans to German rule. (To the Old Right, Yalta, where Churchill and FDR ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin, a monster as evil and more menacing than Hitler, was the greatest betrayal.)
But what did Churchill think of Obama's hero Gandhi?
"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace ... to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King."
What did Churchill think of ending Western white rule of peoples of color? Here he is in 1937:
"I do not admit ... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia ... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race ... has come in and taken its place."
Here is Churchill during World War II:
"I have not become the King's first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."
In short, Dunkirk defiance aside, Churchill's convictions about the superiority of some races and civilizations, and their inherent right to rule what Kipling called "the lesser breeds without the law,"
It’s not enough that Christmas is being replaced in the name of diversity–so is American food, at least according to the Main Stream Media, which wants to lecture us on how this means the historic American nation is inevitably being replaced too.
For years, we’ve been told that salsa now outsells ketchup in the US. [Ketchup vs. Salsa: By the Numbers, By Carl Bialik, WSJ, September 20, 2007]But a recent Associated Press Article took it a step further, reporting that several well-known American foods are now being outsold by Mexican foods.
The packaging of this AP same article by two different outlets of the “conservative” Fox empire is also revealing.
On My Fox DC the article was entitled Changing demographics influencing taste buds; salsa beats ketchup! [AP, October 17, 2013].
But over on Fox Latino, it was announced in typical triumphalist fashion: Tortillas vs. Hot Dog Buns: Latinos Take Over The American Culinary Experience [AP, October 18, 2013].
Besides the headline, a different first sentence was placed in each article. My Fox DC began with:
Salsa overtaking ketchup as America's No. 1 condiment was just the start.
Fox Latino version kicks off with:
Are Latinos taking over the American cuisine?
The AP article reports that
- “Tortillas and taco kits outsell hamburgers and hot dog buns”
- “Sales of tortilla chips trump potato chips”
- Tomato-based salsa not only outsells ketchup, but outsells ketchup 2 to 1
Gloatingly, the article explains that this is part of a demographic transformation (which, it implies, is inevitable and all good people support):
As immigrant and minority populations rewrite American demographics, the nation's collective menu is reflecting this flux, as it always has…This is a rewrite of the American menu at the macro level, an evolution of whole patterns of how people eat.
And we are reminded this is all due to a particular group of people who cannot be denied:
The biggest culinary voting bloc is Hispanic.
Ah, hah! Just as in electoral politics, the MSM is
Consider this: Taylor Swift wasn't even born yet when the fight over the Mount Soledad cross began. How much longer will it drag on? Disgruntled atheists first filed suit over the memorial at a veterans park in San Diego in the summer of 1989. The fringe grievance-mongers have clung bitterly to their litigious activities for nearly a quarter-century. It's time to let go and bring peace to the city.
The historic 43-foot cross has stood atop Mount Soledad on public land since 1954. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association erected the monument to commemorate the sacrifice of American soldiers who died in the Korean War, World War I and World War II. The cross has long carried meaning for the city's residents far beyond religious symbolism. "It's a symbol of coming of age and of remembrance," Pastor Mark Slomka of the Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church said years ago when the case erupted. The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board explained that the cross is "much like the Mission San Diego de Alcala and the cross at Presidio Park, both of which also are rooted in Christianity but have come to signify the birth of San Diego."
I first started covering the case as an editorial writer at the Los Angeles Daily News in the early 1990s. A federal judge initially ruled that the landmark cross's presence violated the California constitution's church-state separation principles. The city of San Diego put the issue before voters, who overwhelmingly approved a practical solution in 2005: Sell the cross and the park to the veterans group for use in a national war memorial.
A pragmatic, tolerant resolution with 76 percent of voters' support? Heavens, no! The extreme secularists couldn't have that. They sued and sued and sued and sued. By 2007, the state Supreme Court—affirmed by a state appellate court—had rejected the atheists' campaign. The courts affirmed the constitutionality of the San Diego referendum (Proposition A) and the sale of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The American Civil Liberties Union intervened to suppress and "de-publish" the ruling as a way to prevent its use in future litigation. They lost.
Lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the memorial association, were relieved: "This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical veterans memorial for future generations." They've fought hard to remind America that the Founding Fathers fought for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
But still the cross-hunters press on. Fast-forward to Christmas week 2013. U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, who earlier had ruled in support of the cross, was forced to rule that it must come down in 90 days in the wake of a liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning his prior decision. In anticipation of new appeals, Burns stayed the order. All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case last summer.
Rabbi Ben Kamin, who lives in Southern California, responded sensibly to the hysteria of the Mount Soledad cross-hunters who claimed to be irreparably "hurt"
VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow with Felicity, his wife Lydia with Karia
VDARE.com’s Christmas Eves Past
2006: Diversity Is Strength! It's Also…War Against Christmas By Tom Piatak
Many thanks to readers who have continued to help us with our Christmas fundraising drive—but if you haven’t yet, we still need your help!
War Against Christmas 2013: America's Cultural Marxist Elite Deadlocked By Leaderless Patriot Resistance
Let me start off by noting that the Duck Dynasty, ground zero of the most intense battle in America’s Culture War since Chick-Fil-A, drew an estimated 30,000 people from all over the country to the recent “Commander Christmas” (not “Holiday”) parade in Monroe LA.
The Culture Wars are One.
In 2013, the 2013 War Against Christmas is marked by the same patterns we have seen in recent years: an elite consensus that the War against Christmas does not exist coupled with outrage that anyone should care about constant attempts to diminish the public celebration of Christmas, matched by a steady popular resistance by ordinary Americans to further encroachments on Christmas. This popular resistance, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has noted, is essentially leaderless. But it is nonetheless effective in maintaining this deadlock, even as other fronts in the culture war—most notoriously, “Gay marriage”—threaten to turn into routs by the left.
The War against Christmas, as VDARE.com has long noted, is not confined to the United States, and thus cannot be attributed to the First Amendment. I commented on this in May for Chronicles, after reading a piece in La Stampa describing how the education minister in the Spanish province of Asturias had ordered schools there to replace references to Christmas and Holy Week with references to "winter holidays" and "end of second term holidays." [Spanish province of Asturias says goodbye to “Christmas” and hello to “winter holidays”, By Marco Tosatti, May 21, 2013]The rationale given for this nonsense: the need to "not to hurt peoples' sensitivities," driving home the point that those of us who enjoy the public celebration of Christian holidays simply don't have "sensitivities" worth considering.
La Stampa’s Tosatti also noted similar efforts in Belgium, where
Pope Francis' call for a truce notwithstanding, the culture war rages on in America.
Methodist pastor Frank Schaefer, defrocked for officiating at the same-sex marriage of his son, refused to recant, and joined a Dupont Circle congregation, declaring from the pulpit to repeated ovations Sunday, "Change is coming" to the United Methodist Church.
Major media stories both.
Using crude terms, but biblically correct arguments, Robertson told GQ what he thought of homosexuality and moral relativism. Said Robertson:
"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong. Sin
Does GOP Establishment Senator John Cornyn, who is facing down a surprise primary challenge from Congressman Steve Stockman to thunderous applause from the MSM and Conservatism Inc., have a Southern Avenger problem?
“The Southern Avenger” was the stage name of former talk show host and conservative polemicist Jack Hunter, who was in the process of mutating into a Beltway operative working for Libertarianism Inc. Senator Rand Paul when he was outed for his Politically Incorrect past by the neoconservative webzine Washington Free Beacon.
Let me be clear: I don’t think Hunter should have been purged for his (former) Political Incorrectness. I think Hunter should have stood his ground and Paul should have backed him up, just as I think Rand’s father Ron Paul should have stood his ground over the somewhat similar point-and-splutter faux scandal (there was nothing in either case that had not long been on the public record) over his paleolibertarian Ron Paul newsletters. Political Correctness is the mortal enemy of any sort of rational thought on the National Question and America’s post-1965 immigration disaster.
Oh—maybe that’s the idea?
But Hunter and Paul caved and groveled anyway, just as Ron Paul did before him.
The moral of this story: Conservatism Inc. takes promising activists and redirects them into dead ends. Next case: Brendan Steinhauser, Cornyn’s campaign manager. He was a Tea Party organizer and a former campus radical conservative.
In college, Steinhauser was a chapter leader of Young Conservatives of Texas—the same group that recently hosted a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” before pressure from the state Republican Party forced them to back down. In 2004, he (literally) wrote the book on using controversial tactics to build conservatism on campuses: The Conservative Revolution: How to Win the Battle for College Campuses. The book heavily promotes the “Affirmative Action bake sale,” a onetime staple of conservative campus activism which involves charging different races different prices for baked goods. Steinhauser even wrote an article for David Horowitz’ FrontPagMag.com: Two, Three, Many Bake Sales, (September 28, 2003).
And Steinhauser was also explicitly on the side of secure borders during the Bush Administration. In 2006 he condemned “illegal aliens” who wanted “citizens’ rights” and urged
War Against Christmas 2013 | POLITICO’s Daniel Danvir Cranks It Up With “War On Christmas Denial Denial”—Smears VDARE.com With Guilt By Association
A recent salvo in the War On Christmas, which I suspect POLITICO thinks of the latest salvo against “The War On Christmas” is a story called
How everyone from Bill O’Reilly to Jon Stewart became a co-conspirator in an annual farce.
By Daniel Denvir, Politico, December 16, 2013
Denvir [Twitter] starts with Guilt By Association. Now, I’m actually in favor of guilt by association. You know the people in the 50s, investigated by Joseph McCarthy or HUAC, who were members of a zillion Communist fronts? They were guilty.
However, neither VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow nor I are associated in any way with Henry Ford, automotive industrialist and “author”(he used a ghostwriter) of a book called The International Jew, nor with the 1950- era John Birch Society—two early examples of people objecting to the War On Christmas that Denvir adduces.
This kind of thing is common on the Left—Guilt By Association with no association. In Brimelow’s Alien Nation, you can read about a Raoul Lowery Contreras attack on a George Will column [A 'Nation of Immigrants' no More, July 29, 1993] which had quoted Peter Brimelow to the effect that supporters of current immigration policy “must explain why they wish to transform the American nation as it had evolved by 1965''.
Contreras said that the American of 1965 had “needed to be transformed and that's exactly what's happening, Brimelow, Will and Metzger notwithstanding.”[Racists Wish to Turn America as It Had Evolved in 1965 [sic] El Hispano (Sacramento), August 11, 1993].
In Alien Nation, Brimelow wrote in response:
"Tom Metzger is the leader of the neo-Nazi White Aryan Resistance. In a 1990 case, he was held liable for civil damages on the theory that his views had inspired three of his followers to murder an Ethiopian immigrant. Contreras seems to have thrown him in to keep us company.”
Metzger is in no way associated with Will or Peter Brimelow. Contreras decided that what Brimelow said was racist, Will, in quoting him was racist, therefore: Nazi!
Denvir thinks Bill O’Reilly is anti-Semitic, and his opposition to the War on Christmas is nuts, therefore: Henry Ford/John Birch/Whatever!
Denvir doesn’t link directly to the sources of the Henry Ford quotes or the Birch Society pamphlet. He scalped it from earlier an earlier War On Christmas denial piece by Michelle Goldberg from Salon Magazine:
The right-wing crusade against the liberal "war on Christmas" is great for rallying the troops. Too bad the war doesn't exist.
How the secular humanist grinch didn’t steal Christmas, November 21, 2005
As Tom Piatak wrote at the time: Yes, Virginia (And Michelle Goldberg), There Is A War Against Christmas.
This was an early case of War On Christmas Denial (Stage 4 in Peter Brimelow’s Eight Stages Of Christophobia). But, as with Denvir’s piece now, Goldberg herself actually linked back to actual examples of the War on Christmas, going back years and years.
Denvir gives another horrible example of the tainted sources of the War on Christmas resistance—us here at VDARE.com:
Blogger Peter Brimelow
From patriarch Phil to granddaughter Sadie, the Robertson Family is united.
It’s another Chick-Fil-A moment, as the historic American nation rises in defense of the “Duck Commander” of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Whether this is beginning of the successful counter-revolution against the controlled media’s intimidation that Paul Kersey predicted after the Paula Deen debacle, or just another conservative false start, depends entirely on whether the Robertson family sticks together and if the Duck Commander holds the line.
After comments about homosexuals and blacks deemed Offensive by elite opinion makers, Robertson family patriarch Phil Robertson was suspended from the record-breaking program, leading to public outrage, a backlash against gay rights organizations, unease among a few liberals like Andrew Sullivan and Jon Stewart and even—incredibly—support from Republican politicians.
The controversy began as it so often does, when a liberal publication sent out a reporter to write the kind of the “Gorillas in the Mist” story that pathologizes anyone who doesn’t get their opinions straight from Rachel Maddow or the Huffington Post Gay Voices. Reporter Drew Magary duly elicited the now-famous quote from Phil Robertson:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
[What the Duck, GQ, January 2014]
The reaction to these light-hearted comments was instantaneous. The Main Stream Media, which has increasingly abandoned even the pretense of reporting instead of brow-beating, flew into its usual mode of caterwauling, wailing and humorless passive aggressive proclamations. The Huffington Post (headed by a woman sporting the name of her homosexual ex-husband) predictably shrieked about “shockingly vile” comments. 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Remarks, Says Being Gay Is A Sin [UPDATED] ” Piers Morgan sputtered that Phil’s comments were “repugnant” and called for “responsible” corporate donors to drop him.
And of course, the hysterics at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation screeched at A&E, who instantly suspended Robertson because of his defiance of the “fundamental values of the company.” Apparently, sodomy is more “fundamental” to A&E than freedom of speech.
But a funny thing has happened on the way to the lynching —the Robertsons closed ranks. They issued a statement saying that
"Duck Dynasty's" Phil Robertson is not alone. He's the latest in a long, long lineup of politically incorrect targets of the left's sensitivity mob. Founded in 1985, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) gangstas won't stop until both the cultural and legal enforcement of their agenda are the norm.
The A&E network (Atheists & Elitists) suspended the reality TV patriarch and self-made businessman on Wednesday for the Biblical views he expressed in an interview with GQ. Robertson was asked by the liberal magazine what he viewed as sinful. Drawing on the condemnation of sexual immorality in Corinthians 6:9, he cited "adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God."
Robertson's punishable transgressions? Responding honestly to a question posed to him (this was not an unsolicited "anti-gay rant"; it was a response) and abiding by his Christian faith. GLAAD's P.C. Praetorian Guard sprung into repressive action. The same group that initially gave f-word-spouting, homophobic liberal Alec Baldwin a pass accused Robertson of uttering "some of the vilest and most extreme statements" against "LGBT people" ever. (They should listen to the Koran-inspired executioners' rants of gay-hanging and gay-stoning Iranian mullahs sometime.) GLAAD also railed
John Derbyshire On Race-Whipped Conservatives And The Stigma Of “Racism”—Or: Robert VerBruggen Loves Big Brother!
The topic of the piece is a study conducted by a Harvard professor on people’s willingness to admit having noticed race. The setup for the study is:
- A screen showing twelve faces, six white and six black.
- Volunteer X, who silently selects one face from the twelve.
- Volunteer Y, who has to discover which face X selected by asking X a series of yes-no questions.
By asking “Is the person black?” Y could eliminate half the faces right away. However, most Ys did not ask this question, nor mention race at all, especially when X was black.
Yet that majority of Ys who did not mention race were more likely to be perceived as racist by X—more likely, that is, than the minority who did mention race. [The Costs of Racial “Color Blindness”, by Michael I. Norton and Evan P. Apfelbaum, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2013]
So far, so good, although nothing very surprising. As VerBruggen says:
[Many whites] place so much importance on demonstrating that black people don’t make them nervous that black people make them nervous.
But he then goes on to tell us that this is a jolly good thing:
Going from Jim Crow to white people who refuse to utter the words “Is the person black?”—often categorically, but frequently in deference to a nearby person of color [sic]—in 50 years is a remarkable accomplishment for the civil-rights movement, both as a social force and as a driver of government policy.
As I said, the piece drew some mocking responses. The Countenance blog was particularly scathing:
So, a knave who . . . praises as “a remarkable accomplishment for the civil rights movement” the fact that we have gone “from Jim Crow to white people refusing to utter the words” is all of a sudden upset when white people self-censor and engage in informal affirmative action.
AmRen posted an edited version of VerBruggen’s piece which generated a long comment thread. Several commenters stated the obvious thing: that the “remarkable accomplishment for the civil rights movement” that VerBruggen [Twitter] rhapsodizes over consists in having instilled justified fear in nonblacks—the fear that they will lose their jobs if they venture outside the narrow bounds of approved discourse by so much as a millimeter.
Chuck at glpiggy.net noted the piece